Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Sara-Nicole Morales

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by Daniel Case (talk). Self-nominated at 20:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Sad interesting story, on plenty of sources, no copyvio obvious. I think a hook mentioning that the two involved were in a road rage would be more important than lawn and even pregnancy. Will you try? Perhaps we don't have to mention the anniversary, which takes extra characters? - Please make the dates consistent: the shooting appears to have happened on 20 November, and death pronounced 21 Nov. That is not 100% clear in the article. I hope you'll find a willing admin once approved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will try, though I think that would make the hook less interesting ... I mean, getting shot dead on your own front lawn and then the person who did it not facing any charges because it was self-defense is not something that happens every day, not even in Florida. Shootings following road-rage incidents are, by contrast, unfortunately less unusual, as noted in the article.

I suppose we don't have to mention the anniversary, although in my experience that usually draws more interest when it is noted. Daniel Case (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what source did you see that puts the date of death as November 21? All the sources say she was pronounced dead shortly after arrival at the hospital she was taken to shortly after the incident, which happened before 5:30 p.m. that evening. I really doubt from that information that those events took six and a half hours. Perhaps it is possible the death certificate was dated the next day, but it seems pretty clear from the sources that she died the day she was shot. Are you maybe confusing that with the date on some of the news stories? Daniel Case (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry about the "21", my reading failure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: It has now been a month and Roy hasn't responded. I think at this point there's no point in waiting any longer; they can be presumed to not care. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My 2 cents. The article is well written and does not dwell on gory or unseemly details. And the hook is interesting and meets DYK requirements. There may be hooks that are too sensitive or "lurid" to feature on the main page, but this is not one IMO. Morales' death received international coverage from serious journalists as a tragic glimpse into American "gun culture" and road rage. In fact, The Economist (hardly a tabloid) featured the story. See here. I see no reason for us to exclude it from the main page. Cbl62 (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think ALT1 is fine. Good to go. BorgQueen (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnant?

[edit]

She may have been "reported" pregnant "by her mother", but in other reports, the autopsy could not confirm that she was pregnant, meaning that she wasn't "5 months" pregnant. I don't mind so much the inclusion of this detail, but it also requires including the autopsy report that contradicts the mother, and since both really shouldn't be in the Lede for readability and other reasons, particularly since she wasn't pregnant (according the the autopsy) and was only reported to be in this condition by her own mother (and how would she know for certain anyways), including this single fact without it's contradictory opposite, creates the general idea that she is somehow deserving of some smpathy, and the person that legally shot her had done something wrong. Creates a false impression in the Lede's first impression, and so the Lede should be fixed for this reason. She got into a road rage incident and was followed home by several motorists, including the motorcyclist that she tried to kill on the road, where she produced a gun and was killed as a result. Deserves no sympathy or outrage anywhere, particularly in this Article.

66.25.69.185 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last time someone broached this, they shared a link to the autopsy report, posted on a forum somewhere, but when I clicked it was unable to download. Without an autopsy report saying that she was not actually pregnant at the time, we can only go with what was reported in multiple secondary sources. If you know somewhere where there is a copy of the autopsy report available, please post a link. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post in thread 'FL - Sara Morales, 35, shot dead by motorcyclist she hit with car, Orange City, 20 Nov 2021' https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/fl-sara-morales-35-shot-dead-by-motorcyclist-she-hit-with-car-orange-city-20-nov-2021.603416/post-17554055 Dumbcomputers6669 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says I have to be logged in. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay hang on it's also on YouTube uploaded to a video so I will link you to it Dumbcomputers6669 (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well for some reason it won't let me post a YouTube link. So you will either have to make an account on web sleuth so that you can download it, Or you can inform me on how to post a YouTube link so you can see it and I will post it. Dumbcomputers6669 (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The spam blacklist usually (I think) keeps non-autoconfirmed accounts such as yours from posting YouTube links.
And honestly I'm not sure a YouTube video will be seen as a reliable source even if it shows the whole document without commentary, since it probably comes from a third party which would make it difficult to authenticate. Also as a primary source, we can only cite what it actually and unequivocally says. If it says outright that she was not pregnant at the time of her death, great. If that's a matter of interpretation, we can't say that.
The websleuths account might be the better option here, even though I have a very low opinion of that site (and that is not unique to me). Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The autopsy report States unequivocally that she was not pregnant. It says there was no fetus and no amniotic sac present. It goes further to say that it appeared she had a blighted ovum and had recently had a miscarriage or abortion. You need to see it Dumbcomputers6669 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll throw another 2 cents into the mix. Just because reliable sources reported that the mother reported that she was pregnant 1) doesn't mean she actually was, and 2) the lack of independent corroboration by the coroner, does not mean that Wikipedia Editors are somehow obligated to include the detail. Not an expert, but I believe Wikipedia Editors have the ability to selectively ignore certain details like this, and then second to that point, it's another thing entirely to include this in the Lede. Not exactly certain what standards exist for Ledes in general, but in terms of my own personal ideas of readability, I want the most important and reliable facts up-front, and the secondary details and ambiguities later in the body. I don't believe her possible pregnancy is important enough to include in the Lede at all, particularly since there is significant doubt as to it's truth and accuracy. At minimum, I think the possibility of her being pregnant should be deprecated from the Lede to the body, and then some discussion about whether it should be included in the Article at all, given the unreliability of the information itself. There is a difference between the reliability of the source that says the Mother claimed she was pregnant, and the reliability of whether or not it was true. Ultimately, the Mother was the "source" of the information, and she is by definition unreliable, even if "reliable sources" reported what she claimed. And again, the effect of this assertion appears to be an attempt to manufacture sympathy for a "victim" in a narrative that is selectively choosing to include and ignore other details for the purpose of manufacturing that narrative, which is not encyclopedic.66.25.69.185 (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you're putting forth as an option—concluding she wasn't pregnant because a) her mother can't be trusted on that and b) the autopsy report (which I have still not been able to see) doesn't affirm that—is exactly the sort of thing we have long disallowed as improper synthesis.
I am, however, willing to move it out of the intro and state more clearly that her mother said she was pregnant at the time. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sara morales pregnancy

[edit]

Here is a link to the autopsy report. You have to download it in PDF form from this post.

Post in thread 'FL - Sara Morales, 35, shot dead by motorcyclist she hit with car, Orange City, 20 Nov 2021' https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/fl-sara-morales-35-shot-dead-by-motorcyclist-she-hit-with-car-orange-city-20-nov-2021.603416/post-17554055 Dumbcomputers6669 (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Sara-Nicole_Morales&oldid=1245729687"