Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Tessa Majors

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

Requested move 23 September 2021

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. consensus that WP:BLPCRIME allows this due to guilty plea accepted by judge (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 15:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Tessa Majors → Murder of Tessa Majors – Tessa Major's "killing" has been reported as a murder in every outlet, local and national, that has reported on the matter. Previously, arguments claiming to sound in BLPCRIME argued that reliable sources were wrong to use the term "murder," and therefore we should not utilize reliable sources and instead defer to "courts of law." These misgivings were unreasonable in that they were wrong as a matter of Wikipedia policy, and wrong as a matter of common sense. It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to second-guess reliable sources. Regardless, even these misguided legalistic objections should be satisfied, given that individuals have now pleaded guilty to her "murder." There is no purpose in maintaining the "Killing" title any longer. Consistent with other articles covering high-profile murders, a move is in order here.... Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Put simply, one of the accused has pleaded guilty to murder. A court has accepted their plea. Calls for a "conviction" misunderstand the legal process. This is the legal conclusion of the case. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME is crystal clear on this issue: “A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law.” WWGB (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such thing as a "judicial finding." Neither a plea nor a "judicial finding" is actually necessary, if you read the reasoning or relevant policies. It is actually a violation of policy to demand as much. Reliable sources have reported this as a murder. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and treat this differently than reliable sources. And finally, this argument—someone curiously—attempts to introduce new legal terms into criminal trials that don't actually exist. A court has accepted a plea to the murder charge; a court would not accept a plea if it were illegitimate or the result of some sort abuse by the prosecution or duress. But again, these legal technicalities are beside the point, it just illustrates how lacking these legalistic arguments made here actually are. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To the newly added point -- an utterly incorrect understanding of the law. A guilty plea results in a conviction for the accused, if accepted by the court, the same as if it were rendered by a jury. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. See last year's RM. 162 etc. (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Last year's RM isn't controlling when the points it was supposedly based (the pending status of the case as to the three suspects) on are no longer relevant. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cases are still pending. As other editors have pointed out below, a guilty plea and a murder conviction are not the same thing. I agree that "wait" is the best approach right now. 162 etc. (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. A guilty plea results in a conviction just as if it were the result of a jury verdict. The end outcome is the same, even though the process has a different name. Please stop repeating incorrect info, I tried to clarify this above. Instead, let's quickly dispel incorrect information so we can proceed with an informed discussion not based on misunderstandings about the legal process. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Struck vote. I did a bit more reading into this matter, it turns out that there have been recent developments in the case that would warrant further discussion, and that last year's RM can be considered outdated. I'll note that the article has not yet been updated with the new information concerning Luchiano Lewis' guilty plea. [1] 162 etc. (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't even believe it's necessary to include the defendants' names. I think that would be a reasonable compromise. However, "murder" is appropriate for the title, in my view, for reasons I noted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rublov: Please point to an actual policy that suggests we need to wait for a "conviction," assuming there is even a trial in the matter. These arguments are an unusual conflation of misguided reasoning about both the US legal system and Wikipedia policy. Unless the "wait" arguments can articulate what specific policy they are referring to -- and why their opinions about "judicial rulings" and other similar misunderstandings about how the legal system works -- should override the obvious outcome here, which is to use murder consistent with all available sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so I reviewed BLPCRIME, and here are a few points:

- The "wait until a conviction is secured" seems to be what a lot of editors are harping on.

- However, a guilty plea to murder has already been secured. One of the accused pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and first-degree robbery. The Times reported In a Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday, Judge Robert Mandelbaum asked Mr. Lewis if he was in fact guilty. The teenager paused, then said yes.

- Another participant pleaded guilty to robbery. Another pleaded "not guilty." There were three accused. - The vast, vast majority of cases do not go to trial. It is unsurprising that a plea deal was secured here.

- Whether or not the final participant either pleads guilty or goes to trial is irrelevant for the purposes of this article. The fact that a judge has accepted a murder plea on this matter and an admission of guilt -- from a minor, no less -- satisfies the BLP requirement as to this particular incident. The courts recognized Ms. Majors' death as a murder, as have reliable sources.

- It is not a comment on the guilt or innocence of the remaining parties to describe what occurred. The matter of fact to be disputed will likely be their level of participation -- not what occurred, which is a settled matter in court and in reliable sources.

- "Wait" is often a reasonable proposition, but should be accompanied by some sort of idea of what we are waiting for. And the what should bear a reasonable relation to the proposal. For the reasons stated above, it's no longer reasonable or necessary to wait for any further developments. It will be important to note that the final suspect has not pleaded guilty, but the titling of the article is merely about the circumstances of Ms. Majors' death, not the guilt or innocence of all suspected parties. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A guilty plea is tantamount to a conviction. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Put much more succinctly than myself. Good point. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    However, per our own article at Arraignment#Guilty and not-guilty pleas, judges are not required to accept a guilty plea. I'm not an American lawyer but that does sound to me that pleading guilty does not result in a conviction unless and until a judge has formally accepted the plea and sentenced the defendant accordingly. After all, if the court determines that the crime does not fit the definition of murder, it cannot sentence someone for murder even if they plead guilty to murder. As such, waiting until the suspect is actually sentenced for murder seems required and appropriate under WP:BLPCRIME. Regards SoWhy 18:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    SoWhy A court already accepted the guilty plea. Sentencing follows conviction, whether it is entered by plea or following a jury verdict. Since you acknowledge you're not an attorney, it would be very helpful if you drop the legalistic arguments, which you've described incorrectly (Perhaps the mantra wait should apply to reading the relevant material/understanding context before challenging another's position). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, a court does not "sentence someone to murder." Sentencing is where the court determines what punishment is appropriate. You are correct that accepting guilty pleas is a discretionary matter; the court accepted the plea in this case, and sentencing -- number of years in prison -- is the next step. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikieditor19920: Actually, I am a lawyer, just not an American one But can you point me to the source that says that the court has accepted the plea? I cannot find that in the sources in the article. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, well in that case I apologize. Lol. But here is the process: a conviction is achieved either by guilty plea or jury verdict. Then, the court proceeds to sentencing. Luchiano Lewis was put back into custody (jail, basically) and will be sentenced on October 14th. If the court believed the guilty plea was improper and opted to reject it, that would have happened already. In fact, this is a rare enough occurrence that most reliable outlets wouldn't even note that the guilty plea was accepted -- it would be more noteworthy if it wasn't. However, that we're proceeding to sentencing now clearly indicates that there were no hiccups. I'm sure you could find the court documents online somewhere eventually, but those probably wouldn't be suitable for WP. That's the problem with BLPCRIME; it asks editors to step outside their milieu and make legal determinations that they really shouldn't be digging into. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the sentencing dates and description of the crime are from the NYT, found here. Also, for a description of the plea process, see here. Typically a judge will actually not even allow the plea to be entered into court if they will reject it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - What is the oppose/wait editor's argument: that a guilty plea is not, in fact, an admission of guilt? Huh? That there has to be a jury trial that secures a verdict? Take the case of the Murder of James Craig Anderson where all involved plead guilty—there was no trial. It's still called a murder because that's what the perpetrator plead to. What nonsense. -- Veggies (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just an admission -- it's the legal conclusion of the case. The court's (judge's) acceptance of the plea, which is discretionary based on the evidence and conditions, signals its finality. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This should have been "Murder of...." from the beginning, following usage by reliable sources. Those still opposing are wrong because they don't understand that a guilty plea is the same thing as a conviction. According to the Times, linked to above, the sentencing for second degree murder will be next month, so even if there's no consensus now there will almost certainly be another move request next month. Unless new arguments against it are produced, then it's a waste of community resources not to speedily close this as Move. Geogene (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lewis has pleaded guilty to murder--not manslaughter, not negligent homicide--murder. Legally, he is guilty of murder. He is just as guilty as he would have been if a jury had convicted him. The law does not consider offenders who plead guilty to crimes less guilty than offenders who are convicted by juries. By labeling Tessa's death a murder, we are not suggesting that parties who have yet to be convicted were involved. We are just calling her death what it was. Tessa did not accidentally get stabbed in the heart. She did not stab her self in the heart on purpose. Her death was clearly the result of fowl play. If we don't call it a murder, we are just denying facts, and Wiki is not meant to do that. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Pronouns

[edit]

There is apparently some dispute over the "pronouns" to use for Tessa Majors. The relevant policy is MOS:GENDERID.

MOS:GENDERID states: Main biographical article on a person whose gender might be questioned Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources. When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary). Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Changed names calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person if they were notable under that name. In other respects, the MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names, or whether to give the former or current name first.

Several editors have suggested that we should use "They/Them" pronouns for Majors based on this piece in NYMag, which included the line: Tess was tiny and feminine and among her peers had started to use they/them pronouns, although she didn’t insist on it.. The entire article, however, refers to her with she/her pronouns.

Policy requires us to defer to the latest self-designation regarding gender pronouns. There is no other source for this designation other than sources that picked up this line from the NYMag piece. This is insufficient to show that Majors self-designated as "they/them." It says exactly the opposite; that the usage was only occasional. All of the sources spoken to who knew Majors are quoted referring to her as "she/her," including friends and family. A few blogs have picked up on this throwaway line and incorporated it into their writings on majors, but these aren't reliable sources. The standard here to confirm that "they/them" were Majors self-identified pronouns at the time of her death are not met. Further, I've seen some editors try to walk the fence here by simply removing any mention of pronouns and using "Majors" (sloppily, I might add, as most of the article still uses she/her). This isn't appropriate. Either it's "They/them," or it's not. The NYMag piece says the use of these pronouns was occasional and does not provide enough to show that they should be standardized here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gender identify is not a light-switch. many people who are different from what they were biologically born as "go with the flow" for a long time, until they feel comfortable to express to others who they really are inside. Some may be quick to adopt, others are more cautious and gradual. Majors' usage was noted by a reliable source...that the usage was only "occasional" is irrelevant, and was unfortunately never able to grow into more, on the account of being, y'know, dead. Zaathras (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zaathras, We do not go with your personal speculation about what the subject may or may not have self-identified as, or which direction she would have gone with if not for her death. It is disrespectful to do so. If we had a source affirming that she identified as "They/Them" at the time of her death, we could use that. We do not. What we have is a single article and a throaway line suggesting she occasionally used these pronouns, but "did not insist on it" and apparently largely went by she/her. That's what we have to go on. We can note in the article that she occasionally went by "they/them," but there's insufficient evidence to suggest we should standardize these pronouns at this point in time, barring additional revelations.
Secondly, stop edit-warring on the article page. Not only are the arguments you make here missing the point, but the reverts you are making on the mainpage are equally sloppy. You are not even reverting content relevant to the pronoun issue. You are removing other sentences from the lead that are entirely disconnected from that. And finally, the article never actually incorporated they/them pronouns. There was a sloppy back-and-forth between "Majors" and "she/her," but the article was never edited in that manner. If you are proposing to make those changes now, you need a source to do it, and your personal speculation or theories about what the subject was thinking aren't relevant to that determination. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not personal specualtion, I was simply giving you some background info on gender identity since this appears to be a topic with which you are unfamiliar. Second, my argument rests upon the fact that Ms. majors' pronoun preference is sourced and verifiable. Thank you, and do not restore the text again without consensus. I do not think another visit to WP:AE would go well. Zaathras (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need your lecture on gender identity. I'm well aware of the current themes and policy on the matter. There is nothing more inappropriate than an older male Wikipedian substituting their judgment for that of a deceased 18-year old without a source to back it up. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except a younger offline male robbing and murdering a living 18-year-old without a lawful excuse, perhaps. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to stay cool. I know I'm guilty of losing my patience often on here. -- Veggies (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I know I'm not guilty of not being cool. Just saying, things could always be less appropriate. I didn't even have to cook that scenario up, just a friendly reminder of the main problem here, actual serious crime. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, we're not here to solve crimes, or crime generally. Our job is much simpler. Review the policy & sources and don't make things up. I'm confident we can get that much right. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I solve some of the crimes I read online, but I don't tell anyone, especially the Internet. As far as the awkward pronoun(s), fuhgettaboutit. We know she didn't even insist among her peers, and we have no reason to suspect any writer or most readers here were in her inner circle. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the record, the text that Zaathras mentioned above about me "not restoring" was a single sentence I added which used the pronoun "she" describing how she was discovered. Zaathras's approach was not to change the pronoun—or any of the other pronouns in the article, which are all "she"—but instead to zero in on this single addition to the article and repeatedly remove it. I wouldn't even think it necessary to bring this up but for Zaathras accusing me of "restoring text without consensus," so I think it's important to be clear what was actually restored. It's obvious that Zaathras was blindly reverting my additions not knowing what they actually contained. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sabir 145.82.104.16 (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hey - i am a friend of tess’s, although id like to stay anonymous. i just want to thank you, wikipedia editors, for making an effort not to include she/her pronouns in their article. tess came out as using they/them pronouns on private social media only a few days before their murder, and i’m not willing to submit proof as what little of tess’s privacy remains is so precious. but i can verify that they/them pronouns were explicitly what tess wanted. 155.254.4.113 (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Murder of Tessa Majors/Archive 3#Tess Majors' Preferred Name and Pronouns for an earlier detailed discussion of this same topic. WWGB (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately it looks like editors already raised the points I made above there, too. A small group of editors, including the OP for that discussion, seem to think it's their job to impose their views of what Majors "would have wanted." That isn't wanted, needed, or permitted, so the discussion should end there. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see on the previous discussion, consensus was reached to remove all pronouns referring to Majors in the article. She/her pronouns appear to have been added back over time, which is ignoring that consensus. You claimed it was done "sloppily... as most of the article still uses she/her)," but the removal was in fact completely thorough and appears to have been disrupted by others who did not discuss the change. It is not an excuse to then fully restore she/her pronouns. Rather, we should restore the article to the consensus state, i.e. no pronouns referring to Majors, unless a new consensus is reached. taulover (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I would like counter some falsehoods being presented here by pointing out (as noted in the previous discussion from 2020) the usage of pronouns in Columbia student news reporting (which should be generally considered reputable on this topic, see WP:RSSM, if not more so given their greater closeness to Majors and their social circle immediately prior to their death). There are two main student news outlets at Columbia. Bwog: Columbia Student News confirmed Tess' preferred name and pronouns in late 2019 and continues to use Tess and they/them in their reporting. Columbia Daily Spectator, much like the Wikipedia consensus, also avoids using pronouns at all, and also uses the preferred name of Tess. Under personal communication to me (which I understand is not a source; I am just providing this for context), Spectator explained that they had evidence that Tess used they/them pronouns and preferred them but feared the repercussions of "outing" a dead person.
As noted in MOS:GENDERID, "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources." Most articles do not report on Tess' self-designation, only what government officials and family members use to refer to them. The reliable sources which do speak on the matter note that Tess used they/them pronouns.
Regardless, for now a consensus has already been reached to remove all pronouns referring to Majors. taulover (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teenagers

[edit]

"Teenagers." 2600:387:15:730:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Tessa_Majors&oldid=1233687389"