This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Death of Victoria Martens article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Death of Victoria Martens appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 October 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
The result of the move request was: moved to Death of - consensus is almost unanimously for this modification DrStrauss talk 17:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Murder of Victoria Martens →
Homicide of Victoria Martens – The
autopsy result concludes that the manner of death was
homicide, which refers to the intentional killing of a human being by another, consistent with the cause of death being manual strangulation. Three people are facing separate trials in relation to the death, and these will not occur until October to December 2017 at the earliest.
Murder is a type of homicide, specifically an unlawful homicide. I don't doubt that this was a murder, and a gruesome one, but the finding that this homicide was a murder requires (as I understand it) a legal finding which has yet to be made by a court (criminal or coronial) that there was the necessary
mens rea. There is a distinction between finding that Martens was murdered and the conviction that declares who perpetrated the murder, and for BLP reasons WP cannot draw conclusions of guilt without a conviction. For the same reason, I suggest we might be wise to describe the death as a "homicide" rather than a "murder" until the trials are over. In the alternative, a title of "Death of Victoria Martens" might be appropriate.
EdChem (
talk)
23:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is this even an article? there is no evidence that after the trials anyone will ever mention this tabloid story again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 ( talk) 18:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
How about Victoria Martens murder case? It's not like the killing is unsolved, or ever has been; there are several people who have been arrested and charged, including with murder. So while we can't yet right "Murder of Victoria Martens", we can acknowledge the pendency of the case. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Nor do either of your two examples make sense in context. Death of Caylee Anthony is so titled because her cause of death could not be established by the state, a large part of why her mother was acquitted of murder. In the other case, someone was convicted of the murder charge and served a prison sentence. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
"Intentionally lied" is a strange expression. A lie is intentional by definition, or it isn't a lie (see wikt:lie#Etymology 2), it's an error or an inaccuracy. I will put it in parentheses, so it's clear that it's a quote.
HandsomeFella ( talk) 10:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The article lede says "Victoria Martens (August 23, 2006 – August 24, 2016)" and the date in the infobox is "August 24, 2016"; however, the article body and the newspaper source cited says that Victoria Martens died "between 7:45 and 8:30 p.m. on August 23, her 10th birthday". Can anyone clarify? Test piggy ( talk) 02:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Death of Victoria Martens article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Death of Victoria Martens appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 October 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
The result of the move request was: moved to Death of - consensus is almost unanimously for this modification DrStrauss talk 17:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Murder of Victoria Martens →
Homicide of Victoria Martens – The
autopsy result concludes that the manner of death was
homicide, which refers to the intentional killing of a human being by another, consistent with the cause of death being manual strangulation. Three people are facing separate trials in relation to the death, and these will not occur until October to December 2017 at the earliest.
Murder is a type of homicide, specifically an unlawful homicide. I don't doubt that this was a murder, and a gruesome one, but the finding that this homicide was a murder requires (as I understand it) a legal finding which has yet to be made by a court (criminal or coronial) that there was the necessary
mens rea. There is a distinction between finding that Martens was murdered and the conviction that declares who perpetrated the murder, and for BLP reasons WP cannot draw conclusions of guilt without a conviction. For the same reason, I suggest we might be wise to describe the death as a "homicide" rather than a "murder" until the trials are over. In the alternative, a title of "Death of Victoria Martens" might be appropriate.
EdChem (
talk)
23:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is this even an article? there is no evidence that after the trials anyone will ever mention this tabloid story again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 ( talk) 18:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
How about Victoria Martens murder case? It's not like the killing is unsolved, or ever has been; there are several people who have been arrested and charged, including with murder. So while we can't yet right "Murder of Victoria Martens", we can acknowledge the pendency of the case. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Nor do either of your two examples make sense in context. Death of Caylee Anthony is so titled because her cause of death could not be established by the state, a large part of why her mother was acquitted of murder. In the other case, someone was convicted of the murder charge and served a prison sentence. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
"Intentionally lied" is a strange expression. A lie is intentional by definition, or it isn't a lie (see wikt:lie#Etymology 2), it's an error or an inaccuracy. I will put it in parentheses, so it's clear that it's a quote.
HandsomeFella ( talk) 10:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The article lede says "Victoria Martens (August 23, 2006 – August 24, 2016)" and the date in the infobox is "August 24, 2016"; however, the article body and the newspaper source cited says that Victoria Martens died "between 7:45 and 8:30 p.m. on August 23, her 10th birthday". Can anyone clarify? Test piggy ( talk) 02:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)