Talk:Murder of Michaela McAreavey

Motive?

It is not mentioned in the article what the motive was for such a crime. 46.12.97.25 (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It has been speculated that she disturbed a burglary in her room. More will be known presumably after trial which starts today. RashersTierney (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

I don't know why I had to start this discussion instead of the person placing the tag in the article. If you place a tag in an article you could atleast immediatly add reasons for it on the talk page of the article. Anyway I don't see any neutrality problems. Actually I find the article to be very neutral to both sides of the story. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree that drive-by POV tagging is inappropriate. Will remove accordingly. RashersTierney (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The same user keeps re-adding the tag but does not give any reason. I have removed it again. Snappy (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think neutrality is the issue here, but there is some unnecessary information. I don't think we need to know so many details about her wake, for example. And parts of this read more like a newspaper report. When traffic slows down on this it may be worth submitting it to peer review. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you user Snappy. And yes Paul I agree but let us wait until the traffic slows down as you say. I think still the article will go trough some changes before the traffic slows down on this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

But concerning the Wake section I have to say that the extensive coverage of it by media, and the politicians attending it could be a justification for a detailed section about it.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I partially agree about the Wake, its interesting and relevant but I have removed some unneeded info, like a "A candle was lit". Snappy (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Good work!.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't include info on the pictures that were on display. Is it not just enough to say the wake was held at her childhood home, and mention the various people who attended? If this went forward to FAC at some future point no doubt details of the wake and funeral would be merged into one section. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at the changes i have made, then you will understand why i was saying the article was not neutral, there was not even one reason why the supreme court acquitted the two men on 12 July 2012, there is also too much emphasis about the publication of the photos by Sunday Times and the reaction of politicians to it, as if the publication was most dramatic than the murder itself, i think there is way too much detail about this and is mostly biased. Also I wanted to know if the reaction or opinion of the families and politicians are encyclopaedic phrases WP:NOTBLOG. Kingroyos (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Having just read through this again I have to agree on the photograph issue. We're in danger here of giving it more weight than is necessary, and forgetting the murder is the central topic here. A few more random thoughts:

• Some of the reaction of relatives and politicians is encyclopedic, but maybe we're straying into WP:UNDUE territory with parts of it.
• I'm not sure whether the politics of those who attended the wake and funeral is relevant, but could be persuaded otherwise. Did the crime unite nationalists and loyalists in some way?
• As it reads now, the Victim paragraph is jarring, and could do with restructuring. One moment we're talking about her religion, then suddenly the following paragraph jumps straight into a quote from the GAA President. It also has the feel of a piece of journalism about it.

Hope this helps. I'm looking for a new project now my latest GA has gone through, and would be quite interested to work on this. Now editing has slowed down, and if nobody else objects or plans to do so, I'll take a look it and attempt to re-organise things. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In answer to Did the crime unite nationalists and loyalists in some way?, I hope this helps - a quote from newspaper coverage. [1] "That four of the political delegation visiting the home of a celebrated GAA family were DUP representatives said much for the changed political climate in the North." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.196 (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

One moment we're talking about her religion, then suddenly the following paragraph jumps straight into a quote from the GAA President. I've moved the religion bit to the end and kept the gaa stuff together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.196 (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems to look better with the changes, and as the media have picked up on the politics issue then it seems fine to include mention of it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Some of the reaction of relatives and politicians is encyclopedic, but maybe we're straying into WP:UNDUE territory with parts of it.

This problem has not been solve yet, one of the statement even menace the authorities of Mauritius and its people; This case will not simply go away as some in Mauritius seem to hope. I can assure the Mauritian authorities that people in Ireland will continue to keep a focus on this case until justice is done. These biased statements can be published in the Press but not on Wikipedia. Kingroyos (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Photographs

A recent edit clearly implies that Enda Kenny viewed the controversial images with the addition - "who himself received the photographs", despite his strenuous denial to the contrary in the 'sources' provided. These claim no more than that they were sent by an aid. The difference in meaning is significant given the controversy. I removed the statement per WP:BLP, but it has been reapplied. RashersTierney (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes the reference explained that Enda ... never viewed pictures, it should be remove. Kingroyos (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Mauritius afraid? 196.20.187.75 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Relevance/Proportionality

I've reverted the good faith edit by Kingroyos, which inserted an anti-boycott 'banner', on the following grounds:

1A. I do not see evidence presented that an anti-boycott campaign or protest occurred, as the banner and caption would suggest.

1B. No supporting evidence is presented to indicate when, where, or if this banner was used anywhere other than here; the banner is authored by the poster (Kingroyos) and may be POV.

2. If included, it seems unreasonable that an image on a separate (albeit related) point should so greatly exceed the size of the image provided for the person whose murder is the subject of the article.

- Ryker-Smith (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with removal, broadly for the reasons given. RashersTierney (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to know whether this banner has really been use by Mauritians you can go on this group on Facebook Against "Boycott Mauritius" group.. [2] with more than 16,000 members and other pages about boycotting mauritius tourism industry. For the second reason i will reduce the size of the picture considerably so that it seems reasonable. I don't see any pertinent argument why it should be remove. Moreover the section AFTERMATH talks mostly about the newspaper and the reaction of the politicians to it, if this picture is remove then the article will not be neutral, it will only show the bad faith of the Mauritian population. Kingroyos (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Even assuming the banner exists and 16,000 Facebook members approve of it does not warrant its inclusion. It is a political image that makes a statement. To be included in the article, there has to be some coverage of the anti-boycott (and the banner) by reliable, secondary sources. Otherwise, it should be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a classic example of PROMOTION RashersTierney (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The boycott and anti boycott campaign has been mostly done on Facebook and it obvious the only most reliable source will be the link of the group on facebook. Should i include the link of the group as a reference for a photo? Kingroyos (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find the 'banner' used anywhere other than here. This reason alone - in this context - justifies its removal.

However, the case for its inclusion is further injured by the fact that the banner contains text which if included in the article proper would be unlikely to stand without reference or challenge.

Ryker-Smith (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a reference that the image has been use by Mauritians during the boycott campaign [3], can i add the banner now please? Kingroyos (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that's an unreliable local blog. You need reliable coverage from a secondary source.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Its the second reference, and now you are asking me for a third, because you know its impossible. How far should i go to prove you that the banner is being use. Kingroyos (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey [4] another one, the defimedia group is the publisher of more than 8 newspapers in Mauritius. Kingroyos (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this source, but my preliminary opinion is it's sufficiently reliable to use. Unless someone else objects to it, I would be willing to include some text in the article with a cite to the source. The picture, though, is unnecessary (in any event, the picture is in the source). Please propose some text you'd like to put in the article so it can be evaluated. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

'People in Mauritius and several Mauritian press has describe the boycott campaign as unfair' Kingroyos (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair characterization based on the source. How about the following language in the same paragraph after this sentence ("Calls for a boycott intensified following the events of 15 July 2012"):

Over 15,000 Mauritians have responded with an anti-boycott, "Against Boycott Mauritius", asking people to defend their county against the accusations.

I'll let others comment on the proposal before editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I just removed some italics from the section and noticed the following sentence: " However some argue that the whole Mauritian population should not be blame for the mistakes of a few people." It's sourced to what I deem to be an unreliable source. Putting that aside, my proposed text is at least partly redundant based on the existing sentence. I'm open to ideas on how to reword this, both textually and sequentially.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, now that the required references has been provided, i think we can add the banner and concerning the rewording of the sentence, the one which you proposed will be ok. Kingroyos (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what "required reference" you're referring to. As an aside, I've just reverted all of your edits. I didn't understand the point of any of them. In each case, the version you changed was better worded and more faithful to the source. In some instances, your material was not even supported by the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You said to allow the banner To be included in the article, there has to be some coverage of the anti-boycott (and the banner) by reliable, secondary sources. Otherwise, it should be removed. and i provided a reliable sources ([5]) which you said my preliminary opinion is it's sufficiently reliable to use, then you asked Please propose some text you'd like to put in the article so it can be evaluated. i told you to use the one which you proposed, then you said I'll let others comment on the proposal before editing the article. and after 51 days i remind you about the discussion and asked you if it can be included now, but you seen to completely forget and asking me what "required reference" am i telling you, but i understand that you manage lots of articles and may have forget. Concerning my recent edit, i have already explained its reasons in the Edit Summary.Kingroyos (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your most recent edits are unsupportable. I don't have the time to address them one by one, so I'm hoping some other editor will do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

comments against the husband

i believe defense lawyers discussed a 'sex book' they found with S/M topics in it. the suggestion was that the husband killed her.

the possiblity that he did it was raised again by them at a later point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.95.229 (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Serious rewrite

I think parts of this need a serious rewrite. I'd do it myself, but I'm not so familiar with the case. But if necessary I'll read up on it. If anyone else wants to do it, however, then feel free. I'd suggest taking a look at Murder of Julia Martha Thomas, Murder of Joanna Yeates and Murder of Celine Figard for an idea of how to lay it out and what to include. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Murder of Michaela McAreavey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110116055838/http://www.u.tv:80/News/Michaelas-body-arrives-home/607727b9-f1b0-4409-9f42-391dc67d3965 to http://www.u.tv/News/Michaelas-body-arrives-home/607727b9-f1b0-4409-9f42-391dc67d3965
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110120152845/http://www.u.tv:80/News/Michaelas-family-robbed-by-evil-act/ecf4fec7-c5b1-4f6e-b08b-a8872e122bbb to http://www.u.tv/news/Michaelas-family-robbed-by-evil-act/ecf4fec7-c5b1-4f6e-b08b-a8872e122bbb
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120718203728/http://www.sparkingdawn.com:80/2012/07/michaela-harte-murder-trial-verdict/ to http://www.sparkingdawn.com/2012/07/michaela-harte-murder-trial-verdict/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120715043728/http://www.defimedia.info:80/live-news/item/15580-affaire-harte-le-gouvernement-dit-consid%C3%A9rer-toutes-les-options-pour-traduire-les-auteurs-du-crime-en-justice.html to http://www.defimedia.info/live-news/item/15580-affaire-harte-le-gouvernement-dit-consid%C3%A9rer-toutes-les-options-pour-traduire-les-auteurs-du-crime-en-justice.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120718014028/http://news.sky.com:80/story/960516/anger-over-michaela-mcareavey-body-photos to http://news.sky.com/story/960516/anger-over-michaela-mcareavey-body-photos

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Murder of Michaela McAreavey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120724045927/http://www.islandcrisis.net/2012/07/boycott-mauritius-visit-ireland/ to http://www.islandcrisis.net/2012/07/boycott-mauritius-visit-ireland/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728051446/http://www.kotzot.com/news/michaela-harte-photos-case-editor-bailed/ to http://www.kotzot.com/news/michaela-harte-photos-case-editor-bailed/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Michaela McAreavey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728051457/http://www.kotzot.com/news/police-investigation-michaela-mcareavey/ to http://www.kotzot.com/news/police-investigation-michaela-mcareavey/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Michaela McAreavey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120718052218/http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/16/publication-of-michaela-mcareavey-crime-scene-pictures-present-a-significant-problem-for-mauritius/ to http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/16/publication-of-michaela-mcareavey-crime-scene-pictures-present-a-significant-problem-for-mauritius/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)