Talk:Murder of Mollie Tibbetts/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2018

This can go to the page [1] The suspect appeared in court. 173.184.195.86 (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This specific request is  Declined, as the material is already covered by the mention of the court filing in the article. Strikerforce^Talk 21:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2018

add "illegal" before immigrant, as it is a pertinent fact. 71.219.1.240 (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please contribute to the above section on this topic. ^Falling_Gravity 02:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

BLP

WP:BLP applies to this article, not just because of the "recently deceased" provision but also out of consideration for the victim's family. And this family has expressed that they really don't like the murder being politicized (here's one comment that's just twitter right now, but those editing this article should take to heart: "hey i’m a member of mollie’s family and we are not so fucking small-minded that we generalize a whole population based on some bad individuals. now stop being a fucking snake and using my cousins death as political propaganda. take her name out of your mouth." [2]).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This might be something we could add to the Reactions section with secondary sources. So far I've found [3] and [4]. There's also an official statement from the family which doesn't mention politics but could still be included. ^Falling_Gravity 20:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Those "family members" are not actually related to Tibbetts, they are fakes. Orspac (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Orspac: Why do you think that? Aspening (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:DFTT. Look at the edit history of that account.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, they're obviously an SPA with some POV issues, but I'm not quite seeing the troll bit. Aspening (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The claim that the family members are "fakes". This is like the "crisis actor" bullshit that gets spread around every time there's a school shooting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Legal status

This article[5] states: prosecutors did not directly address the defense claim other than to note their understanding that Rivera was in the country illegally.

So Rivera is an illegal immigrant after all. Can a user please correct the information in the lead to state his illegal status? Orspac (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please feel free to join the discussion on this happening above. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Move proposal

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.

---

There appears to be a split between "Disappearance of" and "Death of" individuals that have disappeared, but were later found dead. As I will likely not be able to spend any time on Wikipedia before tomorrow morning, I wanted to open a thread here about the possibility of moving this article to Death of Mollie Tibbetts. I have no opinion, one way or the other, but am putting the option out there for discussion. Strikerforce^Talk 20:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

How about "murder of" Alex of Canada (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with "Disappearance". It also seems to me a little premature to move the article, in any case. The autopsy hasn't been completed and as far as I can tell her body hasn't officially been identified. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

So wait until the authorities confirm it was murder. In that case, "Murder of" will not incriminate any suspect.Profhum (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep the article under the "Disappearance" title until it is further confirmed with authorities as being a murder. — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 13:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The authorities have confirmed it insofar as they have already charged a suspect with murder, and have released clear evidence of intentional homicide. "Disappearance" just isn't accurate because she has been found and at least the immediate circumstances of her disappearance were captured on video (according to "authorities" at least). "Death of ..." is inappropriately passive in my opinion given that it's clearly a case of foul play, based on information in the public domain (notwithstanding that the present defendant is legally presumed innocent and the burden is on the state to prove every element of the murder he is charged with). NTK (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Why not "Death of ..."? "Disappearance" implies that she is gone and missing; and that no death occurred. There can be a "disappearance" in which the victim is not yet found. There can be a "disappearance" in which the victim is found alive. There can be a "disappearance" in which the victim is found dead. The title should somewhat "limit" these possibilities, so as to best capture the event. I say "Death of ...", which, in the narrative, would also clearly describe the "disappearance" aspect of her death. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the autopsy could take a few weeks, and that's when identification will be officially confirmed. Renaming the article is not only unnecessary, it's premature. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

It has been reported that the father positively identified the corpse found in the cornfield covered with cornstalks as his daughter and the suspect has been charged with murder. The authorities did not have wait for the autopsy report to report that Mollie Tibbetts had been murdered and nor does Wikipedia. Republishing facts in the public domain isn't prejudicial to the rights or due process of the accused, it's what Wikipedia does with breaking news stories. Someone below suggested that it would be wrong to call it a murder if the perpetrated were found insane. That's not entirely accurate; insanity can excuse murder, but it doesn't make it "not murder," not to mention that any possible excuse is pure speculation at this point. The fact that Mollie Tibbetts met a sudden and violent demise at the hands of another is not speculation, it's factually reported news. NTK (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Iowa requires willfullness, deliberation and premeditation. If you're truly not in your head before or during the killing, you can't murder anyone. And if you've killed someone who can't legally be murdered, nobody else can ever murder them. In theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what point you're trying to provide by arguing that Mollie wasn't murdered. The meaning of the English language word "murder" does not mean "commission of murder in the first degree as defined by Iowa statutes." If it mattered, there is no requirement for deliberation or premeditation for second-degree murder in Iowa, just causing death with intent to kill or cause seriously bodily injury ("malice aforethought"). I'm not going to get in a silly argument about hypothetical automatism. Leave it alone. NTK (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave it alone. You think about it. We'll discuss it again in two years. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I am closing this discussion, because there is a move discussion on this page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

References

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018

[6] This can be added in the article. 128.163.238.15 (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done First, please make suggested edits in the form of "X for Y", so that other editors can be certain what your specific requested edit entails. Second, the proposed information is already in the article in the "Investigation" section. Strikerforce^Talk 14:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018

[7]

This one says she died from stab wounds. 128.163.238.15 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done First, please make suggested edits in the form of "X for Y", so that other editors can be certain what your specific requested edit entails. Second, the proposed information is already in the article in the "Investigation" section. Strikerforce^Talk 14:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018

[8]

Fox News sparked controversy as well. 128.163.238.15 (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please make suggested edits in the form of "X for Y", so that other editors can be certain what your specific requested edit entails. Strikerforce^Talk 14:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Immigration verbiage

There appears to be an issue with the definition of immigration status of the perpetrator. Some news sources are listing Rivera as an illegal immigrant whereas others list him as undocumented immigrant. We should nip this in the bud before there is a constant flip flop of edits regarding the status being illegal or undocumented. Thoughts? — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 13:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

what is to "nip in the bud" the man is an ILLEGAL ALIEN (a person who is in this country illegally). What is an "undocumented immigrant" somebody who lost their legal immigration papers? The reason for the difference in the verbiage is that they have two different meanings. Illegal aliens are CRIMINALS and in this case the man who killed Mollie Tibbetts is obviously that. I'm changing it back to the correct term (illegal alien). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A845:CD00:6907:FBF7:A7DB:409E (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Whereas I agree with using the term illegal in describing the immigrant, we should have a consensus before changing it from undocumented. The media reports it as both illegal and undocumented. Please keep a neutral tone when updating the Wikipedia articles. See WP:NEUTRAL. — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 16:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Once again, the illegal immigrant is getting more respect than the young American girl who was murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.40.32 (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, in the legal world, "Illegal Alien", "Illegal Immigrant", and "Undocumented Immigrant" are one and the same. So, to that regard, I have no opinion here other than to say that "Illegal" just "sounds worse" than "Undocumented". Whichever term is used within this article, however, should be the one determined by consensus rather than who's able to win, for lack of a better word, an edit war. Strikerforce^Talk 16:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

From my reading of various local and national news sources, it would seem that they are divided on their description of the man who has been arrested. Depending on the "slant" of the news source, he is either undocumented or illegal. I Support using the proper legal term rather than the easy political euphemism. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's quit sugarcoating the word Illegal. He is an illegal immigrant and therefore had to be reported as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B02F:2CAE:49CE:3943:9753:E044 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The point of this discussion is not to "sugar coat" the word illegal but rather to get a consensus as to how it should be worded within the article. I do agree that it should be listed as illegal instead of undocumented, but my edits were reverted which is why I started this discussion instead of initiating a edit war. It is best to discuss these items with others in order to best document in the article. — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 17:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Is "illegal immigrant" compliant with WP:BLPCRIME in this case? Has he been convicted of being an illegal immigrant? ^Falling_Gravity 18:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• [9].Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Per the article brought up by Volunteer Marek, I would say that we have to remove any reference to "illegal" or "undocumented" until such time as that status is so determined by a court of law. Strikerforce^Talk 19:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Strikerforce, from the reference in which I added it states "HOMETOWN: Rivera, 24, is from El Guayabillo, a town with about 400 people in the state of Guerrero in southern Mexico". In the motion for gag order[10], it states "7. Cristhian has complied with his documented status since arriving in the U.S.A as a minor. Do these references not make Rivera an immigrant? — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 20:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Mr Xaero, I'm not sure if your comment was before or after your response to my post on your talk page. I assume the issue that you're raising is resolved by our exchange there? Strikerforce^Talk 21:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Strikerforce, I believe that the comment/edits were roughly at the same time. — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 21:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I had changed an instance of "illegal alien" to "illegal immigrant" earlier because "illegal immigrant" is the verbiage most commonly used on Wikipedia in other places as far as I could tell. However, I do think that pointing out the undocumented status of the murderer is itself political. I prefer the current version where the authorization status of the murderer isn't identified, since that seems more neutral than the other options. Putting the documentation status in the lead especially places undue weight and implies that immigration status is tied to criminality, which isn't something that's been established. While sources do tend to note that the accused was undocumented, none of them note why or how this relates to the crime, and so it doesn't seem particularly necessary to include this fact. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I had missed the link that he's not been officially confirmed as undocumented. Agree with the wait and see approach, then. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

No, no, no, no! We do not need "consensus" to determine the correct verbiage. ICE has already confirmed that this man is an illegal alien (here in this country illegally). This man is also charged with murder, which doesn't mean convicted, but it should be noted he already confessed to the murder. Therefore all of this "PC" verbiage treating this man like he is a normal immigrant here legally and not involved in crime is ridiculous. Call him what he is---- an Illegal Alien AND a criminal. Stop with all of this PC baloney, the article already had him as illegal alien so call him that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.115.10.30 (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)‎

WP:CONSENSUS is still Wikipedia policy, and a conviction is required per WP:BLPCRIME. ^Falling_Gravity 02:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is still Wikipedia policy and there should be consensus as to the terminology used to refer to immigration status (as well as ensuring that is backed up by reliable sources). That said neither "illegal" nor "undocumented" immigrant terms implicate someone in a crime. Many associated activities such as crossing the border without inspection or using fraudulent documents (the latter of which has been reported in some sources in this case) are crimes, but unlawful (or "illegal") presence (as in the case of overstays) per se is a civil matter. Also BLPCRIM is not an absolute prohibition on reference to crimes by living persons prior to conviction. It needs to be relevant, notable, and accurate. It's a little silly to be concerned about the reputational damage to the defendant here of implying an immigration offense, versus the headline implicating him in a murder. I'm not favoring any particular wording but the controversy regarding this case and the defendant's immigration status obviously has to be addressed in the article. NTK (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said with respect to Bahena Rivera "found no record in our systems indicating he has any lawful immigration status."[11] When the federal agency responsible for ascertaining the immigration status of all persons says you don't have a, quote, «lawful immigration status», then what are you? Well, you are an un-lawful immigrant. Now, are un-lawful immigrants "illegal immigrants"? For speakers of the English language, most certainly. XavierItzm (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only relevance the suspect's immigration status holds is the change to their bail based on flight risk. The article, as currently phrased, communicates that with a neutral tone and without descending into salacious and politically charged invective. I would lean pretty hard against expanding it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You know, I've been watching this idiotic conflict continue for days now. First it was "undocumented immigrant." Then it was "unlawful immigrant" for a while there. Now it's "his lawful immigration status is disputed." I want to tell you all that I think the way you tiptoe around this shit is pathetic. Your original term, "undocumented immigrant," linked to a redirect page that redirected to "illegal immigration." Wikipedia's own page on the subject defines it as ILLEGAL immigration. This discussion should have ended there. Now you're tiptoeing around that by calling it an "immigration dispute." What are you so afraid of? Politicizing it? It's already politicized by the fact that you've made such a huge issue out of avoiding the term "illegal." Every subsequent change that avoids that word is more pathetic than the last. I hope you guys can grow a set pretty soon and accept your own website's terminology for what this is. 76.119.84.12 (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I could not agree more. Go ahead and call him whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy. It further illustrates that Wikipedia is a place rife with biased euphemisms, and if you're okay with perpetuating that kind of thing the rest of us will just read beyond your faults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.162.154 (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, we have policies that require neutrality. In cases like this, where the immigration status of the suspect is unrelated to the crime, it's important to remain neutral by explaining the situation in factual terms. "His legal immigration status is disputed" is the language I used because his lawyer claims he's authorized to work, while the federal government says there's no evidence. Simply calling him an "illegal immigrant" necessarily implies that whether you're documented is tied to whether you'll murder someone, which simply isn't true. I'm not doing this to feel "warm" or "fuzzy". I'd changed the terminology to "illegal immigrant" earlier, in fact, if you'd bothered to scroll up. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The verbiage has extended beyond this page at Brooklyn, Iowa#Notable people (Tibbetts and Rivera are mentioned there) and have tagged to this discussion. — Wyliepedia @ 05:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is it relevant where Rivera immigrated from?

There's no connection between his town of origin and this incident; it's an irrelevant detail and should be removed per WP:DUE Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Strikerforce^Talk 14:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there is no connection. Now if he escaped and went back to his home town then it would be pertinent. — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 14:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The connection is that he's from there. Simply mentioning his hometown is no more undue weight than mentioning the origins if he were from another U.S. city and state. In this case, the POTUS, governor, and both senators of Iowa have raised his immigration status in the media which is notable in itself. Conditions and migrations patterns across the states of Mexico are extremely variable. The fact that Rivera is from Guerrero is a relevant detail in this context. NTK (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree 100% with NTK. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Purely speaking from a factual perspective and, possibly, a literal interpretation of NPOV, all of the individuals that you mentioned, NTK, are Republicans. I've no opinion about the migration patterns across the states of Mexico. I support mentioning Mexico, in general, but specifying the hometown might fall under DUE. Strikerforce^Talk 15:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that we must not give undue weight to the opinions of Trump he is not a judge, nor a juror, nor a reliable source. He's just an opinionated windbag. Simonm223 (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

He's the president of the United States. Regardless if all four individuals I mentioned are Republicans, they are the four highest elected government officials/politicians in Iowa (which is a red state these days), when they are making noise in the news they are notable. My or your opinion about that is irrelevant. NTK (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't think the President was within the Judicial branch of government in your country. His opinion is irrelevant.Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Set aside your emotions for a moment. When the president, governor, and two senators of a state weigh in on an event and this is widely reported in the national news coverage, it is notable and relevant for inclusion in an article about that event on Wikipedia. NTK (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Well if it ever went to jury it might be, as that's unlikely to be the case, their interference is just feeding their racist base, and we should not be a party to it. It's all sound and fury, signifying nothing. The complete and total disdain I hold for the man is irrelevant to the fact that we don't have a duty to be his amplifier. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

We call Tibbetts an American in the lead and a Brooklynite from San Francisco in the body, even though nothing suggests that factored into her death. Same deal for Rivera. Just plain and simple characterization; name, age, gender, nationality. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I rejiggered the lead to only call people by their occupations, pending consensus on whether nationality matters. Hope that's alright for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't presume murder yet

A living person has a trial upcoming, so we should avoid prejudging this a murder. The judge and jury will settle that. I know some people think a murder must have occured, even if the defendant didn't do it, but they're wrong. If this guy did it and can prove he's justified or insane, no murder at all. Slim chance, but one that should be considered. With that said (once at the disappeared "murder" article and now here), I'm out. Discuss amongst yourselves or ignore my advice entirely. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have to wait until the verdict is in to report facts or set an accurate title based on reputable sources. "Disappearance" is factually incorrect. The body has been found (concealed in a cornfield), footage of her "disappearance" on video is in authorities possession, and a suspect has been charged (although calling it "murder" in the title does not itself implicate any particular person). Look at the history of other articles titles on Wikipedia. They are "Murder of X" or "Assassination of X" as applicable in cases of known homicide. I'm moving this back. I don't it's appropriate based on what has been amply reported to speculate that Mollie's killer was justified or excused to the extent of softening the title at this time, but that can be discussed here. Moving it back to the anachronistic title "Disappearance" should not be done. NTK (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, should be "Death of..." for now, per usual, nothing soft about it. Now I'm done. Unless I'm overlooking something else (did you notice you didn't move the Talk Page this time?). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks like it didn't move this time because you made an edit to the redirect talk page which won't let me move it back until an administrator would have to get involved. Yes, I noticed that. NTK (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The guy has confessed. XavierItzm (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

To killing her while blacked out. That's not to say I believe him. But I believe a lawyer could run with that story. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

So you're not really out, you're still bending over backwards to argue that we should wait for a jury verdict to call the murder of a woman out for a jog a murder ... because the accused murderer says he was blacked out? Even if that breaking, self-serving statement were credible, it almost certainly wouldn't make it not-a-murder. The only way you get to less than murder is if it were somehow accidental, involuntary or at least partially justified, which requires an incredible leap across a chasm of improbability based on reported events. Calling it a "death" is just demeaning to the murder victim. She didn't just "die," she was robbed of her life while out for a run.

There's no encyclopedic purpose in waiting for a judicial verdict to call her murder what it is. Nicole Brown Simpson's death is still properly called Murder notwithstanding that her accused murderer was acquitted. NTK (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to fix Simpson's article a few times, gave up. And I'm getting around to giving up on this one, too, don't worry. I think you should think about why you believe him when he confesses some things, but not others. Don't tell me, just mull it over for your own sake. I might be back tomorrow or the next day to fix some grammar or wordiness, but aside from that, I pretty much fold. Not trying to demean anyone, though; violent death is a seriously bad thing for all involved, however it happens. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

NTK, changing this article to "Murder of" is just like counting your chickens before they are hatched. The title should have remained "Disappearance" or better yet been changed to "Death of" instead of knee-jerking to the title of "Murder of". As I stated prior when I moved the article back, there needed to be a consensus of what this will be named prior to moving, which was not done. We are now at the start of the third day of knowing about Tibbetts death and we are classifying this as a murder. At least move this article to the "Death of" until it can be safely classified as a murder.— Mr Xaero ^☎️ 11:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It's no more "knee-jerk" to change the title than it was to create the article in the first place. "Murder" is now amply supported by all reliable sources, "disappearance" is not accurate. I believe there is more than consensus that this is not a "disappearance" anymore. NTK (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

As the person that wrote this article in the first place, I'm curious as to why you say it was "knee-jerk" to write it? The case drew widespread media attention, reliable sources were readily available, and I had them in the very first published edit. Expanded commentary I also wrote the article because when the news broke that her body had apparently been found and I searched her name on Wikipedia, I was surprised to see that an article hadn't yet been written. There were enough sources available prior to yesterday's news that someone could have written the article prior to my efforts. Strikerforce^Talk 18:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Whatever title the article is at (Murder of ..., Killing of ..., Death of ...) - the talk page should have the same title. As it is, the article is Murder of, whereas talk is at Disappearance of. Jim Michael (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The talk page requires admin intervention to move it back to "Murder of..." purely because InedibleHulk mistakenly added a comment to the redirect there, which blocks the rename. This is annoying, but the only way to fix it is via Wikipedia:Requested moves. Maybe they would expedite that for a talk-only move due to this erroneous edit, but that takes a while and they may want the final name to be fully settled first. This should not affect any decision as to the article's title. NTK (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I did try reverting InedibleHulk's edit to the talk redirect page, but it still blocks the move. Any edit other than a move is enough to block a move, even if it is reverted. Don't do that. NTK (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Got it done at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests. NTK (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

- The issue is that there is no "presumption" when CBS, a major WP:RS, says: "Mollie Tibbetts murder: Boss describes recent demeanor of suspect in Iowa woman's death".. In Wikipedia we go by the sources, yes? XavierItzm (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

There's also no problem with calling it her "death", per the same headline. As to my erroneous mistake, it was the right talk page for the job when I started, but I stopped to "send a fax". When I got back and finished up, the page must've been gone, but I didn't get an edit conflict. So it's mostly the system's fault, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

References

InedibleHulk the legal distinction between manslaughter and murder is irrelevant here. We have enough information to accurately describe her death as the latter. A "conviction" is not relevant for an article describing what occurred. We still don't know who killed Biggie and Tupac; why do the articles covering their deaths have the word "murder" in the title?Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate how right you think you are about already knowing enough based on a few days of media coverage, but can't you see I'm equally convinced that the important discoveries are made in court? Nobody's ever going to be tried for Biggie, Tupac or Dino Bravo's murders, so while the word is still somewhat questionable in their articles, dubiousness will have no effect on anyone's due process. There, it's about as wrong as calling an insect a "bug"; here, it's about as wrong as Trump's rage boner. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

InedibleHulk That's terrific that you are utterly convinced of your own correctness, but unfortunately, what you are suggesting is contrary to everything we already know. I don't think that continuing to maintain an inaccurate title on this article to either wait for this miraculous trial discovery you are suggesting (or to appease unreasonable requests by editors) serves any legitimate purpose.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

How do you know he hadn't blacked out at the time, as he claimed, while I don't? You can't say that clear and present point of contention isn't well-covered by reliable sources, nor can you deny the abundance which accurately portray this woman's demise as a "death". If they can stand by that simple assertion, so can we. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Not a biography, shouldn't dress like one

Whichever title this ends up on, it's always going to be an event article. There should be no person's infobox or name in bold with vitals at the lead. That's clearly bio stuff. Tibbets might have her own infobox, but it should be in the Victim section. Just imagine it like a standard mass shooting, but with far less blood. Doesn't make it any less of a story about several people at a certain place and time. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed it up a bit, but missing a Suspect section. Someone else can have a go at that. Or someone else can restore it to a biography, arguing events can be biographies if they want to be in 2018; I won't re-revert, but I'll personally refuse to believe that. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Restored infobox. Pick any example at Category:Formerly missing people found dead. Good luck removing all those. — Wyliepedia @ 05:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed this from that category before you brought it up. I'd move the other events, too, but I know how that'd turn out. I'd be accused of POINTINESS and then I'd have to argue about them, too. Maybe get blocked. So, in practice, it'd be a very dumb move, but in theory, it makes perfect sense. Events aren't people, people. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Added problematic categories to her redirect until the vox populi restores it here. — Wyliepedia @ 06:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

They're certainly no problem there. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there any meta guidance on categorizing redirects? NTK (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@NTK: Yes, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. I added the biographical categories to Tibbetts' redirect for the time being. When this article gets moved to "Death/Murder of...", I will move them to it. — Wyliepedia @ 10:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2018

Here is a typo for correction to this article on Mollie Tibbetts.

Error: Located at section titled 'Suspect'; 2nd paragraph; 1st sentence "... driving back and forth the area where ..."

Correction: add 'in' between 'forth' and 'the' to make: "... driving back and forth in the area where ..."

Thanks for your help. Greg Stokley (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Added missing word as requested by Greg Stokley — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 22:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2018

In the first paragraph her age should be listed as 20, not 24. Katielynnl (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

That's his age. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Infobox: remove or keep?

The consensus is to keep the infobox.

Cunard (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (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.

---

Is this the right place to discuss the infobox? It seems out of place and disrespectful somehow. In any case:

Support

• Support removal of the victim's infobox. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal though I know this is a lost cause. Volunteer Marek 14:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose removal. The Info Box is fine. They are typically included in articles such as this one. See Murder of Travis Alexander ... Murder of Brian Wells ... Murder of Anita Cobby ... Murder of Danilo López and Federico Salazar ... and many others. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • In fact, we should add another Info Box about the suspect. And, also, add some photographs. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, it "identifies key facts [about Tibbetts] at a glance". Nothing disrespectful about it. — Wyliepedia @ 10:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Infobox is in keeping with other disappearance and murder articles, as noted by Joseph A. Spadaro. Yoninah (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal per CAWylie - what, precisely is disrespectful about it? Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I’m afraid I don’t quite understand the rationale of this proposal - namely, how the infobox is “disrespectful” —Zingarese talk · contribs 04:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose But keep it in the section about her, not in the lead she shares with Rivera and police. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Removal - Keep in the section about Tibbetts — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 11:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I originally placed it in the wrong location when I created the first 9K or so bytes of the article, but it is appropriate for inclusion and there is precedent. Strikerforce^Talk 14:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal, and it should be brought to the top, not lower, it is informative to quick readers, always provided that it is well sourced. --1l2l3k (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It's as high on the page as it can go without blatantly presenting this story as a person in the story, and not even the person who continues to feature in it, with influence over how it ends. If we're feeding any bad info to quick readers, it should be wholly implausible or strangely biased, never both. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal very informative infobox. wumbolo ^^^ 19:33, 28 August 2018 (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.

Citation regarding immigration status

@1l2l3k: Is there any reason you think the sentence you keep trying to add a citation for is challengeable? As far as I know, nobody has challenged that sentence, and it summarizes content that has been in the article, unchallenged, for quite some time. You seem to be pushing the viewpoint that the suspect is obviously an illegal immigrant, so I'm confused as to why you think that sentence is at all controversial. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 19:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually that sentence is the most important of the entire article for what's going on in the media right now. Policy says that "complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations" so it's not only the controversial ones, but also current events. I am just trying to prevent people from coming into the article and changing the lede by sourcing it. Doing such is a form of preventing future vandalisms. I understand that there is a semi-protection, but that'll expire. It's best to have a lead referenced. I'm not going to revert you without consensus, but I DID follow BRD. Btw, I'm not pushing any agenda, just looking at what police, employer, and USCIS are saying: Rivera was in the U.S illegally according to them, I just report sources. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I just want to note that the page is semi'd until 9/22/18 and will likely be extended past that. Strikerforce^Talk 19:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It does seem like all the evidence is pointing toward the fact that he's in the country illegally, but all previous removals of versions of a sentence describing the immigration controversy have been removed by editors who were intent on simply labeling the suspect an illegal immigrant without describing why it's relevant to the case or the context around it. Adding a citation will not placate those editors, but only signal that the sentence is possibly contentious, which is the impression we want to avoid. I would understand the need for a citation if it's currently breaking news, but this is stuff that's been sitting in the article for a week. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the lawyer who intended to prove he was there lawfully took a hike four days ago. So it's not particularly disputed anymore, at least not in that sense. Still probably due a trial (or hearing at least), but presuming guilt on this isn't nearly as bad as presuming murder. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

What is the sentence presuming? It's just a factual statement saying that immigration services say he's not in the country legally, as well as explaining why his immigration status is relevant to the case. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't even read the sentence. I just had to announce the cessation of official controversy somewhere and this seemed like a fine place. Don't need another new section on the same general thing, you know? Sorry for the confusion.

Now that I've read it, it seems fine to me. But I'd not mention the old lawyer's views in the lead; getting fired means not speaking for one's client anymore, whether or not one was fired for making one's client look like a liar in public on day one. You also added the bit that taught me about the firing, so thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Looks good to me. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)