Talk:Murder of Hannah Graham

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

The Facts, Sourced, and Need To Avoid Innacuracies[edit]

Hi friends, for goodness sake let's not try to go so far P.C. that we actually post falsehoods such as "person of interst" when Mr. Matthew is not that at all. He's legally an arrested suspect. (Not just a technicality). There are over 46 different actual real reliable news agencies, plus the FBI, plus Virginia State Police, Charlottesville Police, and even Mr. Matthew's own attorney who ALL agree as to everything included in the paragraph I have contributed. So please my friends, let us remain factual and not so hopelessly naive as to think we have to wait for the actual trial verdict, then appeals, then sentencing, etc., etc....before we can list someone. It is totally acceptable and within policy (and legal acceptance) to name Mr. Matthew as being ARRESTED, CHARGED, EXTRADITED, and so forth - because all of those have happened (see news, FBI, VSP, etc). It is not speculative, inflammatory, or libel/slander to state these facts. Which is why BBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, Reuters, etc. all have done so. Nobody is saying he has been CONVICTED by a jury nor plead guilty - nor acquitted and set free. None of this is opinion. It is fact. And if the day arises when/if he may be acquitted or set free? We shall post that as well.

In fact, it is FACTUALLY WRONG (meaning an actual error) to say he is "Person of Interest" and not ID him by name. Because legally and technically? He is not. He is an ARRESTED SUSPECT, who is not a minor, currently incarcerated in custody in Virginia for the (quote from his arrest:) "ABDUCTION WITH INTENT TO DEFILE OF HANNAH GRAHAM". Just as Mr. Matthew also had his DNA and evidence linking him to Harrington (sourced from national news outlets, FBI, and police). These are not speculation, but FACT according to FBI, VA STATE POLICE, UVA POLICE, and dozens of news agencies. So pelase, my cohorts, let us remain factual and serve the article, please. Thank you. (And FYI: Apologies for the all caps emphasis, my smart phone is wonky - I'm not yelling, which is also why I couldn't post the LINKS proper in the paragraph of article where I list sources, thus any mod-edit assist would be great. Actual links are in the body/paragraph. tHANX! :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.5.157.200 (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Police announced the name of their person of interest on September 20[edit]

Name is in this Reuters article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/21/us-usa-virginia-students-idUSKBN0HG00N20140921

12.30.109.2 (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has been charged. He can now be named under Wikipedia policy108.18.74.119 (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. That is not what the policy says. VQuakr (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
why insist on person of interest now that he is legally a suspect who has been indicted? And you are misreading the policy on BLP. Please cite where indicted and charged suspect is excluded in the policy. We cant say he is a "relatively unknown" person since his name is top of the fold CNN, MSNBC, and front page of Huffington POST, NY Times, -- even BBC.
This is a very high profile crime. The charged suspect was subject of a US nationwide manhunt. 108.18.74.119 (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME: A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured... Accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement do not amount to a conviction. We can indeed say he is a relatively unknown person ie not a celebrity. VQuakr (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, in the only other high profile US crime story of the month, the Oklahoma beheading, the editors seem to have 'seriously consider[ed] not including material,' but then included the suspect's name anyway. That suspect was allegedly caught in the act, but he is low profile and hasn't been convicted, and BLP policy does not take evidence into account. Google News has over 50,000 articles matching the name of the suspect in the Graham case, and Google lists thousands of photos of him as the suspect. Wikipedia cannot protect his privacy in this matter, because he no longer has any; even his academic performance and traffic tickets have been analyzed in the press.
He is no longer a 'person of interest,' he is a charged *suspect* who has been denied bail. Though we don't yet know what evidence there may be against him, and should presume him innocent regardless, continuing to call him a 'person of interest' is now factually inaccurate. Having seriously considered not using his name, I am now considering using it, because trying to tiptoe around it a dozen times makes the article hard to read, factually incomplete, and I can't see how doing so benefits anyone. 173.228.54.175 (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charged and Indicted suspect no longer merely "person of interest"[edit]

With official indictment and charging of the suspect, the use of the term person of interest is not longer accurate.108.18.74.119 (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to fix it; this can be separate issue from the BLP discussion above as long as the edits are not combined. VQuakr (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also section deletion[edit]

I don't want to be insensitive or inflame anyone since this is sensitive and an ongoing article, but why is the 'see also' section continually deleted? Doyna Yar (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the see also section was added with a single link, one that violates WP:BLP and WP:V. No reliable sources have been presented that make this connection, and as a tertiary source we are not going to be the first to do so. VQuakr (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Person of interest in the Graham case had been named in up to 10 rape, murder and disappearance cases[edit]

I find this statement misleading: "On October 1, it was reported by the New York Daily News that the person of interest in the Graham case had been named in up to 10 rape, murder and disappearance cases".

One reason is the cited article's title is "Suspect in Hannah Graham disappearance could be linked to 10 violent crimes against women in Virginia since 2002". Also, in the article it states "In fact, Matthew’s name has come up in reexaminations of up to 10 rape, murder and disappearance cases across Virginia in the last 12 years, including the high profile 2009 murder of 20-year-old Morgan Harrington, also in Charlottesville, a Daily News review of local news reports found."

I'm new to contributing and I can't think of a proposed re-wording of the statement. Bsavio (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been edited now. Is the wording satisfactory?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Murder of Hannah Graham → Death of Hannah Graham – Per The Washington Post, Graham's death has not been publicly identified as murder. 70.208.138.181 (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source confirming it was murder? A press release from Albemarle or Charlottesville PD, the medical examiner's office, the death certificate, etc.? It seems like until there's an official statement saying she was murdered, or Matthew is indicted in her murder, it should either be Death of Hannah Graham. Alternatively, we can go the route of the Harrington article and rename the article to Hannah Elizabeth Graham.

Jesse Matthew article[edit]

I think the time has come to make Jesse Matthew a separate article, considering his connection to the Morgan Harrington case, it would be easier to have information that is relevant to him (the Fairfax case, the issues at Liberty/CNU, etc.) on his article as opposed to bringing it up where it is only somewhat relevant to the Graham and Harrington cases.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would use caution while criminal proceedings are ongoing, given the requirement for greatest care required by WP:BLP. More generally, would it make sense to combine the article on both crimes rather than create a third article about (allegedly) basically the same subject? VQuakr (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The entire Suspect section is more verbose and muddled than it should be. It's wandering too far away from the subject of the article. As of now, Matthew has only been convicted of the incident in Fairfax. So I don't understand why so much space is being devoted to describing and establishing unverifiable links between crimes that a suspect may or may not have committed. Especially when it may not have any relevance to Graham. Nothing should be combined until the crimes are proven to be related. But dumping all that info here because there isn't a better place for it at the moment doesn't seem very logical either. B1naryatr0phy (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fireflyfanboy, I closed the merge as no consensus but I think there is now support for a separate Jesse Matthew article. Fences&Windows 11:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

No consensus to merge. There are good arguments on both sides: there is some support for a merged article at Jesse Matthew, but both cases appear to be independently notable. There may be consensus for a third article at Jesse Matthew. Fences&Windows 11:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I think the time has come, given Matthew pleading guilty to both the Graham and the Harrington murder, to merge these two articles once and for all.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Both articles have enough information about the respective cases. Merging them into one would be far too cluttered, in my opinion.--GouramiWatcherTalk 18:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - While the two crimes were committed by the same man, there are enough differences between the two incidents that would warrant two separate articles. Jesse Matthew Jr is being tried separately for the two incidents. Lacking other victims that would indicate Matthew to be a serial killer, the few similarities between the two killings don't seem to warrant merging the two articles. VeraBaby (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Actually Jesse Matthews was convicted for the rape and attempted murder of a woman in Fairfax IIRC. This is part of a pattern. We definitely should have a separate article for Jesse Matthew, in the very least. It shouldn't redirect to this article. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The two crimes are separate events and there is enough information available on each of them, so I don't understand the purpose of a merger between two separate event articles. However, I agree with Yanping Nora Soong that a new article should be created for Jesse Matthew. These two event articles could be linked from there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both into biography at Jesse Matthew. The unfortunate truth is that the serial killer is the notable aspect of these articles, and the individual crimes can be covered in adequate depth in that single article. VQuakr (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I believe merging the two cases would be disrespectful to the memory of the victims.

2601:5C2:100:908:5B2:EAC9:F66D:51A7 (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2017 (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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Murder of Hannah Graham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Hannah Graham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Matthew and cancer[edit]

I don't see the importance of this factoid at all, ergo I feel it has no place in the article at all, and certainly not in the lede. My edit summary was a good faith suggestion to Berean Hunter that if they felt it was worthy of inclusion they should find a place for it themselves.

Just because something is sourced does not qualify it for inclusion - and again certianly ot in the lede which is supposed to be a summary of the article proper, not somewhere to place titbits of info. If nowhere logical can be found in the article then it either needs rewriting, or is not worthy of inclusion.

Please discuss rather than edit war, and I'm surprised that I even have to say that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like it in the lede then you can move it to somewhere else in the article and it is certainly germane to the overall story. Simply pulling it out without any proper policy reason is I don't like it. Stating "Perhaps further down in the article itself, but not here." and reverting it is neither collegial nor helpful. I don't have to please you. You removed cited material and we do have templates for that and block people for it. Further, you are trying to move the goalposts. Your revert had "I don't think this is worthy of the lede. Perhaps further down in the article itself, but not here." but then here it becomes "ergo I feel it has no place in the article at all". My revert was a response (compromise) to your edit summary to move it elsewhere if you wanted to. Simply reverting me out will not work at all.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. You do not get to keep your preferred version while we talk about it. I am not moving goalposts, but stating that I feel there may be a place further down the article but you'll have to persuade me of that first. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware of BRD, having quoted it in your edit summary, but why are you not adhering to it yourself?
Why is Matthew's having stage 4 cancer relevant to the article? Why is it important enough to be in the lede? I don't think it is. You haven't persuaded me of that, all you've done is revert and demand that I follow BRD when you aren't doing so yourself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You failed BRD from the get go. It states "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement." Well, according to your edit summary "Perhaps further down in the article itself, but not here.", you could have refined it. We will wait for others to join in the merriment.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you for real? I don't see the edit as an improvement, which is why I removed it. I gave you the opportunity to improve it by relocation if possible as you are the editor who wants to keep it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't have to abide by your whims and I'm not playing Mother May I. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. "I gave you the opportunity to move it"...as if because I didn't do what you wanted that now I've lost my chance or something. So, if I had moved it, and you didn't like the location then you would revert me again instead of you moving it in the first place? It seems that we will have to agree to disagree and wait for others to form a consensus on the matter. You still haven't cited a policy-based reason for removing it from the article. My compromise was to acknowledge that if you didn't want it in the lede then you could move it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS - "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content"
To summarise:
  1. You made an edit
  2. I disagreed and removed it, suggesting alternative placement may be a solution
  3. Instead of relocating it to see if consensus would be reached there, or abiding by BRD and discussing the contributions merits as you see them, you reinstated where it had already been challenged.
That's pretty much it?
Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your #3 validates what I asked above, "So, if I had moved it, and you didn't like the location then you would revert me again instead of you moving it in the first place?" I'm not playing that game. Onus isn't meant to work as an accompaniment to I don't like it and you haven't shown a policy-based reason for its removal from the article. Your post at DN, "...while it could possibly be placed elsewhere in the article with some work, it is certainly not worthy of the lede, and without extra work not worthy of the article itself." Right. You reverted because you didn't like it and you are being lazy. Like I said, we will wait for others.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So if I had reverted and simply said "This isn't relevant to the article on her murder" you'd have left it as it was? Your entire argument for inclusion seems to be that I initially said that it may have a place other than in the lede - which is where you are insisting it stay for the duration, in violation of BRD.
Onus is quite clear - you have yet to provide any reason for its inclusion as an improvement to the article. Simply claiming that I don't like it is not valdiation for inclusion. WP:IDONTLIKEIT can be applied to you as well - you like the addition - hence your insertion of it three times - and that is not grounds for inclusion either.
I do not feel that mention of Matthew's cancer is relevant to the article, and certainly not the lede. You seem to be agreeing that it could be placed in another part of the article - why don't you suggest a placement for it here on the talk page, and see how that pans out? What is your justification for inclusion? You'll notice I'm repeating myself here, but that's because you haven't actually answered the question, and simply repeat that I don't like it, while disregarding the equally weighted fact that you do like it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"there may be a place further down the article but you'll have to persuade me of that first." (diff) No, I don't and that is your problem. I don't need your permission.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But you do need consensus, and very, very obviously you don't have that.
What is your justification for inclusion? You'll notice I'm repeating myself here, but that's because you haven't actually answered the question, and simply repeat that I don't like it, while disregarding the equally weighted fact that you do like it.Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus will likely happen after more than two people are in this discussion. It is equally argued that you do not have consensus to remove it as I disagree with the removal and have not seen a valid policy-based reason for its removal. To address that, from WP:REVERT, "Reverting good-faith actions of other editors can also be disruptive and may lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing."
My policy-based reason for inclusion is from Wikipedia:Editing policy#Adding information to Wikipedia, "Please boldly add content summarizing accepted knowledge to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles, and exercise particular caution when considering removing sourced content." I would charge you with not using caution when removing sourced content from that same policy.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chaheel Riens. The article is about the murder. If there were a section about the murderer, I might consent to keep Berean's sentence in that section (but not in the lede). As it is, one citation about the murderer's present cancer isn't germane to the article. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chris troutman What are you talking about? "If there were a section about the murderer..." The huge section on the murderer is Murder of Hannah Graham#Suspect which has four subsections. It is strictly about the murderer. I take it then that this means that you consent to moving it there based on your statement above?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a Current status section that addresses this so my addition to the lede now satisfies WP:LEDE.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree with your assertion and your recent edits. Please return to status quo ante. My expectation is a section that talks about the murderer's background, as if it were a mini-biography. (I'm not saying that should exist; those are my grounds for keeping a sentence about stage four cancer.) As there is no section, details about the murderer's health aren't important to the story until he's dead. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look I'm prepared to allow you to win the editwar simply because I don't with to pass the bright line of 3RR, but you absolutely don't get to add in a tagged on sentence that is completely out of place in the article as a whole just as an attempt to justify keeping the previous lede statement which is also being discussed as contentious. It should be obvious that such a move would be controversial and potentially disruptive when there is so much discussion surrounding the original addition.
Chris troutman's comment about a mini-bio is perfectly valid - the article as it stands mentions Matthew in the context of a suspect not as a person, and the inclusion of personal details would require significant expansion (which may be challenged in its own right) before being valid material. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DRN volunteer[edit]

Hi there, spotted this at DRN. Will comment here more as a third opinion. The comments about it not belonging in the lede is pretty spot on here - it's meant to be the summary of the overview of the article, and not a place for inserting new pieces of information. Also, on articles such as these (e.g. Murder of Meredith Kercher, Murder of Stephen Lawrence, it's common practice to mention those accused of the crime in the context of being suspected/convicted of the crime, but rather rare to mention their personal information. I would recommend against it's inclusion in this article until such time as the perpetrator dies, at which time something along the lines of "Matthew died of cancer on XYZ date". Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 20:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As consensus seems to have been reached here, I'm removing the information. Thanks to contributors for their time. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Hannah_Graham&oldid=1217207878"