Wikipedia

Talk:Killing of JonBenét Ramsey/Archive 2

< Talk:Killing of JonBenét Ramsey
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Khamba Tendal in topic Evidence of sexual assault
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Tweaks

Hello Chocolateboy, just wanted to say thank you for touching up my update. Have a nice day,

Alvin 14:55, 26 Apr 2004

Hi, Alvin. Glad I didn't annoy :-) Thanks for expanding the article! chocolateboy 11:24, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Additions

I added JonBénet's middle name. I can't believe I forgot about that :-p. I also added how her name came to be, if the word "amalgam" is unfitting, feel free to change it.

I also added Patsy's middle name. Later in the page, I added John's middle name, but I am not sure if this seems repetitive, as I have already mentioned it once before. Again, anyone feel free to fix! Have a nice day.

Alvin 15:50, 05 may 2004

Added more information :-). I think that if this article grows larger, we may need to somehow seperate it up into sections. There is a lot of information here that for a first-time reader may seem overwhelming. I tried to keep it as chronologically structured as possible, but again, difficult to do, as many parts of the article are simply stating facts. For now, I think it's fine as it is. But if we do get any more information, anyone have any suggestions as to what we should separate the article into? "Life," "The Murder," "The Family," etc...?

Alvin 20:02, 08 May 2004

Media Appearence

Just listened to a song by D12 (feat Eminem) "I shit on you". Not only are the lyrics quite graphic, one "singer" named Bizarre (aka Peter S. Bizarre) claims "I got Jonbenet Ramsey in my 98 camry". I'm translating songs for fun, so I tried to find out who this Jonbenet is and read about this terrible murder. Although I don't think so I wanted to tell you about the song in case you find it has to be mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Julian

Burke Ramsey

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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)

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago98 comments30 people in discussion
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? - SummerPhDv2.0 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". - SummerPhDv2.0 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...? - SummerPhDv2.0 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)
  • 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)
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?

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.
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

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@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

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)‎
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_JonBenét_Ramsey/Archive_2&oldid=1090564946"