Talk:Death of Conrad Roy

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Experts not needed

The call for experts is just plain silly and disruptive. There is no need for any other experts. BLP stuff is well documented. Any conjecture on the implications of the legal case or psychology should be left out. Consider my 100,000 edits as expertise and get rid of those silly templates. Toddst1 (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is my belief that the templates were well-intentioned. As, also, they are here: Michelle D. Carter. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and name-calling cannot be productive. The lawyers who reviewed these two articles during the past two days provided helpful modications, and applied social scientists could be able to reflect more objectively about the role of the mental health claims of the two young persons featured in this trial. MaynardClark (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal

I'm proposing that Michelle Carter (manslaughterer) be merged into this article. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger: That was discussed before on the other page, and no consensus was found. Indeed, we have two different discussions, both related to suicidality, and only one is a legal case, and a legal case in which the sentencing has not yet occurred (more than a month away). I suggest that we wait at least until the sentencing, and we're talking about two distinct human lives (not merely about a 'news event'). MaynardClark (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This hasn't been discussed formally; I see several people who vaguely supported the move on that talk page. This is an attempt to obtain a consensus. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Without the news event, no one would have ever heard of Michelle Carter. Same with Conrad Roy. The event made them notable, which is why they now have articles. It does not make sense for her to have own article, as there is nothing independently notable about her. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Absolutely. SHE is not notable, the event she took part in is. For legal precedents, you don't give the parties to the case articles, you give the case itself an article-- if there are facts about the person to be included, put them in the article about the case. She is notable for one event, and that is not a reason to create an article for her. No one will look up information on her, but they may very well look up information on the case she was involved it. Maynard, human lives do not get articles unless they are notable. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and suggest renaming to Texting suicide case. This whole thing is only notable as the texting suicide case, and it is generally described as a "case" in media [1]. Does it undermine right for free speech? "Can a text cause a death? Does this set a precedent? Will this be a warning sign for how teenagers behave on their devices?" Those are questions discussed in sources, and there are lots of them. The individual participants are hardly notable at all, although they obviously must be described on the page, along with other details of the case. Here is link to the policy. My very best wishes (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on the notability points made, and given that both people's lives/psychology can be covered within it, in proportion to the relevant coverage. 'Texting suicide case' seems user friendly but is it an issue if it's legally a manslaughter (homicide) case as well as suicide? Neurohz (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:Common name. Legal issues are irrelevant. It only matters how something was called in majority of RS. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not only, accuracy or neutrality could override the most common as it says. But I could accept 'texting suicide case' as not referring directly to the manslaughter legal case but the whole picture. Neurohz (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Calling this a "texting suicide case", however, is POV. It minimizes the criminality of Carter's conduct (i.e., the manslaughter). And it "shifts the blame" to the victim (i.e., focusing on the "suicide"). In other words, it purports to state that "the manslaughter component is not important, only the suicide component is". And, clearly, the law -- and the verdict -- say differently. It's sort of like calling the Nicole Brown Simpson murder case a "domestic assault". Or, worse, a "domestic incident". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not POV. This is WP:1E and WP:Common name. My very best wishes (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then, we disagree about that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you telling that creating page Texting suicide case instead of these two pages would be a violation of WP:NPOV? Why? My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are now bringing up a totally separate issue. Namely, what to use as an article title. The issue at the moment is whether or not to merge the two separate articles into one. So, those are two different issues. As far as the title "Texting suicide case", I think that's a bad title. I imagine there are a lot of "Texting suicide cases", no? I envision that this new (merged) article -- if indeed it merges -- would be either "Death of Conrad Roy" ... or "Trial of Michelle Carter" ... or some such. "Texting suicide case" is too generic and can probably be applied to 1,000 other cases. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "Texting suicide cases" appears to be a "common name", specifically for this case, as one can see from Google searches. Can you give me an example of at least one another case named exactly like that in RS? Of course the case was not unique in a number of aspects [2], but we talking only about the most appropriate title/name for the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that it is (currently) a "common name". I still don't think it's a good name. As I said, I believe that "Death of Conrad Roy" ... or "Trial of Michelle Carter" ... or some such ... would probably be better. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This subject is notable as something not about Roy and not about Michelle, but as an important judicial case that brings a number of questions, i.e about free speech, using texts as a "murder weapon", etc. That's why it was widely covered in press. Hence the title. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, you think that it is appropriate to change the article name right when we are in the middle of a discussion exactly about the article name? Really? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does not affect this merging discussion. Like I said, that was not an appropriate title because she is mostly known not as a "manslaughterer" (there are lots of manslaughterers in the world, and most of them are not notable), but for the texting suicide case. Therefore, a better title is "Michelle Carter (texting suicide case)". One should be especially careful with biographies of living people. My very best wishes (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point. You don't just go in and change, willy-nilly, an article name. Especially when these discussions are ongoing (whether to merge, what to rename, etc.). Your opinion is fine. But, I did not see any consensus for the change that you unilaterally made. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was somehow debated, although I agree: there was no consensus. On the other hand, your previous move was indeed unilateral and not discussed at all. If you insist, this should be probably moved back to the "defendant" page, but none of us thinks that would be an improvement. So let's not go there. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, what are you suggesting? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it will soon be made redirect after merging. There is nothing to worry about.My very best wishes (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nominator I agree in principle with a rename, but have no intention of renaming the page myself as a result of any discussion here. "Death of Conrad Roy" has no NPOV or BLP problems, and I feel it is an acceptable title until a more general name can be agreed upon. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. However, "Michelle Carter (manslaughterer)" seems to be a POV problem. The essence of the controversy is precisely if she was a "manslaughterer" - not according to the law, but according to RS. As some of them put it, "words do not kill". My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no debate about whether or not she is a manslaughterer. She is. Period. People can choose to disagree with the verdict. But, that doesn't change the facts. She is a manslaughterer. Period. There is no debate or controversy about that. It's a simple fact. And it's hard to imagine a POV issue when a manslaughterer is called, ummmm, a manslaughterer. Is it a POV issue when we call a pencil a pencil? Or a duck a duck? There is no POV issue in calling a manslaughterer by the name of "manslaughterer". In fact, it couldn't be any less POV. Not only that, but she is "legally" and "officially" certified to be a manslaughterer. How is it POV to call her exactly what she has been determined to be? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, it is debatable and inappropriate that she was defined as "manslaughterer" in the title of her BLP page. This is because she is mostly known not as a "manslaughterer" (there are lots of manslaughterers in the world, and most of them are not notable), but for the texting suicide case. Therefore, the correct title would be "Michelle Carter (texting suicide case)", but this only points out that the page should be simply called Texting suicide case per WP:1E. My very best wishes (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is all semantics. Yes, she is "known" for the texting suicide case. And she is "known" for being convicted of manslaughter in that texting suicide case. Six of one; half-dozen of the other. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics is important. Sure, one could rename it Michelle Carter (a women convicted in the texting suicide case), but that would be ridiculously long. Just as Manslaughter conviction in the texting suicide case would be bad title for a page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, those are ridiculous names. Obviously. So, I don't get your point. Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard the word "manslaughterer" used. My browser's spell check doesn't even recognize it. It's a word but a very obscure one that US law does not use to my knowledge. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Though I initially was in favor of keeping the other article as "Michelle D. Carter", it was not only pointed out that it's not her actual name and that there's not exactly a good disambiguation reference point, but the event of the suicide is the poignant detail. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 07:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Maybe not wholly relevant, but it is a reason to merge/rename the Carter article. According to the LexisNexis database, there are only NINE uses of the word 'manslaughterer' in the entirety of American caselaw. While manslaughter has ~140,000 references. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*IMPENDING CLOSE - It looks like we have a clear consensus. If no one objects, later today I will merge the other article INTO this one. The title will be Death of Conrad Roy. From THERE we can discuss a name change to Text suicide case, or whatever, as there seems to still be disagreement on that. I just REALLY think that having (manslaughterer) as a modifier is improper, since it's basically a pseudo-word. If this is out of line or against policy, let me know and I will desist. Thanks! ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to stay open/active for a bit. It's been less than one day? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, but at the same time, the consensus seems clear. And again, "manslaughterer" is just improper. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 16:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus isn't really all that "clear". I see some dissent above. And I myself am on the fence at the moment, and so have not yet "voted". Nonetheless, one day seems a bit short. More people need time to weigh in. And, tangentially, there is nothing improper about "manslaughterer". Ideal? No. But, nothing "improper" about it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It may or may not be too earlier for a WP:SNOW close but I agree with the points above. There's no independent notability for her and everything can be included in this article.LM2000 (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to close the discussion, but I have done the blank+redirect. Histories still need to be merged, and the combined page obviously needs copy-editing. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that; I did a bit of copy-editing but not sure about much more at this point as I guess it depends partly on any title change. Neurohz (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something is "off" here.

Something is "off" here. I am looking at the article. And the whole thing is about Michelle Carter. With only a few token sentences about Roy. Like I said ... something seems very "off" here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Had a go at rejigging that section a bit. Can add more about Roy and the prosecution? I think there also needs to be a bit more about how Carter was initially investigated and her [and therefore his] texts uncovered? Neurohz (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. can you or someone clarify his nickname, current lead sentence says 'C3' (as does http://www.currentobituary.com/member/obit/143229), but https://www.thecut.com/2016/02/conrad-roy-michelle-carter-c-v-r.html says 'coco'? Neurohz (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. But, apparently, he had two different nicknames. That sometimes happens. I am not sure that we should be listing "nicknames" in the opening lead. He was just some ordinary guy. I think nicknames are listed in the lead (as if they were the person's real name), only when it's a famous person who is actually known by that nickname. For example, someone like Cher or Lady Gaga or such. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article?

Now that the merge is completed, we should determine the best title for the new article. Some quick thoughts, off the top of my head: (1) Death of Conrad Roy; (2) Trial of Michelle Carter; or (3) some variation of "texting suicide case"; or (4) some variation of "State of Massachusetts versus Michelle Carter". Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely should be renamed to be about the case. Do you know RS that call it "State of Massachusetts versus Michelle Carter"? If so, that might be an option. Googling shows "texting suicide case" as the most common name. My very best wishes (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to this (Michelle Carter Appellant Brief), the "official" name of the case is Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do Google search for the Michelle Carter Appellant Brief [3]. It finds one primary source. Compare to this. That is WP:Common name for the subject. See Wikipedia:Official names. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are saying. You asked for the official name of the case. I told you that the "official" name of the case is Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter. And I provided a link to a court document that contained the official title of the case. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having given it some thought I feel it should be 'texting suicide case' at least for now, as it does seem by far the most common title in the sources that are (or could be) used for the article. As long as it quickly clarifies there were emails and phonecalls as well as texts (seems the media picked up on the latter as released by the prosecution early 2015) and that of course it's also a manslaughter case. Neurohz (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking: Background

Other than "visual edit", can someone explain why this was done? Thanks... FriarTuck1981 (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why the section was blanked by a now deleted user with only that contribution, and no one restored it despite your comment, I have restored it. Neurohz (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term 'girlfriend'

This article begins with "Conrad Henri Roy III was an American marine salvage captain. His suicide at the age of 18 with encouragement from his long-distance girlfriend, 17-year-old Michelle Carter, was the subject of a noted investigation and involuntary manslaughter trial in Massachusetts, popularly known as the 'texting suicide case'."

I understand these two indivuals had a very extensive electronic and some phone communication between them but if you only met someone in person two or three short times over the course of almost three years, is "girlfriend" the correct term to apply to that other person? Moreover, if that person lived only about 45 minutes away from you, is it accurate to label that person a "long-distance girlfriend"?

This case raises a lot of questions about relationships in the modern age but nevertheless, I think most people have a certain conception of what it means to be a boyfriend/girlfriend and the use of this term with respect to this case (and not just here but in the media in general) probably creates among a lot of people some serious misconceptions regarding the actual nature of the relationship between these two unfortunate individuals. -108.39.42.173 (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The history of their relationship is described - If they mutually identified as such then the term is appropriate. 82.31.7.40 (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Roy's death and Michelle Carter's defense team

why is the Mental Health Community irrelevant 2 assigning responsibility 4 Conrad Roy's suicidestate of Massachusetts has relevated the history of psycho science in the mediocrity that the Jets editing the word felony to depraved indifference in murder cases and the treatment plan for Conrad Roy has something to do with the chain of events and reflect so much earlier case in Texas of a poor housewife who mysteriously enough look like a sibling of her husband bread herself to death having more than four children and dimming herself to be a risk to the children went to a mental health clinic did what she was told and still wound up with a life sentence without parole why are the erratic peeks of pseudo psychiatry never relevant to the chain Gilsrirred (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an error in the description of the trial. It indicates that a Grand Jury found her guilty, but actually it was a judge, because she wtihdraw her right to a Grand Jury. 181.163.205.206 (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019, she’s asking the Supreme Court to call it free speech

I added something on this week's petition to the Supreme Court, at Death_of_Conrad_Roy#July_2019. Is this petition, unlikely to be accepted according to a law professor, a media stunt in co-ordination with the HBO documentary being released at the same time? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seen in an airport in 1985: "Comments about ____ are taken seriously. Please, no jokes!" Carlm0404 (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts

Reference 6 (The Cut): Michelle probably didn't expect the remark about getting back in the truck to become public. Reference 3 (AP): She didn't know where the truck was parked.

I haven't seen a comment about not being able to see or hear what was going on, so I supply it now. Yes, I am well aware that she should have tried to get help when thoughts of his committing suicide came up. It is very understandable that the judge was concerned about that get-back-in-truck remark. Carlm0404 (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 November 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved, or more accurately reverted, to Death of Conrad Roy. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vaticidalprophet 11:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manslaughter of Conrad Roy → Suicide of Conrad Roy – This article was created on June 8, 2017 as Death of Conrad Roy. Five days later, a related article — Michelle Carter (defendant) — was also created. After six days it was moved to Michelle D. Carter, two days after that, to Michelle Carter (manslaughterer) and, the next day, to Michelle Carter (texting suicide case). Finally, on June 25, twelve days after its creation, the Michelle Carter article was merged into Death of Conrad Roy. On June 6, 2021, four years after its creation, Death of Conrad Roy was unilaterally moved to the non-standard form Manslaughter of Conrad Roy. It may be also noted that, within the past 48 hours, two other titles were moved to the "Manslaughter of..." form, but a request to revert those undiscussed moves restored the original forms. Since "Suicide of..." is a standard form on English Wikipedia, it would seem that, even in view of the subsequent manslaughter conviction of Michelle Carter, the most intuitive main title header would be Suicide of Conrad Roy, rather than the original non-specific form, Death of Conrad Roy. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect summarization

The infobox reads "Defendant was sentenced to 2½ years in prison (sentence later reduced to 15 months)". This is not correct. The article itself states "Moniz sentenced Carter to serve a two-and-a-half-year term, with 15 months to be served in the Bristol County House of Corrections, the rest of the balance suspended". The sentence was not reduced to 15 months, it was always 15 months to serve. It was in fact later reduced to 11 months and 12 days, as the article also mentions. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Death_of_Conrad_Roy"