Talk:Killing of JonBenét Ramsey/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The actual question of this RfC was not addressed in a large portion of the comments below. Editors closing discussions are reminded: ...to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments. In this case, "irrelevant arguments" would certainly include any that did not address the request: Is use of murder ... against the WP:NPOV policy? In that regard, there is a consensus that use of the term "murder" does not violate NPOV. This is closed on that limited question and that question only. This is not a judgment or reflection on what the proper use of the term is, nor on what is the correct name of the article, nor on any previously- or even future-proposed page moves. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

---

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

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

Survey 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No - of course it's not against WP:NPOV to use the term murder, it's bad enough this article's title was changed from murder to death for absolutely no good reason, give it a rest already, this is getting ridiculous, follow what the realiable sources are reporting and stick to our policies and guidelines. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

No, using the word murder does not violate WP:NPOV (or WP:BLP, as some have suggested). A vast number of reliable sources use that term, so it's a bit farfetched to suggest that our using it within the article, whether in the body text or for categorization purposes, constitutes a violation of a core policy. Having said that, I would suggest that the word—in a formal, legal context—does generally imply a particular type of homicide: one where there is intent to kill, and possibly also one where such an intent is possible. Therefore, until formal adjudication of the case has run its course (if it ever does), it would be less than optimal for the article to appear to draw any conclusions about intent, so I'd avoid using the word murder except when quoting a source or explicitly discussing what one or more sources say. Assigning the article to categories containing the word doesn't strike me as a problem; categories are navigation aids that exist primarily for the convenience of the reader, and anyone who reads too much into a Wikipedia category is overthinking it. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 09:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion 2

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

And as I mentioned above, the article was moved because of the flawed assertion that the WP:NPOV policy supports the move. That policy doesn't support the move in any way, shape or form. And because of the rationale used for that article move, we recently had an editor remove all instances of the word murder and important murder categories. I do not care if the word death is used in the article. Using "death" in the article is going to happen; she did die, after all. For me, it is not about "death" vs. "murder." For me, it is about using one of our core policies to shape the article in a way that the core policy does not at all support. Whether or not use of the word murder, or use of murder categories, violates the WP:NPOV policy is the issue we need to tackle first and foremost when it comes to using the word murder in this article. Do not derail this RfC with side issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My view aligns with Rivertorch's view. See here and here for a comparison. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Categorization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's No Details

I've just read the article for the first time, and there's no timeline. I get the history of the family, when the police were called, when she was found, and the theories. What did she do the day she was killed? Where did her parents think she was before they realized she was missing? What was she wearing? What was Burke doing that day? Did the contaminated scene have any repercussions to the Boulder PD? There's basically details about everything but the crime itself. GreaseballNYC (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there probably should be a clear, simple timeline of events, but the article is kind of a mess right now as it doesn't know what it wants to be. Is this bio of JonBenet, or a page about her murder and the circumstances surrounding it? In regards to your other questions, I think a lot of those details aren't really relevant, or easily verifiable. If someone really wants to find out that kind of stuff, they will probably go to a site specifically about the case. Jb 007clone (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

GreaseballNYC, in the case of the Death of Caylee Anthony article, a Timeline of the Casey Anthony case article was created. But with that case, the timeline is clearer. With this case, there are a number of theories. There may also be no answers for some of what you are looking for.

Jb 007clone, it's often that our "Death of" articles are both a biography and death article. The articles are commonly titled "Death of" because it's ruled that the death of the people is what is notable rather than the people themselves. I think the article is in good shape. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. Ok, so let's take the theory of how the brother did it...how does that play out? And the theory where the mother did it...how does that one play out? I understand there are a lot of questions, but in this article, there's nothing to question. There's no details of any evidence of the death or the crime, only that she was found dead. Clearly, the parents saw her alive for the last time. They thought she was somewhere. What evidence was found and how does it potentially link together? Why is none of this in the article? GreaseballNYC (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Jb 007clone How can you say details about the crime scene aren't relevant? This article is all the facts about the theories and weak on the facts of the case. GreaseballNYC (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

GreaseballNYC There just isn't a need to log every bit of minutiae about the murder on this page as this isn't a crime blog. The lede offers many facts about the case, for example: date of death, manner of death, details that a ransom note was discovered, etc. Regardless, however, judging by your comment above it seems that you are not even interested in details at all and more in what the parents "thought" and how theories "play out". That's speculation. Jb 007clone (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Jb 007clone You seem to be arguing against including facts. It's not speculative to want to know how investigators thought the crime played out, or how the family was cleared, or details about events leading up to the crime, all of which are absent. GreaseballNYC (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Death of JonBenét Ramsey. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5349856
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/24/ramsey.death/index.html?_s=PM%3ALAW
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160115025353/http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonbenet-dna-rules-out-parents/ to http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonbenet-dna-rules-out-parents/

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) 01:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death of JonBenét Ramsey. 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/20131023061640/http://www.denverpost.com/ci_24354220/editorial-time-unseal-indictment-jonben-t-ramsey-case to http://www.denverpost.com/ci_24354220/editorial-time-unseal-indictment-jonben-t-ramsey-case
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901231718/http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/original/0806/1703_ramsey_arrest_john_karr.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/original/0806/1703_ramsey_arrest_john_karr.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.12news.com/news/nation-now/jonbent-ramseys-brother-files-defamation-suit-against-pathologist/329918958/

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) 23:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2017

Please add www.webbsleuths.org to your list of sources. I own that page and have been working to fill it with information. As a peripheral character in the case, I have done a lot of work on this case, helped with many documentaries and news reports and hope you will find the source worth listing.

Recently a GoFundme campaign was started to help pay for DNA tests that might help solve this crime. If you watched the anniversary specials it was revealed there IS good DNA available in this case (GSLD99176817) and Boulder LE said they would be doing more tests. But tests take money and some private investigators know Boulder doesn't have the funds - - so this account was set up to help pay those costs - and to set up a reward fund. The URL for that is https://www.gofundme.com/reward-for-jonbenets-killer. Jameson245 (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Jameson245 (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: per WP:RSSELF. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Person categories

BDD, regarding this edit you made, is there not an exception? Those categories are very relevant to this article. The reason those categories were included is because this article used to be titled JonBenét Ramsey. It was then moved to Murder of JonBenét Ramsey. And then to Death of JonBenét Ramsey. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of one, no. I'm not a huge fan of the status quo—a shorter title redirecting to a longer one is often not desirable, but that's the way our "death of" articles are supposed to work for now. --BDD (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death of JonBenét Ramsey. 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/20080801081500/http://www.bouldercounty.org/newsroom/templates/?a=1256&z=13 to http://www.bouldercounty.org/newsroom/templates/?a=1256&z=13

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) 18:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

JonBenét Ramsey's profile picture

Its extremely important that JonBenét is shown as what she really was: a six year old girl. The profile picture on this page makes her look like a 30 year old woman and a sex object. It would be more respectful and genuine if you use a picture of her without makeup.

                            Sincerely,
                                  A concerned murderino

SeptimusWho (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

She does not look like a 30-year-old woman or sex object in any way in the picture you question. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)