Talk:Killing of Ramona Moore

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

"Death" of Ramona Moore

The old title was as clearcut a presumption of guilt as it gets. The suspect's known, the trial's booked and the coroner hasn't even said how she died, let alone why. Way too soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated my response to this argument here, which I reincorporate here by reference. Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was really long, but it wasn't a bit convincing. Refuting each of your loosely-related points would be a waste of time. If you insist on making Wikipedia a shittier worse place for untried people by presuming murder before the autopsy even gets to homicide, that's on you. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The investigative authorities in question had formally accused the defendant of homicide before they even found the body; that does not require an autopsy. Should they reverse their opinion and drop their charges, we can rename the article.

I do not and will not take seriously the on-wiki arguments of people who feel they cannot make their points without using foul language. If you can't do so, you should seriously reconsider whether you are emotionally fit to be a Wikipedian. Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. Now can you seriously see how people aren't accused of homicide (which isn't a crime) and when they're accused of murder (which is), it's only
O.J. Simpson killed. Or that guy Vince Li killed and ate in front of many witnesses. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Amazing. You complain that this article uses "murder" in the title prematurely and in a way prejudicial to the defendants' presumption of innocence, yet blithely refer to "the two people
O.J. Simpson killed" even though he was acquitted of the crime at trial, a trial in which a great deal of exculpatory evidence was introduced and considered (And don't say "civil case" because that required a lower standard of proof).

As for the two other cases you mention: Zimmerman was pleading self-defense (negating intent while not denying the act) from the start so the editors working on the article (I wasn't one and can't speak for them) decided to title it so (I would suppose); as I think I've already stated on your talk page (belying your assertion above that you read what I wrote and further reducing your credibility in my opinion), Li was found not guilty of an act no one denied he committed by reason of insanity, again a defense that negates intent, so changing the article title was appropriate. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Fun Fact: Not a single source used in the article (or the article itself) says Ramona Moore was murdered, yet we do in the title. How is that not plain and simple original research? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because you throw around the term "OR" way too casually, perhaps? Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And "not a single source" calls it murder? I used "No Body is Found, But a Man is Charged With Murder" from The New York Times as the very first source. And also "Bronx superintendent suspected of murder gets 4 years in prison for beating wife" from the Daily News. Really, do you read the things you criticize? Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And neither calls this a murder. There's “You can’t charge me with murder without a body”, "Mr. Bonie was charged with second-degree murder" and "her murder".
Then the next has "accused of murdering", "charged with murdering", "charged in the murder" and "murder trial". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized you basically built this article. Now your stubborness at least makes sense. It's still not alright, but it's
not bewildering. I'd thought you just followed me here. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yup. It was on my watchlist and lit up when you and the other editor started having that spillover war from Charleston church shooting. Daniel Case (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 October 2015

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

Ramona Moore murder case by NeilN almost two weeks ago, this is just a procedural close. Baffled why it was relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]


Murder of Ramona Moore

Ramona Moore murder case → Death of Ramona Moore – No sources call this a murder, only note murder charges. Even the cause of death isn't in. "Murder" is prejudicial original research, contrary to BLP and NOR. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

An RFC a couple of months ago came to no consensus on this issue. The police and the coroner are allowed to call a a homicide a murder (i.e., an intentional one) based on evidence other than the decedent's body (the discovery of which, in this case, has forced the continuation of a trial that was about to start). And calling it a murder does not, whatever InedibleHulk argues, automatically convict the defendant, as its usage here ("The suspect in her murder, Nasean Bonie, 29, was indicted and returned to court Wednesday for a hearing.") would suggest can be understood if properly phrased. Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how you choose to interpret the RfC on the BLP issue, consensus was much clearer on the OR issue. Many of those who felt it wasn't prejudicial still spoke of requiring sources to say so. Like I note in the above section, zero of eight sources here call this a murder, only using the term to describe the accusations, which have not been tested in court. Even if this description were harmless, it's still not backed by any sources. All eight sources do say Ramona Moore died. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{[ec}}Even the one I quoted just above? As I already said, whatever the legal distinctions between "homicide" and "murder", both terms are prejudicial, and readers will search on a case like this under "murder" because no alternate theory of the homicide exists in the public record at this point, and a grand jury indicted Bonie on that charge (granted, second-degree murder, but murder). That distinction between the crime and the defendant exists in other reportage on the case: "Nasean Bonie, Moore’s building superintendent in the Bronx, was indicted for her murder last May despite the lack of a corpse." And see also the WABC-TV story quoted above.

If all the usage in the media supported your take on this, I might be willing to agree with you. But there isn't a consensus in the media, and there wasn't a consensus here (the close of the RFC did not indicate any difference in consensus between the two policies implicated, so your interpretation is well, original research, as far as the RFC's result is concerned). Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all of them. "Suspect in her murder" is synonymous with "person suspected of her murder", and an indictment is just a sort of accusation. Why should we base this title on a theory at all, when "death" is a 100% verifiable fact? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And your Wikilink is about murder convictions without a body. Convictions aren't made by police or coroners, but judges and juries. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The underlying point is that an investigative finding of murder, and the resultant criminal charges, can be made without a body in evidence. Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, before we ruin our Saturday night, I felt a touch of wikimagic and a compromise just occurred to me:
"Alleged murder of Ramona Moore"? Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too wordy. And again, investigators don't make "findings" of murder. Just enough clues to press murder charges. Then the court finds the defendant guilty or not guilty. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just one additional word makes it too wordy? We have a lot of article titles longer than that. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a heavy word. In letters and POV. Gives undue weight to the allegations. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And hey, do you
let different people use your account? How else are we to explain your apparent comfort with exactly this "alleged murder" wording a little over two months ago? Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I wasn't talking about titles. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"
Ramona Moore murder case", then? Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
That one isn't terrible, but not exactly common form for non-storybooks. When (if?) someone beside you and I shows up, with actual power to answer this request, they can consider that Option B. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Perhaps we should consider this a model for other, similar situations (And, of course, when (and it will probably be when) Mr. Bonie pleads out or is convicted, the article goes back to its present title). Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN:, would you like to pick one of these two? If not, do you know an admin who would? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not if there's still a dispute as to which title is better. Between the two of you, please decide on one option. --NeilN talk to me 10:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can that option be Wikipedia:Third opinion? If not, I'm still for my choice, and I'd wager Case still likes his. Irresistible force paradox of sorts. What say you, @Daniel Case:? I'm OK with the murder title upon conviction, if we're stuck one-on-one and that helps you step over to my side in the meantime. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, I have no objection to
Ramona Moore murder case (It would also, at least temporarily, help better distinguish this one from Murder of Romona Moore. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Alright, let's go with that one. Preferably soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: Everything is wrapped up in a neat little package. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --NeilN talk to me 02:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Ramona_Moore&oldid=1215240621"