Talk:Murder of Mollie Tibbetts/Archive 2

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: Moved to Killing of Mollie Tibbetts. The !votes in the initial discussion did not result in a consensus, so the conversation was sensibly divided into some proposals, which are in subsections below. Proposal 1 ("Death of Mollie Tibbetts") lacks a consensus because there was a strong body of opinion that describing it as merely a "death" did not fit the description found in reliable sources, which label it something more than that. Proposal 3 ("Murder of Mollie Tibbetts") also lacks consensus, because although many reliable sources are describing it as such, nobody has been convicted of the crime, and oppose !votes for that proposal cite WP:BLPCRIME as a reason not to label it as a murder until it is clearly known that it is such. That leaves the in-between Proposal 2 ("Killing of Mollie Tibbetts"), which is first or second choice amongst most participants. Obviously as the situation evolves, and in particular if anyone is found guilty of murder in relation to this, the naming can be revisited through further RMs.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Disappearance of Mollie Tibbetts → Death of Mollie Tibbetts – So far we have charges of murder, but no conviction or autopsy report. If and when he gets convicted we can move it to the title "Murder of Mollie Tibbetts". ^Falling_Gravity 16:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support move - The word "death" is more generic and factual, and there is no criminal conviction to date. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - However, until the identity of the body is confirmed, the article should probably remain titled "Disappearance". --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment does "killing" also violate BLPCRIME? wumbolo ^^^ 17:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment / Question: I guess I am confused. Maybe someone can clarify for me. Thanks. Clearly, all of the reliable sources are indicating that Mollie Tibbetts was murdered. So, are those reliable sources not "good enough"? Is there some "higher bar" (that Wikipedia needs to meet) for murder cases? I always thought that Wikipedia operated on "verifiability" -- from reliable sources -- and not necessarily "truth". So, can someone please explain how and why is this an issue of debate or controversy? Namely, if all of the reliable sources are saying that Mollie Tibbetts was murdered, why are we being hesitant and reluctant to say that? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Currently there is a lapse in time from the disappearance and the finding of the body. The accused is quoted as "blacking out" that particular moment in time. With that being said there were only the parties involved and one of those parties is unable to tell their side due to their demise. Now it is up to the court to decide if she was murdered. For all that anyone knows is that she could have died of natural causes, which is highly unlikely but that is to be proved by the autopsy along with other evidence. — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 17:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Move - "Death of" is more fitting in this instance as there has only been charges against an individual and no conviction. This article is covered under WP:BLPCRIME as there is a person involved who is still presumed innocent until proved otherwise. As for Tibbets', we do not have the full details as to her demise as it has been a few days since her body was located. — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 17:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Move to "Death of". While the suspect is charged with murder, Joseph A. Spadaro, he has not yet been convicted of such. There is still the legal possibility that the charge could be pleaded down to something other than murder, such as involuntary manslaughter. While I don't see that being particularly likely, we must still consider that it is a possibility. Therefore, until such time as someone - this suspect or otherwise - is convicted of murder, the proper title of the article should be Death of Mollie Tibbetts. Strikerforce^Talk 17:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nomination, Jax 0677, Mr Xaero and Strikeforce.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I have moved the page back to its original title. While the rationale of "Disappearance" no longer being accurate is correct, no move should have taken place without the completion of this discussion to which NTK referred in their previous edit summary. You can't suggest a consensus discussion, but unilaterally make a decision on your own to move to one of the options being discussed within that conversation. Strikerforce^Talk 18:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yet you unilaterally moved it back to a title which there is a consensus against, and have moved to protect a title which is wrong. I would support "Death of ..." over "Disappearance of ..." although I think it should be "murder" now. "Disappearance" is no longer a statement of what happened. It states that she is missing, which she was, but no longer is. And there is no policy basis for a criminal trial or coroner's verdict dictating article titles in the face of reliable sources that someone was in fact murdered, even if a jury and a coroner will be separately called upon to examine the evidence for themselves according to their own procedures. NTK (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I put the article back to its originating point prior to the discussion beginning, which was procedurally correct. No move should have happened, in the first place, without a consensus being established. Establish a consensus for a new title, whatever it may be, here, then move from the original title. That is how it should be done, following proper procedure. Strikerforce^Talk 18:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You haven't cited a source for such a policy and I don't believe that is policy. There's no policy that says that a concededly inapt title C must be kept until consensus is reached as to which of two apt titles A and B to choose. NTK (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support move to Death of... as we can't assume murder prior to the conclusion of the trial and autopsy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment / Question: Thanks. I have read the above comments. Yes, clearly there is not a legal determination that a murder occurred. There has been no judge, jury, conviction, etc. But, someone somewhere -- that is, the police authorities (who are, in fact, "the law") -- are saying that Mollie Tibbetts was murdered. And they are pursuing a murder case. This is stated through multiple reliable sources. So, I am still confused as to why these reliable sources are not "good enough". Is the Wikipedia policy that, in a murder case, we need the official legal final verdict? And we don't just go with reliable sources? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment At the very least we should be waiting until after a coroner weighs in. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Like I said earlier, the body isn't officially identified yet. Can we not be so eager to jump the gun when it comes to something like this? It feels so morbid that so many are clamoring to rename the article. Just wait for an official identification and the autopsy to finish. Source: “The identity has not been confirmed, however, we believe it to be the body of Mollie Tibbetts,” Mr. Rahn said. The authorities did not say what the specific cause of death was; an autopsy is scheduled for Wednesday. -- [1] – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm changing my position to Neutral now that the autopsy report has been released and states that the cause of death was homicide. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Even with the autopsy report having been released and stating as it does, I can't support "Murder of..." on the grounds that I feel it's not in compliance with NPOV. I feel that "Death of..." is move neutral and is where we ought to go with this. But, I'll accept whatever consensus emerges. Strikerforce^Talk 21:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, homicide is distinct from murder, in that murder is intentional homicide. I'm not sure whether, hypothetically, if the suspect did black out, it would count as manslaughter rather than murder. "Homicide of..." seems overly technical, but "Death of..." is the most cautious option, I guess. I'm not even sure "Disappearance of..." would be incorrect, since I think what made Mollie's story particularly notable was the nationwide attention on the search for her. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If the page view counter, creation date, news cycle and my personal experience are any indication, it seems to have gained the wider attention after the missing Mexican was discovered by Trump. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep as Murder of Mollie Tibbetts per CBS.^[1] XavierItzm (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This article has been indefinitely move protected. Let's work on the consensus and go from there. Strikerforce^Talk 20:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep as "Murder of", as initial autopsy results corroborate the fact Mollie was in fact murdered by multiple sharp force injuries.^[2] Sephiroth9611 (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sephiroth9611: I just want to point out that homicide isn't the same as murder. Murder requires intent, while homicide just means the killing of a person by another person. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The idea that because Mollie Tibbets's killing should not be described as a murder because the person who has been accused and charged with the killing has not yet been convicted is ludicrous. Her demise was still a murder (definition: unlawful killing) regardless of the fact that the specific legal proceedings against her accused killer have not yet concluded. The article should be titled "Murder of Mollie Tibbets." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Although it is not an official policy of Wikipedia, WP:MURDEROF describes this article to the letter. The facts that are currently known is that there is an accused person, there is a victim, there is no motive and the death has not been legally ruled a murder by a court. — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 01:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Mr Xaero This is absolutely wrong. A legal ruling is not a conviction. The death has been determined to be a murder and charges on that basis have proceeded and been brought by authorities. WP:MURDEROF carves out an exception for cases where the circumstances are highly suspicious and there is a likely or even plausible alternative explanation. Despite the fantastical hypotheticals and logical-pretzel arguments that have been put forward on this talk page, we have more than enough information to accurately and appropriately characterize Ms. Tibbetts's death as a murder for the sake of this article. As a new editor, it amazes me how often Wikipedia policies are mis-cited to support weak arguments, as I believe is the case here.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a complete mischaracterization of the cited reference. That refers to "suspicious circumstances" where there is "no finding" and gives Death of Mutula Kilonzo as an example who was found dead in bed with no signs of violence. In this case, there's video of her being followed and accosted while jogging which led directly to a man who confessed to killing her, and led police to her concealed, bloodied body, the police charged him with murder and the coroner ruled it a homicide. So what you cited is inapposite and actually supports calling this obvious murder a murder, just as the police and media are doing. Others have said "wait for the coroner's report" (which has never been WP policy; reliable sources is), but you know, moving goalposts. NTK (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading of the source. It says that the legal result of a trial is an indicator of whether it should be called "murder" or not. Also, I just want to point out that Medical Examiner and Coroner are not necessarily the same thing in the US. In the US, in some places, coroners are elected and don't have need to have a degree in forensic pathology or anything. Medical Examiners are guaranteed to be qualified. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 06:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Your reading is untenable and ignores section title and the lead clause "When murder is uncertain: If a person has died under suspicious circumstances,". That can apply with Caylee Anthony, but that can't apply here. There's nothing "suspicious" or "uncertain" about the fact that Mollie Tibbetts death was an intentional homicide e.g. colloquially murder for all intents and purposes. There's an overwhelming body of evidence including but not limited to that coming straight from the accused murderer that she was intercepted and intentionally slaughtered while on a run. There's no reliable source for any innocent alternative. NTK (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: Like I said, I'm neutral between these two choices and actually prefer keeping "Disappearance", but what you're saying is flat out wrong. "Unlawful killing" encompasses a variety of crimes like involuntary manslaughter in addition to murder, which are two very different things. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 06:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that there are homicides which are not murder, however there are no reliable sources that suggest what happened in this case is anything but murder. Using "death" or even "killing" based upon a theoretical possibility of temporary automatism, provocation, self-defense or what have you would be UNDUE weight, akin to Sandy Hook conspiracy theories for which there is no evidence. NTK (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@NTK: You're ignoring the fact that the suspect is claiming that he blacked out. While I personally don't buy this story at all and believe that Mollie was most likely murdered, that doesn't mean that I can ignore the fact that the suspect himself claimed that he didn't consciously do it and that his defense may rely upon this story. It is not up to us to say "well, no, we as Wikipedia editors can easily see that this guy is wrong and guilty of murder". Murder is a legal concept and therefore it is up to a court to decide. This isn't some random conspiracy theorist claiming it either. It's the guy accused, and even though the story is questionable, BLP and NPOV demand that we carefully consider this decision. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not ignoring that. Even if you take at face value a statement about a brief memory lapse or blackout, an admission that he remembers that he circled her as she jogged, chased her down, after which she threatened to call the police, the fact that he conveniently forgot or "blacked out" while murdering her, then supposedly came to his senses and recalls hiding her body, does not make it "not a murder" in any sense. It's a complete admission to a committing a murder, whether or not you credit this supposed blackout as a mitigating factor or not (which would be a strange thing to do). NTK (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@NTK: On what basis are you claiming this? The page on Murder indicates that killing someone under "diminished capacity" is manslaughter and not murder. This seems like it could be the defense the suspect is going for. I really don't see the harm in being a little more cautious with terminology here when it comes to this sort of thing. Murder is, in the end, a legal concept and should be left up to the legal system to decide. I'm so confused why people are fighting tooth and nail for the "riskier" title. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Murder of Mollie Tibbetts Reliable source after reliable source after reliable source refers to this as "murder". It was "disappearance" weeks ago before her body was found. It has, since the recovery, confession and arrest been "murder" and that is the charge. A charge does not presume guilt and neither does an article title on Wikipedia. We go by reliable sources and remain neutral. "Murder" is what the sources call it; and, we should, too. WTucker (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Do most sources also refer to it as her death and/or killing? If so, they all cancel out, for the purposes of this choice. The question then becomes one of whether there's a particularly good reason to ignore the longstanding journalistic and Wikipedian cautions about prejudice and living people. Is anything actually gained by calling it a murder, beyond the thrill of instant demonization? Even if that's not your intent, anyone starring opposite the victim in a story titled "Murder" is going to be viewed by general audiences (and potential jurors) as the "obvious" murderer. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I can support "killing" but it has had few suggestions thus far. "Death" is too weaselly and "disappearance" is just plain wrong in light of the current information. What is to be gained is accuracy and straightforwardness. Readers should not have to read between the lines to discern the truth. It should be there in obvious prose. I have no problem understanding that just because a charge is brought does not mean guilt. I happen to believe that most readers understand that, too. The mentions of the "starring" individual can certainly say "charged with", "suspect", or something to that effect to be more accurate and not impute guilt.WTucker (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support move in any case: while I am perfectly okay with “Death of Mollie Tibbetts”, it was announced yesterday that Mollie’s death was definitively a homicide; as such, I would prefer “Murder of Mollie Tibbetts”. —Zingarese talk · contribs 13:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Once again, homicide is not murder. Please don't use the autopsy report's findings to support renaming to "Murder of...". At best, the autopsy report provides grounds for renaming to "Homicide of...". – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support "Murder of Mollie Tibbetts" Title: The reliable sources say "murder". We at Wikipedia do not have to wait for judicial proceedings to end, in order to call it a "murder". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

So what if, hypothetically, even though highly unlikely, a jury finds him not guilty of murder but rather of manslaughter? It would create a rather awkward situation where we'd have to retract our premature conclusion. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not about the guilt or not guilt of the individual who has been charged. It is about Mollie Tibbetts whose death is clearly and accurately described as a "murder". The coroner's report should convince you of that fact. We are here to report what reliable sources say; and, reliable sources are freely using the word "murder" -- some only when describing the charge; but, most in the title (maybe with a synonym such as "killing") and in the description of the event. The individual who has been charged can accurately be described as "charged with..." or "suspect" or whatever.WTucker (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@WTucker: You're ignoring the fact the "murder" is not a synonym of "killing". If a rock falls on top of me and I die, I have been killed, but not murdered, by that rock. The definition of murder is necessarily dependent on the perpetrator. A murder is a killing committed by another person with malicious intent, which is what makes it distinct from involuntary manslaughter, an execution, or just being killed. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are some connotative and even denotative differences. They are not true synonyms; but each is used (or strongly alluded to as they are similar) in the definition of the other. Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Killing: an act of causing death, especially deliberately. WTucker (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

And the suspect is claiming that the killing wasn't premeditated. We're implicitly saying the suspect is wrong and that we know better. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Move to "death of..." No one has been convicted yet of her death though a suspect has been arrested, and it can't be considered a disappearance as her remains have been found. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support as proposed ("Death of..."), in addition to the comments below, in case this is still being tracked. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)