Talk:Murder of Brittanee Drexel/Archive 1

Intro paragraph
The intro paragraph never mentions that she went missing ... or that she was killed. It simply "jumps" from saying she went on a vacation and walked to her hotel (paragraph 1) ... to ... police had no clues (paragraph 2). Somewhere in the middle of all that, it should say she went missing ... or ... she was never seen again ... or ... she was reported missing ... or some such. Otherwise, the narrative makes no sense. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * When I expanded the article a few years ago a lot about the Brown theory of the case was in there until someone took it out citing BLP. More recently the developments in the case led to rapid edits to the intro such that most of the language about her being missing since that night was removed but (as too often happens) not replaced. Between the mess that happened over renaming the article and the other things that I'm involved with both on- and offline I just have not had sufficient time to rewrite the intro as it should now read. Perhaps after finishing this I will attend to that. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on categories
Should this article include murder categories when there has been no judicial finding of murder? WWGB (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Exclude. Reliable sources do not refer to this case as murder, other than describing the charge against the accused. WP:BLPCRIME urges caution against inferring a person committed a crime unless a conviction has been secured. To date, there has been no legal finding of murder. WWGB (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Exclude per WWGB. This is basic BLP policy. No RfC needed. Just do it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I did try to "just do it"", but I was reverted by an admin. That's why I am here ... WWGB (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. The admin is wrong. This is very probably a murder, but WP isn't a betting platform.  This shouldn't be in murder categories yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak include Invited by the bot, and "weak" because I only took a quick look. Inclusion in a category is two steps away from saying a particular person committed a murder. It merely means that a murder probably occurred. So that's "murder occurred" not that someone in particular committed a murder. And "probably" because inclusion in a wiki category is a subjective uncourced system which means that inclusion means at most only "probably"/"some editor considers it to be worth listing under that for search purposes" .  North8000 (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Exclude per WWGB and SMcCandlish. There should be reliable sources describing this as murder in the article, and there aren't.  interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 15:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Exclude, because I am going to start creating the "killing of ..." categories right now, after I finish typing this, and I expect, and especially , the "just do it" guy who can let the MOS go for a while, because it will not drop off the face of the earth whatever he seems to think, to similarly drop everything else they are doing and focus feverishly and monomaniacally on thoroughly accomplishing this task (at least for US cases because British editors have been resistant to this distinction as it has not taken hold as much in the UK since there is no statutory definition of murder over there). As soon as you read this you are requested and required to start going through all "killing of" or "... homicide" articles and create the appropriate subcats and move articles into them (Tip: Go into preferences and enable HotCat if it isn't already; it makes this much easier). I'll be checking your edit histories to make sure you are putting your keyboards, phones, etc. where your mouths (figuratively) have been. I can only do this for a few hours myself. Your assistance will be much appreciated. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I didn't exactly get what you meant. You said I should go though these types of articles, but I didn't get what you meant by "create the appropriate subcats and move articles into them". Do you mean make entirely new categories titled "Killing of (insert person's name here)" or what?
 * I'll be happy to do this but is it really required? This isn't something I was planning to spend time on but if I really have to I'll happily do this. Thank you for addressing my concerns.  interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 17:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Look at my recent edit history and see how I've created . I've included criteria for inclusion and added two subcats where every article involved fits the bill (If we find an article under "Lynching deaths in ..." where someone actually got convicted of murder and it was upheld on appeal, then that should be recategorized as murder). Also, any unsolved killing from before the mid-20th century can probably be left standing as "murder" since it's unlikely any suspects would still be alive. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WTF it this personally hostile rant? This is behavior unbecoming an admin. You don't get to dictate what I focus my time on and if you have some issue with me personally, you know how to use user talk. I'm of half a mind to take this to WP:AN.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And I assume you know where my talk page is as well. You could have gone there to leave a note and say, hey, I'm saying you're wrong and here's why. But you didn't. Nor do I consider doing this, whatever WWGB thinks, as any exercise of administrative authority because it does not and did not require any use of the tools. The constructive response to this situation is not to go to AN, but to help out at least in some small part with the task the outcome of this RfC requires be done to avoid having to have it over and over on multitudes of pages you probably are presently unaware even exist. I wish it could be accomplished at CfD but unfortunately it requires looking at individual articles to distinguish whether they still belong (and making a lot of page moves in the process, in all probability). No, I can't tell you what do with your time. You do what you think is important for the project. But I can remember that, IMO, you bailed on doing some heavy lifting that you helped put in motion, and keep that in mind when assessing how much weight to give your opinion in future discussions. And you and I know I won't be the only one doing that. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See the First law of holes and stop digging.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Given how patently unreasonable it is to require that other editors drop everything else they are doing and focus feverishly and monomaniacally on something, I had assumed this must be tongue-in-cheek; I am disturbed to see from your reply that it was not. I don’t know what your history with or any of these other editors is, but please don’t drag drama to diverse corners of the Project. This proposal could easily have been written inoffensively, and frankly, people would probably be taking it more seriously if you had. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since no one else has bothered to assist with this and I haven't continued raging about it, that statement is no longer operative and would best let go by everyone. Yes, I admit, I was intemperate and out of line. But indulge me in explaining myself: I was feeling rather put out that someone, someone IMO who has never contributed anything to this topic area (and is probably unlikely ever to in the future, anymore than I'm likely to contribute to articles on cue sports) and thus might not know how contentious this issue was (and in some ways remains) before NCDEATH, just said I was "wrong" without even bothering to say why they felt I was wrong. That's not very AGF IMO. This drive-by mentality is detrimental to the project; I'm sure at least one long-term editor may have quit in part because of it. If you are randomly summoned to lend your expertise to an RfC (and I don't know why it was decided we needed an RfC; I would have been happy to contribute to the usual informal talk page discussion), at least try to do a little research into the relevant issue before you go pontificating about it. As for the user in question, this is not the first time he's done this sort of thing. I recall an MOS discussion last year where, similarly, he dropped in several days after the discussion had fizzled out without any real resolution, offering a suggestion that not only seemed not to engage the logic of another MOS expert directly above him stating quite clearly what the problem would be with that suggestion, his suggestion directly contradicts the relevant MOS section. I take that to mean that a) he doesn't realize that section exists, or b) does and doesn't care, which is a rather odd attitude to have for someone who involves themselves in so many MOS discussions, or c) believes it should be amended to what he suggests. That last one is probably the most AGF-able option, but if that's truly what he believes then the proper option is to formally propose such an amendment. I see the same disinterest in understanding the underlying issue here. And to be fair he and the editor who started this RfC are, at base, right. The problem, as I've said already, is that by the time we decided that per BLP/OR/CRYSTAL articles about relatively recent homicides in the US ought to be "Murder of ..." (see Dimadick's contribution to this for why that doesn't extend to the UK) only when there has been an actual conviction for\guilty plea to that offense (a change for which there is still considerable resistance, as anyone (ahem) versed in writing about this subject would know, would know enough to not be so blithe about saying "it's wrong" and expecting those words alone to carry the day ... perhaps anyone who thinks this should better put their energies and intellect into the linked discussion, the fifth time at that article that the proposed move has been rejected overwhelmingly, despite its clear rightness by BLP), we had already created hundreds of categories well-stocked with articles. If the articles about American homicides for which no one has been convicted of murder are not to be categorized under "murder", if new categories are to be created (as I have begun doing), this would be best done with broad consensus after a discussion on, say, CFD, where new names could be proposed and agreed (for example, you just can't substitute "Killing" for murder in every category name ... "Killing victims in ..."?) and then a group of editors could divide up the task. That would be a lot better than having to jump start it after an RfC on one of those hundreds of articles. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Include The nature of a murder has nothing to do with the conviction of a suspect or even the existence of one. We have hundreds of articles on Category:Unsolved murders. Per Murder in English law, the only legal definition is "Murder is when a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any county of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace, with malice aforthought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within a year and a day of the same." Dimadick (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That definition still holds for the UK, but since every US state now defines murder in its statutes rather than falling back on the common-law definition, we formalized WP:NCDEATH a while back over this issue. Since a statutory definition of murder means that a trier of fact must have come to the conclusion that the actor committed the crime, we decided that per BLP, OR, and CRYSTAL we can only use "Murder of ..." when there has actually been a conviction or guilty plea to the offense that has not been overturned by an appeals court or an executive pardon. In its absence, those articles are "Killing of ..." I opposed taking the categories out because of what I described above as the Herculean project of going through tons of articles currently in "murder" categories and creating separate "killing" subcategories for those cases where the definition of "murder" has not been met. And this has been proven by the fact that I've spent more or less the last hour just cleaning up the South Carolina categories. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what is wrong with "taking the categories out" if they are not appropriate. The task of "creating separate 'killing' subcategories" can go ahead at its own speed. In the mean time, this article (and others) can be silent in the absence of appropriate killing/homicide categories. WWGB (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I still would greatly appreciate it if you'd roll up your sleeves and help. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there actually a consensus for this change? I don't what be that one person who knows nothing about the topic but insists on getting in the way, but if we make a distinction between murders and killings in our categories, I would expect the distinction to be whether the killing was malicious and premeditated or something else (manslaughter, lawful killing, noncriminal accident), and sofar, the presumption everyone seems to be making about this case is that someone killed her maliciously and with forethought. Moreover, I'm not convinced the statement "Brittanee Drexel was murdered" (which is all the category would be doing) has the same ramifications for BLP that "Mr. X murdered Brittanee Drexel" would. To be clear, I'm not objecting; I don't feel strongly enough about this issue. I just would hate for you to do all that work and it turn out that there isn't such a consensus. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The distinction is that "murder" is, in the US at least, a legal term that suggests that all the elements of the crime—malice aforethought (or intent, or prior calculation and design or something else; the wording varies by state), mens rea and lack of justification (i.e., not self-defense)—have been proven in a court of law, either by a trier of fact's verdict or a guilty plea that has not been reversed on appeal. Only then (again with regard only to US homicides) can we say "murder". Anything else is at most a "killing", even a manslaughter conviction. To say otherwise, given this, offends not just BLP but OR, NPOV and CRYSTAL (i.e., we should not use it even when no suspect has been named).
 * I personally make an exception to this when the homicide is old enough that any interest in solving it is purely historical as no possible suspects are likely to be alive (i.e., Murder of Artemus Ogletree, which happened almost 90 years ago).
 * This came out of discussions about eight years ago during the first flush of BLM protests in the wake of Ferguson; I think it was noted then that we never described any deaths at the hands of police at the time as "murder" yet almost every killing not committed by a police officer was, which gave the impression that we were biased in favor of the police. The move to "Killing of ..." is now more or less codified in WP:NCDEATHS.
 * I will note, as I have in other discussions of this nature, that we are not alone in this. Since about 2010 or so, the AP Stylebook has made a similar admonition to the many journalists who use it:
 * "A "homicide" should not be described as "murder" unless a person has been convicted of that charge. Do not say that a victim was "murdered" until someone has been convicted in court. Instead, say that a victim was "killed" or "slain." Do not write that "X" was charged with "murdering Y." Use the formal charge—murder—and, if not already in the story, specify the nature of the killing – shooting, stabbing, beating, poisoning, drowning, etc.(Emphasis in original)"


 * With our policies no different conclusion is possible. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This is now moot as the suspect has pleaded guilty. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)