Talk:Murder of Travis Alexander

Rename

Now that the article survived an AfD, let's come to consensus on a good name. Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Death of Travis Alexander - as per my experience of and interpretation of WP:Naming policy Youreallycan 06:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Geez, I came here looking for a discussion and trying to establish some consensus. And only one hour after my posting above – in one fell swoop – you decide to rename the article to your liking? I honestly don't think that's good form. In any event, why death of Travis ... as opposed to murder of Travis? Most other similar articles are called "murder". There is no doubt that the death was, in fact, a murder. Please respond. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think no consensus has been reached about any namechange of this article. I think a return to the Jodi Arias trial or Trial of Jodi Arias is in order here.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyhow, Death of... is definitly not the right name for this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I was bold now and reverted the name back. Feel free to change it when consensus/agreement has been reached.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the title should be Murder of Travis Alexander. Most other similar articles are similarly named. Using "Death of Travis Alexander" is less specific, less descriptive, and more vague. Also, using "Trial of Jodi Arias" (or similar) is far too limiting. The notable event is the murder, which would also encompass a discussion of the accompanying trial. The trial itself is not really the notable event. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. That would be the best.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Let's see if others weigh in. Thank you! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed my mind from what I said in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodi Arias trial discussion about keeping "trial" in the title. I'm still not 100% sold on not having "Jodi Arias" in the title, but now I see how having "trial" in the title is limiting. Once the trial is over, there will still be commentary about this case. It would be limiting if someone argued that non-trial info shouldn't go in this article. I don't know if "Murder of" is used in most Wikipedia titles about the death of people, but "Murder of" is appropriate in this case and I support it. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like we all agree, and it doesn't look like anyone else is weighing in. I will go ahead and make the move. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

See also section

If the death penalty is relevant to this case it should be cited and included in the main text of the article. As it stands now no mention is made in the main text of the article about any death penalty. Either add it there or stop adding a see also section pointing in a weasel way to the death penalty, without any supporting explanation in the main article as to why such a link should be there. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The article clearly states: Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against Arias. And it includes a reliable source (ABC news). I don't think there is any dispute that this is a death penalty case. What is the problem you have here? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The version of the article I edited for the first time did not include any mention of death penalty in the main text of the article. That's what I am talking about. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The death penalty info was added after your first edit/removal ... but before your second. So, are you now satisfied, or still not? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When I was making my second edit I was unaware that you added the death penalty link in the interim into the main text. Now it is ok as far as the death penalty link is concerned, but the see also section directs to the List of people executed in Arizona which prejudges the outcome of the case and it is prejudicial to the BLP of this person. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

How does it "prejudice" the case? How is it a BLP violation? It is merely a "see also" list. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ask yourself: How is the accused related to the List of people executed in Arizona? She has not been convicted yet. Associating her to that list, even indirectly, is a violation of her BLP. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

So says you. I disagree. So, we can Talk and seek consensus. Which is why we are here at this Talk Page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will seek advice from BLPN. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you include a link here to that BLPN talk page? I don't know where that is "located". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I found it, after all. Here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Death penalty case in Arizona

As this is a death penalty case in Arizona, I have added to the "see also" section a link for Capital punishment in Arizona. Another editor has removed it, indicating that it is prejudicial to the case. The editor's edit summary says, in part, "Have you prejudged the outcome of the case? If so it is a WP:BLP violation". I'd like to find consensus here at the Talk Page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a misleading link. It directs to List of people executed in Arizona. She has not been judged yet, let alone executed. This is a prejudicial link to the outcome of the case and violates BLP. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of the 50 states have articles entitled "Capital punishment in XYZ state". Some of the 50 states have articles entitled "List of people executed in XYZ state". Some have both. (See the "nav box" / template below.) So, what is your problem in not wanting this info in the article. It is no secret that this is a death penalty case. How on God's earth is this a BLP violation? And how on God's earth does this prejudice the case? You are the one being NPOV here, by seeking to exclude this relevant info. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not the one talking about "God's earth" etc. I think you need to calm down. If you don't understand that putting a list of executed people into the BLP article of a person on trial is prejudicial to the trial, then this is your problem and POV and not mine. I will take this to BLPN. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked for a reason, you gave none. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's what you think because you type faster than I can. I have replied to your question above. It just took me a little more time to type all this stuff. That's all. Look at all those edit conflicts. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you include a link here to that BLPN talk page? I don't know where that is "located". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. Here is the link. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I found it, after all. Here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability, "recent" and "too long" tags

I removed[1] the tags that were added by User:Athene cunicularia.[2] The WP:Notability of this article was taken on in the WP:AfD. As for WP:RECENTISM, this article is obviously going to be covering a lot of recent developments. As for the article being too long to read and navigate through comfortably, it's not. See WP:SIZE. And see that there are Wikipedia articles on murder cases and trials substantially longer than this one, and some are of high quality. And realize that many Wikipedia articles in general are longer than this. And see that there are not many sections in this article yet. "Too long to read" especially cracks me up. It's only "too long to read" for people who don't like to read or don't want to read all of the information. Going by the "too long to read" mindset, most Wikipedia articles are "too long to read." Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)