Talk:Death of Ingrid Lyne

Article title
Have redirected back to victim's name for article title. Calling it a murder is premature and not yet proven in a court of law. Leaving it at "Murder of" is a policy vio and liability issue for Wikipedia as it implicates the suspect is a proven murderer. As far as I'm aware, autopsy has not yet been released. Please discuss here before changing back/edit warring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The man has been charged with murder so the government believes it is a murder. Cutting someone's head off and leg is not "accidental slip while carrying a knife". However, if you wish to add, as is done in some countries but not the U.S. the sentence "Nothing has been proven in court", you may. In some countries, in newspapers, they add such a sentence to the article.

Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The prosecution's job is to get a conviction, however, no evidence that I'm aware of has been presented to indicate this was a murder. Has the autopsy been released?  Are there any reliable, secondary sources that say without a doubt it was murder?  Without these things, we as editors can believe what we like about Lyne's death.  We just can't say it in Wiki-voice.  It's not our job to determine via POV, original research, and synthesis whether or not a murder was committed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  05:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Knock off the nonsense. This is the type of thing people have warned you about on your page, Wink. You are acting like you are being purposely contentious. Do you recall "Just Stop" section that you seemed to agree with a month ago? This was a murder, no ifs/ands/buts. The Reliable Sources all say it is a murder, at which point anything you have to say is Original Research, which won't be tolerated nor will edit-warring.  You've made it impossible for other editors to AGF with you . . .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.7.65 (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wink is right, however. You need to refresh yourself on WP:BLPCRIME. Parsley Man (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * NO, Winkelvi is not right! This is a MURDER per the Reliably Sourced police statements.  No ifs/ands/buts - the man is being arraigned tomorrow for murder to hear his plea.  The M.E. says she was MURDERED.  Enough already. 68.19.9.224 (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Has he been convicted? Arraignment means nothing. clpo13(talk) 04:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Talking about whether she was MURDERED - which the police say she was - not declaring the arrested suspect guilty. The title of the article needs to be moved back. Whoever is charged with the crime, the fact remains she was murdered - whether there is a conviction or not. 68.19.9.224 (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do we know for certain she was murdered? It's far-fetched, but maybe she died in some other way (accident, heart attack) and the guy freaked out and hid her body. The point is, we only know she died. How she died is a matter for the trial. clpo13(talk) 03:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ummm, yeah, maybe she accidentally fell into a wood chipper. I suppose anything is possible. AGF and all! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We have sources where the police and M.E. call it a murder. Saying she was murdered, with references to back it up is not the same as calling Charlton a murderer. Even if he didn't murder her, someone did. David in DC (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with David in DC, and 68.19.9.224. The cause of death was said to be homicidal violence. Yes, the court and law will determine who is or is not guilty of Lyne's murder. The title needs to be changed back to Murder of Ingrid Lyne. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 *  Keep title "Death of Ingrid Lyne" for now - "Death" is a subset of "Murder", which can and should be kept as the title, for now. "Murder of Ingrid Lyne" is a redirect anyway. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep title as it is, "Death of...". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep All the medical examiner says is she died of homicidal violence. That's all medical examiners are certified, paid and expected to determine. A judge and jury will figure out the murder question, as they have for longer than any of us have been alive. When they get back to us, we'll reflect their decision. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And the Toronto butcher shop torso from this article's AfD has a name now, if anybody is/was interested in that. If anybody did that, you may confess on Twitter. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Full name of Ingrid Lyne
The name "Ingrid Maree Rounsaville Lyne" is not shown in its entirety in any of the sources given, and should not be listed in the article until one of the sources shows that is the case. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be shown that way to be placed in the article. We have tons of articles that have the full name of an individual (birth name, maiden, plus married surname) in the lede and elsewhere in the the article that isn't named specifically in total in references.  IF we have references that give her middle name, her maiden name, and married name - even if they are all separately reported - that's sourced reliably and it's acceptable.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  03:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

suspect appeared in court, bail increased, and ex-gf was interviewed
http://q13fox.com/2016/04/27/man-accused-of-dismembering-renton-mother-due-in-court/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ex-girlfriend-of-john-charlton-accused-of-killing-ingrid-lyne-speaks-out_us_571f0aa8e4b0b49df6a8d3eb

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/crime/article/Man-accused-in-Ingrid-Lyne-slaying-arraigned-in-7377322.php

WP:NOTNEWS
As predicted immediately after the article was created, the news cycle on this incident died months ago and not long after Lyne's own death. I'm inclined to send this article to the AfD bin (once again) on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS. Thoughts? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, if you want to start a discussion about whether or not the article should continue to exist, AFD is probably one of the best places to do so. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * An AfD at this point would only lead to a speedy keep. The article was through an AfD discussion only a few months ago. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that a new AfD right now would be too soon. Give the article time to develop. I'd suggest a year and a day from the last AfD. If there's no additional coverage of further developments in the case (plea bargain, pre-trial, trial or verdict) a "delete" result will make more sense.  If there is additional WP:SIGCOV, it can be used to flesh out the article and put questions of deletion to rest. David in DC (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The two responses above make no sense to me. An article that never should have been an article because of WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS still qualifies for deletion because of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:1E but we should wait to see if a story that's no longer a story will develop before it can be nominated for AfD again?  What's the point of WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS (or even AfD) if articles that should be deleted can't be deleted based on those two criteria?  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  14:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand and regret your frustration. Perhaps it "should" have been deleted at AfD. I don't agree, but Lord knows I have no corner on the wisdom market. Still, it wasn't deleted. There was no consensus about whether the policies you're relying on applied. Nothing has changed since the AfD was closed. I did not mean to say that it can't be nominated again, only that I don't think that's the prudent course.  In our collaborative endeavor, re-nominating an article soon after it's survived an AfD can be off-putting to the folks who participated the first time around. In my view, the better course is to let sufficient time elapse between nominations so that one can plausibly argue that circumstances have changed sufficiently to merit a review. That's why I suggested a year and a day from the last AfD.  It can be hard to differentiate between things that must be acted upon immediately and those where action on a slower timetable is quite enough. I think that renominating this article for deletion falls in the latter category. David in DC (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User Winkelvis rationale for a new AfD discussion seems to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Well, other users have other opinions about the matter, Wikipedia is not an absolute democracy in the sense that it follows guidelines and not opinions from a single user. For now an AfD would be highly inappropriate as it would lead to a TOOSOON !vote and speedy keep within hours. Also I think that comment such as "articles that should be deleted", are just unecessary there has to be a process of deletion and for now there is no point in adding it to AfD again. BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To some degree, all AfDs are based on IDLI. What I don't like in this case is an article that shouldn't have been created, still should not exist, and will very possibly wrongly exist for months after the news cycle on the 1E the article is based on has long since died.  It was in the news for a week - just days, really.  Based on a few news reports, someone mistook Wikipedia for a news reporting service and created the article.  Experienced editors who understand policy on such article creation spoke up and saw the writing on the wall.  Other editors ignored NOTNEWS and !voted to keep the article rather than delete (which would have been in line with policy and guidelines).  So yes, I don't like it that an article's existence violates policy on GNG, 1E, and NOTNEWS.  Did I start this section based on the true nature of WP:IDLI?  No.  So, all that in mind, please stop falsely accusing and take part in discussion with the intent of improving the encyclopedia.  This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not an extension of People Magazine.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  20:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Reaction by local political figures to jokes about the murder
At AfD, there was disagreement about whether this topic was appropriate for Wikipedia because it was simply a one-event news story. The AfD was closed as "no consensus". The strongest arguments for keeping the article were, in my view, (a) that the coverage of the event showed up in multiple sources, and focused not only on this murder, but also on the more general dangers of online dating and (b) that local leaders took note of the phenomenon of black humor about where the body was found and their wish that people would be more sensitive and less callous in their reactions. These are the things that make this more than just a single murder news story.

Another editor has deleted this info and I've restored most of it, but I've left out the content of the jokes. If someone wants to actually "hear" the joke, they can go to the sources. But we still disagree about this and I recognize that I have no corner on the wisdom market. I'm starting this thread to try to reach consensus. I've alerted the other editor that I'd start this thread. I'll leave it to the other editor to make their points here and then I think we'd both like others to share their views on the matter. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I maintain that any reference to the "jokes" is not encyclopedic and is completely distasteful, trivia-like, actually. Moreover, it does absolutely nothing to assist the reader in better understanding the article subject because it has absolutely nothing to do with the article subject, which is a murder, not a cultural or social media event (which is where the "jokes" were being made). -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 15:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * We're not getting the additional input I had hoped for. I'm going to "hide" the disputed text with a note asking that it only be unhidden if a consensus to do so arises on this talk page. David in DC (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Thanks for doing that. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 15:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)