Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (violence and deaths)

Current title

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)

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)

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

Path forward on improvements

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Arllaw

(talk) 22:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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

1. reliable sources are clear that someone was murdered
2. the sources do not frequently use the phrase "murder of X", thus no COMMONNAME
3. but there is no conviction for murder?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

The present flowchart is plainly incorrect, it has led to confusion right on this talk page, and it is not saved by pretending that a common name will always preempt its error. Under the present flow chart, an undisputed murder can be inappropriately titled as a "killing" based upon the arbitrary and incorrect standard that there has not yet been a conviction. The amendment fixes that. If you need more explanation, ask questions. Arllaw (talk)

Yes/No reversed Do reliable sources establish/Have all plausible suspects

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

So the proposed language is sufficiently clear? Arllaw (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has prompted comments from several editors, none of whom appear to support your proposed changes. 162 etc. (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Editors, of course, have every right to raise concerns about proposed changes. Part of the issue here seems to arise from the failure to properly initiate a clear discussion following the reversion of the changes to the flowchart, which apparently confused some editors as to what was being discussed. If you believe that some concerns have not been properly or fully addressed, please elaborate. Arllaw (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

No, the proposed change is not sufficiently clear. From the best I can make out from your long circular arguments, the proposed change is completely unnecessary. And frankly you've bludgeoned multiple discussions here to the point other editors have walked away. This feels very disruptive, and I think you should stop. Valereee (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have been very patient with you, and have treated your often insulting posts as having been made in good faith. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making this personal, or engaging in further personal attacks. Arllaw (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Arllaw, please show me a diff of a personal attack I have made, or retract that accusation. Valereee (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Scroll up to your last post. Really, consider posting non-personal, relevant commentary that advances the discussion, or leave the discussion to others. Arllaw (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Give me a diff of a "personal attack", or stop. Also retract, but definitely stop. Valereee (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's take this to your talk to keep from creating issues here. Valereee (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Murder charges

Death of Tyre Nichols presents an interesting case. I think people are reading too much into: "A determination of the manner of death should be made by some official authority, such as a coroner, coroner's inquest, medical examiner or similar expert person or organization.". If we are at the murder charges stage, we have already blown past the determination that it is a homicide or killing. If the state is already bringing charges of manslaughter, aggravated homicide, or higher charges such as murder, we don't have to wait for sources to mention a coroner's report, to know an "official authority" has determined it is homicide. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The phrasing could probably be adjusted, if necessary. In unnatural death cases, official "causes of death" are generally homicide, suicide, accidental, or undetermined. It is possible that the cause of death can be amended at a later date as more information comes to light, but it is also possible that the initial determination of cause of death will remain in place even after further investigation has established it to be questionable or incorrect.

I agree with you that if there is a prosecution (or conviction) for manslaughter or murder it matters little whether or not the cause of death was originally determined to be a homicide. As editors we would look at reliably sourced information about the case that followed the initial determination, including reliably sources information as to whether the initial determination was incorrect, as opposed to having a standard that limits our editing based upon that early determination. Arllaw (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

If this is just about the titling, “Murder” should be off the table until it is supported by multiple reliable secondary sources. The flowchart is really bad in encouraging primary source sleuthing.

The titling of a violent death like this should default to “Killing”. Killing encompasses murder without any of the legal technicalities. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I do think the default for a beating death should certainly be killing, absent a common name or consensus against that, and that's exactly what the flowchart indicates. There may be exceptions, but in this case it's clear that even without some RS quoting a coroner's report, everyone is treating this as a homicide. Valereee (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we add this to the info page? I'd suggest something like this, with the added part underlined:

A determination of the manner of death should be made by some official authority, such as a coroner, coroner's inquest, medical examiner or similar expert person or organization. This determination becomes eligible for use on this flowchart only after it is reported by a secondary source. In some cases, a preponderance of reliable sources will make it clear what the manner of death was, even absent an official finding.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd support that. Valereee (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Titling the article according to "a preponderance of reliable sources" is just a different way of saying WP:COMMONNAME, which is already covered in the existing version. 162 etc. (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that not true? There's a difference between the vast majority of sources treating the death as a killing and their using the exact phrase "Killing of Tyre Nichols". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, RS might not be giving us a common name of "Killing of X" but still be saying things like "X was shot and killed" or "a gunman killed X" or "the killing took place in X" or "this was the third homicide of the year" or whatever. Valereee (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging 162 etc. for a second look. If you still think the language implicates COMMONNAME, do you think it's possible to reword it to avoid that? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

My opinion is unchanged. This addition does not improve the explanatory supplement. 162 etc. (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a recurrent theme here that a COMMONNAME can be easily and non-controversially determined for almost any noteworthy killing. That is an assumption, as opposed to something that has actually been established. Arllaw (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's a common name for 99% of incidents, actually. Valereee (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd support that too. This is an unexpected situation where you have sources saying "killed" without necessarily using that word, instead using more graphic descriptions like "beat to death". The RSes are reporting the manner of death even without a commonname or an official autopsy. The RSes, being secondary sources, are better than the official report, a primary source, and should take precedence anyway. Levivich (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all. Looks like discussion stalled out, and I'm seeing rough consensus for inclusion, so I went for it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. To declare a murder, above a killing, in a title, where it will be frequently read without any further reading, there needs to be a preponderance of quality secondary sources using the term. “A preponderance of reliable sources” is an invitation to point to things like court documents and charge sheets. The Killing of Justine Damond is a clear example, for a time titled “murder” based on reliable technical sources in conflict with the complete lack of use of that term in descriptions by reputable secondary sources.

If in doubt, the title should err on the side of “killing” over “murder”, primary source documents notwithstanding. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi SmokeyJoe, how about "a preponderance of reliable, secondary sources"? Also, this suggestion (and the manner of death area in general) is not so much about killing vs. murder and actually just affects death vs. suicide vs. execution/killing/murder, with the last three determined by something other than the manner of death. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Firefangledfeathers. Yes, done here. That’s what I’m after. Excluding court documents and other primary sources from the decision making on the title. Yes, it’s about manner of death, whether murder, suicide, execution. If killed, whether accident, midadventure, shooting, poisoning, murdered, etc, stick with generic “killing” *unless* a preponderance of secondary sources a using the manner of death in their introduction. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of consensus for it, but I'll restate my opposition to this addition. WP:COMMONNAME says that we use the name "that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". The new addition to the explanatory supplement is complicating things for nothing. 162 etc. (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks 162. I'm not eager to spend more of the screen real estate here on trying to convince you, but if you'd like to talk at my user talk or yours, I'm down. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Assassinations?

The flowchart does not address assassinations. What killings count when "Reliable Sources" do not consistently use any specific term for it? Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources call it an assassination, then it's Assassination of Foo. See WP:COMMONNAME. If reliable sources do not use that term specifically or consistently, then the flowchart can be followed. 162 etc. (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)