Talk:Killing of JonBenét Ramsey

Burke Ramsey

Wasn't there, at one point, significant media attention on her older brother, Burke, at one point a suspect? Rhymeless 18:47, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, towards the parents and no one else. Burke became involved when Boulder Police investigators claimed they heard his voice on the 911 tape, and were focusing 100% of their attention on the Ramsey family. He was a person of interest at first (naturally, since he was in the house after all), but was soon cleared from the list and was no longer considered a suspect very early on in the case. The violent nature of the case itself practically ruled out Burke, as it takes a considerable amount of strength to garrote a person (and there was a lot of force put into it, as one can see from the autopsy photographs), to deliver the skull-shattering blow to JonBenét's head, and to carry around a limp body. Burke was only either 8 or 9 years old at the time of the murder, and was not "buff" for his age. JonBenét weighed 45 pounds.

Plus, the media blows everything out of proportion. Especially in a case like this - someone brings the idea of a jealous older brother into the picture and it's pure gold from a ratings point of view. Alvin 14:48, 11 Aug 2004

Okay, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. I, too, have seen the autopsy photos and I think that a 9 year old kid who was angry could possibly cause that sort of damage. If Burke did it, it would also explain a lot of the apparent staging of the crime scene and why one or both parents would be complicit in a cover up; they were trying to protect their son. Somewhat related, Burke is going to be appearing on Dr. Phil in September to publicly discuss the case for the first time. Whatever he says might be of relevant inclusion in this article. Jb 007clone (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know, was the DNA that was found ever tested against Burke? Jb 007clone (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

In the recent CBS docu-series "The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey", forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz raises the possibility that a heavy flashlight (seen in a photograph of kitchen table at the Ramsey's house) could have created the blunt force trauma to the skull without requiring a person with great strength. He also thought that the head trauma was likely the lethal event, not strangulation. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Photo?

It would be nice to have a photo, if somebody can find one that isn't copyrighted (other than crime scene and autopsy photos!) - Mirror Vax 13:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to change the picture to one of Jonbenet smiling and maybe not a pageant photo. It would also be lovely to change the photo for the section about her life to one of her alive. I would also love if there could be more about who she was in her life section, not just where she went to school but stories about who she was. StonemEffy123 (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The only photo that i see in commons for JonBenet is this photo of her gravesite. So, that must mean that her main image is a Non-free image. I'm not sure what the process is for adding another non-free image. Like would this one have to be deleted first? Are you wanting to do this?

There are some people that have worked on the project for awhile that have provided input about how much info should be in the biographical sections. Are you interested in researching a bit of biographical information about her?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Small Error

In the 5th paragraph is says "decedent's involvement in pageants" but I'm sure they meant "deceased's" idk how to change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.32.155 (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, decedent is a word http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decedent (which I also did not know) and means pretty much the same thing as deceased. Cannolis (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Decedent is I believe only used in the American legal system. As the sentence concerned is otherwise normal English (albeit American) I don't think it is appropriate to use these legal jardon.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Decedent is not (exclusively) legal jargon. It is also "everyday" English. Although not as common as "the deceased". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Failure to indict parents

It is a fact that a Colorado grand jury had voted in 1999 to indict the parents. The indictment apparently alleged child abuse resulting in death and being accessories to a crime. However, the district attorney refused to sign the indictment, saying that the evidence was insufficient. It is not correct to then conclude that "This left the impression that the grand jury investigation had been inconclusive". Impression for whom? The grand jury found a prima facie case, the DA refused to accept the indictment, as was his prerogative. That does not suggest that the grand jury investigation was inconclusive. The DA thought that the evidence was insufficient for a successful prosecution, that it all.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that Hunter, when he announced his refusal to charge, did not mention that the grand jury had indicted the Ramseys. This left the general public free to conclude that there was no grand jury indictment, i.e., that the investigation had been inconclusive. I'm sure that is what most people believed and still believe. Wahrmund (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The length of the John E. Douglas assessment section?

Why is this section so long? It is longer than a lot of the other factual sections. It definitely deserves some discussion, but his assessment is one particular POV, and not necessarily neutral, as he was hired by the Ramseys. Jb 007clone (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. And also I didn't see a single source or citation in the John E Douglas section. 76.123.200.158 (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of sexual assault

I'm watching a special on the A&E channel in the United States, titled "The Killing of Jonbenét: The Truth Uncovered."

The narrator stated that the autopsy found evidence of sexual assault. Also, they said there was injuries including vaginal abrasions that indicate she had suffered sexual abuse for some time prior to her murder.

I saw that this page stated that there was no evidence of sexual assault. If someone could fix this with proper citation it would be appreciated. Thanks.

Ahraaar (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahraaar, this appears to be a matter of WP:Due weight. If adding the sexual assault claim, it should be made clear with WP:In-text attribution that "The Killing of Jonbenét: The Truth Uncovered" has stated this. Unless, of course, different WP:Reliable sources report the same. Then we would relay "Some sources state," or similar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Burke's legal complaint against CBS et al states that a broken part of the paintbrush -- the same paintbrush used to fashion the garotte -- was found pushed into the vaginal tract. It had ruptured the hymen. Burke claims that the CBS film ignored this evidence of sexual assault because it did not fit the theory being advanced. If correct, this evidence ought to appear in published sources somewhere. Khamba Tendal (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey (CBS)

I have not seen this documentary but looks significant enough for inclusion as it involves FBI agent James Fitzgerald. The results of the investigation air tonight. -- GreenC 18:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely right; it needs to be added. I have seen the entire thing, and it gives a fresh look at the evidence, without the supposed bias against the Ramseys of the Denver police, or the political sensibilities of the prosecutor's office. (Redacted)JustinTime55 (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Death of JonBenét Ramsey. We have clear consensus, supported by the WP:NPOV policy, to move away from "Murder" in the title. We also have consensus against moving to JonBenét Ramsey. Participants are about split between "Killing of..." and "Death of...", but the latter seems to have the edge, it's consistently used in other articles, and seems to be the most neutral, colorless option. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Murder of JonBenét Ramsey → Killing of JonBenét Ramsey – This controversial, unsolved case has not been proven to be a murder. One theory of the death is that it was caused by her brother Burke, who at age 9 was not considered legally capable of having the intent to commit murder under Colorado law. An older, less likely theory held by the Denver police is that the mother accidentally killed her, making it manslaughter instead of murder. According to these theories, the supposed "murder" by an external perpetrator is considered to be staged by the Ramseys. For these reasons, the article will best hold a neutral point of view if the word "murder" is not used in the title. I could make this change myself, but decided to open discussion because some might consider it controversial. I'm also not quite sure whether "Death of JonBenét Ramsey"or "Killing of JonBenét Ramsey" is better. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

* Oppose.Her life was forcibly taken from her. Local laws aren't necessarily relevant to how the article it titled. The circumstances may have been staged; we don't know. By the prima facie specifics of the circumstance - a garrot, a skull fracture clearly from blunt trauma, the reasonable person can assume it was murder, and it's therefore acceptable to title it murder absent actual exculpatory evidence to the contrary. I see no actual problem with the title. Until someone is either convicted or an admission from the person who killed her is gathered, it remains an apparent murder. It's a judgement, but a reasonable one under the (long, drawn out) circumstances. Anastrophe (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Having just finished watching the two part investigative show on the boob toob, and now being quite convinced that the son Burke likely killed her - accidentally, in the heat of passion, or intentionally - nevertheless, I agree that it is not established that it was a murder. And if we're to be fully neutral, we can't suggest one way or another - it's an unsolved case, no more, no less. So, 'Death of JonBenét Ramsey' is the most appropriate title, with the article explaining the why's and why-nots of murder, accident, whatever. Anastrophe (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The nomination is absolutely right: calling this murder is an opinion not an established fact. MrStoofer (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Please advise: do you prefer Death or Killing? JustinTime55 (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I prefer prefer Death MrStoofer (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I too, support the decision to remove the term murder from the title. While the "prima facie" evidence found at the crime scene is indicative of a purposeful act, the mere presence of blunt trauma, strangulation with cord, etc. do not prove premeditation. The definition of murder requires a premeditated act. As such, blunt trauma could have been accidental or inflicted by a child incapable of premeditation, and the strangulation could have occurred after the fact as a method of staging. While none of this has been proven to any degree of certainty, the mere plausibility is sufficient to withhold the term murder. The term "killing" carries a more accurate connotation. StylumCEO (talk)StylumCEO —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

StylumCEO, as made clear in the Murder article, murder is not always defined as a premeditated act. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

But, as is also made clear in the Murder article, murder is a legal term that involves a specific type of violation of law. Not all homicide is murder. Moreover, in the U.S., there is also Manslaughter, which is a lesser crime than murder. No one has been convicted of murder in this case. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

At what point does WP:Common name come into play here? As I noted lower, law enforcement and reports on this case commonly treat this child's death as a murder. I've read a lot of the literature on this case, and it's rare that the death -- "asphyxiation due to strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma", which is the cause of death reported by the autopsy -- is viewed as an accident. If anything, a "Death of" title does a disservice to the case/victim, meaning what was found at the crime scene/how the body was found and the autopsy report on the body. "Killing of" would be better than "Death of," given the circumstances. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

When there is a court finding. Suppose this article were titled "Murder of..." and someone were to be arrested? Are you ready to have Wikipedia categorically dismiss any possibility someone being criminally insane, underage or the death being accidental? "Death of..." is accurate. "Murder of..." is probably accurate, but makes a hell of a lot of assumptions. Why the rush? - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0, there is no rush, considering that this case has been treated as a murder case for years, which is why this article has gone by that title for years. And, suddenly, because a new documentary, we need to change the title to the ambiguous "Death of"? I don't see that as being best. "Killing of" is at least better, given that the girl died of "asphyxiation due to strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma." I would support the article being titled JonBenét Ramsey murder case, similar to the O.J. Simpson murder case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

In the O.J. Simpson murder case, there was a specific person who was charged with the specific crime of "murder". In this instance, no one has been charged with any crime, and especially, no one has been charged with the crime of murder. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should be impartial when the literature overwhelmingly calls this death a murder. It is reported as a murder in the vast majority of sources that report on it, as indicated by the Google search I linked to above. And it was treated as a murder by both law enforcement and the medical examiner who did the autopsy. This is not the same as the Death of Caylee Anthony case. By that, I mean that not nearly as many reliable sources outright refer to her death as a murder. Many people think that Casey murdered her own child, but the sources are more so impartial on the matter, which is also no doubt due to the mother being acquitted. In fact, most of the time that the term "murder" is used to refer to the death of Caylee Anthony is when sources are stating that Casey Anthony was charged with murder and/or acquitted of murder charges, or when calling the trial a murder trial/case. In the case of JonBenét Ramsey, however, the sources are not even close to being as impartial; this is no doubt due to the child's injuries (what the autopsy report states) and how authorities have treated the case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Unknown? A killing does not necessarily have to involve premeditation to be murder. I am not familiar with the laws of Colorado, but a number of states do differentiate between first degree or premeditated murder and second degree murder, which doesn't require premeditation. Wschart (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Wschart: Please register "support" or "oppose", or aren't you sure? JustinTime55 (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I agree with moving the article but not to the proposed name. The parenthetical is wholly unnecessary and violates WP:CONCISE. I think it would be much more appropriate to move the article to "Death of JonBenét Ramsey." Ergo Sum 22:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Death of,.. would be inappropriate as it is established that the girl was Murdered. Killing of... I oppose as well as it is utterly pointless to move it as it is an established Murder. BabbaQ (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not an "established murder". Do you get the point that it has not been proved to be murder? That (deliberate intent to kill) is the first obligation for a prosecutor to establish at a trial, and if they cannot, it is the first thing the defense attorney latches onto. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

(Comment)Regarding the proposed title, I think what is being proposed are the two choices "Killing of JonBenét Ramsey" or "Death of JonBenét Ramsey" - not as the 'move' title may seem to suggest, "Killing (or Death) of JonBenét Ramsey". That's my take on it at least. Anastrophe (talk) 06:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Anastrophe, you get the gold star for being the one to get it. I didn't see the instruction about entering "?" when not sure of the exact title; I was proposing two alternate titles. I since have decided I prefer "Killing" to "Death" and have changed it. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

But this is a problem now, as many of the 'Support' votes are for 'death', not 'killing'. My vote is not in support for 'killing'. I think this whole move request should be redone, as the results are hopelessly muddled. Anastrophe (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Anastrophe. I might just close this and reopen it using "Death". JustinTime55 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose To use the word "death" is ambiguous as it does not imply it was a murder, when in reality it is remains an apparent murder. I also agree with Anastrophe's previous comments, local laws in Colorado, US should not dictate how an article is named on an international site like Wikipedia. (121.219.240.11 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC))

Note I think the two-part documentary series that has recently aired in the US, Canada and Australia should not be used as a sole basis to rename this article. The documentary itself has begun to cause controversy following its airing. Remember, that's the conclusion the investigators came to on the show and not of everyone who has been involved in this case, see JonBenet murder: Ramsey family lawyer vows to sue CBS over 'false' documentary conclusion. (121.219.240.11 (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC))

True, however, it has not been formally determined to be a murder, or even a homicide. Short of a formal, legal finding, everything remains speculative (though even after a formal finding there may still be speculation). Since nobody knows with absolute certainty, and since the only benchmark that can serve as a proxy for certainty is a finding by the court, which has not happened, it is the death of JonBenet Ramsey, and the circumstances around it, that this article covers. IMO, of course. Anastrophe (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Ramsey lawyer, Lin Wood, is not an investigator or forensic expert and his opinion is tainted by a conflict of interest. StylumCEO (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)StylumCEO

• Rebuttal to IP:

1. If you think it's an "apparent murder", that logically implies moving it to "Apparent murder of ...", which is silly.
2. "Local laws in Colorado" are not dictating the move. The distinction between murder being defined as a deliberative, premeditated act and accidental (or child-caused) death is universal in the English-speaking world.
3. The documentary "is not used as a sole basis to rename this article." Alternative (non-murder) theory has existed practically from the beginning, in the police theory. The CBS show is a fresh, new aspect of this controversial topic which needs greater, NPOV coverage in the article. Changing the title is not based on it, it just is an attempt to keep the article neutral by preventing it from having John Ramsey's POV and sweeping the controversy under the rug. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• @JustinTime55: Firstly, I never said that the documentary was being used solely to support the renaming of this article, it was a note to other users that they shouldn't use it as the only basis to support the renaming of the article. I only added that note in because I saw Anastrophe changed their opinion after watching the documentary. Also, I was only reiterating Anastrophe's words, that have now been retracted because I support what they were saying. The only reason why I mentioned that was because you had mentioned something that applies to laws in Colorado and that should not form part of the basis of renaming this article. If he did commit it then it would be considered murder even if it isn't recognised by Colorado law so the article would have to remain the same (this is just an example). I only said that because local Colorado laws should not interfere with the renaming of this article. (121.219.240.11 (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC))

• Support Death Killing Without a conviction we should not use murder. However those above using the doco to draw this conclusion are way off base. Editors should not be making claims as to the guilt or innocence of a person, even on a talk page (I was sorely tempted to redact some of the comments above, and maybe still will). AIRcorn (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

After some thought I think killing is a better description. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that she was killed and death is to [[|WP:PRECISE|vague]]. AIRcorn (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your redactions. First, this isn't a BLP. Second, none of the comments stray into theories or claims that are not already in the public record as existing speculations. The redaction should be reversed. Mucking with other user's comments should not be done lightly. Anastrophe (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

BLP applies since Burke Ramsey (the subject of the theories) is still alive. clpo13_(talk) 16:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support "Death of". Those opposers saying it is 'established murder' but that is not the case. Murder is a technical/legal term with multiple degrees which has not been established. There are multiple theories of how she died, including one that it was an accidental killing (probably manslaughter). Even if we accept murder in the non-legal popular sense, it creates confusion and adds a POV. -- GreenC 13:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:Due weight and the fact that WP:Fringe theories are not to be given as much weight. The literature usually treats this case as a murder. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what "literature" are you talking about? And how does changing "Murder of..." to "Death of..." or "Killing of..." involve due weight or promote a fringe theory? (Moved Flyer22's off-topic comments about intro re-write to a new topic below.) JustinTime55 (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

JustinTime55, exactly what literature? The literature that Roman Spinner mentioned below. The matter of the fact is that you and some others are letting fringe theories impact your judgement. You are not only changing the article based on fringe theories (including the controversial and criticized new documentary), in contrast to what the vast majority of the literature accepts, you are now trying to change the title of this article. For the most part, law enforcement and reports on the death accept and still accept the death of this girl as a murder. A number of editors are also confusing murder with a premeditated act, when murder is not always defined as a premeditated act. I will be reverting your changes that mainly rely on the documentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

And I don't agree with you having moved my other post. It is on-topic, since the titling of this article and changes to it concern the WP:Neutral policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Change to 'Killing of' and Oppose 'Death of'. She was killed, this may or may not be 'murder' as most English speaking jurisdictions allow for someone to be killed but not murdered depending on context. 'Death of' does not indicate she was killed, only that she died. Which is far too loose a term given the circumstances. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I believe the 9-year-old Burke accidentally killed his sister in a fit of rage to hurt her badly. I consider this murder, especially with the parents likely covering up the accidental death. I agree with Anastrophe's crossed out comments, local laws in Colorado should not dictate how an article is named on Wikipedia. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support: It seems (at least somewhat) unclear whether the killing was murder or not, and Wikipedia should strive to be careful and objective. "Death of JonBenét Ramsey" also seems OK. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Kind of Oppose: Has anyone considered "Homicide of..."? According to here: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/homicide-definition.html, it seems as though this death would fall into that category since it clearly wasn't a suicide. If not this, I would support "Killing of..." "Death of..." seems too passive. SteverB (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support "Death of ..." as its consistent with many similar articles, such as as Death of Jill Meagher which was a murder. Afterwriting (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support "Death of ..." As per Afterwriting --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support "Death of ..." as perhaps the most neutral POV title option. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Murder of…" is a frequently-used Wikipedia form which appears in main title headers of numerous other articles. After examining stories on this subject in various newspapers throughout the English-speaking world, I found that nearly all have used the term "murder". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Murder depends on the killers intent, unless you know who the killer was hard to say if they had the intention or not! The injuries might not have been intended, but the killing to cover up the injuries seems to be. If you garrot a person and they die, even if you didnt mean to kill them, the sever act of itself is assumed by courts that you knew the possibility and where not doing it for giggles--Simon19800 (talk) 07:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - "Murder" is a legal term that is not supported by a court finding here. The term assumes the killing was an intentional act by someone legally capable of forming the intent. Ramsey was killed. We cannot say she was "murdered". - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Simon19800, SummerPhDv2.0 and others, like I stated above, murder is not always defined as a premeditated act. This is made clear by the Murder article. Furthermore, the law enforcement and articles on the death commonly treat this death as a murder. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see my reply to your similar comment above. Murder is a legal term that involves a specific violation of the law. It is different from homicide, and different from manslaughter. One might be considered not guilty of murder for various reasons despite killing someone (e.g., due to insanity, reduced mental capacity, impairment, lack of intent to kill, childhood lack of understanding, etc.). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

And like I mentioned above, at what point does WP:Common name come into play here? As I noted lower, law enforcement and reports on this case commonly treat this child's death as a murder. I've read a lot of the literature on this case, and it's rare that the death -- "asphyxiation due to strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma", which is the cause of death reported by the autopsy -- is viewed as an accident. If anything, a "Death of" title does a disservice to the case/victim, meaning what was found at the crime scene/how the body was found and the autopsy report on the body. "Killing of" would be better than "Death of," given the circumstances. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: SummerPhDv2.0 replied to me above. I also noted above that I would support the article being titled JonBenét Ramsey murder case, similar to the O.J. Simpson murder case, since that's how this case was, and still is, treated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

But there is no murder case. No one has been accused or convicted of the crime of murder. I think we can agree that there was a homicide, but murder is a crime. Murder involves more than homicide. Not all homicides are murders. A person can be considered not guilty of murder even if the killing was not an "accident". This could be due to insanity, reduced mental capacity, impairment, lack of intent to kill, childhood lack of understanding, etc. We should not be jumping to conclusions about whether a specific crime occurred – especially when no one has been formally accused or found guilty of any crime. Regarding what "law enforcement" says – it is not the job of law enforcement personnel to be impartial. Their job is to find perpetrators and collect evidence. Wikipedia should be impartial, but law enforcement personnel are not paid to be impartial. They are paid to catch perpetrators and hand over evidence to prosecutors. Prosecutors are not paid to be impartial either. That is the job of the judge and the jury (although some of them also fail to be impartial). Wikipedia should also be impartial. Wikipedia is the reporter, not the police officer, not the prosecutor, and not the judge. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

To reiterate what I stated above, "I don't think Wikipedia should be impartial when the literature overwhelmingly calls this death a murder. It is reported as a murder in the vast majority of sources that report on it, as indicated by the Google search I linked to above. And it was treated as a murder by both law enforcement and the medical examiner who did the autopsy. This is not the same as the Death of Caylee Anthony case. By that, I mean that not nearly as many reliable sources outright refer to her death as a murder. Many people think that Casey murdered her own child, but the sources are more so impartial on the matter, which is also no doubt due to the mother being acquitted. In fact, most of the time that the term "murder" is used to refer to the death of Caylee Anthony is when sources are stating that Casey Anthony was charged with murder and/or acquitted of murder charges, or when calling the trial a murder trial/case. In the case of JonBenét Ramsey, however, the sources are not even close to being as impartial; this is no doubt due to the child's injuries (what the autopsy report states) and how authorities have treated the case." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Are you really saying that all articles about deaths should be re-titled with what we assume to be the legal status of the death? Assassination of... Suicide of.... Natural death of... Suicide or maybe murder of... Justifiable homicide of... Extra-judicial execution of... Death by misadventure of... Negligent homicide of...? - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0, how in the world did you come to the conclusion that I'm "saying that all articles about deaths should be re-titled with what we assume to be the legal status of the death"? No, I was not stating that. And I did not state that. Either way, we won't be agreeing on this topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support "Death of: Neutral phrasing and consistent with other WP articles with facts still amgibuous, e.g. Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, etc. Montanabw^(talk) 02:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support: murder is a specific and well-defined act where the body was found. Until it is declared a murder in court it is a killing. Dhugot (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME - Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. The nominator states the "article will best hold a neutral point of view if the word "murder" is not used" - WP:TITLE says - Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors. The title of this article is derived from a plethora of reliable sources that call it a murder, JonBenet Ramsey Murder, JonBenét Ramsey Murder and literally hundreds more. Additionally, we have the grand jury that recommended that both her parents be charged with child abuse resulting in death and being an accessory to a crime, including murder. - the grand jury also had alleged that each parent "did ... render assistance to a person...knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death." - Count seven of the indictment said the Ramseys did “unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person...knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree - A grand jury found enough evidence to indict the parents of JonBenet Ramsey for child abuse and accessory to first-degree murder. So it's my belief that the argument for a requested move to a new title based on NPOV fails based on the overwhelming support in reliable sources that refer to this case as a murder.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Why isn't the article just named JonBenét Ramsey? The first sentence of the lead tells us that she was "a six-year-old American girl found dead in her family's home". That is necessary information in the article. But I think that is inessential information in the title. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

That's because of WP:BIO1E. What is notable is (at least primarily) her death, not the child herself. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BIO1E addresses such questions as whether we should write an article about an event, a person, or both. This article presumably is being written in a way that conforms to to the guidelines provided by WP:BIO1E, but WP:BIO1E does not tell us what type of title should identify this article. The title used should be concise and recognizable. Those requirements would be satisfied by a title of JonBenét Ramsey. I think the policy found in WP:TITLE should be considered. I think there is a distinction that should be made between material that belongs in the body of the article, including the lead, and material that belongs in the title. The requirements for entry of material into the title should be considered far more selective than corresponding requirements for the entry of material into the body of the article. In the final analysis the inclusion in the title that she was murdered is gratuitous and a contrivance. We are not mentioning for instance, in the title, that she was six years old at the time of death. Essential material belongs in the title. That would, in this instance, be limited to her name. Bus stop (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You and I seem to disagree there. A title should be precise, and the notable topic is the death, not the child, so the title should be about the death. Since we have already had a similar discussion at Talk:Chandra Levy, and we don't seem to be able to persuade each other by energetic responses, I will try to refrain from further comment here. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

BarrelProof—you referred me to this article. You say "a title should be precise", but precision is not an indiscriminate aim. We should be aiming for an appropriate degree of precision in titles. Bus stop (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support "Death of ..." Consistent with similar articles.LM2000 (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support "Death of ..." The one indisputable fact here seems to be that she“s dead. Britmax (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment Specifically regarding the form "Death of…" — it should taken into account that such form has also been used for a number of Wikipedia title headers describing natural deaths or deaths that were not murders or killings (Death of Ludwig van Beethoven, Death of James Dean, Death of Jimi Hendrix, Death of Dale Earnhardt, Death of Princess Diana, Death of Aaliyah, Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford, Death of Cristina and Violetta Djeordsevic, Death of Michael Jackson, Death of Michael Faherty, etc.) —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I decided I prefer "Killing" to "Death". I note that many articles start with "Death of ..." and also with "Killing of ...". I don't know of a good tool to get a precise count of them; I know there's more than 10 of each because that's the limit of what shows in the search box auto-complete, and the search page gives thousands of entries, and doesn't restrict the search to just the title.

One thing I found most curious is Death of John Lennon, which I think just about everyone would consider a murder. (Unless Mark David Chapman was held mentally not responsible, which is kind of my point about the Burke theory.) JustinTime55 (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no other article with the title "JonBenét Ramsey" whereas John Lennon is an article. It doesn't matter whether "death of" or "murder of" or "killing of" is used in a title for this article. They are all examples of unnecessary information. Titles only serve to uniquely identify articles. Titles need not contain any more material than necessary to uniquely identify articles. "JonBenét Ramsey" makes a completely adequate title for this article. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support "JonBenét Ramsey" Like Bus stop , I agree that the article title does not need to include "Murder of" or "Death of" in the title. Many of the articles of victims on the List of murdered American children just have the person's name. Examples are Delia Green, Elsie Paroubek, Bobby Greenlease, and many more. This also eliminates the need to decide whether it's a murder or a death, which could change with future evidence.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This has gotten absolutely ridiculous. This article was originally called JonBenét Ramsey, and it was moved. So now a redirect already exists named JonBenét Ramsey which points here. There's no sense in moving it back again. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I should add that it is more respectful of the memory of the deceased. We should be sensitive in this way. It is more sensitive and more respectful to allow the name alone to stand as the identifier of the article. Bus stop (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems that it would be helpful to get input from the Biography WikiProject, so I am posting a request to look at this on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography page. That move was four years ago, and perhaps there is clearer direction since then.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This article isn't a biography. That is because JonBenét Ramsey would not meet notability requirements. The real question involves titles. Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

From their main page, it seemed like it would be an issue that the Biography group is familiar with. I'll still leave the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Murder of JonBenét Ramsey, but also check out the Titles WP, which makes tons of sense See Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Murder of JonBenét Ramsey. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move review?

I'm confused about how the decision was made to move the article to Death of JonBenet, just when we were seeking input from the experts about this - including an option to simplify it to just her name. There did not seem to be consenses - there were, in fact, many Strongly Oppose votes.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Why has this been closed and äctioned whén the discussion is still in progress? Britmax (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Carole, at least 18 people !voted preferring a move away from the "Murder of..." title, compared to only about 6 who preferred the former title. However, I did not do a straight up-and-down headcount (before now), nor did I factor in whether people "strongly" opposed or supported if it wasn't backed up by policy. I based my finding on the strength of the arguments. Those favoring a move from "Murder" made strong arguments that this is not a neutral term in this case. I believe consensus was against moving to JonBenét Ramsey (especially considering that the article was moved away from that title 4 years ago). The best supported options were "Killing of..." and "Death of..."; in my judgment, the latter had the stronger support and is the most neutral option. Britmax, the discussion had been open for a full RM period, and we have a serious backlog right now. It seems to me that consensus has been reached (especially regarding moving away from the "Murder of..." title), so I felt it was time to move it. If others feel strongly about it, I can restore the page and reopen the discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much, that is very helpful input. lt wasn't so much that I had a strong feeling about it - I didn't weigh in til I heard a suggestion that made sense (just use the JonBenet's name). How about if I post this subsection at the Titles talk page - whatever they say is the right way to go works for me.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Cuchullain. I was beginning to lose heart because it seemed we're "trying to herd cats", and because of the blow-back I was getting from a particular editor. You've restored my faith in the process. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

JustinTime55—did you give a reason for opposing my suggestion? All I read was "This has gotten absolutely ridiculous. This article was originally called JonBenét Ramsey, and it was moved. So now a redirect already exists named JonBenét Ramsey which points here. There's no sense in moving it back again."[1] Bus stop (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the rationale that those favoring a move made strong arguments that the term "murder" is not neutral. Our policy on article titles says in relation to NPOV - resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors. The term murder is reliably sourced and is the prevalent term used in sources about this case. I see no argument based in policy that using the term murder is not compliant with WP:NPOV or WP:TITLE. Nor do I see any argument based on any reliable sources that the term "death" or "killing" is the prevalent term used when sources discuss this case. Looks like to me that it is a straight up !headcount based on preference, rather than policy.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a "non-neutral but common name" – the specific phrase "Murder of JonBenet Ramsey" isn't the common name for the case. It's a descriptive title, one of many variants that are in use, and those "should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions". Various editors gave compelling arguments that "murder" is non-neutral or misleading here, as it may imply a specific legal meaning. I can assure you that my decision wasn't a "straight up !headcount" as I literally didn't do one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Cuchullain—what are you referring to when you say "we have a serious backlog right now"? Bus stop (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a serious requested moves backlog that we're trying to work through.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Why close a discussion while it is underway? OK, so there is a "serious requested moves backlog". But this discussion is presently taking place. It is active. Wikipedia isn't built in a day. What harm would be done by allowing the discussion to go on for a longer period of time? It is even possible that the "serious requested moves backlog" would become alleviated by natural means with the passage of time. In a collaborative project the exchange of ideas is important. Editors working together is a good thing. I fail to see what is accomplished by curtailing discussion. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There was already a decisive consensus, backed by strong arguments to move away from the "Murder of..." title, and I felt consensus had further emerged for the "Death of..." version. I didn't see the benefit of keeping the discussion in the backlog when an answer had emerged. However, as I said, "If others feel strongly about it, I can restore the page and reopen the discussion."--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The move request wasn't about the "specific phrase", it was about changing the specific word "murder" to death or killing, as can be seen in the WP:RM nomination (the word "murder" is not used in the title), and any of these words (murder, death, killing) used in conjunction with her name make it a descriptive title, and murder is not an editor's opinion because it is reliably sourced and the prevalent term used. And the arguments about the word murder being "misleading here, as it may imply a specific legal meaning", don't hold water either, because we do have a specific legal determination, her death was ruled a homicide. See also: Felony murder rule (Colorado). And we also know that the prosecutor considered it murder, because when John Mark Karr confessed, he was arrested and charged with first-degree murder and the grand jury considered it murder as well, indicting the Ramsey's as being accessories to first-degree murder, so those arguments based on the term "murder" being misleading are neither compelling or strong, when you have the prosecutor, the grand jury and hundreds of reliable sources using the word murder. Now, having said all this, I don't disagree with the move to "Death of", because like "murder", it is neutral and reliably sourced, but I do take issue with the notion that the nomination and the support arguments were compelling or strong, when the stated reasoning for the requested move relies on fringe theories of whodunit about family members that have already been "completely cleared" by the Boulder DA.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that there are two main types of theories about her death: 1) intruder theory or 2) a family member killed her, which many theorists consider likely accidental. When there was a true bill for the indictment against the Ramseys, there was not a charge of murder. The only thing conclusive is that she died. It seems that best options are either "Death of" or her name alone.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I support "her name alone". The reader is not so stupid that they can't read the first sentence of the lead. It tells us that she was "found dead" and that she was a "six-year-old American girl". Any reader looking for the story is going to be looking for the name of the person—JonBenét Ramsey. Obviously this article is about the "Death of JonBenét Ramsey" but we don't have to use that as the title. Titles should be brief. They should contain just enough information to identify the article. The person's life also has value. This is above and beyond Wikipedia's notability guidelines. She was part of a fabric of people. She was torn away from them. We are writing an article about a death, but in so doing we are inevitably, even if inadvertently, acknowledging a life. We best accomplish acknowledging her life by using her name alone as the title for the article. Bus stop (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Did anyone from the titles WP weigh in after I made a post on their talk page? If not, can we identify someone from that wikiproject to weigh in?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I see your post here. I am glad that you made that post. I am not aware that anyone has responded from that post yet. Bus stop (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I obviously disagree that the article should have been moved to "Death of JonBenét Ramsey." Cuchullain stated that the move is "supported by the WP:NPOV policy, to move away from 'Murder' in the title." I ask: How does the NPOV policy support this move? The WP:NPOV policy is about going by what the majority of reliable sources state, and as made clear by me and especially by Isaidnoway, the majority of reliable sources call this death a murder. And yet Wikipedia should abstain from stating "murder"? That is not what the WP:NPOV policy supports. But since being reminded that some of our articles about deaths that were officially ruled to be murders use a "Death of" title, I do not mind the "Death of" title as much as I initially did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Murder is a specific crime that implies culpability (e.g., mens rea) in addition to homicide, and it is also a different crime than manslaughter. The crime of murder has not been proven, so for us to use a title that asserts that the incident was a murder would not be NPOV. No one has even been charged with the crime of murder in this case – much less convicted – and there are certainly some reliable sources that have discussed credible non-murder theories for what happened. Considering that the person who killed this child might still be alive, it could also be a violation of BLP policy for us to declare that their act was the crime of murder (without giving them the benefit of a fair trial to determine whether that is the case). While some sources may refer to it as a murder, we should be cautious about reaching that conclusion here. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

BarrelProof, I've been over this with you in the #Requested move 20 September 2016 section above, including that there is more than just one definition of murder. Just as there is no need for me to repeat what I stated there to you, there is no need for you to essentially repeat what you stated there to me. I do not agree with your rationale. Wikipedia has a way (a number of ways) it is supposed to work. And for reasons made wonderfully clear by Isaidnoway, I do not believe that this move followed the way that Wikipedia is actually supposed to work. The "Murder of JonBenét Ramsey" title was not a WP:NPOV or WP:BLP violation in any sense of the word (those policies' words, to be exact). The rationale for this move is just another way that the WP:NPOV policy has been understood/misused. It is commonly misunderstood/misused. And it's not that "some sources may refer to [the death] as a murder"; it's that the overwhelming majority of sources refer to the death as a murder. I go by what the sources state with WP:Due weight. That's just the way that I am. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the comment above yours is a perfect example of how these requested move discussions can tend to go off the rails into the personal opinions and views of editors, instead of having a debate that is grounded in policies/guidelines. You can clearly see this in the nominator's reasoning for the move which is based on theories about family members that have already been cleared of any wrongdoing. There's a reason we have a policy on article titles and a section in that policy that addresses neutrality in article titles, and as far as I'm concerned there was no good reason given to change it - considering that the overwhelming majority of English-language reliable sources have continually and consistently used the term "murder" to describe her death - December 28, 1996, JonBenet...had been murdered, September 2016...Ramsey was murdered.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It is entirely correct to say JonBenet died. Since the page has already been moved and since no one has been convicted of murder, why not just leave it "Death of JonBenet Ramsey" at this point? (As an FYI, search on article titles beginning with "Death of" and "Murder of", which from a little skimming generally include convictions).--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Length of ransom note?

I didn't want to start a new topic and don't want to make the change on my own: In the first paragraph, there is a reference to a "four-page ransom note", but I have always heard and seen that it was a three-page ransom note. The information is so basic to me that I didn't want to make the change in case there's something I'm missing. Isn't it "three-page ransom note?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smbil58 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

(This is a separate issue from the "small note" above and shouldn't be buried there.) I thought I heard "four pages" in the recent CBS special, but I could be mistaken. I made the summary less specific and changed "four pages" to "lengthy". The note was certainly longer than it needed to be to communicate a ransom demand, and has been judged by some analysts as an attempt to "oversell" itself. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Two and a half pages (67 lines, 372 words). Here is a photo and another. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

What I think I conflated, is that the analyst team said the only necessary parts of the ransom note were contained in four lines. It certainly made no sense that a kidnapper/killer would spend so much time, risking detection, in the house writing two and a half pages. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It certainly made no sense that a kidnapper/killer would spend so much time, risking detection, in the house writing two and a half pages... TWICE!!! MrZoolook (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite of intro to be NPOV

JustinTime55, regarding this edit you made, being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what it means in common discourse. Actually read the WP:Neutral policy. It is about giving most of our weight to what the literature generally states, not to minority views and especially not to fringe theories. This article clearly needs more eyes on it. I'll go ahead and alert all of the WikiProjects this talk page is tagged with to to this discussion. I'll alert the WP:Neutral talk page and WP:NPOV noticeboard too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me... I don't need a lecture on the fringe theory guideline; I am no conspiracy "theorist" and am the last person you will find to be promoting fringe theories. Exactly what "literature" are you talking about? No one has been convicted (or even charged) in this twenty-year-old, unsolved case, which remains controversial, on the order of something like the Kennedy assassination (but even more so, as that case unlike this one, has a mainstream solution). And the prognosis is that it will quite likely remain so for some time, until such time as either a murderer is found, or the Ramseys confess to a coverup. The evidence is contradictory, and cases can be made for both sides (as has been brought out by a number of conflicting recent TV documentaries, which both support and contradict the intruder theory. Absent this, there can be no such thing as a "mainstream view" of the case. Your POV is showing.

My revisions were carefully tailored to accommodate all conflicting theories about the case, instead of uncritically taking the Ramsey's account, which according to two of the theories would contribute to a cover-up. This meets, not violates, the neutral POV policy. In fact, it was less NPOV before.

To wit:

• "found dead" vs. "murdered": Without getting into the semantics of what "murdered" means (see the Move discussion above), the change is certainly accurate; how can you quarrel with it, unless you are pushing John Ramsey's contention that some outside "animal" murdered her?
• "apparently found the body" instead of "found her body": Makes no accusations, while allowing for the possibility it was a show (amazing coincidence he happens to "find" it almost as soon as the police tell him to search the house.
• "had a broken skull from a blow to the head" vs. "struck on the head" -- Again, what's the problem?
• "had apparently been strangled" vs. "strangled": Again, simply describing what was found. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, JustinTime55's edit -- especially in light of the cogent argument above -- looks like a clear improvement to me, on all counts. While I know little about this case, most Americans would know that the Ramseys' accounts have been broadly questioned, and cannot be presented as though they are fact without violating NPOV. I would be interested to hear Flyer22 Reborn specific reply to the points made by JT55; it's hard for me to understand how this edit could be seen as counterproductive. -Pete (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Peteforsyth (Pete). JustinTime55, like I just noted above, what I mean by "literature" is exactly what Roman Spinner stated above. He stated, "After examining stories on this subject in various newspapers throughout the English-speaking world, I found that nearly all have used the term 'murder'."

That is my POV since you claim that "[my] POV is showing." The matter of the fact is that the notion that JonBenét Ramsey was murdered is the more accepted notion out of all the scenarios. Like I stated above, law enforcement and reports on this case commonly treat this child's death as a murder. It is not appropriate to use the WP:Editorializing "apparently" for pieces that are very much accepted in the literature, and especially pieces that were accepted by an autopsy, which is why I reverted you here. Apparently, you state that you understand the WP:Neutral policy, and yet you go ahead and make edits like those? I reiterate that the WP:Neutral policy is about giving most of our weight to what the literature generally states, not to minority views and especially not to fringe theories. Where are the conflicting reports that the father found the body? And how do they outweigh or come close to outweighing the overwhelming reports in the literature that the father found the body? The literature generally reports that the father found the body, and without any qualifiers such as "apparently." The autopsy and literature reports that she was strangled, and usually without any qualifiers or similar wording casting doubt on the matter. That she was strangled is the official autopsy report. I've read a lot of the literature on this case, and it's rare that the death -- "asphyxiation due to strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma", which is the cause of death reported by the autopsy -- is viewed as an accident.

It also is not appropriate to use sources based on the documentary The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey when that documentary is being criticized and is likely about to go through a defamation/libel case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

As for changing "murder" to some other term, you did this while, above, we are still currently undergoing a move discussion about the title. As that move discussion shows, editors have disagreed that "murder" is non-neutral. Sources in the article very clearly use the term "murder" anyway. I don't see what "John Ramsey's contention that some outside 'animal' murdered her" has to do with the matter. That she is widely believed to have been murdered, and that article title currently states "murder", and that many sources (including a number in the article) use the term "murder" to describe the death, does have something to do with it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Flyer22 Reborn I never said your POV is showing, and you've never reverted me on this article, as I've never edited it. Maybe you're getting me mixed up with Justin (who I don't know, though we've maybe crossed paths).

One observation I'd add -- the term "murder" has a very precise meaning, at least in any given legal jurisdiction (I think it varies from state to state); but it's often used in a very imprecise way. If somebody's killed by another person, a court might find that murder did not take place -- maybe it was manslaughter, maybe it was self defense, maybe it was insanity, etc. So in that respect, it only goes so far to say that a lot of sources have used the term "murder." It wouldn't be right to strongly assert that a murder happened based on a strong majority of imprecise media reports. If there's anything in the academic literature about the case, that should probably be given stronger weight in determining how this article is structured. -Pete (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Peteforsyth (Pete), I didn't state that you did. Look above again. I said hi to you. I then moved on to replying to JustinTime55. I pinged you so that you would know that I'd replied. You stated that you were interested in my reply. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn You're quite right, sorry for misreading that, and thanks for the ping. -Pete (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Baseless assumption by an outsider

How does this guess get a mention?

"Stephen Singular, an investigative journalist"

Its pure assumption by an outsider with no evidence!--Simon19800 (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed "investigative journalist and" from the sentence in question.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Two theories

I am a little confused reading the article, because I think it leaves out some key points. There are two theories: intruder theory (largely DA / Lou Smith) and the family theory (Boulder police, grand jury) - and the way that evidence is viewed is largely dependent upon which theory one subscribes. Some of the evidence is not discussed here - and of the evidence discussed, it's not always a full representation of the information, because it doesn't fully address the view from each theory's perspective.

Recently there was an edit to remove information of undue weight - so I didn't want to start adding info before addressing it here.

I recommend adding a section towards the beginning of the article about the two theories, and how the clash between the DA and police perspectives made it difficult to come to a conclusion in this case. Then, address the information from the two perspectives-- perhaps with a new/additional article such as Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories that explores the perspectives and how the information is viewed from each perspective. The following is a stab at how that might look - with better wording and sources to be attributed to the text if it's used:

Evidence	Intruder theory	Family theory
Overview	Someone outside of the family murdered JonBenet. Theories: a pedophile stalker, someone intending to kidnap her but something went wrong, someone who hated the Ramseys.	Someone inside the family accidentally caused the death of JonBenet and then covered up the death by making it look like a kidnapping.
Basement entry	How the intruder entered and exited the house. The suitcase used as either means to step up and exit the house or an intended way to get JonBenet out of the house.	Since cobwebs weren't disturbed, it is not believed that non-family members entered the house. One of the Ramsey's may have put the suitcase by the window to throw the police off.
Marks on JonBenet's body	Taser used to subdue JonBenet	Piece of railroad track, perhaps jabbed into JonBenet to see if she was alive
DNA evidence	Proves family members weren't involved	DNA could have been transferred, such as when her body was moved, or during the manufacturing of her clothes
etc

Perhaps there could be a {{main}} article link to the new article under a new "Two theories" heading. There's a lot more to go into this table, but I thought this might be enough to give a feel for how it might work.

Any thoughts about this approach? Another approach to address the two theories?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Since there's no objections so far - and the dueling theories are key to understanding the players and issues - I'll work on drafting a short section about the two main theories. I could start a draft of Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories, which would be clearer as it would be researched, cited, and more robust.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I was so slow to respond. I don't object, in fact I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks a researched, cited, and robust section about the theories needs to be added (and isn't "giving undue weight" to "fringe theories".) I don't know whether literally using a table in the article is a good idea or not (but the same idea has occurred to me). I'd like to see what you come up with.

I think the subject of suspects should be broached. Is the "family theory" really just one, or is it really two (making a total of 3), since the only credible family suspects are Patsy (motivated by supposed bed-wetting), and Burke (motivated by jealously, and possibly triggered by pineapple theft)?

Should a row be dedicated to strengths and weaknesses of each theory? (Without resorting to OR, of course.) JustinTime55 (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @JustinTime55:,

Yes, the intention is to hit the high-level theories: intruder and family. There are more theories if someone wants to break down the combination of family members or scenarios for intruders. I was thinking of keeping the section in this article high level, which is essentially the Boulder Police / grand jury scenario (family) and the Boulder District Attorney / Lou Smit / Ramsey family theory (intruder), without getting into too much detail that starts getting into fringe theories, as you mention. Maybe I can get that high level summary researched and written for this article and then take it from there.

If we could get some sources that weigh in on the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence for the Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories page, that could be interesting. The tricky part is finding someone with an objective viewpoint. I'll see if I come across something like that, though, that could be very interesting!

Thanks for weighing in!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It's essentially just a shell right now, but the draft that I've started to start working on the evidence by type of theory is here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with the current Theories and suspects section. Adding any more about Burke killing his sister, however, would be giving WP:Undue weight to The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey documentary. Similar goes for other fringe theories. The Burke stuff mainly belongs in the Case of: JonBenét Ramsey article. I don't think that a Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories article is warranted, since this is not like the death of Marilyn Monroe or death of Kurt Cobain, where there are numerous theories that have a lot of reliable sources commenting on them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope, @Flyer22 Reborn: I'm not looking to add anything more about Burke to the article. I was thinking about trimming down the The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey info, too.

So, I'm hearing that you're against the article that I'm working on to evaluate the evidence? I would disagree about the degree of notoriety that this case has spun nationally and internationally. I don't want to work on an article that is going to get tagged, though, for deletion after putting a lot of time into it. Once I did some work on the current article, I think it tells the story better of the two types of theories; It just doesn't get into much of the evidence and how differently it's viewed depending upon the viewpoint.

Are you saying that you'd nominate this for deletion if it was finished and put into article space?--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Despite the notoriety of the JonBenét Ramsey death, I don't think that a Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories article is warranted. If the other theories were as talked about and/or as accepted, I wouldn't mind such an article. I wouldn't mind a lot of that information being covered in this article, just as the Death of Marilyn Monroe and Death of Kurt Cobain articles have sections about several theories. But I wouldn't nominate the article for deletion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, the other articles that you mention get into theories about specific suspects. I haven't even thought of tackling all the suspects for the intruder theory because there are so many - and some were tied up in lawsuits, which may make issues with them being covered here. I did add one as an example of the intruder / pedophile theory, since he was covered in a documentary. Do you think that's ok - or does it appear to single him out since there's no other intruder suspect included in the article?

I was thinking about keeping the added article high level, evaluating the evidence by the types of theories. Maybe I'll keep at it and then see: 1) is there info that is some info significant enough to move to the main article (e.g., abrasions on her body, boot print found by her body, past behavior impacts)? or 2) is there enough info and sources to make the evidence by theories article viable? I don't mind plugging away at it a little longer to see if it's viable under either of those scenarios.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I've got enough new information that it appears to warrant a separate article, so I'm looking to move it into article space. It would be helpful to get feedback about the Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories, which I'll provide a link to in this main article--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Two theories: source

Does anyone have an opinion about using JonBenet Ramsey: 5 facts about the infamous murder of a 6-year-old beauty queen, which was a Fox News report of former Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner's comments made on Reddit? Pro) It's a news source, Con) It's essentially about his comments made on Reddit. It would be great to get his perspective, but I am not sure that this would be considered a reliable source. What do you think?--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Struck out this question. I figured out it wouldn't be helpful, even if the source was reliable.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from notes

I've tried to be really thorough in research, and wanted to check the talk page for anything new to me. The following is a list of things mentioned in the comments that I'll work on for the theories article :

• Burke Ramsey - "The violent nature of the case itself practically ruled out Burke, as it takes a considerable amount of strength to garrote a person (and there was a lot of force put into it, as one can see from the autopsy photographs)"

Very good point, I've also seen somewhere that he didn't likely know how to tie the knots to be able to perform garroting. Will look for that info.

• Burke Ramsey - "use of the flashlight".

I think I have that but will double-check

That's all that I picked up from the talk page - if there's anything else that I'm missing that could be picked up for an even-handed or more complete approach, please let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at BLPN

There is a discussion at WP:BLPN, section - Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories, editors may be interested in commenting. Thanks.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Due to the great editing, it seems to me that the article is getting close to Good article territory. Nominating it will bring a new set of eyes and a very thorough review of the article. I'm not sure what category this would fall under, though: Social sciences and society, Miscellaneous, or something else.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Defamation lawsuit - Burke

@Anthony22: Regarding the comment in the edit history: "FYI, there's a big story about Burke Ramsey in today's news; he's suing for libel." Is there any new information above what is covered in the last paragraph of the Defamation lawsuits section?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I should not have said "today's news." The story appeared several days ago. You can learn more by clicking on the following link:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/jonbenets-brother-files-150m-defamation-936001

Anthony22 (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, someone's already added that to the article - but we need a source for the$150 million - I'll see if I can find a more reliable source and fix the cn tag I added.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Defamation suits

I could not find a reliable source that stated that the following media outlets were sued for defamation: include The Globe, Time Inc., The Fox News Channel, Court TV, and The New York Post.

The only place that these outlets are mentioned are in a self-published book, which is not a reliable source. Perhaps I missed something, though, does anyone know of specific outlets about sources for any of these organizations?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing issues related to close paraphrasing

Hi @Anthony22:, This edit is one more example of wording that creates close paraphrasing issues - with content that has few options for avoiding close paraphrasing. One of the issues in close paraphrasing is use of words in the same order that they come from the source. Since both your edit and my edits are correct, why not keep the one that gets us a little further from close paraphrasing? I bring this up because this is the second time it was changed.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Problem with INVESTIGATION Section

I try to fix and correct errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and sentence structuring, but I have come upon a specific instance that has me completely baffled.

Go to the INVESTIGATION Section of this article. The first line of the section contains the following sentence:

Experts, media commentators, and the Ramseys have identified potential suspects in the case,[44] that Time reported was officially ruled a homicide.[2]

"That Time reported was officially ruled a homicide" is poor grammar and wording. This phrase is illogical. Who is willing and capable of making a necessary correction?

Anthony22 (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone wanted to add that the case was a homicide case. It is stated later, so it may not be needed here. At first there was just a floating sentence without context, which was very awkward.

I don't see a huge issue here, other than a comma that's not needed. I think we're getting into personal style issues lately. I'll take a crack, though, and see what you think.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done, see this edit.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The edit history shows that I wanted the investigation section to be clear that the case was initially considered a homicide. It is still considered one, but it was originally considered one too. CaroleHenson moved the text to the autopsy section and worded it as though the autopsy ruled the case as such. There was an objection. It was moved back to the investigation section, and then CaroleHenson added the awkward wording. I'm fine with the new placement (in the autopsy section) and the new wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That wouldn't be my summary of the situation - and it's pointless to explore that - I've you're ok with the verbiage, that's the key point.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Spelling of name

People are either pronouncing the name wrong or are using the wrong accent over the second e in JonBenet. As it is spelled it should be pronounced as a soft "e" (as in elephant), or a grave used (ie the accent slopes the other way). -- this was posted by User:147.69.129.222 (talk) on November 3, 2016

Is there a request here for an edit? Or, is this a general comment?--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)‎

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 #Move review? 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 #Move review? 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#Consolidation opportunities, 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 Flyer22 Reborn'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)

RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy?

This RfC is an extension of the Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#I have removed "Murder" references discussion on the talk page, which is an extension of a recent move discussion. One view is that use of the word murder within the article is against the WP:NPOV policy since "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." Because of this view, it is argued that we also cannot use murder categories in the article. The other view is that the rationale for moving the article is flawed because the WP:NPOV policy, especially its WP:Due weight section, is about giving most of our weight to what the majority of reliable sources state. The vast majority of reliable sources call JonBenét Ramsey's death a murder. Therefore, stating that she was murdered and/or using "murder" categories is not a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. Furthermore, as has been noted before, murder is not always intentional.

I will alert related WikiProjects to this RfC, editors at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia talk:Article titles and Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, and editors at WP:Village pump (policy) WP:Village pump (miscellaneous) (Village pump (policy) is not for dispute issues.) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey 2

No. It's one thing to suggest that we avoid the word murder. It's another thing to use one of our core policies, the WP:NPOV policy, to shape the article in a way that the core policy does not at all support. The WP:NPOV policy does not support us avoiding the word murder or the removal of the following important murder categories: Category:1996 murders in the United States, Category:Murdered American children, Category:People murdered in Colorado and Category:Unsolved murders in the United States. Also see my commentary in the Discussion section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

CommentYes. I believe that use of the word murder excludes manslaughter and it means disregarding source content that does not support a murder theory (and I mean this broadly beyond a family member) - and giving WP:UNDUE weight to the murder theory, since there is no conviction.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

See below. The two theories are called "Intruder theory" and "Family member theory," not "Murder theory" vs. "Accident theory." And in the case of both theories, the term "murder" has been used; see the arguments made by Isaidnoway in the #Move review? discussion above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Based upon the survey is not about whether or not we should use "murder" in the title. It's about whether or not using the term murder or murder categories anywhere in the article is against the WP:NPOV policy. My argument is obviously that it's not against the WP:NPOV policy. said to Montanabw by Flyer22Reborn on 08:37, 24 December 2016, I don't consider it a NPOV issue to use "murder" in the article the way it is now and I don't have a problem with the categorization of murder, as I said below. My issue is greater use of the word murder and renaming the article to "Murder of" JBR, because I think that would be undue weight based upon the sources.--—CaroleHenson (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

No - It's a nuanced case, I'll grant, but ultimately I feel WP:WEIGHT must control here, certainly above the alternative here, which essentially is a kind of WP:OR (applying deductive reasoning to the facts to decide what the appropriate terminology "must" be, rather than just going with the language employed by the strong majority of the sources). I understand what Carole is arguing here, but a number of factors discount it as the policy-correct approach. First, we are not talking about applying the correct legal term; we're an encyclopedia, not a jury--we use the language of our sources and do not engage in an OR analysis of whether it is precise, meant to impute a certain threshold of guilt,or just simple common parlance. Second, states which use common law principles of murder vary considerably on where they place the divide between murder or manslaughter (or whether they have one at all) and the legal distinctions can be quite complex and differential between jurisdiction, meaning we'd be engaging in yet more OR if we tried to decide the "right" term rather than the term used by our sources (remember, Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth); as just one example of an uncountable number of variations--depending on the facts, even if the crime met the conditions for manslaughter in Colorado, it could still be felony murder. Anyway, this is all really beside the point and added to demonstrate exactly why Wikipedia had adopted a standard of keeping our own analysis of the facts out of the equation. Insofar as our reliable sources clearly label the death a murder in general, there's really no question here: we have to use that terminology. WP:UNDUE is not about comparing the variety of theories, it's strictly about looking at the WP:WEIGHT of our sources, and the language they employ. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: CaroleHenson replied to Snow Rise, but I also wanted to reply to CaroleHenson. I moved the replies below, so as to not clutter the Survey section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes - sort of - I didn't see a clear question put for RFC, but the argument for 'murder' as higher weight seems flawed in 2 ways. First, it seems *not* predominant -- a google is showing 'killing' at 600K hits as the more so, and the death and murder roughly ~tied~ tied at 400K hits. Second, 'murder' is more narrow in meaning and commonly killing with malice, so would not suit the whole topic. I think that the killing is suspected to be a murder should be mentioned -- but stated as one view and not put made a category tag and not given the impression of being the main one or answer -- remain clear that the death is undetermined to keep the article about all the items and WP:INTEGRITY to a main point that this sory has been and still is all over the map. Markbassett (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Do not use "murder" in a title: Say "death". "Murder" is a legal term of art, and its definition is very precise. Also, it is the action of the perpetrator, the victim is dead, no matter how it happens. Unless there is a convicted perpetrator, we are, in a sense, declaring a legal status that does not exist. Montanabw^(talk) 22:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw, the survey is not about whether or not we should use "murder" in the title. It's about whether or not using the term murder or murder categories anywhere in the article is against the WP:NPOV policy. My argument is obviously that it's not against the WP:NPOV policy. I'll respond further below. Markbassett's argument has also been challenged below, by me and by Snow Rise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Death as intrinsically both neutral and accurate. Where there is a dispute, I tend to come down on the "least offensive" wording as being best. This applies also to categorizations. I also would point out that the choice of words does affect known "living persons" and that WP:BLP applies here in that regard. Collect (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Note (for closing administrator and/or others): Some votes, or sort of votes, have been made below. This includes opinions on the use of categories. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And I also note that editors stating "use death" or similar (immediately above and BarrelProof below me) is not an answer as to whether or not use of murder in the article's text, or use of murder categories in the article, is against the WP:NPOV policy. This RfC is supposed to be about what our policy actually supports. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

"Death", not "murder" (except as a theory). Murder is a legal term that describes a specific criminal act and state of mind. There are several plausible explanations for this child's death that do not fit within the definition of murder. Accidental killing is one category of such explanations, but not the only one. For example, the killing could have been intentional but not culpable due to insanity, reduced mental capacity, impairment, lack of intent to kill, childhood lack of understanding, etc. (see, e.g., Mary Bell, a child who intentionally killed two people but was not considered guilty of murder). No one has been convicted of murder in this case, and we are here to provide information, not to jump to conclusions. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion 2

As I mentioned in the above section where I opened an RfC, I think this narrows the discussion from what is in the RfC to just an NPOV discussion. Saying that all people that object to the use of the word "murder" is because it's a NPOV issue is not correct. Well, it's self-explanatory above, I just would like to ensure that we have a thorough discussion and get this resolved.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

And as I mentioned above, 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. Whether or not use of the word murder, or use of murder categories, violates the WP:NPOV policy is the issue we need to tackle first and foremost when it comes to using the word murder in this article. Do not derail this RfC with side issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I will reply above rather than having the info in two places.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your "yes" vote above, "[g]iving WP:UNDUE weight to the murder theory"? That makes no sense in terms of the WP:DUE WEIGHT policy. It makes no sense for the very fact that the the death is overwhelmingly called a murder and has been overwhelmingly treated as a murder. Therefore, how can using the word murder or murder categories in the article be considered a violation of the WP:NPOV policy when the WP:NPOV policy is about going with what the vast majority of sources state? Furthermore, the two theories are called "Intruder theory" and "Family member theory," not "Murder theory" vs. "Accident theory." And in the case of both theories, the term "murder" has been used; see the arguments made by Isaidnoway in the #Move review? discussion above. You keep defining "murder" in some narrow way that the case did not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I am very happy to wait and see how people vote. It's not unusual in AfD discussions for my vote to be changed by hearing points from a different perspective. So, there's no reason that cannot happen here. Perhaps by thinking we should have a conviction, or thinking that there may be scenarios where it could be ruled manslaughter, I am viewing this too narrowly. I am willing to have my opinion changed by hearing points from others.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Snow Rise Okay, your points about why we don't have to worry about using the correct term make sense. One thought about that, though, death absolutely applies here. Using murder is limiting unless there is an overwhelming use of the word "murder" in the sources.

When I searched in google news on < "JonBenet Ramsey" -murder >, I get 336,000 responses. When I search on < "JonBenet Ramsey" murder >, I get 378,000 responses.

So, it's not exactly a landslide from that admittedly raw sneak peek. I guess my point is, isn't calling it murder WP:OR, because that automatically means that it cannot be anything but murder - due to WP:Common sense (in the traditional use of the word, not throw all the rules out)?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your WP:GOOGLEHITS argument. Even if one looks at the sources in this article, we can see just how much the word murder is used. The sources in this article and in general show that there is indeed an overwhelming use of the word murder in the sources. Arguing that the sources also use the word death makes no sense to me considering that "death" is obviously going to be used since she died. The WP:OR policy is about there not being a source that supports the content and/or interpreting the sources to make a statement not supported by the sources. Really, look at what the WP:OR policy states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I looked at the References section in the current version and I got down to #14 and there were 3 times I saw "murder" by that point. I'm not sure if using the title is a good way to evaluate if murder is used in the article. Some of the other 11 could have used the word murder inside the article.
• I didn't say the google search was a scientific approach or a proper survey. It was anecdotal. You have said that murder is overwhelmingly used in the articles - I was expecting to see a much bigger gulf between the two sets of numbers based upon your statement.
• Here is what I said about death: One thought about that, though, death absolutely applies here.
• From WP:OR: Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources and Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. - Basically, it's saying don't come to conclusions that aren't supported by the sources. If the majority of the sources do not say that it is murder, calling it murder, seems to me to be WP:OR / WP:SYNTH (I just remembered having read it in the WP:OR page, I didn't remember the section.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are going with the References section point, but it's a flawed point. And, really, I'd rather you not elaborate on it.

Your Google search argument is flawed not only because of some reasons noted at WP:GOOGLEHITS, but also because you seem to be comparing use of "murder" to "death," which is silly per what I stated above. I've argued that "murder" is the prevalent term because it is the prevalent term when it comes to describing the death (the cause of death or even mentioning the case), meaning any word other than "death." I'm going to go ahead and quote Isaidnoway right now: "And the arguments about the word murder being 'misleading here, as it may imply a specific legal meaning', don't hold water either, because we do have a specific legal determination, her death was ruled a homicide. See also: Felony murder rule (Colorado). And we also know that the prosecutor considered it murder, because when John Mark Karr confessed, he was arrested and charged with first-degree murder and the grand jury considered it murder as well, indicting the Ramsey's as being accessories to first-degree murder, so those arguments based on the term 'murder' being misleading are neither compelling or strong, when you have the prosecutor, the grand jury and hundreds of reliable sources using the word murder."

Your interpretation of the WP:OR policy is just as flawed as your interpretation of the WP:NPOV policy. It is not a violation of the WP:OR policy to call this death a murder considering that numerous sources refer to the death as a murder. It's as simple as that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

You have already mentioned on your talk page edit summary that you don't want to hear my views, and I would like to hear other's viewpoints. So, why respond?--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

When your views are circular, like the ones you insinuated as a slight to me, I don't want to hear from you. If you misinterpret a policy and argue that misinterpretation, which means that uninformed editors might believe you, I am going to challenge it. You see, I have my pet peeves too. You came to my talk page with a mess of a comment about how you would wait for others to reply. Only you have not been doing that. Do not post such a comment on my talk page again. If I must engage with you on this subject, I would prefer that the engagement is limited to one area. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

To address one issue raised between you, Google analytics is sometimes a tool used to make an argument about the sources broadly, and I see no problem with it. it is hardly by any means a slam dunk, but it can be part of the equation. However, if I may also note, there is a flaw in your statistical approach. It may very well be that a large number of sources have an overlap, where news articles use the word death, but in fact classify it has murder. You can easily get a sense of whether this is true by using the sources currently cited in the article and seeing if this trend holds there. Then do mutually exclusive versions of the two searches you shared above. Between those two metrics, I would be surprised if you do not find that many are cases of the event first being called a murder and then, because news media avoids close replication of terms in immediately succeeding sentences, going on to say something like "The December 25th death...", "a death that gripped public awareness...", "The death would set of an investigation that...." When we make a judgement about WP:WEIGHT it is a matter of looking at the numbers and the context and tone of how sources place their emphasis. Now, I'm not saying for sure the above scenario is what's happening here, but it does seem to me the most likely situation. If I have time, I'll crunch the numbers and review some sources to give a better opinion, but I suspect you two will get to it yourselves before I, given the speed of your rapport here. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 08:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, have taken a look at the sources currently relied upon in the article, and the results argue to me that the inclusion of "murder" as a (or even the) primary handle of the incident comports with those sources. Even looking at the headlines, there is a strong disposition to "murder" over other terms, and even those that go with "death" often reference the death as a murder within the source. If it comes down to it, and you guys can't see eye-to-eye and need a third opinion, I would say it is acceptable for the lead. But I wonder if you two might have considered "killing" as a reasonable middle ground solution? Ugh, this discussion is getting morbid. FYI, I have not had a chance to do a statistical analysis, but considering the above, being based in the sources we are actually using for the article, which have thus further met our WP:RS standard, I think that's overwhelmingly the most important metric in policy/editorial terms. I'll still look at the numbers though. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I am just seeing your suggestion. For me, "killing" works.—CaroleHenson (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Snow Rise. That's all that I'm stating -- that use of the term murder actually is not against the WP:NPOV policy. I don't know if Markbassett above thinks that I'm suggesting that we should use murder throughout the article, but I'm not. I'm suggesting that we not misuse this core policy to exclude the word murder and murder categories in the article. This core policy clearly supports the use of murder. I wish that more people who understand this policy as well as you do would weigh in. I (and others) have stated before that editors too often misunderstand the WP:NPOV policy. They act like being neutral on Wikipedia means what being neutral means in common discourse. It does not. If you have any idea about how to get more policy-driven editors to weigh in on this RfC, please do. I find this RfC to be important since it includes one of our core policies and the result of this RfC can affect similar discussions in the future. I heavily advertised it, but it's not getting much traction yet. It's as though editors are confused by the issue. Either that, or they just don't think this RfC is important. As for using "killing," I did use "killed" for one instance days ago, so as to not call the death a murder at the start of the article. And I only did that because so many people interpret murder strictly. But then again, many people also think of murder first when seeing the word killing or killed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

As for Markbassett's argument, I already responded to the "death" comparison above. And so has Snow Rise. I just don't find the "death" comparison valid. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn - that there *is* a comparison argued and reasonably held means the side based on the "vast majority" WP:WEIGHT saying murder looks basically disproven, and the side of the RFC stated on multiple theories and so should not phrase it as "was" murder or use a category of murder simply looks to be correct. Mostly it seems to me that the swirl of theories over murder or accident and by who is the main aspect of it all, and more a matter of WP:INTEGRITY here to 'just follow the cites'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Mark, genuinely meaning no offense here, but your last statement (particularly the first sentence) is so grammatically garbled, I'm having a hard time being certain as to what exactly you are saying--at least to the degree of having enough certainty to respond to your arguments. But there is one statement that seems fairly straightforward and is highly problematic in policy terms, so I'll address that. The problem with your position is that any conclusions that you (or I, or any other editors) reach as to what the situation "really seems to be" are not meant to be a part of the Wikipedia analysis (see WP:OR)--and this is true no matter how obvious or non-controversial the observation seem to be to any one of us. So, in other words, when you come to your own conclusion that "Mostly it seems to me that the swirl of theories over murder or accident", that provides us with absolutely no guidance on how to resolve this issue within policy constraints. Even if we personally agree with that assessment (and I think most or all of us here probably do), we will still need to go with the language demanded by the WP:WEIGHT of the sources. That some of the facts of some of the theories do not comport with what we'd expect from a murder charge is really quite beside the point; we are not here to put ourselves in the place of a hypothetical jury or to otherwise undertake a legal analysis of the issues; we simply faithfully report what WP:Reliable sources say on the matter--if they largely or overwhelmingly reference the death as a murder, that's more or less the end of the story on trying to keep the term out.

You also seem to challenge the WEIGHT issue by saying that somewhere in the above discussion, the "side" arguing against murder has proven that the balance of sources is arguing against utilizing "murder" in the article. At least you seem to be saying that--again, the statement is too muddled for me to be certain. But if you are making that assertion, I'm not seeing any such argument anywhere. If you are saying the Google analytics argument is dispositive here, then I'm afraid you're missing a vital part of the picture when it comes to how WP:WEIGHT is assessed on Wikipedia: specifically that weight is established by examining the sources actually used in the article (or which have at least been presented individually as reliable sources for discussion), not some hypothetical abstract of all sources which we imagine may exist in the world. A Google analytic metric can be presented as a means of providing context for discussion, but it has zero policy weight behind it, and relying on it too heavily to support WP:OR/WP:SYNTH arguments that run against the sources used in the article is problematic for numerous reasons. To begin with, the vast, vast, vast majority of the pages you are getting hits on would not be considered reliable sources for the purposes of supporting or formulating Wikipedia content, so they go right out. Second, amongst that portion of sources that we might guess would pass muster as RS, we would still need to review them to know what they actually say about the matter. That's really just the tip of the iceberg on why this community doesn't allow vague invocations of hit counts to decide the language we use, but I'd also like to point out that even if we did allow it, it would cut against your position, since the majority of hits on the topic of this death include some reference to the act as a murder.

Last, you also invoke WP:INTEGRITY, but I am having a lot of trouble understanding why. All that tiny section of the citation policy refers to is the use of caution regarding where you place an in-line citation, especially when editing previous content. While that's a very important thing to remember, I don't see how it applies to the question of whether we should use "murder" in this article and whether that comports with our sources. Maybe you meant to suggest more reliance on attribution? If so, I agree this could be a part of how to address this issue. However, given the overwhelming prevalence of the term "murder" in our sources, I don't think it makes sense to attribute that label every time it is used incidentally in the article, per the community consensus enshrined in WP:INTEXT. Where there is specific discussion as to the narrow issue of whether the crime was a murder or an accident (and there are a couple of sections in the article which directly wrestle with this issue) then yes, we need to exercise extreme caution there as to the attribution, but elsewhere it would be proscribed by policy. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I have difficulty processing a large amount of information at once, so I'm going to try to distill this down to what seems to me to be the key point - which is that the majority of the sources in the article call it murder - and that is what is relevant over what is in the news media. I have a theoretical issue with that if it is vastly different. However, I have heard it said that the vast majority of the sources call it murder, but I don't remember or see that anyone actually did an analysis. (And, perhaps the same to Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories that I wrote, where more detail is explored in the case, but I don't think it sways any further away from "murder". So, I'm not sure it would reach a different result.)—CaroleHenson (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Of the first 30 sources, 19 say "murder", and the rest don't mention murder at all or mention it as possibility (list in my sandbox) So that's a bit more than 60% that say murder. I don't think this would be considered an overwhelming majority. Before I spend more time on this, though, is roughly 60% enough to consider it murder? Is it helpful for me to continue with the list?—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, my last post was meant more as an observation as to what kind of factors policy asks us to utilize here (as well as the varieties of evidence that are considered irrelevant) and meant less as a firm evaluation of the sources. I did do a bit of a cursory evaluation of the sources myself in another post, because at that point it didn't seem anyone else had, but you've now looked at half-again as many as I did, so let's take it for granted at the moment that your 60% holds throughout all the sources we're working with on this article (anyone can feel free to double check that assumption later, if they feel so inclined). Working on that assumption, then the answer to your question seems to me to beg yet another: in what context would the word "murder" be used? That's been something of a source of confusion to me once I realized you and Flyer were not arguing over specifically whether it should appear in the lead, but rather whether it should appear in the article at all (or more specifically, whether it should appear in the article unattributed/in Wikipedia's voice?). Looking at the prevalence of the word in the sources (even assuming the lower threshold of 60%) I would say that I can see plenty of reason why the word might appear in the article, even outside of statements with in-text attribution. But without concrete examples of language to be employed, it is hard to answer your question with a high degree of certainty beyond the general statement that I can imagine many examples where usage of the word would be wholly acceptable and policy consistent, and many others where it would not. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Overall, I think the wording (death, killing, murder) in the article is appropriate for the context of the discussions. Three potential edits are in the Death of JonBenét Ramsey#Parents and the Death of JonBenét Ramsey#Family member theory sections and in the infobox - and perhaps that could be offset by changes to murder in a couple of other places, like the autopsy section - where it's appropriate for the discussion and relevant based upon the way it was described by the sources. I also don't have a problem with the categorization as a murder.

My main thought, though, is I don't think that the article should be renamed back to Murder of JBR - which is where it sounded like the discussion was heading.--—CaroleHenson (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I see, that clarifies things a bit, thanks. Flyer happened to ping me in a post to another editor, where they mentioned that they would be away traveling briefly--so I suppose the thing to do is wait until they return and comment on specific statements. In principle, everything you say sounds balanced enough to me, and I don't think, from Flyer's previous comments, that they are wanting to go nearly so far as changing the name or entire tone of the article. I think their thoughts on where "murder" should be used are much more narrow--though I'm not exactly sure which statements they want to use it in. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that makes sense.—CaroleHenson (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• My position is as noted above in the survey. "Murder" is a legal term of art, and its definition is very precise. Also, it is the action of the perpetrator, the victim is dead, no matter how it happens. Unless there is a convicted perpetrator, we are, in a sense, declaring a legal status that does not exist. In my state, a murder is legally called "deliberate homicide" -- so would a person murdered there have an article titled "Deliberate homicide of Foo?" No. Also, we have a presumption of innocence as to an accused defendant, and here the mystery is yet to be solved. A murder, indeed, but let's keep it simple, it is her death. (All that said, I really loathe these "Death of" titles - the person may be a BIO1E, but IMHO the articles about them should be dignified by being titled with just their name and not their status as a victim. But that's a different discussion for a different day). Montanabw^(talk) 22:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I totally get your point about the use of the word "murder", and even though I believe she was murdered, I believe we should be careful with the use of that word. By the way, I just read that the definition that the Felony murder rule (Colorado) definition is, quoted from the article, "Committing or attempting to commit arson, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, sexual assault, or a class 3 felony sexual assault on a child. Or if in the course of one of these crimes or the immediate escape from it, anyone causes the death of a person other than one of the participants." That seems to cover most of the scenarios I have heard for her death. In any event, we are supposed to go by what the sources report.

I have seen that you have stated, regarding the title of the article, that you support Neutral phrasing and consistent with other WP articles with facts still amgibuous, e.g. Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, etc, with which I wholeheartedly agree. In that case, though, there hasn't been a body found so there has been no one to weigh in, like those who conducted JonBenet's autopsy that they believed it was murder. Are you saying that this article should not mention the word murder within the body of the article?

I like your thought about "Murder of" and "Death of" not being used as titles for an article - and agree that is another topic entirely.—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Markbassett, I do not understand your argument. I repeat: My issue is that we have editors arguing that it is a WP:NPOV violation to use the word murder and/or murder categories in the article. My argument is that it is not against that policy since that policy is about giving more weight to what the majority of sources state and less weight to what the minority of sources state. When it comes to the cause of this girl's death, it is usually referred to as a murder. It is not usually called "an accident" or similar. And I reiterate that a death can be accidental and still be legally categorized as a murder. Editors have clearly pointed to Felony murder rule (Colorado). Even though the police felt that one of the Ramseys accidentally killed their daughter, it was still decided that they should be charged with being accessories to first-degree murder. Even though John Mark Karr said he killed the girl by accident, he was arrested and charged with first-degree murder and the grand jury categorized it as murder. "Death" is not really the cause; it is the state of the person. She is dead. Of course the word death is going to be used in conjunction with murder or even more so than murder since she is, after all, dead. Also see what Snow Rise stated to you above.

Snow Rise, my main issue is with people misusing the WP:NPOV policy at this article. And it's for the reasons you've mentioned. To insist that we cannot use the word murder or murder categories in the article is what I am challenging. I asked S Marshall to weigh in because he, like you, is a policy-driven editor and understands our policies very well. Despite this, even he is perplexed by this topic. The complexity of this issue is why I think that more policy-driven editors should weigh in. Pinging Masem, Alexbrn, Johnuniq, The Four Deuces, BullRangifer, TheRedPenOfDoom (who hasn't edited in days), NorthBySouthBaranof, Rubbish computer, Collect, NinjaRobotPirate, Betty Logan, Tenebrae, Fyddlestix, Erik, Ian.thomson, and Staszek Lem. With perhaps the exception Rubbish computer, who I have seen reword articles to be more neutral, each of these editors have been in heavy WP:NPOV disputes, and I haven't always agreed with them, which is why I think it's okay for me to ping them to this issue. If any of you can think of others to ping, please do. Disclosure note: Betty Logan, Johnuniq and I have usually been in agreement, and I don't remember vocalizing any disagreement with Fyddlestix.

Montanabw, the way I feel about this issue is basically what I just stated to Markbassett and Snow Rise above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Got pinged. From my brief acquaintance with the topic I'd say a better title for the article would be "Killing of ..." and while one might have a pedantic argument about the murder category I'd say it's fine unless we're going to make our category tree around death hugely more finely-grained - remember our meanings are those in general English usage, not technical ones of US law. Hard to see why this should be so contended. Merry Xmas everyone! Alexbrn (talk) 08:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I got pinged too. I see no problem at all with using the word murder or murder categories in the article. RS use that term, and there is no doubt she died by murder, whether premeditated or accidental. She did not die a natural death. It was a violent death.

NPOV is all about editorial attitude, so failure to use the word "murder" would violate NPOV by using editorial censorship to avoid using the terms used in RS. We would need to be careful not to call someone who has not been convicted a "murderer", but that's a different matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It probably varies throughout the world, but, depending on the circumstances, accidental killings would traditionally be charged as criminally negligent homicide, manslaughter, endangerment, or something similar. Regardless, many sources seem to treat this as a murder case. I guess you could go either way, really. I think a tertiary source would be really helpful in this kind of situation. There must have been some kind of academic review of the media's coverage published in the last 20 years. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn - responding to your ping re not understanding my reasoning: The RFC other view reasoned from "The vast majority of reliable sources", which appears incorrect (both the discussion here and my own googles have no trouble finding more) and so the conclusions put as 'therefore' from it also fall apart. So for what this RFC asked, it is option 1 that appears correct and option 2 that appears to have incorrect inputs. I think there could be discussion further but -- anything claiming majority (over 50%) or even plurality (of more frequent than any other theory} seems simply not the case. I've also pointed out that the nature of the story simply does not appear to be 'who won' but rather to be about an unsolved death with swirl of theories, none of them proven. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Markbassett, I guess we agree to disagree on this matter. Again, I disagree because when it comes to the cause of this girl's death, murder is usually the word used. That is my point. And because murder is usually the word used when it comes to the cause of her death, I do find that to be a "vast majority of reliable sources" matter. Even if it's a 60% majority, that is still a majority and means that using murder is not against the WP:NPOV policy. And, of course, I've noted that it's going to be called a death regardless. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn - I guess we have different counts -- I google 'murder' as tied for third place and nothing a majority or even strong plurality -- Benett 'Killing' at ~600K hits as most common, with 'death' and 'murder' roughly tied at 400K. I'd be curious how you're getting your impression, if you are using an actual counting. But if you're getting around 60%, then would you agree that the line about it being "vast majority" of reliable sources is off ? Markbassett (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Markbassett, for me to state more would be repeating myself. I do not agree with your "death" comparisons for the reasons I stated above. Similar goes for the "killing" comparisons. I honestly do not understand how you are viewing this. Really, I could simply repeat my " 17:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)" post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn - I've described the viewing of this was by Google to look among all mentions, since Carole Henson was already doing counts of the cites currently inside of article. Neither one supports it being a "vast majority" saying murder, so it wouldn't be treated as such for the items mentioned in RFC of change to title or adding categorization. If you've got some way that gives such an impression, please do show it - or else we're at 'this is a tied-for-third mention'. Therefore: title should not use murder; categorization should not be murder; and maybe murder gets mentioned within article as one of a swirl of theories all unproven but will have to see actual proposed text to say anything there. Markbassett (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Markbassett, one more time: Your reasoning does not make any sense to me. I asked a simple question about the WP:NPOV policy, and what I see from you is a significant misinterpretation of that policy. Snow Rise has been over why. What I see from some others in this discussion is a significant disregard for that policy; they, like you, are going on personal opinion rather than what the policy states. Murder is usually the word used when it comes to the cause of JonBenét Ramsey's death. Note that I stated "cause." You are making "death" and "killing" arguments that I find to be silly for the simple fact that any murder is going to be called a death or a killing. Really, look at other murder cases; "death" and "killing" are usually used as much as "murder". The use of either does not negate the fact that the death was a murder or that sources usually call the death a murder when talking about the cause of death. We are going in circles. We clearly will not agree, which is why I stated "agree to disagree" above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

And even if there were only a 60% majority, it would still rule as far as the WP:NPOV policy goes. The way that people misunderstand, misuse and disregard this policy boggles my mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn - if there's just not the 'vast majority' stated saying murder, then I think that lacks any strong force to drive for changes to prior decisions re title and category. It's even debatable whether that actually argues against title and category saying it as my general Google count was showing "death" about 150% of the counts for "killing" or "murder".

Also -- I'm just not seeing WP:NPOV as a major guide for title or category against whatever arguments the other sides put forward. For title, WP:TITLE seems best and NPOV only has a section WP:POVTITLE that does not seem related to this thread. For category, NPOV does not seem to have a section, and WP:CAT even has s counter guideline WP:CATDEF to look for a defining characteristic "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". (A 60% doesn't seem to suit that.) I think it would suit to go for a more generic term that includes all cubsets in this case, which I guess "Death" does well enough at. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Markbassett, it seems you want to keep repeating. This is my last time repeating the matter to you. I've been over why your arguments are lost on me, and the 60% argument is not proven in the least. Regardless, the vast majority of reliable sources call this girl's death a murder when speaking of the cause of her death. You are not even familiar with the sources, as you previously acknowledged. When reading about this girl's death, it is extremely common that the word murder is used by the sources, regardless of whether or not the sources' titles use the term murder. Your "death" and "killing" arguments are asinine for reasons I've noted above. I don't think you understand the WP:NPOV policy at all, and Snow Rise's responses to your arguments above show why. Her death is commonly called a murder, and arguing otherwise is silly. Arguing that "death" and "killing" are also commonly used is silly, per my "03:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)" above post. The issue concerning this dispute is whether or not using the term murder or murder categories in the article is against the WP:NPOV policy. It isn't. And nothing in that policy can support the argument that it is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is helpful to the atmosphere of the discussion to refer to participants' remarks as "asinine" and "silly". Personally, I think there is less of a concern about categories here than about the text of the article and its title. The only category that I really wonder about that is currently applied to this article is Category:American torture victims. I don't see a big problem, for example, with including this case in Category:1996 murders in the United States. Regarding WP:NPOV for what is stated in the text and title of article, WP:NPOV doesn't just say to assume that whatever the majority of sources thinks is probably true (or seems to assume is true) is definitely true. It says things like "Avoid stating opinions as facts", "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts", and "Prefer nonjudgmental language". In this case, there is no clear understanding of who killed Ramsey or why or what their state of mind was at the time. The fact that the case is so unresolved is part of its notability. It's clear that it was a homicide (and I am not aware of any real questioning of that), but it is not clear that it was a murder. There has been no murder conviction, and credible non-murder theories have been suggested in reliable sources. A brief fit of rage or an error in judgment or the actions of a child or the actions of an insane person do not necessarily fit the definition of murder. We don't know who killed this child or what their state of mind was, so we simply don't know for certain whether or not the killing was a murder. Explicitly referring to it as a murder (other than as a theory) is declaring that the killer was culpable for their action, and culpability is something that has not been clearly established in this case. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It is helpful to refer to participants' remarks as "asinine" and "silly" when the participants are misinterpreting or misusing a core policy such as this. I take this policy very seriously, especially due its misuse. There is nothing at all in the WP:NPOV policy that supports not using the term murder or murder categories in this article. Therefore, claiming that doing so is a WP:NPOV violation is silly and asinine. I am tired of seeing this policy so misinterpreted and misused, especially when editors are using it to suit their own viewpoints (in this case, their own legal viewpoints) and are disregarding what the policy actually states. As for your view of what falls under the definition of murder, I and others have already been over that with you. That murder is not consistently defined in the narrow way you continue to define it has been made abundantly clear on this talk page. Like I noted above, "editors have clearly pointed to Felony murder rule (Colorado). Even though the police felt that one of the Ramseys accidentally killed their daughter, it was still decided that they should be charged with being accessories to first-degree murder. Even though John Mark Karr said he killed the girl by accident, he was arrested and charged with first-degree murder and the grand jury categorized it as murder." The theories are not called "murder" and "non-murder." I am not arguing to use murder throughout this article. I am arguing against the assertion that we must keep use of the term murder and murder categories out of this article based on the WP:NPOV policy. Frankly, you are arguing from a viewpoint that Snow Rise already disputed with his vote in the #Survey 2 section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"Felony murder" does seem like a hypothetical possibility, but it is not the only possible explanation for the killing. Any of the scenarios I mentioned might not involve felony murder. Felony murder requires that a killing occur during commission of a felony, and no felony has been established here. The whole felony murder discussion seems like original research, since there is no mention of felony murder in the article and no reliable sources have been cited (certainly none that say that felony murder is the only possible explanation of this death other than first-degree murder). Whatever John Mark Karr said or thought or was charged with doesn't matter so much, since it appears that he did not kill Ramsey, and the dominant theories about who did kill her do not involve him. Whatever the police or the DA might have thought about the Ramsey parents or the brother, none of them were ever convicted of anything. They were never even indicted or arrested. We simply don't know who killed this girl or what their state of mind was at the time or whether they were committing a felony at the time. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The "felony murder rule (Colorado)" argument is a valid argument in this case, per what has been argued regarding it. The WP:OR policy does not apply to talk pages; it states that in the lead of the policy. The issue here should not be about any of our views on murder; that is the point that I and others adhering to the WP:NPOV policy have made. The issue should be about honoring the WP:NPOV policy. Using the WP:NPOV policy to argue that we cannot use the term murder or murder categories in this article is wrong. I am fine with people arguing the use of murder on this talk page and coming to a consensus to generally avoid the term in the text because of the different perceptions regarding it. I am not fine with people stating that we must not use the word or murder categories because of the WP:NPOV policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The term "murder" should generally be avoided. Homicides can be committed by persons incapable of forming an intention, due to age or insanity, there are cases that are manslaughter or criminal negligence, and there are even defenses for homicide, in none of these cases is it murder. I see no problem however with putting the article into a murder category, since inclusion in a category does not necessarily mean it fits the definition, just that it would be of interest to readers on the subject. TFD (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Our choice of wording is governed by the sources. A preponderance of RS use the word murder, so we should not shy away from doing so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Choice of words is never governed by the sources, and in "Words to watch" cautions us to be cautious with words that introduce bias or lack precision. And there is no way to determine what the preponderance of sources do without original research. TFD (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:WTW is a style guideline by (relatively) very small group of editors, whereas WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR are pillar and core policies, respectively, representing the broadest and longest standing community consensus on the most fundamental principles of editing and construction of content. WTW simply cannot override these other policies when there is an editorial choice that directly imputes them. If this were a matter of style alone, sure. But we are simply disallowed by policy and overwhelming community consensus from supplanting the chosen language of our sources with what our own analysis says they "should" have meant or "actually" meant. That's not our role, no matter how grating the logic might feel to our own individual and (somewhat) idiosyncratic logic in an occasional case. You say "murder" is a legal term of art with a precise meaning. Someone else might say it has other meanings in common parlance, and that determining the "precision" of the word through complex analysis of the law is clearly deep into WP:Original research territory. This is prohibited in policy terms even when the analysis is done impeccably, and if I am to be perfectly blunt, some of the unnecessary legal analysis that has taken place above suggests a rather superficial understanding of American criminal law on homicide, regarding both statute and common law. Far from being a "simple" distinction or clear dichotomy, it is in fact one of the most hotly contested lines in all of the American criminal law (as it is in the justice system generally). If undertaking any degree of personal legal analysis is wading up to your neck in original research, then trying to parse and strictly define the meaning of murder is deep sea diving in it! And trust me, it will give you the bends! :)

As to "there is no way to determine what the preponderance of sources do without original research" that is a very peculiar policy statement to me that flies against the common meaning of those terms. WP:Original research is explicitly defined as something we are to avoid doing, while determining how to generate a summary from the WP:WEIGHTing of our sources is a task we are mandated to undertake by WP:V, WP:NPOV, and numerous other core editorial policies. I'm afraid I do not track your logic at all there.

But if I can move past the direct policy argument for a moment, I also note there is a fair bit of talking past eachother going on in various of the dialogues here. For example, Flyer has just above narrowed and specified the exact circumstance under which he wishes to use "murder"--specifically the categorization. That's significant progress towards bringing this issue within a scope we can begin to work with, and yet the conversation has quickly returned to polarizing generalizations. There are some arguing for absolutist readings here, but it seems to me that most of the editors who have commented favor something more nuanced, ranging from "Yeah, definitely it should be used in places, as in A, B and C" to "Yeah, maybe, but let's discuss where first before I support that". Let's focus on specifics and see how far apart we really are. So.... Snow ^{let's rap} 06:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not say murder is a legal term with a precise meaning. In fact my argument for not using it is that it "lack[s] precision." It is not original research to determine that a word is imprecise, other wise "disambiguation" would be an impossible guideline. And no the manual of style does not supercede policy, but there are no policy based reasons for using the term. And it is OR to determine the what the preponderance of sources say. It can only be done by identifying all the sources, weighing their value, and implementing a methodology. In determining the weight the best method is to leave it to experts to determine what views have greater weight. E.g., a source will say most experts believe x, some belief y and a tiny number believe z. Even then we do not side with the majority opinion, just state that it is the majority opinion. TFD (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I see. If by "it is OR to determine the what the preponderance of sources say" you are referring to the fact that one cannot just assume to know the aggregate meaning of all sources in existence, I completely agree--that is OR; I've even ventured as much myself above. However, as to combing the sources we currently use in the article to determine the language they use, that is the core basis for how we judge WP:WEIGHT on this project. And I must wholly reject you insistance that we can simply chose our favorite expert and use their language predominantly or exclusively, even if it runs counter to the majority of sources. That's just OR unconvincingly disguised by one layer of removal; editors would just be choosing their favourite voice, the one that comes closest to your preferred outcome for the content, and engaging endless idiosyncratic debate as to who the best/most appropriate expert is--WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT exist specifically to avoid that kind of entrenchment of process and editorialization of the content. We go with the language the sources use and in cases where the sources diverge, we do a combination of tests balancing the various sources. We also allow for the possibility that the appropriateness of this or that term may vary by context (including especially the degree and nature of the attribution).

But again, I'm not sure we're ultimately talking at cross purposes here. Flyer has raised the specific issue of categories. That's one area that has never really been a major component of my editing, so I don't have a huge degree of insight there, though I'd like to hear what others think. Carole has previously also raised the issue of the article title, feeling it would be inappropriate to allow discussion of murder to return the article to its former title--but my impression is that there is no significant support for reverting the name, so we can shelve that. Again, we can waste all day talking in the most abstract generalities, but as an RfC respondent I've been waiting for the editors who first raised this discussion to give us specifics regarding the content being proposed, and now that we have that, I think we need to get down to considering those proposals, which is the only means to reach some kind of workable consensus. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Typing in WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT without explaining how they relate to what you think is unhelpful. These policies are about how to express opinions and facts, not how to phrase articles. TFD (talk) 08:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I think my references to policy have been manifestly more specific and concordant with the generally accepted meaning of those standards within community consensus (and also the majority of views expressed here in this specific discussion). But our fellow editors can decide for themselves. I'm certainly done talking in vagueries that just lead in circles. If you have specific content to oppose or suggest, I think that is the best way forward.Snow ^{let's rap} 08:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, Snow Rise. And, for the record, I am female. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

There seem to be three areas that could be affected by this discussion: the title, the verbiage in the body of the article and categorization. If I am understanding correctly, no one is pushing to change the title of the article at this time. And, I like that categorization is being made it's own discussion.

For content, our choices are: 1) don't use murder at all, 2) use both murder and death/killing/etc. in the article, and 3) use murder throughout. It seems to me that #1 and #3 are POV and OR issues, because some sources called it "murder" and some sources don't mention "murder" at all. (From the audit that I started in my sandbox, which I am happy to finish if that's helpful. It's not going to change the fact that some use the term and some don't, just the percentage that it's used).

Suggestion / question: Wouldn't the issues of NPOV and OR be resolved if we made sure that when death/killing/the case or murder is used in the article, it's consistent with the word or meaning used in the source?—CaroleHenson (talk) 07:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That's certainly a big piece of the puzzle, to my mind. Even then though, people are going to disagree as to which term is going to be demanded by a given source in a given context. If the major inquiry of this RfC is "can the term 'murder'/'death'/'killing' potentially be used somewhere in the body of this article, possibly in a highly attributed fashion", then I think the answer is a clear "yes" (or more specifically, "duh") based on any reasonable reading of policy, the sources, and the topic of the article. But until we have specific content suggested for removal or inclusion, it is hard to say more. I don't see anyone currently suggesting any specific term be added or removed from any specific context. If I've missed a specific proposal, I hope someone will bring it to my attention. That leaves (for now) only the question of the cats. That's one area I have scant experience with, especially in recent years, so I'm not about to lead the way on that question, but it does seem like the most fruitful place for discussion, being the only specific inquiry currently being raised. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I did make a suggestion in this edit. I am happy to work on where there are inconsistencies between the article and the sources, but it will be a lot of work. And, it seems like a wasted effort if the group cannot decide that the middle-ground is the way to go.—CaroleHenson (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That's right, I remember you making that post now. And it's certainly more specific than much of the discussion here, but at the risk of sounding like a broken record, still not specific enough for me to cast an !vote one way or the other; I'd prefer an actual recommended edit, personally, but you may get some editors willing to express "yes in that section, no to that." I certainly don't want to discourage you--you seem like the editor in this whole discussion most willing to reach towards the middle ground since I arrived via the bot. But I personally would like to know the exact wording being proposed/opposed. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we should always use "encyclopedic tone," recognizing that people with different opinions will choose different phrasing. To use an example, some reliable sources use pro-life, others use pro-abortion. Neither term is used in article titles, because both imply a specific view on the subject of abortion. I do not see how switching between different terminologies provides balance, just confusion. In this case, homicide and killing are both neutral. Murder is a form of homicide or killing. TFD (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Insofar as the title of the article is concerned, I agree with that. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

However, I should add that insofar as saying that "killing", "death", "murder", or "homicide" will always be inappropriate, I for one am not prepared to make that blanket appraisal. I certainly can see contexts in which each might be appropriate, with particular attribution. But no particular context has been provided for respondents here, so it feels like a few pedantic points are being argued for, rather than actual change to content. I feel fairly confident that no one is going to support the proposal "remove every instance of the word 'murder' from this article", and likewise certain that "replace every use of 'killing' with 'murder' would fail to gain any traction. But if someone has a specific piece of content to either propose adding or removing, this conversation could be shifted from a battle of wills on an abstract notion and towards resolution for this discussion. If there is no specific content being debated, I'm confused as to what the discussion is meant to be accomplishing. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I am getting quite confused where it's going as well.

• Title of the article - not hearing any suggestions that the article title should be changed.
• Content of the article - I am hearing one or two that think that "murder" should not be used in the article at all, but as I mentioned above, that would be WP:NPOV and WP:OR, because more sources mention murder than those that don't mention murder. (Although I do understand the WP:WTW claim, and think it applies to use of the word in the title, we're not introducing the word murder into the content of the article, that comes from the sources.) Likewise, I don't think that murder should be used throughout the article, because murder is not even mentioned in many of the articles. That seems to leave us with the current state of the article.
• Categorization - There's not too much that has been discussed about that. I'm not sure where that stands. I've already said I don't have a problem with the categorization.—CaroleHenson (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

As noted at the start of the RfC, this RfC was started because an editor insisted that we cannot use the term murder in the article or murder categories in the article because it's against the WP:NPOV policy. I and others have argued why this view is wrong. Those two aspects have been the issue of this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson - re your getting confused on where this is going, here's my read:

- This RFC as stated was for only Title and Categories -- "the result of the Request to Move was that this article should be called 'Death of..' not 'Murder of...' ", and "and/or using "murder" categories".

- RFC responses about this are in "Survey2" section (after the proposer Flyer22 and yourself) from myself, User:Montanabw, and User:Collect seem clearly to say only "Death" in the title and to not use the category Murder.

- The prior RFC was the one phrased for content within the body of article. If you feel this RfC is improperly worded, WP:RFC guidelines are to ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. We'll see some remarks from some editors on other aspects -- but as to the topic of the RFC I think you are correct and the title and category are not in discussion.

- Re in-article text, I've not seen actual text and would have to see it to say specifics. I do have some concern it go beyond just 'word appears' to look at WP:INTEGRITY of accurately conveying the source meaning. And I think your cite numbers or my google numbers disprove a "vast majority" or "overwhelming prevalence" but do not know what counting those were referring to. For anything more I think it would have to be discussing specific text for context. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Markbassett, I pointed to my revert of an editor. The revert shows examples of use of the word murder in the article. That editor also removed categories. I made it clear in the RfC what the dispute is about, giving both sides. So I think it's clear that both the article text and the categories are what the RfC is about, and that the RfC was neutrally worded. The RfC asking a clear question about the WP:NPOV policy has not, however, stopped editors from not answering the question I posed. So I take this as them knowing that the WP:NPOV policy does not support their viewpoint. I asked a simple question: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy? Stating "Use death" or similar is not an answer as to whether or not use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article is against the WP:NPOV policy. I've yet to see any editor explain how doing either is against that core policy. I have seen Snow Rise and BullRangifer explain quite well how use of murder in relation to this article is not against this core policy, and I hope that the person who closes this RfC sees it too. I hope that the person does not simply look at the Survey section and neglect the other "votes"/comments below it, especially since I do not see where anyone has validly justified excluding the term murder or murder categories in this article. The fact the article was moved based on the WP:NPOV policy was silly enough, and now there's this. As for the rest, I've already been over that, and am not going to repeat myself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Categorization

Thoughts? Snow ^{let's rap} 06:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Categories are a "navigation device" that should be used "with common sense." So the question is, is it useful for readers researching murders. I think it would be and so would any case treated as a murder by police, even if ultimately it was found not to be, like the fictional "The Murders in the Rue Morgue." Inclusion in a category should not be seen as a statement of fact about a topic, just that it is relevant to the subject of a category. TFD (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Well said, I agree with TFD.—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense to me as well. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

With a caveat that any categories making imputations about living persons are a problem - thus "murder by family member" as a putative category would be disallowed, etc. Collect (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Snow Rise - Without a specific question or category to discuss the following may be too abstract, and maybe getting offtopic of the RFC but in general:

In the WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates ways to group articles, WP:Categorization says a central concept is the WP:CATDEF, the WP:DEFINING characteristic that WP:RS commonly and consistently define the subject as having. At the same time, there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia. For instance, the guideline on WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION sets out a number of situations in which consensus has consistently determined that categories should not be used. The criteria for any candidate category of an article then seems to have to start by showing

1. Defining: Sources in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form state it as such. For example, here: "Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...", Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio.
2. Consistency: I interpret this to mean both not changing over time and matching within a source and to other sources. I would also look for keeping WP:INTEGRITY to whether the source intended to state something as a key aspect of the subject. It should not be stated as a possibility or evolving aspect, conveying that something is said elsewhere, conveying it as a minor note, or stating something in sarcasm or hyperbole. "Elvis, King of Rock and Roll," should not be taken literally as defining a monarchy.
3. Commonly: I interpret this to mean both frequently said, and in the sense of shared among sources and sides. It should not be something that is only said some times, by a subsection of POVs or is opposed among partisan groups unless an official or judicial determination overrules POV positions. It is generally insufficient to have one RS saying so, or being able to find several that should determine a category, it is whether the description asserted as key is basically unavoidable among all sources.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2017 (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 (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 (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 (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)