Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (violence and deaths)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Title of this page

Levivich, valereee, ProcrastinatingReader, Barkeep49, I took a stab at creating Draft:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). Feel free to edit.

What do you think of the title? When it is good enough, I will move it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, I think it looks good and will be useful! I made a couple tweaks. —valereee (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
When closing an RfC, I leave it up to interested (and involved) editors to decide how to implement it. But I do wish you good luck here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I also made some line-item tweaks, feel free to revert any/all.
I think it's great overall. CC I hope you're having fun because you've been doing a lot of work in a short amount of time and you deserve a break! (I'm glad you put this together though.)
For accessibility purposes, should we have a text version of the flowchart, e.g. in outline format? (Is this done for other flowcharts, like the NPP one?)
I'm worried about the last bullet point in the "How to use this flowchart" section. I know IAR and common sense is a thing, I just wonder if that's opening the door to everyone claiming IAR in every discussion. I have this desire to bound that somehow ("...but exceptions should be rare"), but I'm not sure of the binding language or if it'll make a difference. Maybe this is a point that must be made and a risk that must be taken? Levivich harass/hound 19:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the last bullet. You are right IAR is enough on its on page. I also added the text version. Need ce to improve presentation.
I have moved the page to Wikipedia space. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Any typographic errors?

Does any one else see a missing word in the question about murder conviction? Or is it just my computer? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the "a" is missing, it displays to me as "has there been  murder conviction" with two spaces between "been" and "murder". Levivich harass/hound 19:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Same. —valereee (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Working on fixing the SVG. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Flowchart width

The flowchart flows off the page in my current view, making the width of the page larger than 100% and introducing a horizontal scroll. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, yeah. I have no ideas for improvement. I am shit at divs and tables. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I made a tweak to make it vertical instead of horizontal, and added an |alt= to the image linking to the text sub-section to (hopefully) make it easy for screen readers to jump to the text version. Levivich harass/hound 08:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Linking from other policy and guideline pages

We should eventually talk about adding links from Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Right. Per Template:Supplement and the RfC outcome it should be linked to from the article titles policy. I guess as a "See also" link at the top of COMMONNAME. I felt slightly like it's a bit out of place there, but *shrugs*. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Related RfC

For reference, this is based off of a prior RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_58#RfC:_Shooting_or_Death_or_Killing_or_Murder?.—Bagumba (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Second degree murder is not an unqualified murder

It is a mistake to title “Murder of” when the conviction is only 2nd or 3rd degree, because these are not unqualified murders. The title should be “killing”, with the conviction explained in the text. The standard English meaning of murder assumes intent, which does not include 2nd degree murder. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

2nd degree means different things in different places but is generally intentional but not premeditated. And not to sound condescending but second degree murder is obviously a type of murder, so "murder" is the right word to describe a second degree murder. Levivich harass/hound 23:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
2nd degree is not generally intentional. 2nd degree murder is a type of murder, technically, but it is a qualified type of murder, and it is not OK to just drop the qualifications without context, which is what this is doing in the title. Then, 3rd degree murder is even more extreme. It’s like a Assistant professor and Associate professor. Are they professors? No.
And it will go the other too. Tying the title word to a legal conviction means that it will miss cases where for whatever the murderer was not convicted, such as if they died first.
Really driving this is that the technical rule as written will routinely conflict with COMMONNAME. Cases of 2nd and 3rd degree murder are not routinely introduced in sources as “murder of ...”, unqualified. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Disagree with the assertion that second-degree and third-degree murders are not commonly understood as murders. Here are a few examples this week of news outlets using an unqualified "murder" in the headline to describe second-degree murders: Jacksonville men arrested in connection with Mandarin murder, Carver County man guilty of murder in fatal St. Paul roadside argument, Man charged with attempted murder after allegedly shooting another man during argument. As Levivich harass/hound mentions, second and third degree murders are types of murders - they are literally murders. Calling them "killings" would be less accurate and less neutral. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 00:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
These examples make my point that the “murder” as title decision should not be tied to a conviction for 2nd degree murder. These are COMMONNAME cases for “murder” even before the conviction. Why some murders are only 2nd degree is a technically. Many 2nd degree murders will be COMMONNAME “murder”, and many others will not. 3rd degree murders generally not. 1st degree, yes. Unconvicted, possibly. The flowchart hard connection to conviction, and disregard for qualifications, is wrong, and at odds with COMMONNAME. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I'll skip right past the moving goalposts ("no examples of 2DM being described as murder" > examples > "these examples actually prove my point") and point out that this argument is on a bad foundation anyway. If your concern is that the flowchart creates a conflict with COMMONNAME, then it's not a valid concern anyway; the flowchart explicitly cedes authority when COMMONNAME exists. Further, your suggestion that we rename all 2nd-degree murders to "Killing of..." conflicts much more so with COMMONNAME. The standards are for use cases where there is no COMMONNAME. Arguing that the standard for 2nd-degree murder should be to call it "killing" instead of "murder" flies in the face of common language, and is almost too silly to be taken seriously. Equally silly is the straw-man in the title of this discussion: "Second degree murder is not an unqualified murder"; the flow-chart is not suggesting that we name any pages "Unqualified Murder of..." so this whole discussion is based on a false pretense. The naming convention doesn't imply that second-degree murder is "unqualified murder." The convention implies - correctly - that second-degree murder is murder, and it is of course appropriate to name pages "Murder of..." in these cases where no other COMMONNAME exists. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 01:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think second degree murder is not intentional. Google "second degree murder" and pick any RS you'd like. Correct me if I'm wrong but I just looked at the first ten results and they all say intentional but not premeditated. Let me know if you'd like me to post links. Levivich harass/hound 00:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
If I’m wrong about that, then let’s shift to 3rd degree murder. Yes, many 2nd degree murders can and should be called murder, but it is not simply and solely because of the conviction. I think I meant “premeditated intent” by intent, but heat-of-the-moment intent still makes for a murder. To my reading, there is a lot of complexity in 2nd degree murder, and variation both within the US and internationally, and tying a hard naming decision to the conviction technicality without reference to COMMONNAME, as the chart is easily misread, is a problem. The Shooting/Killing/Murder of Walter Scott is a clear case in question. Sources do not call it murder. The policeman intended to shoot, which I think makes the “intent” that you see, but I don’t think it is even claimed that he intended to kill. Whether “reckless indifference” makes for murder in the vernacular, comes into this. First degree murder is murder without question. Second degree murder requires COMMONNAME support, sources describe the even as a murder, not the nature of the conviction, I believe. 3rd degree murder is rarely called murder. And there’s variation in place and history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Qualified. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/qualified #2 “ limited or modified in some way” 1st degree murder is not limited or modified. 2nd degree murder may or may not be understood to be murder, but in any case, go to the sources, per COMMONNAME. 3rd degree murder is not murder in most places. See Murder of Ebby Steppach for an example of an agreed murder with no conviction. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Murder. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder " the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" "ex: was convicted of murder." Second-degree murder is murder. Your assertion that second-degree murder is not legally murder or not commonly understood as murder is unfounded - it is your unsupported opinion that you've continued to incorrectly frame as a fact. Dictionaries, RSs on multiple threads that we've been having this argument, and criminal law all contradict you. You haven't put forward a single point of evidence in your favor. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 01:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Malicious aforethought. Murder is taken to imply this, it is what makes “murder” more emotive than “killing”. Malice (to the victim) is generally not present in 3rd degree, and is in 1st degree, and in 2nd degree it could go either way. It is not a suitable decision to refer to a primary source, in degradation of the COMMONNAME policy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
You've both misinterpreted the definition provided, and the definition of second-degree murder. The MW definition is "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" and you seem to have inferred "necessarily with malice aforethought" which is incorrect. Under the MW definition, a person legally convicted manslaughter could be called a murderer in common English because they have unlawfully killed somebody. This tracks because common usage terms are much more lenient than legal terms, not less so as you seem to think. You've also made the assumption that second-degree murder does not include malice aforethought, which it does at least in every state that I could find. Again, even if there are some states where malice aforethought is not a part of a second-degree murder charge, a second-degree murder is still a murder - both legally and in common-usage. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 03:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually I am unimpressed with technical definitions, and am trying to steer the conversation to usage in sources. Wikipedians should not be trying to choose “correct” over what term sources use. And “killing” is not incorrect. “Murder” has nuanced emotional meaning, “killing” has less so, and in some 2nd degree murder cases, the sources predominantly use “killing”. COMMONNAME calls then for “killing”, and WP:DEATHS is at odds with that. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Certainly, some forms of second degree murder (which varies based on state/jurisdiction) may better be classed as manslaughter. I think Chauvin most recently comes to mind, in that the second degree murder was mostly based on the assault. I think in many jurisdictions that would be considered manslaughter. I'm not sure Wikipedia can/should overrule the RS on this, though, so I think in such cases it's best to defer to what the RS are calling it (which is a requirement with this page as well). In the case of Chauvin, it's widely described as a murder by RS, for example, iirc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, can I clarify what you mean by RS? Primary or secondary? I think we should assume that we all are considering only reliable sources. A primary source court document for the conviction is a reliable source. I think the “best” sources to use for titling decisions are secondary sources written after (> 1 week) the facts are in, including the court decision, and sentencing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a bad take. A person convicted of murder, be it first-degree, second-degree, or otherwise, can and should be labelled a murderer. An incident where legal proceedings result in a murder conviction should be labelled a murder. Any legal specifics should be discussed inside the article. The status quo, where article titles are decided case-by-case by editors voting based on their personal opinions rather that verifiable information, is not a good one. WP:DEATHS asks a yes/no question: Is there a conviction for murder in the case? By boiling the argument down to one relevant question, we avoid having to assess myriad legal codes, editor opinions, and skewed definitions. 162 etc. (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
What exactly is the bad take? I agree with nearly every word you wrote, but if the person was a murderer, it doesn’t necessarily mean the event is properly best named a murder. WP:DEATHS is a mistake, for referring a decision that should be based on source use to a fact that comes from a primary source. By boiling down to a single question, by writing algorithmic titling rules, it is moving, wrongly, away from Wikipedia following the sources to Wikipedia taking the lead. For 2nd and 3rd degree murders, in some cases “murder” is not the COMMONNAME word used by sources, and WP:DEATHS is plainly inconsistent with COMMONNAME on the “killing” vs “murder” question, and this inconsistency bad. Unlike “shooting”, “killing” is never wrong or misleading. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

There is frequent usage of the unqualified term "murder" to describe second-degree murder both in US legal contexts and in common usage. The universal consensus opinion of experts is that second-degree murder is murder. The idea that second-degree murder is actually not murder is wholly nonexistent in any RSs regarding a second-degree murder, and in my view cannot even be taken as a serious suggestion. Second-degree murder literally is murder, legally is murder, and is commonly understood to be murder, and any suggestion otherwise must be supported with extreme amounts of evidence... meanwhile no evidence has been provided. Below are some very basic legal and common use descriptions of second-degree murder use basic term "murder":

  • "Definition Second degree murder is a type of murder that has a punishment which is less severe than that for first degree murder." Legal Information Institute https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_degree_murder#:~:text=Overview,degree%20murder%20vary%20by%20state.&text=Typically%2C%20second%2Ddegree%20murder%20is,of%20concern%20for%20human%20life.
  • "Second-degree murder is often seen as a catch-all category for intentional or reckless killings that do not fall within a state’s definition of first-degree murder. For instance, in California second-degree murder is defined as all murders that do not constitute first-degree murder." Justia https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/second-degree-murder/
  • "All murder other than capital murder and murder in the first degree is murder of the second degree" Code of Virginia https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/18.2-32/
  • "Murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life, is murder in the first degree. Murder which does not appear to be in the first degree is murder in the second degree." Massachusetts General Law https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter265/Section1
  • "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree. Any other murder is murder in the second degree." US Federal Law https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111#a
  • "All other kinds of murders are of the second degree." California Legislative Information https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=189&lawCode=PEN
  • "Derek Chauvin, convicted in the murder of George Floyd, to be sentenced June 16" CNN https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/23/us/derek-chauvin-sentencing-george-floyd/index.html
  • "After Chauvin's conviction for Floyd murder, DOJ weighs charging him for 2017 incident involving Black teen: Source" ABC News https://abcnews.go.com/US/chauvins-conviction-floyd-murder-doj-weighs-charging-2017/story?id=77254006
  • "Derek Chauvin is found guilty of murder" The Economist https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/04/22/derek-chauvin-is-found-guilty-of-murder
  • "NY teen charged with murder of senior man in attempted carjacking, prosecutor says" https://www.foxnews.com/us/ny-teen-charged-murder-attempted-carjacking-killed-senior-man-prosecutor
  • "Former VA Medical Worker Pleads Guilty To Murdering 7 Patients In West Virginia" NPR https://www.npr.org/2020/07/14/890776010/former-va-medical-worker-charged-with-7-murders-in-west-virginia
  • The overwhelming evidence here contradicts the suggestion that the "unqualified" word "murder" cannot be used to describe a second-degree murder. The evidence - along with common sense - contradicts the suggestion so heavily as to make the suggestion patently absurd. It is extremely common to use the simple word "murder" in this manner. There are to my knowledge exactly zero reliable sources that have ever even put forth the idea that the word "murder" cannot be used this way, and until any are provided, this suggestion cannot be taken as a serious one. The users on this page are participating in a good-faith discussion about the standardization of page titles amidst an increasingly chaotic and politically charged environment - throwing a monkey wrench into that discussion is not funny. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 04:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The killing of George Floyd, murder 2, does appear justified to be called “Murder of George Floyd”. The killing of Walter Scott, also murder 2, is less clear. I do not argue that it is not murder, but do argue that it is not simply murder, and argue that it is better titled at the “Killing of Walter Scott”. Killing is correct. It’s a matter of choice between synonyms, and the supporting evidence is source use, per COMMONNAME, and WP:DEATHS is inconsistent and bad on the question of killing vs murder. It is good on shooting vs killing, but off the mark on murders. Murders should always depend on source introductory usage, and not on outsourcing to a court conviction. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Note also Murder_of_Ebby_Steppach, murder but no conviction. Note Killing of Justine Damond, a much stronger case of murder not being appropriate in the title despite a “murder” conviction. On murder, WP:DEATHS is not helpful. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The answer is to reserve “murder” for COMMONNAME evidence. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
      • The amount of bad-faith behaviors you've exhibited in the last 48 hours regarding this discussion on this page, the Walter Scott page, and the Breonna Taylor page makes me disinclined to continue engaging with you at all. You've alleged community consensus by linking to your own comment as if it were a Wikipedia policy, made sweeping and unyielding statements about common-use English that are patently ridiculous and easily disproven, provided absolutely no documentation for any of your claims, demanded to see documentation for every claim that contradicts yours, moved the goalposts or changed the topic every time you contradictory evidence is provided to you, made false insinuations about a legal discrimination which classifies first degree murder as "unqualified" and second-degree murders as "qualified," lied about making this false insinuation, backpaddled on this false insinuation, repadalled on this false insinuation, and are now bringing third-degree murder examples (but only if they suit your case) into a thread explicitly about second-degree murders. Frankly, I don't have time for this anymore. This comment wasn't for you - it was for the rest of the people on this page to see, so that they do not make the same mistake I did in wasting their time. Smokey Joe's claim that the simple word "murder" cannot be used to describe second-degree murder is wrong - obviously, comically, overwhelmingly wrong - and anybody who attempts to engage seriously with such an unserious claim will get exactly what they should expect from a person making such a claim. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 05:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I never said “ the simple word "murder" cannot be used to describe second-degree murder”. Obviously it can. The goalpost is that the new WP:MURDER should not be used for decisions on “murder” vs “killing” in titles for cases of 2nd and 3th degree murder. Instead, use COMMONNAME, and default to “killing”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
          • You did say that the simple word "murder" cannot be used to describe second-degree murder, and it seems to be the cornerstone of your entire argument against WP:MURDERS. You said it right here in this discussion thread above (emphasis mine): 2nd degree murder is a type of murder, technically, but it is a qualified type of murder, and it is not OK to just drop the qualifications without context, which is what this is doing in the title. Then, 3rd degree murder is even more extreme. It’s like a Assistant professor and Associate professor. Are they professors? No. You've made the same claim in different words on different threads. The compound word "second-degree" is not a qualifier in the sense that you claim it is. A better example would be mechanical engineer vs engineer in training. The word "mechanical" does not in any sense qualify the word engineer, it simply describes the type of engineer, while the phrase "in training" does qualify the word engineer and denotes that the subject is not actually an engineer. This is confirmed by multiple engineering professional organizations and state board of licenses for professional engineers which explicitly advise against or in some cases prohibit EITs to use the unqualified word "engineer" in their title on business cards or email signatures. There is no such indication in any literature that can be found online that the word "second-degree" in "second-degree murder" acts in any similar way to qualify the word "murder." Indeed the simple word "murder" is used by multiple RSs from news outlets to law firms to describe second-degree murders in exactly the way that you claim it is "not OK" to do. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 20:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"Case of" prefix

We have several articles that have "case" as a suffix. Some are short names for trials such as O. J. Simpson murder case and those should be moved to the name of the trial. The others are medical and/or legal cases where the person is dead but did nothing notable but was some sort of victim of circumstance where their name was used as the article title. For instance, Jahi McMath case or Sun Hudson case. There are other articles that fall in this situation where they have not yet been renamed with the suffix, such as Elaine Esposito where there is no legal case, but again, the person did nothing notable. I think that these latter articles should all be renamed with a "Case of" prefix so that they can be found with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=Case+of&namespace=0 . There is only going to be several dozen or so. I think it will help when browsing the categories also. It tells the person browsing that "this article is not a typical biography, it is something else."--Pages777 (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

You have a reasonable point here. However, Wikipedia policy says that articles should not normally be renamed on the initiative of a single editor; rather, name changes are supposed to be discussed first, and the name should be changed only after it is clear that there is a consensus of involved editors in favour of making the change. And please note that proposing a change on an article's talk page, with no replies from anyone, does not constitute a "consensus" to go ahead. For more information on changing names of articles, see WP:TITLECHANGES. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Prefixing titles with "Case of" is a poor idea. These words are near meaningless. What sort of "case"? No, a better title has the important and recognisable parts upfront. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Other crimes where victim lives

We at least have articles that begin with "Kidnapping of" and "Rape of" that fall into these cases. Can we add this to the page? I tried adding such to the text flowchart but someone reverted me saying the the diagram flow chart has to be then also updated. Also maybe we could mention "Case of" as an alternative to "Death of" when the death is part of a medical and/or legal case.--Pages777 (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure the flowchart needs to be updated for this. The first question covers these cases, and I think "kidnapping of..." and "rape of..." pretty clearly fall into the same category as "shooting of..." etc. We could add some sort of catch all text in that box, but I think it's clear enough as is. Are there any instances of editors being confused or disagreeing about article titles that begin that way? Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 01:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Where the victim lives, it is a WP:BLP for both the victim and any accused, and any named, and a BLP can of worms. If there are not sufficient sources for a COMMONNAME justified title, there are not sufficient sources to assert anything in the title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Assassination is missing

Page should include assassination and clarify that it's a type of murder. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Part of the discussion for this topic is here. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • There's quite a bit of a grey area around who is a public figure and if the motivations truly line up with assassination. I don't think Wikipedia should make this determination, but instead just trust that an assassination would be reported as one by reliable sources so WP:COMMONNAME would apply.-Ich (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Where insufficient sources call it “assassination”, it should not be done. Where sources do call it “assassination”, COMMONNAME applies. Therefore, there is no reason to include “assassination”. —- SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Homicide (and clarificatory notes in general)

I have added a clarificatory note on the definition of homicide, in order to avoid it being misunderstood as implying that a killing was intentional or negligent. For example, such as in the ongoing debate on the Death of Harry Dunn talk page. On a side note, I would suggest that something similar is added in relation to the word "murder" following the discussion above, though I haven't read over that debate in enough detail to make a suggestion. Theknightwho (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

What about wikt:murder? It very much implies deliberate. It’s very odd to clarify the very lax word “homicide”, which is not an outcome of the table, while ignoring the meaning of “murder”, which matches unqualified murder, commonly called “first-degree murder”, while often not matching second-degree murder, and not matching third-degree murder. Your clarification emphasises definitions, wrong definitions for use, and devalues usage in reliable secondary sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The flowchart is not helpful

This pagemove by User:Valereee is a plain illustration of how the flowchart does not help. While it says the flowchart should be used when there is no COMMONNAME, clearly people like Valereee ignore that and go straight to the picture, also ignoring the previous talk page RMs, and misstating that the page, and “explanatory supplement” is “policy”. The flowchart leads to titling formulae overriding sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe, it just leads to someone boldly moving a page that seems to require it. If there's still objection, I have no problem leaving it where it was (is) for now. That one definitely could go either way, and it's recent enough that we may not yet have a common name. —valereee (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
An abundance of sources for the event use the terms “shooting of” and “killing of” WS, including many of the current references. It may yet be called “Murder of”, but Wikipedia should not, using the WP:Voice of Wikipedia, lead the way, like with citogenesis, to the adoption of a new term.
What you did is exactly what I expected from the flowchart. It is not right that Wikipedia assign the “murder” phrase based on primary sources, contrary to better sources, and contrary to COMMONNAME when editors skip the fine text caveat and go with the diagram. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Clearly, what happened here was a bold move where the editor should have checked the talk page first. Let's not suggest that WP:DEATHS should be thrown out the window because of that. 162 etc. (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
What should be thrown out is are the “Execution of” and “Murder of” outcomes. These should never be used without support from sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
The "murder of" outcome is only possible if there has been a conviction for murder. At that point, there is a very obvious source for calling it that. Theknightwho (talk) 16:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Are you aware of source typing? WP:PSTS. What if the only source mentioning “murder” is a primary source? SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
That seems like a rare edge case that could be handled with talk page discussion or an RM. If many pages are being moved without discussion based solely on primary sources, then I'd agree a centralized discussion is called for. Firefangledfeathers 21:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Looking at Talk:Death of Harry Dunn#Possible RM to "Killing of", from the above thread, it is obvious that the new flowchart image is causing people to value the image outcomes over sources. That makes it bad. Specifically what is bad, are the Execution and Murder outcomes being given huge visual prominence over what is used in reliable secondary sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that talk page is a compelling example. Execution and Murder weren't options, and the title wasn't changed to 'Killing'. Firefangledfeathers 23:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
It’s an example of editors looking to the diagram when they should be looking at sources, as the text says, but the diagram causes editors to skip the text. It’s net scholarly effect is negative. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I am, and a legal conviction seems to be a case that fits squarely as a reputably published primary source. It's a perfect example of a "descriptive statement of fact". A lack of secondary sources is (apart from being very unlikely) not an issue in that case. Theknightwho (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
If secondary sources exist, COMMONNAME evidence exists, and the diagram is moot, not applicable, not helpful. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
So if a secondary source doesn't exist we shouldn't use a primary source because of WP:PSTS, but if a secondary source does exist we should ignore the diagram because of WP:COMMONNAME? No. Only if it passes WP:RS. I also don't see how the Harry Dunn example is compelling, when there is a lack of consensus and the sources quite plainly do support the plain fact that it was a killing. Theknightwho (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
“ but if a secondary source does exist we should ignore the diagram because of WP:COMMONNAME?” Yes. Per policy, use the title in the reliable secondary source.
“Only if it passes WP:RS”? I don’t know what you are getting at. Only RSes are considered under any rule. Never use an unreliable source source for any purpose.
The “Harry Dunn example” is this page move and summary that shows how a diagram dumbs down the thinking even in an very experienced and respected editor. This is a well know human factor, a diagram with big text causes the fine text to be ignored. Solution: Dump the diagram, leave the text. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:CRITERIA in WP:COMMONNAME makes it extremely clear that recognisability is only one of five factors that must be taken into account when deciding on an article title. In the vast majority of situations, deaths are referred to in a variety of different ways, and there is no universally settled-on "name". As such, we should also take into account other factors such as precision, naturalness and consistency. I also point you to the statement on descriptive titles: where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles. The idea that a murder should not be reported as such simply because it is more commonly referred to as a "death" (which is obviously going to be the case just after a conviction anyway), is absurd. Primary sources are also acceptable in certain contexts. As per WP:PRIMARY: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. A murder conviction fits this.
As for your example, I have no idea how Walter Scott is relevant to Harry Dunn. Theknightwho (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
As an aside, I have just noticed the extensive discussion on the page for the killing of Walter Scott, where these same arguments were made to you then by others, and where there was overwhelming consensus against you. I am sceptical that you are holding this discussion in good faith, as this appears to be a case of WP:FORUMSHOP. Theknightwho (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
What 162 said. Just an error. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


Yeah, and WP:COMMONSENSE also applies. If you can conceive of a situation where a murder conviction has been secured but no secondary sources actually describe it that way, then it’s either not notable enough to warrant having an article, or an exceptional matter which is better known by something else. The diagram is therefore helpful in the other 99.9% of situations, which are the ones we are actually talking about. Theknightwho (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The talk was almost all about “killing” versus “shooting”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm confused. The point of the previous RfC was that if someone had been killed (rather than simply shot) and there was no common name at Shooting of, we should go with Killing of. Because someone was killed. They weren't just shot. Killed is much more accurate and precise if they were killed. The fact they actually died seems like a really important detail, worthy of being noted in the title of the article, which is what the RfC found. I don't understand the objection to this now? valereee (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
That's not what the RfC found. VQuakr (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
VQuakr, what do you think the RfC found? valereee (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: we're talking about this RfC that was closed as no consensus, right? That RfC, that was closed as no consensus, found that there was not a consensus for treating WP:DEATHS as a guideline. What I "think the RfC found" isn't relevant. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@VQuakr, how could what the RfC found not be relevant? valereee (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: not what I said. We talking about the actual, objective results of the RfC. You said The point of the previous RfC was that if someone had been killed (rather than simply shot) and there was no common name at Shooting of, we should go with Killing of. Because someone was killed, which is inaccurate because the RfC was closed as no consensus. Your question about what I think about it isn't relevant. VQuakr (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@VQuakr, ah. My intention was to ask how you were interpreting the findings, not to ask about your opinion on whether that finding was correct or not. Sorry, shouldn't have shorthanded it. Communication can be so difficult.
My interpretation is that the RfC, which was closed While is not the level of support that is necessary to create a guideline (officially a no consensus outcome), there is enough of a consensus to create an explanatory supplement to the Article title policy using the revised flow chart as a basis was that the flowchart was useful for guidance. It wasn't consensus against the flowchart. Just not consensus for designating it policy. valereee (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: agreed that communication can be difficult; thanks for your patience. I think we agree that the RfC found consensus to include a flowchart in an explanatory statement, correct. What I was noting in my reply above is that your statement, I'm confused. The point of the previous RfC was that if someone had been killed (rather than simply shot) and there was no common name at Shooting of, we should go with Killing of doesn't reflect a consensus found in that RfC. The RfC found that there was no consensus (which isn't the same as consensus against, but still is a nonfinding that results in the page not becoming guideline). WP:DEATHS including the flow diagram is a statement that reflects the opinion of some editors but shouldn't be quoted as if it were a guideline. You're not the only editor that seems to be confused about this, and usually if I'm the one in a "one against many" discussion it means I'm missing something. But no one has pointed out what I'd be missing (so far at least) in this case. I'd be curious to hear your opinion about what's going on here. Is it possible that multiple editors have forgotten how the RfC ended? VQuakr (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@VQuakr, I think it's that for reasons I don't completely understand this is a highly contentious issue. It appears to become more contentious when race and/or the police are a factor.
Personally all I really care about is:
  1. If someone died, unless there's a clear common name at shooting of (or whatever), we should use either death of or killing of. My personal preference would actually be death of as more neutral, but more important is:
  2. That we are consistent. We've got a worrisome history of tending to use shooting of vs death of/killing of inconsistently, and the inconsistency does sometimes have a correlation with whether race and/or the police are a factor. I do not believe this to be intentional bias. valereee (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: that's the sort of reasoning that would have gone into a !vote at the RfC. My question, though was if you had any insight as to why editors seems to have forgotten/won't acknowledge that the RfC closed as no consensus. The highly contentious issue is the ignoring of that result, not the actual naming policy (which just reverts back to WP:TITLE with this supplement as a the non-PAG opinion of one or more editors). VQuakr (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@VQuakr: I join with others that feel a simple "no consensus" is missing a vital half of that decision. There was consensus to publish this explanatory supplement. Explanatory supplements are perfectly valid to cite as reasoning in an RM or other discussion. Supplements like WP:BRD, WP:SNOW, and WP:RSP are cited ubiquitously. I think it's fair to say, "I don't think DEATHS applies" or "I disagree with DEATHS in general", but this supplement exists, and it's also fair for others to cite it. Firefangledfeathers 16:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers: thanks for weighing in, and to repeat I am grateful for yours and Valeree's insight on this. There are huge differences between this supplement and the ones you list. RSP is cited because it links to discussions that DO have consensus, while BRD and SNOW are supplements in name only (BRD because it is one of many optional editing techniques, SNOW because it's a corollary to IAR). Those three examples are atypical outliers. By contrast, WP:DEATHS explicitly lacks broad agreement on its suitability. The RFC was roughly split, and the flowchart itself is even more contested. I have never claimed that no one should cite WP:DEATHS, but what's shocked me is the vehement response I received to my pointing out something that should be an uncontroversial statement of fact: that the reasoning therein is just an opinion of some editors and not something that should be interpreted as a default to normally follow for its own sake. Put another way, a !vote of "per WP:DEATHS" should be discounted as a vote without reasoning the same as "per editor XX" and unweighted during evaluation of consensus. An effective !vote that cites a supplement that doesn't reflect broad consensus, such as this one, should be used to help with brevity rather than treating it like a Rule. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I can understand your reasoning, but I strongly disagree. I would challenge any close that discounted DEATHS-based !votes. I also disagree that this supplement doesn't reflect consensus, as the closer of the RfC determined that there was consensus for this supplement. Whether it's broad consensus or not is debatable, as is the distinction between a supplement and a "supplement in name only", but not material. Firefangledfeathers 20:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers: there's a nuance of difference between "unweighted" and "discounted" that is significant, in my opinion. But I'm comfortable with us disagreeing with my statement as I wrote it anyways, since no one is expressing an intention to actually close any discussions this way. Looking at the RfC, there was quite a bit of opposition, for a variety of reasons; in short it wasn't a remotely close call to this supplement becoming guideline. That may change in the future, of course, but what really shocked me here was the "this is decided" response I seemed to get from my noting that this really, really isn't something set in stone. In terms of path forward, I think there are some actionable, marginal improvements to the language in the supplement and graphic that we quite plausibly can get consensus on. This section is long and the thread is deep, so I'll start a new section to discuss and I hope you'll engage there, too. I really do appreciate you and Valereee providing civil, well-considered discussion here. For broader context: I'm not generally opposed to the reasoning supported by this supplement. I do think it needs to be edited a bit to better align with WP:TITLE, though. It's a supplement primarily supporting WP:CONSISTENT (1/5th of WP:TITLE) and should be presented as such. Grounding the supplement back to policy better is going to help the arguments supported by it fit policy as well. VQuakr (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@VQuakr, same answer, though: editors (forget/won't acknowledge/disagree with close/interpret the close differently/however we want to describe it) because it's a highly contentious issue. (The rest was just me explaining my best guess as to why it's highly contentious, and why the fact it's not apparently straightforward is surprising to me.) valereee (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The underlying reasoning behind this supplement isn't problematic and shouldn't be contentious, unless it starts being used as a guideline or interpreted in a vacuum rather than as a supplement to our actual policies. It's not presented very cleanly and there's some goofy stuff here though. Fixable problems. VQuakr (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


Valeree, the objection is not about “shooting” vs “killing”. That part is good.
The objection is about the highly assertive prominent area of the diagram dedicated to “Death” vs “suicide”, “execution” and “murder” and how it seems to imply, and cases repeatedly show that editors read it this way, that the decision factor is a fact, usually a court result. The part about COMMONNAME being the policy is lost, and some people are trying to retitle articles based on primary sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I have addressed this already. WP policy supports using primary sources for simple statements of fact, which a conviction fits. It is also incorrect (in the vast majority of cases) that there is an agreed upon common name anyway. Theknightwho (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
You respond but seem to be on a different perspective. You don’t seem to care about secondary source vs primary source, and how the Wikipedia being an encyclopedia is supposed to be lead by secondary sources, and that primary source sleuthing is a bad thing on Wikipedia. You also have not responded to my reply on you addition of more words on “homicide”, which I think is inappropriate because “homicide” is not even a suggested outcome.
Having a title of an event flip from one title to another with a changing court result is not how it should work. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
To repeat what I said, which is on this very same page:
As per WP:PRIMARY: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. A murder conviction fits this.
I also don't see what relevance your reply to my note about "homicide" had to anything I said, which is why I didn't respond to it. Theknightwho (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@Theknightwho: if there's no secondary coverage of the conviction, then I'd question whether the article on the death should exist at all re notability. This isn't an issue that should arise often. But WP:BLPPRIMARY applies and we absolutely do not state there's been a conviction of murder if the alleged perp is alive and no secondary sources exist. VQuakr (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree that it's an extremely unusual situation, and one which will almost certainly never arise. That policy you've linked seems to be referring to ancillary information (and I completely agree with it). It would seem extremely weird for WP to not report something as a murder that is in fact a murder, and even stranger for no RS to actually exist supporting that.
Leaving hypotheticals aside, though, my main concern with SmokeyJoe's argument is to do with WP:COMMONNAME, which they haven't addressed here at all. Their interpretation is based on the false assumption that deaths even tend to have common names at all. Theknightwho (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is a shortcut to the section in WP:TITLE, "Use commonly recognizable names". An article about an event such as a death may not have an obvious name like we have for potato. It needs a title that is recognizable to meet this particular one of the five naming criteria. There is no requirement for the article title to actually be in common use outside of Wikipedia (though it often is), and in that way the shortcut WP:COMMONNAME is a bit misleading. Maybe we should add a watermark to the flowchart to remind people that it's not policy? VQuakr (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you. This all seems to have arisen out of this discussion, where I think Combefere explains it pretty well: The objective way to evaluate the sources is to understand that sources which were published prior to the murder conviction called it a "killing" and sources that were published after the murder conviction called it a "murder." Our job with ongoing stories is to take new information and update the article - your suggestion is to throw out a major development of the story under the false pretense that it's not relevant to the article. See WP:OLDSOURCES Theknightwho (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
If the new court conviction is not repeated in any secondary source, then it is unworthy for retitling the Event article. It can go in the body text, where it can be referenced. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
It is unlikely that we would even know such a conviction exists. This feels like a bridge to cross if we ever come to it. Theknightwho (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
There’s a bunch of examples. One prominent one is Killing of Justine Damond, although the page move never happened, it keeps being suggested, including on the current talk page.
The central motivation of the RfC was on the mark for this one, she was killed, not merely shot.
However, the diagram overreaches to cover suicide murder and executions. When the killer was convicted of murder (3rd degree), according to the flow chart, ignoring the fine text, the article should be moved to “Murder of …”. But it should not, because on the announcement of the verdict, of after, no reliable secondary source (not that I could find) subsequently described the event as a murder. The policeman was described as convicted of murder, but I don’t think any reliable source introduced him as a murderer, and certainly no retrospective then introduced the event as a murder.
Why do you think “ unlikely that we would even know such a conviction exists”? I think you are failing to distinguish between primary source and secondary source. There were plenty of primary source reports, including newspaper front pages. These are not secondary sources, being mere repetition of facts, and are not preferred for any use of Wikipedia beyond very specific supporting of a fact. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I am afraid that I don't agree that newspapers reporting on a murder conviction are primary sources, particularly if it's front page news. This is made clear at the list of examples of reliable sources at WP:OR. The primary source would be the judgment/sentencing/whatever other document confirmed the conviction. Frankly, I have been baffled by your understanding of WP's source policy throughout this discussion. Theknightwho (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Watermark, yes. Editors eyes are drawn the to size of the diagram to the exclusion of the text. More precisely, I propose removal of mention of Suicide murder execution and homicide. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Theknightwho, I’ve been re-reading your posts and trying to understand why you write thing that seem oddly off-point. We’re talking at cross-points I guess.
Understood, a death event may not have a COMMONNAME. In that case, it is not appropriate for the Voice of Wikipedia to create that common-name (for the event, not the death per se) with the emotive POV terms “suicide”, “murder” and “execution”.
Because the title can’t be explicitly referenced, the title must be conservative. And conversely like the Execution of the Romanovs, the non-existence of a conviction is irrelevant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, in a tiny minority of instances there is a genuine common name that does not line up with the usual flowchart, but that does not justify throwing out the flowchart altogether. To reiterate what VQuakr just said: There is no requirement for the article title to actually be in common use outside of Wikipedia, and unless you can give me a real example of a murder that was reported as a "death"/"killing"/"homicide" in a RS but not as a "murder", despite the existence of a murder conviction, then your concern that WP is coining the name does not exist. Theknightwho (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I don’t want to throw out the whole flowchart, just cut it back from including suicide murder and execution. Justine Damond was one such example. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm on board for the idea that in the absence of a common name we shouldn't be using 'Murder of' in the case of anything but (whatever is the equivalent of) a conviction of first-degree murder, and I'd support tweaking the flowchart to reflect that. valereee (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Where reliable sources establish a murder, there is no basis to imposing an arbitrary "not unless there has been a conviction" standard. If the idea here is that when reliable sources establish something to be murder that automatically becomes the COMMONNAME, then the flowchart should reflect that reality; but there is no need or basis to complicate things in that manner when, as is the custom, editors can name and edit articles in a manner consistent with what is established through reliable sources. Arllaw (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
But if RS are calling it murder, it's got a common name. That's clear at the top of the flowchart. Valereee (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Obviously that's not clear, as the flowchart has created confusion right on this talk page. Also, it is never going to be the case that all reliable sources use the same terminology, so trying to wave away errors in the flowchart with "but the box at the top" is not a viable position. Correcting the error at the conclusion of the flowchart -- and it is a flat-out, unrefuted error that a murder should not be called a murder without a conviction -- avoids the problem. Leaving the error in place can only lead to confusion. Arllaw (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The flowchart is incorrect. It is not the practice in Wikipedia for articles to be named "murder of" only in the event of a successful prosecution. References are made to murders that remain unsolved (or technically unsolved), including cases in which some or all known suspects were acquitted or had their convictions reversed. See, e.g., Murder of Tupac Shakur, Murder of the Notorious B.I.G., Murder of Seth Rich, Murder of Meredith Kercher, Murder of Jean McConville, Murder of Harry and Harriette Moore, Murder of Robert McCartney, etc. Arllaw (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

We always defer to common name, but the flow chart is not incorrect in the absence of a common name. Valereee (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
If your argument is that the common name for murders is to call them murders, then you are agreeing that the flowchart is incorrect. If you are arguing that the many articles in Wikipedia that don't follow the flowchart do so based upon there being common names for all of those murders, you need to substantiate that, not just offer conjecture. Further, nothing you are saying gets to the heart of the issue, which is that to declare a murder to be something other than a murder unless there is a conviction is not objective editing -- it's editorializing based upon an arbitrary standard that (as current actual practice indicates) makes no sense. Arllaw (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(violence_and_deaths)/Archive_1&oldid=1163438370"