Talk:Death of Cooper Harris/Archive 1

Merger proposal

Due to significant overlap, I think that Justin Ross Harris should be merged into Murder of Cooper Harris. As per WP:1E, the article should be about the event (the murder) rather than the person (Justin Ross Harris). The articles are small enough that merging will not cause any problems as far as undue article size is concerned. Quasar G. (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think there was a Justin Ross Harris article at the time that I started this one. It seems obvious to me that the death should be the primary focus, seeing that it's the only reason anyone knows Justin Ross Harris' name. (Justinblack (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

Were you going to merge the articles or were you waiting on me? I've never merged two articles, so I'm not sure I'd know where to begin. I will start though if no one else is going to. Justinblack (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I have already made the merge. Feel free to add any content that is missing (here is the other page, it has now been made into a redirect). Quasar G ^{t - c} 22:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Death, or Murder?

When I first created this article, I titled it "Death of Cooper Harris." That title has since been changed to "Murder of Cooper Harris." I think death is more appropriate for the following reasons:

1. Death is a broad term, and murder is a narrow term. The broad term is certainly correct, and the narrow term is potentially incorrect.

2. Ross Harris has appealed the charge of murder. If I understand the law correctly, he is not technically convicted so long as his case is under appeal. It seems unbefitting to call a living person a murderer while there is still a legal possibility that he is not.

3. Concerning legal conclusions: while we hope that the court comes to the right decision regarding whether or not Ross Harris intentionally killed his son, the decision is ultimately irrelevant to the fact. The court could be wrong on the matter, and automatically siding with the court puts too much faith in them.

4. The case is highly controversial, and there are vocal proponents on both sides arguing as to whether this actually was a murder. Seeing that there is so much controversy, it seems biased to me to leap to one particular side. The word murder does that, while the word death leaves the conclusion open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinblack (talk • contribs) 02:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

If the conviction is overturned on appeal then the father is an innocent man and Wikipedia is exposed to legal liability unless the word "murder" is removed. This is the safest course. "Death of Cooper Harris" is correct regardless of the outcome of the appeal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.176.10 (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Justinblack: it was me who changed the title of the page, early on when it had just been moved into the mainspace. You make some good points here, but I disagree with you in part. I'm not sure you're right about your second point; I think that someone's case has to go through the court of appeals, and only after that is their conviction reconsidered (I am no law expert, but no source I can find says that the defendant can lose his conviction just by appealing). As it stands, Ross Harris is a murderer, and to change the title would make it seem as though Cooper Harris' death was an accident, and that his father was innocent. Also, the article mentions that he is a murderer multiple times, and so to change the title would make it inconsistent.

I appreciate that you chose to bring this to the talk page, rather than simply performing the move yourself. Also, thanks for creating the article itself - it has turned out very well :) Quasar G ^{t - c} 17:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Assessment

A couple of words about my "Importance" assessment of this article for the Crime WikiProject. While others have assessed the importance of this article as "Low" for other projects, I have assessed it as "Mid" because this case starkly illustrates the two components of the crime of Murder. Based on the facts of the case, the actus reus, that a father leaves his child in car seat in the back seat of his car and "forgets" to drop said child off at daycare on the way to work. As a result he leaves the child in the hot car all day; even though he returned to the vehicle in the middle of the day he failed to notice the he had left the child in the car seat and not dropped the child off at daycare. While some might say this was accidental, the forgetfulness indicates at least an act of negligence is at play. However, the other aspect of the crime is the mens rea or the mental state of the perpetrator. When a perpetrator does not confess to the crime then his behaviour can often reveal his mental state. In this case, the perpetrator's behaviour during the day strongly suggests he was not concerned about his child and, perhaps, even wanted to be rid of his offspring, based on what he was reading and doing over the day. Also, when he did "discover" the child in the car, he did not immediately call 911 for help but instead moved away from witnesses to make three phone calls to other people. Why? Especially when he said he had pulled into a parking lot to seek help and call 911. If this was accidental, a reasonable person might panic and make phone calls for help, perhaps forgetting to call 911, but would not deliberately move away from his child that others were dealing with, but would more likely stand over them and watch closely in a panic. In other words, his behaviour is inconsistent with a forgetful dad and suggests some other motive. He faced a charge of malice murder, indicate the police and prosecution did not believe the child's death was accidental, otherwise he would have face a negligent homicide or manslaughter charge. The jury didn't believe the death was accidental either, and found the father guilty. The prima facie evidence is that this is probably an accident but the father's behaviour during the day provides contrary evidence that can be interpreted as being a deliberate premeditated act. It appears the prosecution was able to convince the jury that this was the case, beyond reasonable doubt. Because of the somewhat unusual outcome, I have rated this as a "Mid" importance article because this is not a usual finding in this sort of case. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:IAR issue re: MOS:SAMESURNAME

Hello! I just wanted to bring awareness to the fact that I initially opted to deliberately disregard a WP guideline on this page, but, out of an abundance of caution, I've just reversed course. I'm perfectly happy (and won't object) if another user disagrees.

Per MOS:SURNAME, persons mentioned in articles are usually referred to by their full name on first reference and then by their surname on subsequent references. Per MOS:SAMESURNAME, when multiple persons have the same surname, the subject of an article is usually referred to by their surname after being introduced, while people with the same surname are, after the first reference (listing their full name), referred to by their given name.

I think the obvious implication is that Cooper Harris should be referred to as "Harris" on subsequent references, while Justin Ross Harris should be referred to as "Justin" (or "Ross", his preferred name). That's the approach that Death of Caylee Anthony takes—the toddler Caylee Anthony is referred to as "Anthony" on subsequent references, while family members (including her mother, Casey Anthony, who was charged with Anthony's death) are referred to by their given name. But I initially hesitated—it seems more common, to me, for particularly young children to be referred to by their given name in sources outside of Wikipedia. But, in general, I'm highly reluctant to invoke IAR, and, since I don't have particularly strong feelings on the matter, I figure the safer thing to do is follow our guidelines.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

In my GA review, I argued that it should be Harris when referring to JR Harris. My reasoning is based mostly on the fact that JR Harris is functionally the article subject; the article is about him, his actions, and his legal cases, much more so than it is about Cooper. Although this is not strictly what the guidelines say, I think it's a very reasonable approach. I'm not sure if I'm rule-lawyering (hopefully not), IAR-ing, or something else, but referring to JR Harris as Harris seems like the obvious and, importantly, clearest approach. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, this might be appropriate for a more general discussion. MOS:SAMESURNAME mentions that treating young childern differently in the context of this guideline has not gained consensus in multiple discussions, but this is a separate issue from that. If I'm counting correctly, this article mentions Cooper Harris 24 times, and JR Harris more than 60 times.

When an article deals primarily with an individual that is not technically its subject, can that individual be considered the article subject for the purposes of this guideline?

Now that I lay it out, maybe this is not actually the case here. 24 mentions is more than I thought at first. But it's still an interesting question to consider in general. What do you think? Actualcpscm (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I definitely think it's interesting but tricky (and probably not clear under existing policy). If forced to choose, I do think that the subject here is the death of Cooper Harris, even though the article is mostly on the prosecution of Justin Ross Harris for the death of Cooper Harris. I think there's a simplicity gained by focusing on the title. Still, I don't think it's a 100% clear case. So, from my perspective, referring to Cooper Harris as "Harris" and Justin Ross Harris as "Justin/Ross" is either required by MOS:SAMESURNAME or permissible under MOS:SAMESURNAME, whereas I think referring to Justin Ross Harris as "Harris" is either permissible under MOS:SAMESURNAME or not allowed by MOS:SAMESURNAME. So I think the former is the safer option.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense to me! Actualcpscm (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death of Cooper Harris/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Actualcpscm (talk · contribs) 17:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   The article could use some copy-editing, but it's mostly fine. However, Justin Ross Harris is referred to as Ross throughout the article; Harris would be more appropriate because it is his last name. That would also match the reporting in reliable sources, as far as I can tell. Discussion about this is ongoing at the article talk page.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   I suggest fixing the one CN tag currently present, although that should be trivial.  Done Actualcpscm (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

   I removed the statement about Leanna Harris in accordance with WP:RSPSS and WP:BLP, you might want to add it back with a better source.

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I understand the need for precision when writing about legal proceedings, but the arguments provided by Harris' attorneys do not need to be provided as a quotation. Testimonies are fine as quotations, but that is not necessary for the comments made after charges were dismissed. I would suggest rewriting this quotation into prose that paraphrases what the attorneys said.  Done Actualcpscm (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   An image of Justin Harris should be available in the public domain somewhere, I think that would be a good addition. Maybe also a picture of the vehicle model in which the incident occurred?

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Nominator response

Thanks for the review! I am only briefly online now, but just a few responses:

1. Yes can fix the CN tag pretty easily
2. I'm not totally sure about the Harris image. Possibly I could find a mugshot (although doing so is a little problematic). I'll look into it.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately no luck on the Ross Harris image. I've searched through a few public-domain-image databases, turned up nothing. (I also think non-free images aren't an option here: it's very hard to justify the use of non-free images of living people.)

I think the mugshot option could be tricky. There was recently a RFC at Talk:Victor_Salva#Request_for_comment, which explored whether a mugshot should be used to illustrate the article. Now, that case was slightly different than this one: Silva is known for being a director in addition to / moreso than the fact that he is known for his crimes.

But I do think there's a parallel problem here. This article is on the Death of Cooper Harris, not Ross Harris's other crimes. Ross has not been (validly) adjudicated guilty for any crimes in relation to Cooper Harris's death. As such, using a mugshot to illustrate it brings up some WP:BLP concerns.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, but I agree with you that using a mugshot might not be appropriate here. How about the vehicle option? Any thoughts on that? Actualcpscm (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Shoot—I'm sorry! I completely blanked on looking for that. Per this article, the car was a 2011 Hyundai Tuscon. We don't have any images of the interior (or the exterior, for that matter, but I imagine only the interior would be relevant to the article?), but I will check the public domain databases again tonight or first thing tomorrow.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries! I'm really only suggesting it to have at least one relevant image in the article, but to be honest, it's not strictly necessary. I'm passing this nom, congrats! (Don't let this stop you from finding an image; having it in the article would still be an improvement in my opinion.) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Aw why thank you! I agree having an image would definitely improve it, and I will absolutely search once I'm not using my phone as a hotspot to reply here :) --Jerome Frank Disciple 20:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

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.