Talk:Murder of Ashling Murphy

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Women in Red: #1day1woman (2022)

This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2022. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help!

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Article title[edit]

Can we get it changed to the “Murder of Ashling Kelly” Xxzcx (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Murder' is also an objective observation of a cause of death, it is not only a legal term. 86.45.172.148 (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy* Xxzcx (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it. should be changed to "Killing of Ashling Murphy" as. murder is a legal term. Phillycj 20:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have a dog in the fight, but I would support “killing”. There seems no doubt death was not from natural causes. Springnuts (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an essay with some recommendations about using the title of "Murder of ...." for articles. The threshold for "Murder of ...." should be a murder conviction. The threshold for "Killing of ...." should be an official determination of foul play. The fact that media reports have been calling this a "murder inquiry" does not mean a murder has been formally determined, yet, as an investigation is still underway. However, the circumstances of the death, which have already been reported by the media, though not yet mentioned in the article, make it clear that the cause of the victim's death involved foul play. While that might not be an official determination, I think it is just enough to tip the balance for changing the title this article from "Death of ...." to "Killing of ....", (which has now been done). However, until someone is arrested, charged and convicted of the victim's murder, in Court, Wikipedia should not apply the title of "Murder of ...." to the article. This respects the judicial process, the defendant's right to a fair trial and to be deemed innocent until found guilty by a competent judicial process. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Murder' category[edit]

Ashling Murphy was murdered. A man has been charged with her murder and is being sent forward for trial. This has been widely reported by numerous reliable sources. While the suspect might or not be be acquitted, the fact would still remain that Ashling Murphy was murdered. One does not become murdered solely on the securing of a conviction. "Murder" is used 32 times on the page currently - 29 of those are in the Title field of references. As we go by what the sources say, it is entirely proper to include this article in Category:Irish murder victims. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a man has been charged with her murder. That means an inquest has been held and the cause of death has been determined to be murder rather than suicide, act of God, misadventure, etc. I don't see any reporting on the results of an inquest into Ashling Murphy's death. Does that mean a man has been charged with her murder without an inquest determining that the cause of death was murder? Gortaleen (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An inquest do not determine murder. At best, it would rule death by homicide. Murder is only determined when an accused is brought before a court, and the jury or a judge finds the accused to be guilty. See WP:KILLINGS. Until that happens, we do not describe the death as murder. WWGB (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a strange understanding of Irish law, at variance with common interpretation. Ashling Murphy did not strangle herself. A man has been charged with her murder; if he is acquitted, she will not magically become unmurdered. An inquest has determined that she was murdered and reliable sources state she was murdered. WP:KILLINGS applies to article titles, not to membership of categories. Enough of this pedantic nonsense. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contempt of court?[edit]

I just read the sentence in the top section of this page. How can it be contempt of court? I thought Wikipedia is uncensored and people are not allowed to make legal threats here.49.178.172.182 (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, it's a warning that contempt of court might arise and to be careful that it doesn't. E.g., if the accused were a minor, then they couldn't be named (in Irish media). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Jim Michael, Category:Irish murder victims and Category:Deaths by strangulation are both appropriate categories for this article. I'm not bothered whether or not they're included on the redirect page. There is plenty of precedent for this: Killing of George Nkencho is in cat Category:Killings by Garda Síochána members; Killing of Breonna Taylor is in Category:African Americans shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States; and so on. I get what you're saying about the category relating to the act, not the person, but custom and practice definitely seems to differ. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're biographical cats that are appropriate for the Ashling Murphy redirect rather than the article. Many articles include mistakes, which in many cases involves categorisation. Jim Michael (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:TALK#REPLIED - I shouldn't need to have to look at the page history to see what's changed in a week-old comment. Again, categories relevant to the violent killing of Ashling Murphy are absolutely relevant to the article on the killing of Ashling Murphy. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I improved my comment to make it clearer, without changing its meaning. Jim Michael (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to say that I agree with Bastun, and I can’t understand Jim Michael’s logic at all. Xx78900 (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some cats are biographical, which go on the redirect of the person's name when the article is about an event. Putting some of them on this article when they should be on the redirect instead goes against the policy we've had for years. This isn't disputed on the hundreds of other similar articles. We shouldn't make an exception here just because a few editors either don't know the policy or refuse to accept it. Jim Michael (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of such categories on multiple other similar articles about events points to the absence of any such blanket policy. Is the inclusion of category:deaths by strangulation warranted on an article about a death caused by strangulation? Yes! Likewise with the other categories used. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Michael can you please provide a link to this policy? WWGB has below cited a policy that seems to disagree with you claims. In absence of proof on your part, and in the face of evidence provided to the contrary, I don’t see how you have a leg to stand on here. Xx78900 (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That says usually, because redirects are typically from alternative titles. This is a person redirect to an event article, which is treated differently. For example, the killing isn't a victim, but she was. Hence victim cats should go on the redirect, just like birth & death year cats do. This is the way that person redirects to event articles have been categorised on WP for years. Jim Michael (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#When to categorize a redirect, "Redirects are not usually sorted to article categories". I interpret this to mean that categories like "Deaths by strangulation" and "Irish victims of crime" should be applied to Killing of Ashling Murphy, and not to the redirect Ashling Murphy. What is the point of having article cats on a (non-article) redirect? Placing the same cat on BOTH pages just means the name of the deceased is repeated twice on the category landing page, which is pointless. WWGB (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not usually, but this isn't a usual situation. Most redirects are alternative titles, but Ashling Murphy is a person redirect to an event article. In that case, the bio cats go on the redirect, not the article. I'm not saying that article cats should be on redirects, nor that cats should be on both articles & their redirects. A similar example is Murder of Patsy Morris, which was created a few weeks ago. The event cats are on the article; the bio cats are on the redirect Patsy Morris. Jim Michael (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all the cats currently on this article are appropriate for this article. Work away with whatever cats you want/don't want on the redirect. Maybe have the discussion about appropriate cats for the redirect page on the redirect page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're not. For example, it's her who's a victim, not the killing that's the victim. That's why biographical redirects of events have bio cats on the redirects. This is the way it's been done for years. Many editors - including me - have edited many such articles & their redirects accordingly & this is the first time I've seen people repeatedly go against that. Very few people read talk pages of redirects, so it doesn't make sense to have a discussion on there. Jim Michael (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I think this this conversation has reached its end, everyone involved seems to have expressed their views and no one is changing anyone else’s mind. I’m eager to (further) avoid what seems to me to be a WP:SNOWBALL situation. We’ve seen examples from both sides (though more from one side than the other) that occasionally one method is utilized, and occasionally another is implemented in its stead. A 3:1 consensus has been reached in favour of adding the categories.

Also in regards to the “many”^{[weasel words]} other articles, editors^[who?], etc. and existing policy all I have to say is: ^{[citation needed]}. Xx78900 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section order[edit]

The order of sections seems really off, to me. Currently we talk about the victim and the perpetrator, before talking about the event resulting in the subject of the article. It's: 1Victim 1.1Funeral 1.2Reactions and legacy 2Perpetrator 3Murder 4Investigation 5Trial 6Sentencing and victim impact statements 7Charges against perpetrator's family members

Surely it should be much more chronological? So: 1 Murder 2 Investigation or Victim (and subsections) 3 Victim (and subsections) or Investigation 4 Trial 5 Perpetrator 6 Sentencing, etc...

Thoughts? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]