Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If secondary sources exist, COMMONNAME evidence exists, and the diagram is moot, not applicable, not helpful. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

“ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What 162 said. Just an error. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The talk was almost all about “killing” versus “shooting”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's not what the RfC found. VQuakr (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr, what do you think the RfC found? valereee (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@VQuakr, how could what the RfC found not be relevant? valereee (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Should the page be renamed to something, like "Naming violence and death-related articles" or "Naming violence and death articles"? Look at WP:naming character articles, for example. --George Ho (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have a number of pages at WP:Naming convention (whatever). Maybe it's the character articles page that needs to be moved to WP:Naming conventions (characters) or WP:Naming conventions (fictional characters)? valereee (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The parenthetical format seems to dominate; see Category:Wikipedia naming conventions for the full list. VQuakr (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A: Let's start with stuff I think we agree on and go from there. I'm trying to number these starting with the least contentious:

1. WP:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) is an explanatory supplement to WP:TITLE, the latter of which is policy, as determined by a RfC archived here.
2. WP:TITLE contains five main criteria: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision, and Consistency.
3. Selection of article names related to deaths of people is inherently more sensitive than for most article topics. WP:NPOV (particularly issues discussed in the essay WP:BIAS) and WP:BLP must also be considered.
4. Naming convention supplements are particularly effective at making article titles consistent.

I think all these are non-contentious observations, but feel free to disagree.

B: Continuing to items that I anticipate may generate some discussion:

1. Prose in images is harder to edit than prose in Wikitext.
2. WP:UCRN, aka WP:COMMONNAME, is one of five criteria used in determining article names. A variety of other reasons may apply to not follow the suggestion in the flow chart.
   1. For these two reasons, I think the prose along the top of File:Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder (revised).png should be replaced with two links, to WP:DEATHS and WP:TITLE. Additional annotation should be in the supplement text or image caption, not the image itself.
   2. I think WP:COMMONNAME is over-emphasized in the current version of this supplement, and focus should be balanced on all five criteria.
3. The outcomes of discussions for "suicide of..." and "execution of..." naming formats are less common and less consistent than shooting/killing/murder naming formats.
   1. I think this should be reflected in the flow chart, maybe with something as subtle as a lighter line weight or dashed line type.
4. The "murder of..." format, when the alleged killer is not long-dead, must be directly supported by cited reliable, secondary sources in-article in order to be used per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPPRIMARY.
   1. I think this should be noted more clearly in prose in this supplement.

What do editors think, particularly of the suggestions starting with "I think"? Any disagreement so far? VQuakr (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be silent on homicide, suicide, murder and execution, as these are highly POV terms for a title and require strong support from sources. I think it should focus on the driving issue, that shooting, stabbing, assault, etc, imply that the victim(s) didn’t die. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. These are factual terms, and there does not seem to be any reason to be inconsistent in their use. Theknightwho (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It took a long time and a lot of arguing to get this to work in its current form, and it's still contentious. I don't think the proposed changes will find consensus, or help move this page from explanatory supplement to guideline. 162 etc. (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@162 etc.: I don't know that making this a guideline should be an immediate goal anyways. Some of these (such as removal of the prose that is at odds with policy at WP:TITLE) are super straightforward in my view. Can you be more specific about what you see as sticking points here? VQuakr (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support any of the proposed changes. If you read the RfC again, you'll see that making the flowchart subordinate to WP:COMMONNAME is the only reason why it even got this far. My opinion is that the existing explanatory supplement is a good compromise, and that trying to add more to it will likely fragment an already fragile consensus. 162 etc. (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Le sigh. The flowchart is "subordinate" to all PAG, not a single section of one policy. This is basic stuff, and fixing it isn't optional since WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override PAG. Also: you don't have consensus for the current version, as indicated by this and other discussion sections. I highly doubt that Barkeep49's closure statement was intended to serve as a block to any future improvement; that's simply not how PAG (let alone supplements) work. VQuakr (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the above invitation to disagree about what "we agree on", I will take the bait. Item A.1 above says we agree that this essay is an explanatory supplement to WP:TITLE. I disagree with that statement. This essay contains a flowchart describing a titling scheme that is not explaining anything found in WP:TITLE. It is an advocacy of a particular titling scheme, not an explanation of what is found in the policy. WP:TITLE simply does not contain much of what is in this essay, so this essay is not an explanation of the policy. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The flowchart is not an illustration of either policy or Wikipedia practice. It is inconsistent with how many "murder of" articles are named. Arllaw (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an illustration of best practices. If some articles are named differently, some of them are probably named for common name, which is great. Some may be a result of consensus at that particular page for whatever uncommon reason; also great. Some may reasonably need to be looked at to see if we'd want to change. Valereee (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having inaccurate article titles is not a "best practice", even if some editors prefer that approach. The articles I identified, and many others like them, are properly named because they identify undisputed murders, documented as such by reliable sources -- and the flowchart is flat-out wrong in suggesting that a conviction is necessary before an article about a murder can be accurately named. To impose arbitrary rules to override what reliable sources say about a homicide or murder? That's editorializing. Arllaw (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't actually rules -- it's an essay -- and they aren't arbitrary. If there's been no murder conviction and there's no common name calling it 'murder of', the flowchart recommends calling it 'killing of'. If there is a common name calling it 'murder of', we call it that. If there's a murder conviction, the flowchart recommends we call it 'murder of' unless there's a common name otherwise. How is any of that inaccurate? Nothing 'overrides' what RS are calling it; that would be the common name, which is detailed in the essay. And nothing overrides what consensus is at the article. Valereee (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct -- this is an essay, not a rule as such. However, given that some editors will misinterpret this sort of essay as a rule or cite it as a binding authority, the essay should nonetheless be as correct as possible. I don't think that it is helpful to have a flowchart that by default misidentifies murders as something else, rather than following what is established through reliable sources, nor do I find that problem to be addressed by speculation that there will usually or always be a common name to override the flowchart's inaccuracy. Do you agree that a standard that, in the absence of a conviction, we must ignore reliable sources and misidentify murders as something else is untenable? Arllaw (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, @Arllaw, I'm not following. It's been a long discussion. Let's for the moment ignore what other editors might misinterpret, common name, consensus, RS, and get to the exact basic issue I think you must be trying to get at: what is it you think misidentifies murder as (what?) Valereee (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain your objection to naming articles based upon what editors find in reliable sources. If reliable sources establish that a murder occurred, do we presuppose that "Murder of" is the COMMONNAME? If not, how do you picture that editors can objectively determine a COMMONNAME? Why should editors be substituting their personal beliefs, or following an arbitrary rule (such as "there must first be a conviction for murder"), in lieu of what Wikipedia asks, which is that we edit in accord with reliably sourced information? The flow chart as presently constituted is at odds with Wikipedia practice, and is at odds with any other editorial or style guide that I've encountered, so it is difficult to see why it should not be corrected and improved. Arllaw (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if RS call it "murder of", we call it "murder of", which is what the flowchart says, right at the top in a pink box.

What exactly are you objecting to? Please can you state your objection in one simple very clear sentence? Valereee (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you concede that we go with reliable sources, then the flowchart should reflect that reality. It should not impose what you are now agreeing is an incorrect rule, incompatible with Wikipedia policy and practice as well as those reliable sources, that an article about a murder cannot be accurately titled unless there is first a conviction for murder. Now that we have made that progress, can we agree to again correct the flowchart? Arllaw (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arllaw, I'm still not sure what exact changes your are trying to make, which is why I asked for a very brief, very clear statement.

If you could provide us a proposed change like this, which will make it clear to everyone what it is you are proposing:

Current Revised text

I apologize if there is something like this in the previous discussion. I looked for it, but it's a really long discussion. Valereee (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arllaw

(talk) 22:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm not following, but does that ignore a conviction? Valereee (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. If an article is titled as a murder, and somebody is convicted of murder, the title doesn't change. It corrects the error that we can't follow standard editing practice and identify an article as a murder unless there has been a conviction. Arllaw (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't seem to be in your revised flowchart? Valereee (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That error from the presently published version of the flowchart is removed. I am not sure how that is unclear. Arllaw (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not sure I'm understanding Arllaw correctly, but I have a good guess. Arllaw, are you concerned about cases in which:

I agree these should mostly be titled "Murder of X", excepting some cases where this has unwelcome BLP implications. An example I can think of would be Murder of the Romanov family. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what "That error from the presently published version of the flowchart is removed." even means. Can you please just show us:

Current Revised text.

Seriously. Show me

1. What it currently says
2. What you want it to say

Please just show me that. What change are you looking for from the current version? Please show me the change instead of explaining it to me. Valereee (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the flowchart that is proposed for change is on the project page. I have showed you the proposed corrected version. What more do you need? Arllaw (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After corrections were made to the project page, they were reverted without the appropriate initiation of a discussion of the reasons for the reversion. That apparently created some confusion; although I am not sure why so much discussion preceded any indication that the two discussions of the issue on this talk page are unclear.

The proposed change, presented above, can be compared to the present flowchart on the project page. The present flowchart inappropriately asserts that an article can only be called "Murder of..." following a conviction. BLP issues might arise in the event that a suspect is acquitted of murder and there is no other plausible suspect -- where the verdict rules out murder (even if controversially) as opposed to the jury's determination that although a murder occurred the defendant is not the person who committed it. As with the O.J. Simpson case, a successful defense of "somebody else did it" doesn't change the fact that murders occurred. Arllaw (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the pink box allows for that situation. The diagram provides for use of the title "Murder of X" when (a) someone is convicted of that murder, or (b) multiple reliable sources refer to the case as "Murder of X" (common name). I really don't see what the problem is. WWGB (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see the problem with what? The incorrect assertion that an article should only be called "Murder of" following a conviction? Do you actually see a basis for leaving that error in the flowchart? Arllaw (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking solely at the flowchart, rather than considering the entire diagram. The pink box ("common name") can override the flowchart. You are taking the flowchart out of its context. The article was first published in December 2020. Can you show even one example where a subsequent "death" article was titled incorrectly, against the intent of the diagram? WWGB (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the case. I am looking at the entire "diagram", including the pink box. I am simply not working from the misconception that having a confusing flowchart that concludes with an obvious error is somehow overcome by the notion that people reviewing the flowchart will somehow know that they should not follow its incorrect edicts because they can somehow divine a COMMONNAME that they should use instead of following its edicts. I see no reason why the flowchart should not be clear and accurate, as opposed to inaccurate while falling back on a Rube Goldberg "but the pink box somehow makes the error irrelevant" objection to improvement and correction. It's that simple, no need for a snipe hunt, no basis for demands to somehow prove a negative. Arllaw (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done here, other than noting I do not support any change to the diagram. WWGB (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By all appearances, the present flowchart contributed to confusion right on this talk page, "Whether a homicide is a murder or not is decided by a court of law." You object to improving the flowchart based upon necessity; but even if we assume for the sake of argument that the improvement is necessary, why not change it simply to improve it? Arllaw (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am unconvinced about what needs to be changed, and as I can't seem to get Arllaw to explain in a way I can understand, I too am done here. Ping me if you want to try to explain instead of just repeating over and over again what you think we should already be agreeing with. Valereee (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arllaw, the yes and no on the top left are reversed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, if the person is alive or dead? We only get into the death/homicide/murder name conundrum if the person is dead. Arllaw (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you fixed the error.

But in any case, 162 etc. reverted your changes because they correctly point out none of this was discussed here before the changes were made. The consensus for this page was reached after hard fought debate. Please do not change it without getting consensus. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. It is entirely proper to make bold changes to correct errors in essays such as this one. To the extent that the correction of erroneous content in an essay can be described as "substantive changes to policy", it is actually the reversion that was made inappropriately:

Or be bold. Although most editors find prior discussion, especially at well-developed pages, very helpful, directly editing these pages is permitted by Wikipedia's policies. Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it either in your edit summary or on the talk page.

So far, no defense has been offered for keeping erroneous content in the flowchart. Arllaw (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually see what's erroneous. Valereee (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The yes/no error has been fixed over at Commons. We are now talking about the overall edits to the policy which were reverted here. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I actually support your changes. I would like to think about it more though and discuss it. But I left it alone because fundamentally I agree with it. However, it is substantively different than the clear established consensus from the RfC. Maybe @162 etc. can name a reason they don't like it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment. I was pushing back against the idea that a bold edit, performed in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, as improper, while a reversion, performed in contravention of the same guideline, was not. Arllaw (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bold edits are encouraged; but they can certainly be reverted. I cited WP:TALKFIRST, which is actually the same policy, and states that "Talk page discussion typically precedes substantive changes". It took a long time and a lot of discussion to arrive at what is now WP:DEATHS, and changes to it should not be taken lightly.

I, for one, disagree with WP:MURDEROF, and don't think that it should influence this page. Others may disagree, of course; a discussion is the best way to achieve a consensus, and I encourage User:Arllaw to start one here on the talk page. 162 etc. (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that bold edits can be reversed is not an issue. The fact that you reversed a properly conducted bold edit in direct violation of the policy you cited as the basis for your action is a problem. As that policy states, it is up to you to initiate a discussion to justify your reversion -- to provide a substantive reason for your action. As you do not appear interested in defending either the policy or the action, the appropriate next step would be to restore the edit that you inappropriately reverted. Arllaw (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit can be restored if discussion determines that there is a consensus for this addition. See WP:BRD. 162 etc. (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That edit can be restored as a bold edit. One frustration of Wikipedia is how frequently editors try to impose rules in order to avoid discussion of substance. The change was incorrectly reverted based upon the actual standard. That was followed by the incorrect avoidance by the person who made the reversion to support that action, as specifically required by the standard cited as the supposed basis for the reversion. Nothing about the policy has changed. Bold edits are appropriate to correct error, and those who want to revert need to justify their actions not just complain that the bold edit occurred. I am giving you plenty of opportunity to explain why Wikipedia should maintain incorrect information in the flowchart, a standard not actually applied on Wikipedia. I'm getting almost nothing back but process. You need to switch to substance. Arllaw (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no established practice, convention or guideline that stands for the proposition that Wikipedia for articles to only be named "Murder of [name]" following a conviction of murder. There are many articles that follow the entirely common sense approach of accurately identifying murders, established as such through reliable sources, even if (a) they remain unsolved, (b) nobody has yet to be tried, (c) a suspect (even a formerly prime suspect) has been acquitted of an undisputed murder, or (d) the conviction of a suspect in an undisputed murder has been reversed. The inability to identify or convict a suspect to an undisputed murder does not mean that there was no murder -- acquittal becomes relevant to the title if it excludes the possibility of murder. Whatever else there may be to discuss about "Murder of [name]" article naming conventions, the flowchart should be corrected to remove its incorrect conclusion. Arllaw (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I sympathize with this line of argument, can you name an article where this has happened and the COMMONNAME exception did not win out to ensure the title was "Murder of [name[". That is where an RM or local discussion failed to first consider the fact that the reliable sources agree it is a murder.

In an ideal world, the situation you describe would never arise and the flowchart would not be used (i.e. we stop at the red box at the top). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for flip flopping. I'm just on the fence about this. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Is it that if something is established as a murder, but some reliable sources suggest that it may not have been a murder, then it can't be called a murder? That's not a unique sort of situation, but represents the same sort of issue that editors face across a broad range of subjects. If there is a minority view about a murder, editors would make the usual evaluation about whether it is a fringe theory that should not be elevated by being treated as equivalent to mainstream theories, and the extent to which minority views should be discussed within the article. Given that the overwhelming majority of murders don't invite or support contrary views, that might be a rare basis to revisit a prior consensus among reliable sources that a homicide was a murder, but it's not a basis to refuse to properly identify murders based upon the possibility that somebody at some time might publish an article that questions the consensus -- we edit based upon what is known, not what might be known or alleged in the future. Arllaw (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did that address your concerns? Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a homicide is a murder or not is decided by a court of law. If, as a result of (a), (b), (c), or (d) above, the court has not convicted somebody of murder, then it is not "undisputedly" a murder. The current flowchart recommends "killing", which is an accurate and neutral term to describe such homicides.

Of course, WP:COMMONNAME overrides WP:DEATHS, and if reliable sources use "Murder of Foo", then the article should too. This is also clearly explained in the current flowchart. 162 etc. (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that the determination of whether or not something is a murder is made by a court, or that it depends upon a court or the outcome of judicial proceedings. Whether or not something is a murder is established by facts that show that a homicide occurred, and that the homicide was a murder under the governing law. For purposes of Wikipedia, that is established by reference to reliable sources. Nobody can plausibly believe, for example, that the death of Biggie Smalls was something other than murder, even though the crime is never likely to be solved, let alone to result in a prosecution. Nobody says, "Oh, I guess Lizzie Borden's parents had unfortunate accidents involving the same axe", merely because their daughter was acquitted of murder. That's not a common name issue, it's a common sense issue. It's not the role of editors to either create arbitrary rules to avoid naming articles according to the facts established by reliable sources. If what is being argued here is that the arbitrary and incorrect standard set forth in the flowchart can be overridden when reliable sources establish a murder, under the pretense that when that happens it's the common name, then why bother having the incorrect rule in the first place? If that's not what's being argued we're back to having editors want to overrule reliable sources based upon their personal beliefs and editorial preferences. Arllaw (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What if the accused is found to be insane? He/she was incapable of malice aforethought, which is a requirement for murder. Then murder could not be established, despite the presence of a perpetrator. WWGB (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A successful "insanity" defense is rare. In the event that somebody is prosecuted for murder and, as is broadly required for that defense, admits to committing a homicide but successfully establishes that they did not have the requisite criminal intent to render it a murder, then it would be appropriate to rename a "Murder of [victim]" article about the victim as a killing. A finding of "not guilty by reason of insanity" is an acquittal of the charged crime. Arllaw (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any more comments here? Phraseology? For example, I can think of ways to phrase this without referring to the remaining number of plausible suspects, but not without a level of verbosity that seems excessive for a flow chart. Arllaw (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]