Talk:Phoenix Sinclair
 | A fact from Phoenix Sinclair appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 November 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 29 September 2016
[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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No move. The consensus is that, unlike a number of similar cases, the subject's tragic life is also notable and a topic of reliable coverage. Cúchullain t/c 15:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Phoenix Sinclair → Murder of Phoenix Sinclair – I previously boldly moved the article to the latter title, which I believe is more fitting given that WP:BIO1E applies here (specifically The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.
). It was then moved back by Nikkimaria with no rationale other than the move was not discussed. I still believe it should be moved, even if the information in the article extends beyond the murder and anything closely related to it, which it should only substantially do if the murder victim is independently notable (e.g. Judith Barsi). In this case, this is not true. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 13:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 13:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support: This is an article about the death of a child and what led up to it. The child would be unknown if she wasn't neglected, abused, and killed. "Death of ..." might also be OK. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Since the killers were convicted of murder, I think we should treat it as a murder. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 17:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't dispute that it was a murder. It was a murder. I'm just not sure we have to use that word in the title (although I don't object to it if that is preferred by others). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Since the killers were convicted of murder, I think we should treat it as a murder. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 17:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. Her entire life, not only her death, has been discussed in great detail in reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Still, all she is notable for is (sadly) her murder. The event of her murder is the sole reason she has received coverage. The media's decision to write about her life does not indicate separate notability, as, in cases like this, the media generally do include further detail about murder victims. WP:NOTNEWS. As far as the Wikipedia article is concerned, the inclusion of background does not mean the article should be treated as a biography; what's important is the notability. Articles such as Murder of Sylvia Likens, Murder of Travis Alexander and Murder of Shanda Sharer include backgrounds on people involved and events related to the murders, but this is only to offer more insight into the cases to help readers have a better understanding of the article, the exclusion of which would be of detriment. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 00:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the news coverage, though of course that is there too. Other aspects of her life were included in policy recommendations, etc, and were not relegated to "background". In this case there is more than enough for a biography. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think one thing to take into consideration is not the fact that the details of Phoenix's life are covered in reliable sources, but rather the context of the detail and the context of the sources. One key question here is, "Would these details have gotten coverage if the main event did not occur?" Except in cases such as those of Aurore Gagnon, who became a popular culture icon in Quebec, and Fanny Adams, from whose murder the notable expression "sweet Fanny Adams" originates from, this applies to the vast majority of murder cases. While coverage of a subject, in this case the murder of Phoenix, does ascertain notability of that event, this doesn't necessarily apply elsewhere. An example of this includes (apologies if this is rather random) the case of a young boy who received substantial coverage in both national ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) and international news ([6], [7], [8], [9]) for being a sufferer of the rare disease Langerhans cell histiocytosis, but this coverage does not indicate separate notability for the boy, as it is mainly related to the disease, and this info would be more likely suited to the Langerhans cell histiocytosis article. Perhaps a more related example would be how Madeleine McCann has received a vast amount of coverage, including on details on her life, but this is only a result of her disappearance, and details of the first four years of her life prior to her disappearance are not notable in themselves, so she does not merit a biography and the details of this coverage would be sufficiently reflected in the article on the disappearance. However, while the initial coverage of Elizabeth Smart's kidnapping would not warrant her a biography, she passes WP:BIO due to her career following her kidnapping. These are the reasons that I believe the article should be moved to the title I originally moved it to. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 14:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Since we don't have a crystal ball, we can't say what might have happened if circumstances had been different. But the McCann case is quite different in that there was nothing out of the ordinary to cover until the child disappeared, whereas here there were other aspects of the child's life that were significant enough to warrant discussion by the inquiry et al. And as a result, this child has become culturally significant. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The reason Phoenix got public coverage was her murder, and currently, that is, sadly, all she is notable for. Without the murder, none of the other events that happened, including her abuse and being in the care of the CFS, would have given her coverage, and this article wouldn't have existed at all. I'm not basing my RM on another RM, but take a look at this RM for Murder of Milly Dowler. As stated by the nominator, Milly received even more coverage when the News International phone hacking scandal, but the move went unsupported by reason of long-standing policies and guidelines. As we have less than that to work with here on this article, the current title doesn't have much good reason to be supported over the proposed title.
Now, if you are still opposed to this move, please note that "Murder of..." is the standard format for titles of articles like this, and this move would comply well with guidelines. Your argument here is counteracting WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWS, and as far as guidelines go, you haven't provided much good reason to treat the article as an exception to the guidelines and keep the current title. As stated by BrownHairedGirl at the close of the RM at Murder of Tina Fontaine, this is a must if you believe the article should stay how it is. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 06:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)- Again, it is impossible for us to say what would or wouldn't have happened if she had not died - there are certainly cases of non-fatal child abuse and CFS issues that have received coverage, and here those issues have been discussed at length and continue to inform changes to government policy. There is no "standard format" for these articles, there's you unilaterally moving a bunch of pages to comply with what you think the standard format should be - as I suggested last time, you should start a more central discussion on that topic. And as last time, you don't appear to understand what IINFO actually means, as it certainly doesn't apply here at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The reason Phoenix got public coverage was her murder, and currently, that is, sadly, all she is notable for. Without the murder, none of the other events that happened, including her abuse and being in the care of the CFS, would have given her coverage, and this article wouldn't have existed at all. I'm not basing my RM on another RM, but take a look at this RM for Murder of Milly Dowler. As stated by the nominator, Milly received even more coverage when the News International phone hacking scandal, but the move went unsupported by reason of long-standing policies and guidelines. As we have less than that to work with here on this article, the current title doesn't have much good reason to be supported over the proposed title.
- Since we don't have a crystal ball, we can't say what might have happened if circumstances had been different. But the McCann case is quite different in that there was nothing out of the ordinary to cover until the child disappeared, whereas here there were other aspects of the child's life that were significant enough to warrant discussion by the inquiry et al. And as a result, this child has become culturally significant. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think one thing to take into consideration is not the fact that the details of Phoenix's life are covered in reliable sources, but rather the context of the detail and the context of the sources. One key question here is, "Would these details have gotten coverage if the main event did not occur?" Except in cases such as those of Aurore Gagnon, who became a popular culture icon in Quebec, and Fanny Adams, from whose murder the notable expression "sweet Fanny Adams" originates from, this applies to the vast majority of murder cases. While coverage of a subject, in this case the murder of Phoenix, does ascertain notability of that event, this doesn't necessarily apply elsewhere. An example of this includes (apologies if this is rather random) the case of a young boy who received substantial coverage in both national ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) and international news ([6], [7], [8], [9]) for being a sufferer of the rare disease Langerhans cell histiocytosis, but this coverage does not indicate separate notability for the boy, as it is mainly related to the disease, and this info would be more likely suited to the Langerhans cell histiocytosis article. Perhaps a more related example would be how Madeleine McCann has received a vast amount of coverage, including on details on her life, but this is only a result of her disappearance, and details of the first four years of her life prior to her disappearance are not notable in themselves, so she does not merit a biography and the details of this coverage would be sufficiently reflected in the article on the disappearance. However, while the initial coverage of Elizabeth Smart's kidnapping would not warrant her a biography, she passes WP:BIO due to her career following her kidnapping. These are the reasons that I believe the article should be moved to the title I originally moved it to. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 14:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the news coverage, though of course that is there too. Other aspects of her life were included in policy recommendations, etc, and were not relegated to "background". In this case there is more than enough for a biography. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Still, all she is notable for is (sadly) her murder. The event of her murder is the sole reason she has received coverage. The media's decision to write about her life does not indicate separate notability, as, in cases like this, the media generally do include further detail about murder victims. WP:NOTNEWS. As far as the Wikipedia article is concerned, the inclusion of background does not mean the article should be treated as a biography; what's important is the notability. Articles such as Murder of Sylvia Likens, Murder of Travis Alexander and Murder of Shanda Sharer include backgrounds on people involved and events related to the murders, but this is only to offer more insight into the cases to help readers have a better understanding of the article, the exclusion of which would be of detriment. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 00:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
If you oppose these guidelines, why don't you start a "central discussion"? Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 21:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to implement widespread title changes unilaterally based on my own interpretation of guidelines. Central discussions are used to support mass changes of the type you are attempting; not so much for arguing the nuances of a very particular case, as I am. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Nikkimaria. It seems the ongoing circumstances of her life, in particular the abuse, and its lessons for Canadian society, were as notable as her death. She might easily have not died, survived the abuse, yet still become notable once the facts of her case came to light. — Amakuru (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:CONCISE and Nikkimaria. Nothing gained, and brevity and time lost, by this move. Perhaps it's time to revisit the whole "Death of" practice. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.