Talk:Death of Tina Fontaine

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

Notability and sourcing[edit]

While the current version does not assert notability, the case is notable for the role it has played in the ongoing issue of Missing and Murdered Indigenous women in Canada. An editor has expressed the intention to flesh it out and source it, so I ask for some patience while this is done. Thanks. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that this article meets notability criteria. It is true that this case may be included in the issue of Missing and Murdered Indigenous women in Canada, however, Tina Fontaine herself is not notable. There are criteria that we could use to determine if a individual's death is notable. For example, if the death result in a change in policy, law, procedure or guidelines, such as |Vanessa's Law. If the person's death lead to a major inquest or inquiry that examined, say, the government or police procedure. If the death was culturally significant, such as Lizzie Borden and the death was mentioned in movies, books, song, and folklore. If the person was notable before the death, like Phil Hartman. None of these appear to be true. Think of it this way, how does the specific death of Tina Fontaine, on its own, influence the wider cultural, social, or legal world?
Luckily there is a way of keeping Tina Fontaine's information into Wikipedia and removing this page. We could merge this death into another Wikipedia page. For example, the death of Neil Stonechild is covered in the Starlight tours page, and covered quite completely. There just isn't a lot of information to put into Wikipedia regarding Tina Fontaine or Neil Stonechild, so having a Wikipedia page just because we feel sorry for them, is unnecessary. Does anyone have an alternative Wikipedia page that this information could be added to?
I would encourage feedback to people because I will come back to this in a few weeks and recommend deletion.DivaNtrainin (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article passes the general notability guideline: Fontaine has been covered in multiple reliable independent sources eg. Further, multiple sources have reported that her death was the impetus for the MMIW inquiry. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting that Fontaine's death was not covered by media, but if you look at the references in the Wikipedia article, they all talk about that she was murdered, the circumstances of her death and that someone was arrested for it. I am not disputing those facts. I am suggesting that this when you really read the general notability guideline and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, her death did not trigger anything significant and this falls under the criteria of "indescriminate collection of information". My biggest concern is that Wikipedia is filled with a collection of cases where people have died. Yes, it is unfortunate that Tina Fontaine died, but this is Wikipedia, not a memorial for her family. As for the comment that her death was the impetus for the MMIW inquiry, please provide a reference for that. It's not anywhere within the current article.DivaNtrainin (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this were intended as a memorial for her family, it would be written very differently; the article is (appropriately) written encyclopedically, as are many of the other similar cases covered on Wikipedia. GNG requires source coverage, and is met; your suggested criteria are something else entirely. IINFO is also not applicable here. Here are some sources regarding MMIW: [1][2]. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tina Fontain's murder was responsible for creating the volunteer organization Drag the Red. The organization, a direct result of Fontain's murder, was formed out of concern for the high incidence of murdered women being disposed of in the Red River. It was also the impetus for the MMIW inquiries occurring in Canada. Indigenous girl (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added links connecting Fontaine's death to the creation of Drag the Red as well as leading to the current MMIW inquiries.Indigenous girl (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm responding to months old posts, but I would say that Tina Fontaine is notable. It has been covered not only in the local media, but widely by the national media and some intentional medial. This is just a brief sample. Very few Canadian murder victims have this level of notability.

  • The National Post 1
  • The Toronto Star 2
  • CBC 3
  • BBC 45
  • The Guardian 6
  • Reuters 7

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Names[edit]

In my opinion, infobox titles should generally match the article's title, with the full name in the "birth_name" parameter, consistent with most Wikipedia articles. Tina Fontaine's full name isn't very widely used in articles written about her (googling "Tina Fontaine" gives you 52,000 results, while "Tina Michelle Fontaine" gives only 196), so I think it is appropriate for that to be reflected in the article. Also, having full names as infobox titles isn't good practice, as they can take up too much space at the top and stretch the infobox beyond necessity, especially for people with long names such as Victoria Elizabeth Marie Stafford, Thomas Mervyn ap Rhys Pryce, Daniel Phillip Deneel Apollo Valerio, Graeme Frederick Hilton Thorne and Kylie Maria Antonia Maybury. Linguist 111 talk 16:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also general practice though that a middle name does not require the use of |birth_name=. This has been discussed several times at the template talk page (eg). Perhaps the best solution here would be to use only |name=Tina Fontaine and omit |birth_name= entirely? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. Linguist 111 talk 08:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I meant to come here when I copyedited the article not long ago -- this makes sense to me too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 August 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: moved. On the numbers, this discussion is closely divided. However, those supporting the move have arguments well-founded in long-standing guidelines, and the closing instructions are clear that opponents need to provide very good reasons to treat an individual article as an exception to those guidelines. In this case, they did not do so; their arguments are mostly a general challenge to the guideline, rather than reasons for treating this particular argument as an exception. I therefore cannot weigh this discussion as anything other than "move".
Those opposing the move clearly hold a strong position of principle in relation to how en.wp covers murder victims, and how such articles should be titled. Their point is unlikely to succeed when raised in individual cases, but there could be a valuable centralised discussion on the principles involved. I suggest that those involved consider starting a WP:RFC to discuss these issues, and consider any proposals for a change to the guidelines. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Fontaine → Murder of Tina Fontaine – The proposed title is consistent with those of other non-biographical articles about non-notable murder victims whose murders are notable. Tina Fontaine's murder is notable, but the person herself is not aside from her murder. Linguist 111 Who, me? Who? Me 22:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support for the same reasons that AjaxSmack has already stated.DivaNtrainin (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The nom is incorrect - the titling of articles about murder victims is inconsistent, and there are dozens of similar articles that use the victim's name. It might be worthwhile to have a more central discussion about how to approach these cases, rather than discussing locally. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, though I don't see why that question is relevant to the issue of having a central discussion about titling for this class of articles. Montanabw, for example, has argued quite passionately against "Murder of..." titling in other venues, and I think the issue warrants wider discussion rather than an article-by-article debate. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:1E is the central decision that has already been reached. If you're wanting a central discussion to amend WP:1E to create an exception for articles about murder victims who are not otherwise notable, that's fine, but until then, we should be implementing the existing central consensus (i.e, WP:1E). You don't seem to have made the argument that this article is an exceptional case to which WP:1E should not apply; rather, it appears as though you just don't like the guidelines as they currently stand (with respect to their application to articles about murder victims). Graham (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that argument misapplies 1E, as a murder victim obviously plays a central "role" in their own murder (though that's a very odd way to put things). In this particular case, discussion of Fontaine extends beyond simply her death. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I note that there have been a number of moves already, and feel this is a line call. But the article is about the person, not just the murder, and in view of the interest this case has aroused, interest in the person now has a momentum of its own. So stay with the more concise title is my call. Andrewa (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fear my nomination was poorly written, but I agree with the statements by AjaxSmack, especially. The reasons given by the users voting oppose are not valid: other pages being moved is not a reason not to move another and sources do not indicate any notability aside from the murder. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 13:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per WP:1E. Fontaine is not notable aside from this event and this subject is not sufficiently notable to have separate articles (i.e, a biography on Fontaine and a separate article about her death). Graham (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is calling for two separate articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't suggest they were. I was merely going through all of the options outlined in WP:1E. Graham (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Nikimaria and the usual reducing a human being to only their victimhood. As usual the BIO1E LOCALCONSENSUS says one thing and the rest of the community may feel differently. Montanabw(talk) 05:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "discussion of Fontaine extends beyond simply her death", "the usual reducing a human being to only their victimhood" — this misses the point entirely. What's important is notability, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A more central discussion could be useful, though. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 12:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • As before, IINFO is not a relevant policy here - it refers to contextualization of data and has little to do with notability of a subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Trial date:[edit]

When did the trial start? The news article I read said it began, but it's not clear if it began on the date of publication. [3] Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drug use:[edit]

This is a fact, reported by multiple news sources. It's relevant to the case. Previous witnesses reported they believed she was drunk at the time. So instead of going by a possibly unreliable witness, we have scientific confirmation. Her impairment may have affected her judgement and her ability to fight off an attacker. It's reported that Cormier would supply her with Gabapentin and her boyfriend would spend time doing marijuana, cocaine and alcohol together. This article needs to be greatly expanded, and the testimony from the trial is going to fill in the details. And this will include references to Fontaine's drug use. It's unavoidable in the story.

Citing WP:NOTNEWS doesn't seem to follow at all. These are relevant facts to the case. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many facts, but not all warrant inclusion. Addition like that and this are excessive. We don't need to start adding blow-by-blow details from the trial while it is ongoing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't blow by blow accounts of the trial, rather, it's the trial testimony giving relevant information to events that happened years ago. Her drug use, her relationship with her boyfriend, and Cormier (which is barely being touched on in the current article) is extremely relevant, and is being laid out during the trial via testimony. The fact that the constables were suspended and left police is relevant. These are all key relevant information. The article isn't that big and greatly needs to be expanded, and there is lots of news coverage that can be used to expand it.
The trial is probably the best time to expand the article since all this information is either coming out for the first time, or is being laid out again in news articles. According to the Wikipedia Article, all we know about Cormier is that he has been charged and pled not guilty. Much more has been known about him and his relationship with Fontaine. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, NOTNEWS. The best time to expand the article would be once all the facts are known and their weight can be judged, not based on what the media happened to find salacious about today's testimony. And minutiae like the names of the constables who encountered her need not be part of that expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 March 2018[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: moved as requested, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Tina Fontaine → Death of Tina Fontaine – Although her body clearly turned up in suspicious circumstances having been deliberately disposed of, the trial of the man accused of her murder found him not guilty with no defence being presented - the defence successfully argued that the Crown had not even proven a murder took place. It is currently unknown how Fontaine died due to a lack of forensic evidence, and calling it a murder wrongly presupposes that it was not some kind of tragic accident with a coverup or some other alternative. Wikipedia should focus on the facts and not make assumptions which are unproven. This is particularly serious since a man's name appears repeatedly in the article linked with the word 'murder' but he has now been found not guilty in a court of law. If it is later proven that Fontaine was murdered the article could be moved back to the current title (or moved to news or merged into MMIW articles if deemed not sufficiently noteworth independently) Brislian (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Removal names of officers[edit]

I removed the names of the officers involved in the traffic stops since they are not included in the two articles cited as sources. I have also updated the sentence to be consistent with what is actually in the cited sources. DivaNtrainin (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 April 2020[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 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: Consensus is against this move buidhe 20:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Death of Tina Fontaine → Killing of Tina Fontaine – Two years ago, mine was the sole vote in the above nomination of Murder of Tina Fontaine → Death of Tina Fontaine. Since there was no murder conviction, I felt obligated to vote for the proposed alternative, but should have actually voted: oppose "Death of...", but support "Killing of..." Taking into account that there was sufficient evidence to bring about a charge of murder, this was certainly not a natural or a historical death, such as Death of Ludwig van Beethoven or Death of Edgar Allan Poe. She was obviously killed, since her body was "wrapped in plastic and a duvet cover and weighed down with rocks in the Red River." Given those facts and the resulting murder charge, it would seem that the article's main title header should be at least "Killing of...", rather than simply "Death of..." — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 02:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. "She obviously was killed" conflicts with the available sources, which report that the cause of death is not known - this was a contributing factor in the lack of a murder conviction in the case. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the accused stood trial for murder, the prosecution had to have been convinced that Tina Fontaine was killed and that her killing amounted to murder. The jury's sole responsibility was to decide whether the accused was guilty. The fact that he was not convicted only indicates that the jury was not convinced that this particular accused individual was guilty. It does not indicate that Tina Fontaine should no longer be considered a murder victim or that she was not killed. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem that anything has changed since the previous move request. Some believe that she was murdered - maybe she was, but the cause of death is unknown and no one has been convicted of killing her, so we can't definitively state that she is a murder victim or that she was killed. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an individual's death constitutes murder cannot be a determination that we make. Wikipedia main title headers "Death of...", "Murder of...", "Killing of..." or "Shooting of..." are based upon reliable sources reporting facts as adjudicated by authorities. Thus, if the accused is not convicted of murder, that does not mean that the victim was not murdered. It simply means that it remains a cold case of unsolved murder, leaving open the possibility of an as yet undetermined perpetrator standing trial for the same murder at some point in the future. There is no indication that, in view of this jury's verdict, the authorities no longer consider Tina Fontaine's death to be murder.
That having been stated, these types of RMs have tended to attract very little participation within the past couple of years. Some had concluded with only one vote, while others have been moved without any voting, almost in the manner of uncontroversial technical requests. Since mine was the sole vote at the above "Requested move 5 March 2018", I regret having voted "support", rather than "oppose" which would have then resulted in the main header remaining at "Murder of Tina Fontaine". In the same manner, if your "oppose" turns out to be the sole vote in this RM, the main header will remain at "Death of Tina Fontaine". Under those circumstances, then, it does become our determination since, in the absence of differing views, one user may be able to have a final say over the content of these types of main headers. A subject worthy of discussion in its own right. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The homicide case has been closed and it's not considered a cold case. Should that change in future we can revisit the question of the titling. For the moment the only determination we can make is that, tragically, a teenage girl is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, her death is still considered a homicide, which is another word for a killing. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The jury accepted arguments presented by the defense in not finding the defendant guilty, but also did not exonerate him. Since there was sufficient evidence for the prosecution to lodge a charge of murder, the previous main title header, Murder of Tina Fontaine, is still valid. There are numerous unsolved murders which are classified as "murder" although no one has been convicted. As in the case of the O. J. Simpson murder case, the above headline (at 00:24, 18 April 2020) indicates that the authorities apparently consider that the accused was in fact the perpetrator and there is no need to expend resources in a search for an alternate slayer.
As for the term "homicide", here is the Wiktionary definition: "The killing of one person by another, whether premeditated or unintentional." Thus, although Murder of Tina Fontaine would still have been the correct main title header and, since Wikipedia headers do not use the form "Homicide of...", the most apt current header would still be the proposed Killing of Tina Fontaine. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as cause of death was not determined and no one was convicted of homicide. They body was thrown weighted down in the river, but the circumstances of the death are unknown.--Bob not snob (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the case has been ruled a homicide, which is basically equivalent to a killing regardless of whether a suspect has been identified and/or convicted, or whether it was intentional. Stavd3 (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Considering that only six years have passed since her death, the memory and emotions are still raw rather than tempered by history and the deaths of those who knew her directly. This is a complicating matter in any semantic argument around describing an unsolved death. Be that as it may, I took a look at the citations in the article and collated the word used to describe Fontaine's death:
  • (no specific mention) - 8
  • death - 9
  • died - 2
  • murder - 2
  • justice for - 2
  • accused killer - 2
  • slain - 1
  • killed - 1
  • killing of - 1
  • murder of - 1
Collating these into generic and nefarious: 11 generic (death/died), 10 nefarious (the rest excluding no-specific-mention).
From the cited headlines alone, the juries still out as it were. If there was a clear preference for referring to her death as murdered, killed, etc, that would make things simpler. Now, another way of looking at this is as a timeline:
  • August 2014: Slain; Murder
  • September 2014: Died
  • December 2015: Death(x4); Accused killer; Murder of; Killing
  • January 2018: Death
  • February 2018: Died/Death (x3); Killed; Accused killer
  • March 2018: Death; Justice for
  • June 2018: Justice for
  • March 2019: Death
Sparse sampling, yes, but that's what we have to work with. There isn't a wholesale switch to generic or nefarious over time, based on this. I'm going to delude myself (that thing where people justify the outcome that they want to see, even if the want is unconscious) that a historical sentiment will emerge over time one way or the other.
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. This is a tough one. On the one hand the body was discovered in a way that clearly indicates it was being disposed of clandestinely, leading to a strong suspicion that her death was a homicide. However, the cause of death was not able to be determined, so we don't really know how she died. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Much (not all) of the above, as in the previous RM nomination, is original research. While OR is explicitly permitted on talk pages such as this one, it should not be reflected in the article, including (perhaps even especially) in its title. In deciding the title we need to go strictly by what reliable secondary sources use. Andrewa (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Tina_Fontaine&oldid=1209151793"