Talk:Killing of JonBenét Ramsey/Archive 3

I have removed "Murder" references
The result of the Request to Move was that this article should be called "Death of.." not "Murder of..." because the theory that JonBenét was murdered, while plausible, is not the only plausible theory accepted by reliable sources. There is a substantial body of respectable thought that she was the victim of an accidental killing. I have therefore edited the article so that it does not state as fact that she was murdered. I have not made any substantive changes; and the discussion of the various possibilities remains unaltered. --MrStoofer (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * MrStoofer, did you read my and Isaidnoway's comments in the section above? We made it very clear that the WP:NPOV policy does not at all support the move of the article or avoidance of the word murder in the article. This is why I reverted the edit you made (though I did change one murder instance). What "substantial body of respectable thought that she was the victim of an accidental killing" are you referring to? The vast majority of sources state that she was murdered, clearly because there is nothing accidental about the way that she died (in the strictest sense of "accidental" at least). The vast majority of sources do not support notion that her brother killed her, or subscribe to the other theories. And even among the notion that her brother killed her, some sources state that the brother intentionally killed her. Most of those sources certainly state that he intentionally hurt her. Because the vast majority of sources call this death a murder, it is fine to have "Murder victim" in the infobox. It is also fine to have this article in the Category:1996 murders in the United States, Category:Murdered American children, Category:People murdered in Colorado and Category:Unsolved murders in the United States categories you removed it from.


 * If we need to go to some form of dispute resolution on this matter, then let us do that because I refuse to subscribe to the idea that the WP:NPOV policy supports any of this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a few cents worth, and sorry if you've already read this from an earlier posting: IMO, it is entirely correct to say JonBenet died - so using "death" in the article cannot be wrong whether she was murdered or not. But, noone has been convicted of a murder. As an FYI, search on article titles beginning with "Death of" and "Murder of", which from a little skimming generally include convictions.


 * The long and the short of it is that there is so much that is uncertain about this case - and how and why she died is a huge question mark. It seems that there have been discussions about the death being a homicide, vs. murder. I'm not prepared to say that it's a POV issue to say murder. I just think it's more accurate to say death, since there hasn't been a conviction.


 * I am totally missing why it's important to say murder vs. death.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've read your argument before. My issue is that stating "murder" is perfectly fine and is according to the WP:NPOV policy, and that the WP:NPOV policy is being used incorrectly to refrain from use of "murder." In this latest instance, it was used to remove appropriate categories. If I keep seeing this type of editing regarding this case, I will be seeking input on a wide-scale level (meaning from multiple related pages and noticeboards). I do not like seeing our policies misused; in fact, I hate it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And she didn't just die; someone caused her death, which is clear even among the theory sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And I want to go ahead and note that, unless it's an instance of erotic asphyxiation, there is nothing accidental about being strangled. The autopsy did not state that she was strangled after her death; it states that strangulation was part of the cause. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * IMO it was murder, not homicide. I was just making the point why I think death is more accurate without a conviction. I do see that NYT calls it murder here, which is good enough for me.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't all murder homicide? And accidental death is not the only possible explanation for a homicide not being a murder. Murder is a legal term that asserts mens rea and violation of the law. While many sources seem to be assuming that this death was a murder, no one has been convicted of murder in this case, and probably no one ever will. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding, as a layperson, is that yes - all murder is homicide, as in criminal homicide where there is intention or premeditation. But not all homicides are murder, like manslaughter. You may know more about this, though, than I do.
 * I agree that it's unlikely that there will be a conviction now. I did see today, though, that there's going to be new DNA testing and reopening of the DNA portion of the case.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this case, but it is clear from the article that there are two theories: the "intruder" theory - in which JonBenet was indeed murdered - and the "family member theory" in which she was accidentally/negligently killed by a family member. I don't understand anyone is suggesting that a family member deliberately killed her (i.e. murdered her). So we do not know how she died - which is why the article was moved from "Murder of..." to "Death of..." It seems entirely inappropriate, therefore, for the article to state as fact that she was murdered (as it did before my edits). That would be to select one of the theories and to violate WP:NPOV. As has been pointed out above, saying that she "died" and referring to her "death" is NPOV: it is not implying that she was not murdered: it is neutral. So even an ardent believer that she was murdered should be content with my edits. MrStoofer (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * MrStoofer, I'm going to explain the WP:NPOV policy again: "Neutral point of view" on Wikipedia does not mean what "neutral point of view" means in common discourse. On Wikipedia, "neutral point of view" means following the literature with due weight. See the WP:Due weight section of the WP:NPOV policy. See other sections at that policy page. WP:Due weight is about giving most of our weight to what the majority of reliable sources state. I repeat: The vast majority of reliable sources state that she was murdered and do not consider her death an accident. Therefore, stating that she was murdered is not a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. The article was incorrectly moved since the WP:NPOV policy does not support the move. Furthermore, as has been noted before, murder is not always intentional. Either way, the autopsy indicates foul play. Whether or not JonBenét Ramsey was intentionally killed doesn't negate the fact that her death is generally not considered an accident by the literature. The theory regarding the brother killing JonBenét Ramsey is that he intentionally harmed her. How one can think that hitting someone so hard on the head and then strangling them is an accident, I do not know (yes, I've read the theories; so no need to explain), but even if intentional death was not a part of it, intentional harm is very much supported by the literature. I'm not stating that we should use "murder" throughout the article, but I am stating that we can call the death a murder in the article and that using the WP:NPOV policy to avoid mentioning "murder" or including the aforementioned murder categories is inappropriate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand what WP:NPOV means. It is a fact that the consensus of editors, as expressed in the discussion on the move request, is that "Murder" violates WP:NPOV and the correct description is "Death". I do not agree with your approach of overruling the consensus because you think it is wrong (and the consensus is not wrong). Moreover, it is silly and brings Wikipedia into disrepute for the text of the article not to reflect the title of the article because one editor disagrees with the consensus. -- MrStoofer (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No, you clearly do not understand the WP:NPOV policy. It has nothing to do with the WP:Consensus policy. And WP:Consensus regarding an article title has nothing to do with whether or not we can use a word or certain categories in an article. Therefore, I am not overriding any consensus. Consensus on Wikipedia is also based on the strength of the arguments. As noted by Isaidnoway, the "move" arguments were weak and not based on our policies. I am going to ask editors at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia talk:Article titles and Wikipedia talk:Verifiability to weigh in on these issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I ask that when it comes to the accidental aspect, editors again review what Isaidnoway stated in the section above. Being an accident does not necessarily preclude "murder" or "homicide." I'm aware that the parents, especially Patsy, were suspected by the police of having accidentally killed JonBenét (though the strangulation aspect was never supported well as far an accident goes), but the case was treated as a murder case regardless. Even when John Mark Karr claimed that he accidentally killed JonBenét, he was charged with murder. In this case, I don't have an issue with noting "homicide" since "homicide" includes murder and similar labels. I reiterate that my issue is with using the WP:NPOV policy to state that we can't call this death a "murder" at all or use murder categories for the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As you argue, "murder" also doesn't present an WP:NPOV problem. Well, I think we're all certain that 100% of sources agree that Ramsey is dead. This means that if the term "death" were used instead of "murder", there would also be no WP:NPOV violation. Therefore, if your interpretation of WP:NPOV is correct (I have no reason to believe it isn't), though it allows the use of "murder", it doesn't oblige its use in place of "death".
 * Having dispensed with the applicability of WP:NPOV to the choice between "murder" or "death", can we not move on to whether we prefer one or another based on one being absolute fact (her death) and the other being only as factual at this time as we are able to determine using inductive reasoning (her alleged murder)? Either we look at the question in those terms and conclude that "death" is preferable to "murder", or else we have no preference because both are acceptable under WP:NPOV. But under no scenario does Wikipedia prefer "murder" to "death". Largoplazo (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * My issue is not that I am completely against using "death." I've stated what my issues are; this includes the inappropriate removal of murder categories. As for "murder" vs. "death" as they relate to the WP:NPOV policy, "murder" is more in line with that policy for reasons that Isaidnoway and I addressed. When researching this death, it is almost always called a murder by the sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course, it's called a death too since she is dead, but anyway... The move review section shows that I accepted the "Death of" title. I challenged the rationales behind the move. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not true that in almost call cases it's called a murder by the sources. See the family theory column of Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories. And, there are also some that believe with the intruder theory that the original intention was not to kill her, i.e., was not premeditated and may not be a murder, but homicide, under those circumstances.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * CaroleHenson, it is true. Are you disputing the fact that "murder" is the prevalent term used for this death? I've used the words "the vast majority" and I've used the words "almost always." I clearly view the words as synonyms. As for intention, refer to my "17:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)" post above. I very much doubt that the Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories article would have been created had it not been for The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey documentary. I very much doubt that the article would have been moved had it not been for that documentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, I am trying to hear from outside editors. I am already aware of your views on this subject. Now it seems that due to the WP:Too long; didn't read nature of this section, I really am going to have start a heavily advertised RfC on this matter to stop the inappropriate use of the WP:NPOV policy at this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding the move, I don't know, perhaps you're right.


 * Regarding the creation of the theories article, started by me, I'm not sure that's true. I had just finished reading one book about the death of JonBenet, and rereading another, about the time that The Case of was just being aired. One of the books was by a police officer of the Boulder Police. After reading both, with different perspectives, I realized that there were a number of issues that weren't explored. Those issues are roughly what is in Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories, which by the way doesn't come to a conclusion either way.


 * I have not used the NPOV policy in my comments .-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * clarification made in underlined text.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I also read news articles at the time, like this.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Murder is a subset of death, so every single source that is calling it a murder is implicitly also identifying it as a death. In using the term "murder" instead of "death", the media are not declaring it to be a murder instead of a death. Both are applicable, both are equally consistent with what the media are reporting. What I wrote above is based on that state of affairs and was already accounting for what Flyer22 Reborn wrote in response. Largoplazo (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

IMO, Ramsey was the victim of a murder, but I think it's presumptuous to make that statement before a conviction (although I do feel better about that seeing that New York Times has called it murder). Since this issue continues to come up, I like 's idea of taking it to RfC to resolve the use of "death" or "murder" within the article. To Reborn's point, we do have some distance, and perhaps perspective, about The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey documentary, which may have influenced the discussions. I'm going to go ahead and make a request.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Largoplazo, again, the main problem is editors incorrectly using the WP:NPOV policy to state that we cannot use the word murder in the article. The main problem is editors stating that using the word murder is against the WP:NPOV policy. That the death is called a death is common sense. That the death is called a murder by the vast majority of reliable sources (both scholarly texts and media sources) has to do with how the case was treated and that murder was believed to be the cause of death. The cause of this girl's death is generally believed to have been a murder. So editors using the WP:NPOV policy to state that we cannot use the word murder or murder categories are incorrect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Use of "death" or "murder" within the article
There have been ongoing discussions about the use of "death" or "murder" in the Death of JonBenét Ramsey article. One perspective is that it is routinely, or nearly always, called a murder in the press - and was a murder. Another is that there has not been a conviction, and so use of the word "murder" is presumptuous. This also relates to whether the family member theory section is appropriate for the article. (i.e., the question of murder vs. homicide isn't just related to a family member scenario), but there are some that believe that section is not appropriate for the article. So, the questions are: Is "murder" an appropriate word to use in the article? 2) Is the family member theory section inappropriate for the article? Your input will be much appreciated!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey 1
The next AfC was broadcast widely and so will likely have greater participation and it's not fair to make people to respond to the same issue twice, so I'm not sure what to do with this one. Input on this would be helpful.

Discussion 1

 * CaroleHenson, this is not the type of RfC I would have started. The main problem is editors incorrectly using the WP:NPOV policy to state that we cannot use the word murder in the article. The main problem is editors stating that using the word murder is against the WP:NPOV policy. So I have started an RfC on that below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Two things: 1) I don't agree that the issue is purely a NPOV issue. That's not the reason why I have questioned the use of "murder", and I'm not the only one that has not argued the NPOV position. 2) I think you've said before that you didn't think that the family intruder information is in the article, and I'm not seeing that in your RfC. This was a key issue by one person regarding why they didn't think it should be called murder.


 * The key point, though, by far, is getting this resolved. I don't care which RfC is used, I would just hope that it's a thorough discussion.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The article was moved because of the flawed assertion that the WP:NPOV policy supports the move. That policy doesn't support the move in any way, shape or form. And because of the rationale used for that article move, we recently had an editor remove all instances of the word murder and important murder categories. I do not care if the word death is used in the article. Using "death" in the article is going to happen; she did die, after all. For me, it is not about "death" vs. "murder." For me, it is about using one of our core policies to shape the article in a way that the core policy does not at all support. I do not have an issue with this section. I was clear that I simply did not want the article to go overboard with the notion that the brother killed her, or with conspiracy theories that fall into the WP:FRINGE category. All of this mess started because of the The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey documentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't have a problem with the use of "death" vs. "murder", as long as the edit summary doesn't say NPOV, and if you don't have a problem stating there are two types of theories, I am not sure what "all this mess" means .-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And I'm not sure how you are not understanding what I'm objecting to. It's not simply about stating "NPOV." It's about editing this article with the "NPOV" mindset when our NPOV policy doesn't support that mindset. I am not okay with editors removing every instance of "murder" since I see no valid rationale for doing so. "Death" is going to be validly used; so I have no issue with anyone using "death" in this article. Removing "murder" because of some opinion-based rationale not supported by any of our policies does bother me. And I do not support the removal of any of the murder categories, whether one is stating "NPOV" while removing the categories or not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, so you do have an issue with removing the word murder. I agree that editors should come at editing from a NPOV.


 * I think we're really getting to the same issue, whether it's right or not to use the word murder. You say it cannot be because of NPOV. I believe NPOV means that you don't exclude other points of view reported in the press. And, by definition, calling her death murder excludes other points of view.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand what I mean at all. Either way, the WP:NPOV policy does not support your viewpoint, and I've been over why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Not with me, I've never said it before. The way you have your RfC worded, I have to think of it from an NPOV perspective. I just want this to be resolved one way or the other. So, let's just wait for folks to vote.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have the RfC worded in a way that essentially asks a simple question: "Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy?" Those who understand that policy should know the answer. Any other definition of "NPOV" should not matter. What matters is the Wikipedia definition. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If they are mentioned just as reporting and not as 'the answer' or put in wikivoice, then it seems OK to mention both the word and the family theory as things that factually were & are part of the ongoing story.  Markbassett (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits to the page
Just to get a bit of continuity here:

I posted this on a user page:

1. Patsy's disciplinary history - Regarding the edit that you made removing a source - I put part of the content from the source in the edit summary, but the info is:


 * Burke Ramsey said his mother was not a strict disciplinarian, nor did she fly into anger or rage. “We didn't get spanked, nothing of the sort, nothing close, nothing near laying a finger on us, let alone killing your child.”


 * It seems you had difficulty bringing up the article.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There are other sources that make the same kind of a claim, if you think that's needed.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

2. Ramsey family lawyer - was the term used in the source for this edit. At the time, I think that there were a number of lawyers, and I am not sure that Lin Wood was Burke's lawyer at the time. There are also references to Burke's lawyers in the press. So, why not keep it in synch with what the source is saying?— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * About the "Ramsey family lawyer" (or "representing the Ramsey family") phrase in that context – the context here is of a lawyer speaking in September 2016 (about an event in 2010). The same lawyer is described as being one of Burke's attorneys (in the same timeframe – September 2016) just a few paragraphs later. The phrase "Ramsey family" here is vague. It's important to realize that at this point in time, Patsy has been dead for 10 years – so the "Ramsey family" especially does not include her (which is something that might not be noticed by a casual reader). And JonBenét, of course, has been dead for 20 years. The family, at this point, seems to consist of two grown men – Burke, who is about 30 years old, and John, who is about 70 years old. L. Lin Wood is not some local lawyer who stumbled into the case by being the family's ordinary attorney – he is a high profile attorney who has had other very famous cases. I'm sure he is happy to present himself as representing the vague concept of the "Ramsey family", but he is representing specific clients in these actions. And specifically, if he is talking about suing people for libel because those people blamed Burke for the killing, then his standing in these actions is on behalf of Burke. Characterizing these actions as being on behalf of the vague concept of the "Ramsey family" seems potentially misleading. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)