Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Grace Millane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Akld guy (talk | contribs) at 23:46, 7 November 2019 (→Oddity). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Sub judice and Contempt New Zealand

Requested move 10 December 2018

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Death of Grace Millane.  Nixinova  T  C  20:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Grace Millane → Death of Grace Millane – Per WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM. (If the accused party is subsequently convicted of murder, then title could be renamed "Murder of" per WP:BIO.) Plinuckment (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and moved it since this article is not really about her life but rather her death.  Nixinova  T  C  19:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Name suppression

The suspect was granted 20 day name supression but British media is publishing his name. Should it be used in this article?  Nixinova  T  C  21:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles which use his name: [1] [2] [3] [4] • Articles about his name supression/warning the public not to use his name: [5] [6] / [7].  Nixinova  T  C  21:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that any Wikipedia editor residing in New Zealand who adds the defendant's name to the article would be liable to legal action should NZ authorities be able to identify that editor. (There were similar issues over a certain NZ dignitary whose name was suppressed by the NZ courts but was "outed" by an Australian journalist on his website.) I've asked for clarification at the WP Helpdesk Help desk. --Plinuckment (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The servers hosting Wikipedia are located in the United States, which is not subject to New Zealand law, so the name doesn't need to be removed. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Be it noted that New Zealand's Minister of Justice has criticised the British media for not respecting the name-suppression order. (To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park: "Your journalists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should.") --Plinuckment (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why risk the accused being acquitted on a technicality due to breach of the name suppression order. "The defence would be looking for every opportunity to say a trial right might be compromised and that was why suppression needed to be abided by, he [Minister of Justice] said." https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/109252701/justice-minister-andrew-little-urges-british-media-to-ensure-justice-for-grace-millane. This is matter of justice for a murder victim, not a legal argument about server locations blah blah. Nurg (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that New Zealand law is not applicable to Wikipedia itself as it is physically located in the United States- although New Zealand citizens would be bound by it(as noted in the warning at the top of this page). 331dot (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So we should probably mention the relevant policy governing this matter: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People accused of crime. I'll quote the relevant part: "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." I'd personally be happy leaving it out for now: it is a temporary order, people can find the name elsewhere if they want to look for it, and in reality it doesn't really add anything to the article. There will probably be a lot to add to this article at a later date, and I don't see why the name of the suspect couldn't also wait a bit. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP policy is certainly more relevant than NZ law. The article currently does not mention the name so it is probably fine as it is now. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the page is still not complying with NZ law because it includes links that identify the person. Never mind, it's not as if his name is going to mean anything to you unless you happen to know him. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia itself is not bound by NZ law and neither is media outside of NZ. The name meaning something or not does not change this fact. The New Zealand government is free to take measures to block access to outside websites, just as Turkey and China do, or negotiate and sign treaties with other countries requiring them to respect NZ laws in this area. Where I live, the names of criminal suspects are public record. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Section 211(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 means that even if they were based in New Zealand, Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held legally liable for breaching name suppression laws unless they acted in a reckless manner. Individual users, however, can be held legally liable for their actions.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 09:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It only took a few moments to find the name with a search engine so it's not a well-kept secret. Leaving it out of the article is fine but there's no need to go crazy redacting links to news media. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name suppression may be imposed for a variety of reasons, sometimes for several at once. Among them is when threats have been made against the accused's family. I note there was an outburst in the courtroom during the first appearance. Those members of the news media who identified the accused will no doubt sleep soundly thousands of miles away even if someone here gets assaulted or their house gets burned down. Akld guy (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that doesn't happen, but New Zealand has no power outside of New Zealand to do anything about it. As I indicated, they are free to be like Turkey and China and limit internet use in New Zealand, or negotiate treaties with the other 190 or so countries. People are also responsible for their own actions,(i.e harming a criminal suspect or their family) not the news media. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it would seem that some of the British newspapers that published the defendant's name are having second thoughts. Looking at the links in the OP, several of them have been taken down, or redacted to remove the name of the accused. Interestingly, the Telegraph article now appears to be geoblocked to New Zealand IP addresses. Plinuckment (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Geoblocks are laughably ineffective. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, I've never heard of geoblocking being used to "censor" British news articles in NZ before. Plinuckment (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealand however has power within New Zealand to do something about it. British journalists in New Zealand are still subject to New Zealand laws - they can't report court proceedings without accreditation (or leave of the court), and they definitely can't breach name suppression. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 17:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very comfortable with including this among our references. There are various news items which refer to the schools and church she attended, we could use those instead if desired. Exact dates of school attendance are not important. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that reference.  Nixinova  T  C  19:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Unusually strong reaction"

I removed the sentence in the reaction section that said there was an "unusually strong reaction" to the death, this was not qualified by the source. This seems to be "reading between the lines" of the Guardian source. The Guardian source does mention reactions and tributes, but doesn't say in any way I can read that this was "unusual". For something to be unusual it would have to be by comparison to previous events, and that isn't mentioned. Thanks. 79.74.171.61 (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I have restored it, slightly reworded, with a ref that uses the word "unprecedented". Akld guy (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, the word "unprecedented" strikes me as more hyperbolic and less encyclopedic than the original "unusually strong". She is hardly the first missing white girl NZ has got emotional about (excuse cynicism). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:IDLI. Can you point to a policy that the statement fails? Akld guy (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer plain English to linking to wikipedia alphabet soup. That said WP:PUFFERY applies. "Unprecedented" is hyperbolic and inaccurate. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Age at death

Grace Millane was born on 2 December 1996 in Britain. The article correctly says she died on the 1st or 2nd of December 2018 but this is NZDT, 13 hours ahead of UTC. If she died in the small hours of the 2nd (NZDT), it would still have been only the 1st in Britain. Therefore, based on time elapsed from her birth, she had not attained 22 years of age yet. Is it wrong to show her age as "21 or 22"? Should we change it to just 21? Akld guy (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be wise to leave it for now. More precise details may arise as a result of the accused appearing in court later this month. LiamXn (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the age altogether as this is confusing.  Nixinova  T  C  01:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Infobox and photo

In my opinion the article would be better without the infobox and the photo (taken from her facebook apparently). It should be treated as an article about the event, rather than a biography of Grace Millane. Compare for example Murder of Amanda Duffy, an article I did a bit of work on. There is a well known picture of her that is likely public domain, but nobody seems to think it necessary to include it in the article, to create an infobox or even to include much biographical information about Amanda Duffy. And this is as it should be. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Treating this as article on a crime rather than a biography would also hopefully allay the concerns expressed by the people who say they are members of her family. They are of course not following correct wikipedia procedures, but I definitely don't want any nastiness with them, they are going through all sorts of pain and grief. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's my opinion, too. The long version is at Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 9#Not a biography, shouldn't pretend, Talk:Killing of Mollie Tibbetts#WP:DISINFOBOX and Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway#Not a bio, shouldn't present as one. Events are events. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, April 7, 2019 (UTC)

Trial

RS or not, I'm very reluctant to add details of the trial to this article. I suspect some details have been suppressed. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oddity

In the video shown on this NZ Herald website, how is it that the camera tracks the couple while they are walking through buildings? It's not like they have been zoomed in on from a wide angle fixed-position camera – in the video the camera is being panned from side to side and following them. How is this possible? Akld guy (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omnidirectional security camera, maybe? Muzilon (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the technology. My question is, why is the camera being panned around and following them? At that time they were just ordinary people of no significance whatsoever. Were the movements of one of them being tracked? Akld guy (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Grace_Millane&oldid=925119191"