This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Murder of Hannah Graham 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 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 September 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi friends, for goodness sake let's not try to go so far P.C. that we actually post falsehoods such as "person of interst" when Mr. Matthew is not that at all. He's legally an arrested suspect. (Not just a technicality). There are over 46 different actual real reliable news agencies, plus the FBI, plus Virginia State Police, Charlottesville Police, and even Mr. Matthew's own attorney who ALL agree as to everything included in the paragraph I have contributed. So please my friends, let us remain factual and not so hopelessly naive as to think we have to wait for the actual trial verdict, then appeals, then sentencing, etc., etc....before we can list someone. It is totally acceptable and within policy (and legal acceptance) to name Mr. Matthew as being ARRESTED, CHARGED, EXTRADITED, and so forth - because all of those have happened (see news, FBI, VSP, etc). It is not speculative, inflammatory, or libel/slander to state these facts. Which is why BBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, Reuters, etc. all have done so. Nobody is saying he has been CONVICTED by a jury nor plead guilty - nor acquitted and set free. None of this is opinion. It is fact. And if the day arises when/if he may be acquitted or set free? We shall post that as well.
In fact, it is FACTUALLY WRONG (meaning an actual error) to say he is "Person of Interest" and not ID him by name. Because legally and technically? He is not. He is an ARRESTED SUSPECT, who is not a minor, currently incarcerated in custody in Virginia for the (quote from his arrest:) "ABDUCTION WITH INTENT TO DEFILE OF HANNAH GRAHAM". Just as Mr. Matthew also had his DNA and evidence linking him to Harrington (sourced from national news outlets, FBI, and police). These are not speculation, but FACT according to FBI, VA STATE POLICE, UVA POLICE, and dozens of news agencies. So pelase, my cohorts, let us remain factual and serve the article, please. Thank you. (And FYI: Apologies for the all caps emphasis, my smart phone is wonky - I'm not yelling, which is also why I couldn't post the LINKS proper in the paragraph of article where I list sources, thus any mod-edit assist would be great. Actual links are in the body/paragraph. tHANX! :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.5.157.200 ( talk) 11:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Name is in this Reuters article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/21/us-usa-virginia-students-idUSKBN0HG00N20140921
12.30.109.2 ( talk) 03:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
With official indictment and charging of the suspect, the use of the term person of interest is not longer accurate. 108.18.74.119 ( talk) 00:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to be insensitive or inflame anyone since this is sensitive and an ongoing article, but why is the 'see also' section continually deleted? Doyna Yar ( talk) 03:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I find this statement misleading: "On October 1, it was reported by the New York Daily News that the person of interest in the Graham case had been named in up to 10 rape, murder and disappearance cases".
One reason is the cited article's title is "Suspect in Hannah Graham disappearance could be linked to 10 violent crimes against women in Virginia since 2002". Also, in the article it states "In fact, Matthew’s name has come up in reexaminations of up to 10 rape, murder and disappearance cases across Virginia in the last 12 years, including the high profile 2009 murder of 20-year-old Morgan Harrington, also in Charlottesville, a Daily News review of local news reports found."
I'm new to contributing and I can't think of a proposed re-wording of the statement. Bsavio ( talk) 13:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Murder of Hannah Graham → Death of Hannah Graham – Per The Washington Post, Graham's death has not been publicly identified as murder. 70.208.138.181 ( talk) 17:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Do we have a source confirming it was murder? A press release from Albemarle or Charlottesville PD, the medical examiner's office, the death certificate, etc.? It seems like until there's an official statement saying she was murdered, or Matthew is indicted in her murder, it should either be Death of Hannah Graham. Alternatively, we can go the route of the Harrington article and rename the article to Hannah Elizabeth Graham.
I think the time has come to make Jesse Matthew a separate article, considering his connection to the Morgan Harrington case, it would be easier to have information that is relevant to him (the Fairfax case, the issues at Liberty/CNU, etc.) on his article as opposed to bringing it up where it is only somewhat relevant to the Graham and Harrington cases. Fireflyfanboy ( talk) 17:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I think the time has come, given Matthew pleading guilty to both the Graham and the Harrington murder, to merge these two articles once and for all. Fireflyfanboy ( talk) 21:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
2601:5C2:100:908:5B2:EAC9:F66D:51A7 ( talk) 18:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Murder of Hannah Graham. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Murder of Hannah Graham. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the importance of this factoid at all, ergo I feel it has no place in the article at all, and certainly not in the lede. My edit summary was a good faith suggestion to Berean Hunter that if they felt it was worthy of inclusion they should find a place for it themselves.
Just because something is sourced does not qualify it for inclusion - and again certianly ot in the lede which is supposed to be a summary of the article proper, not somewhere to place titbits of info. If nowhere logical can be found in the article then it either needs rewriting, or is not worthy of inclusion.
Please discuss rather than edit war, and I'm surprised that I even have to say that. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 11:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, spotted this at DRN. Will comment here more as a third opinion. The comments about it not belonging in the lede is pretty spot on here - it's meant to be the summary of the overview of the article, and not a place for inserting new pieces of information. Also, on articles such as these (e.g. Murder of Meredith Kercher, Murder of Stephen Lawrence, it's common practice to mention those accused of the crime in the context of being suspected/convicted of the crime, but rather rare to mention their personal information. I would recommend against it's inclusion in this article until such time as the perpetrator dies, at which time something along the lines of "Matthew died of cancer on XYZ date". Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 20:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Murder of Hannah Graham 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 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 September 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi friends, for goodness sake let's not try to go so far P.C. that we actually post falsehoods such as "person of interst" when Mr. Matthew is not that at all. He's legally an arrested suspect. (Not just a technicality). There are over 46 different actual real reliable news agencies, plus the FBI, plus Virginia State Police, Charlottesville Police, and even Mr. Matthew's own attorney who ALL agree as to everything included in the paragraph I have contributed. So please my friends, let us remain factual and not so hopelessly naive as to think we have to wait for the actual trial verdict, then appeals, then sentencing, etc., etc....before we can list someone. It is totally acceptable and within policy (and legal acceptance) to name Mr. Matthew as being ARRESTED, CHARGED, EXTRADITED, and so forth - because all of those have happened (see news, FBI, VSP, etc). It is not speculative, inflammatory, or libel/slander to state these facts. Which is why BBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, Reuters, etc. all have done so. Nobody is saying he has been CONVICTED by a jury nor plead guilty - nor acquitted and set free. None of this is opinion. It is fact. And if the day arises when/if he may be acquitted or set free? We shall post that as well.
In fact, it is FACTUALLY WRONG (meaning an actual error) to say he is "Person of Interest" and not ID him by name. Because legally and technically? He is not. He is an ARRESTED SUSPECT, who is not a minor, currently incarcerated in custody in Virginia for the (quote from his arrest:) "ABDUCTION WITH INTENT TO DEFILE OF HANNAH GRAHAM". Just as Mr. Matthew also had his DNA and evidence linking him to Harrington (sourced from national news outlets, FBI, and police). These are not speculation, but FACT according to FBI, VA STATE POLICE, UVA POLICE, and dozens of news agencies. So pelase, my cohorts, let us remain factual and serve the article, please. Thank you. (And FYI: Apologies for the all caps emphasis, my smart phone is wonky - I'm not yelling, which is also why I couldn't post the LINKS proper in the paragraph of article where I list sources, thus any mod-edit assist would be great. Actual links are in the body/paragraph. tHANX! :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.5.157.200 ( talk) 11:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Name is in this Reuters article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/21/us-usa-virginia-students-idUSKBN0HG00N20140921
12.30.109.2 ( talk) 03:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
With official indictment and charging of the suspect, the use of the term person of interest is not longer accurate. 108.18.74.119 ( talk) 00:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to be insensitive or inflame anyone since this is sensitive and an ongoing article, but why is the 'see also' section continually deleted? Doyna Yar ( talk) 03:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I find this statement misleading: "On October 1, it was reported by the New York Daily News that the person of interest in the Graham case had been named in up to 10 rape, murder and disappearance cases".
One reason is the cited article's title is "Suspect in Hannah Graham disappearance could be linked to 10 violent crimes against women in Virginia since 2002". Also, in the article it states "In fact, Matthew’s name has come up in reexaminations of up to 10 rape, murder and disappearance cases across Virginia in the last 12 years, including the high profile 2009 murder of 20-year-old Morgan Harrington, also in Charlottesville, a Daily News review of local news reports found."
I'm new to contributing and I can't think of a proposed re-wording of the statement. Bsavio ( talk) 13:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Murder of Hannah Graham → Death of Hannah Graham – Per The Washington Post, Graham's death has not been publicly identified as murder. 70.208.138.181 ( talk) 17:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Do we have a source confirming it was murder? A press release from Albemarle or Charlottesville PD, the medical examiner's office, the death certificate, etc.? It seems like until there's an official statement saying she was murdered, or Matthew is indicted in her murder, it should either be Death of Hannah Graham. Alternatively, we can go the route of the Harrington article and rename the article to Hannah Elizabeth Graham.
I think the time has come to make Jesse Matthew a separate article, considering his connection to the Morgan Harrington case, it would be easier to have information that is relevant to him (the Fairfax case, the issues at Liberty/CNU, etc.) on his article as opposed to bringing it up where it is only somewhat relevant to the Graham and Harrington cases. Fireflyfanboy ( talk) 17:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I think the time has come, given Matthew pleading guilty to both the Graham and the Harrington murder, to merge these two articles once and for all. Fireflyfanboy ( talk) 21:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
2601:5C2:100:908:5B2:EAC9:F66D:51A7 ( talk) 18:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Murder of Hannah Graham. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Murder of Hannah Graham. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the importance of this factoid at all, ergo I feel it has no place in the article at all, and certainly not in the lede. My edit summary was a good faith suggestion to Berean Hunter that if they felt it was worthy of inclusion they should find a place for it themselves.
Just because something is sourced does not qualify it for inclusion - and again certianly ot in the lede which is supposed to be a summary of the article proper, not somewhere to place titbits of info. If nowhere logical can be found in the article then it either needs rewriting, or is not worthy of inclusion.
Please discuss rather than edit war, and I'm surprised that I even have to say that. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 11:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, spotted this at DRN. Will comment here more as a third opinion. The comments about it not belonging in the lede is pretty spot on here - it's meant to be the summary of the overview of the article, and not a place for inserting new pieces of information. Also, on articles such as these (e.g. Murder of Meredith Kercher, Murder of Stephen Lawrence, it's common practice to mention those accused of the crime in the context of being suspected/convicted of the crime, but rather rare to mention their personal information. I would recommend against it's inclusion in this article until such time as the perpetrator dies, at which time something along the lines of "Matthew died of cancer on XYZ date". Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 20:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)