Wikipedia talk:Choosing article titles about violence and deaths

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Murder charges

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'd support that. Valereee (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
My opinion is unchanged. This addition does not improve the explanatory supplement. 162 etc. (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't think there's a common name for 99% of incidents, actually. Valereee (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Assassinations?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I just came here to bring up this topic, but looks like it was only briefly discussed over a year ago. Over at Talk:Assassination of George Tiller there is move discussion about this, and it might make sense for there to be some guidance in the flowchart for when (if at all) assassination should be used when there is difficulty establishing COMMONNAME. TiggerJay (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stand by my original comment. Most legal codes will define murder, manslaughter, etc., but not assassination. Therefore, we can't add something like "Is there a conviction for assassination?" to the flowchart. Assassination of Foo should be the title only when "assassination" is used by a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources. 162 etc. (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 162, 'assassination of' is never going to be appropriate unless it's the common name, which is a matter for discussion at an article talk: how many of the best sources are calling it an assassination, and is that changing over time? This flow chart simply advises on what to consider a default title when there is no common name. Valereee (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, so with that in mind, perhaps there should be certain words that we also identify on here, such as assassination, that are only to be used when they are common name, and not any other time. This might just be adding it to the lead sentence where there is a list of words, or perhaps a section such as Word to be avoid without Common Name? TiggerJay (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The essay and the flowchart itself already makes it clear that if there's a commonname, this essay/flowchart doesn't apply. And that's decided at article talk. Consensus at talk is always going to trump this essay. I just don't see the point of adding complexity like 'words to avoid if they aren't supported as commonname by RS'. The original point of this essay was to address systemic bias in article naming (a lot of articles about the shooting deaths of people of color were at Shooting of rather than Killing of or even Death of, for instance), not to create an exhaustive prescription for every possible death. Valereee (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the flowchart [1], and calling it into question

[edit]

Though the flowchart is well intentioned, it's not adequate for ontological decisions . An actual ontological assignment relies on many more dimensions which reveal themselves through reasoned debate. We should add a disclaimer on this.

I added a case for in-principle murders like Nicole Brown Simpson, and thousands of others which will never reach a conviction. Something like 40-50% of murders go unsolved . We can't rely on conviction alone for ontological description of murder cases. There are thousands of pending cases and cases with no convictions. We can't defer epistemology to the justice system it's far too crude (for good reason). Tonymetz 💬 16:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Killing_of_Laken_Riley#Be_aware_of_(possible)_twitter_canvasing which is an active debate on "killing" vs "murder" that is relevant here. The case is an obvious murder well before going to trial. Of course the suspect is "alleged", but the circumstances are murder by all DUE RS Tonymetz 💬 16:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc. can you speak more about your revert attempt? Tonymetz 💬 16:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted. WP:DEATHS came about through a very long RFC/discussion process and should not be modified without consensus here on the talkpage first. In any case, the flowchart image must match the text version.
I also personally oppose the argument put forward here. A homicide is a murder when a court finds somebody guilty of murder. Absent a strong WP:COMMONNAME case, such articles should not be titled "Murder of". 162 etc. (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why the disclaimer at the top about this not being official ?
How about murders with no conviction? Tonymetz 💬 17:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an essay. The policy is WP:AT.
Articles for murders with no conviction are titled according to WP:COMMONNAME. Absent that, per the flowchart, they are titled "Killing of". 162 etc. (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absent that, per the flowchart, they are titled "Killing of" this is circular given that I'm moving to revise the flowchart to include murders that are not yet convicted or impossible to convict. Tonymetz 💬 17:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that is your intention. I urge you to obtain consensus here on the talkpage before making such changes to the flowchart. See WP:BRD, WP:3RR. 162 etc. (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing my best. I've made some quality appeals to be PRECISE : (a) there are thousands of murders that don't fit in the flow chart (b) the justice system's bar for conviction is much more narrow than the ontological application. A court is convicting a suspect beyond reasonable doubt, and that is far more narrow than defining the circumstances of the murder. Like I said , 50% of murders go un-convicted (FBI) so that means we are forcing wikipedia to be incorrect in half of the articles on murder. Tonymetz 💬 19:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are examples of murder articles that have no conviction
Murder of amber hagerman
Black_Dahlia -- lead describes a murder
List_of_unsolved_murders_(1980–1999) -- there's > a thousand of these across the various indexes. None fit into the flow chart. Tonymetz 💬 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I skimmed the linked RFC and it's rather flimsy, sharing the same process & philosophical doubts that I'm raising here: 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.
Here's an apt comment: this is clearly going to cause more trouble than it will ever resolve (a.k.a. WP:INSTRUCTION CREEP).
Relying on court convictions for ontological assignments is clumsy and unserious. Just stating that as an axiom, especially given the flimsy RFC, doesn't move this conversation forward. Tonymetz 💬 17:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tonymetz I personally find it quite inappropriate that you edited the flowchart without discussing it with anyone first, and then *reverted* an editor who had reverted your edit. This page has widespread implications for any article about someone's death, and changes should be discussed by many people before enacting them. In my opinion, the page shouldn't even *allow* non-admins to edit it (except the Talk page). Gottagotospace (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are supposed to be WP:BOLD . I opened up this discussion along with the change. The revert provided no explanation. And this isn't a policy it's an essay. Tonymetz 💬 19:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article explicitly says it hasn't been thoroughly reviewed. Allowing only administrators to change it violates the principal of Wikipedia, in my opinion. I concur with the change. I say the new version is an improvement. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the page shouldn't even *allow* non-admins to edit it
I suggest raising it on RFC or noticeboard which would help re-open deliberation on this page . The linked RFC didn't resolve much . Tonymetz 💬 19:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I trust editors to sift through reliable sources and determine if "murder" is the common name, even absent an official finding. I don't trust editors to be armchair criminal justice investigators, which they'd have to be to determine whether the "due circumstances" are "principally a murder". I can't support the proposed change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help me with the wording here, because we agree on the idea. I mean "when the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources describe a murder, it is a murder, regardless of any conviction" Tonymetz 💬 19:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more likely to support something like "when the weight of reliable sources describe the killing as a murder, use "Murder of", even if there has not been a conviction". Even that I'd like to see discussed further. We had a similar "sources vs. official findings" debate above at #Murder charges, and the eventual language was much stronger after discussion and reasoned opposition. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers That sounds like a reasonable compromise, although isn't that basically WP:COMMON NAME ? Correct me if I'm wrong, please. Gottagotospace (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some people interpret COMMONNAME pretty strictly, and they would look for sources that specifically refer to the death as the [murder of John Doe] or [murder of John] or [murder of Mr. Doe]. Others are a bit looser with it, and they look mainly just for sources that use the term "murder". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of why I agree this flowchart is troublesome WP:INSTRUCTION CREEP is that it's too primitive and binding. If we make the rule RS has to say "murder", that will continue to bind the editors and create unnecessary debates IMO Tonymetz 💬 21:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, requiring sources to say "murder" is good binding. I'm sorry to see debates over this, but if they're centered on calling killings "murder" when sources don't commonly do so, I agree such debates are unnecessary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a counter suggestion for a standard? If you disagree with the current version, but think the proposal goes too far, what do you think should be done? I'm open to hearing it. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really consider the vast number of articles that use the word "murder" without a conviction a strong argument for the initial proposed change. I mean, otherwise we really would have to change all of them.
And as for the second idea, that is still a high standard. What about cases that are more obscure or very old? As someone pointed out, are we going to change the Whitechapel murders title? What about the Servant Girl Annihilator? The latter are called "axe murders" yet no one was ever caught. TanRabbitry (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first line of the flowchart is "Is there a clear WP:COMMONNAME describing the event among the reliable sources available?" 162 etc. (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about this case: Chris Benoit double-murder and suicide? That article extensively uses the word "murder" without a conviction, solely due to to police findings. One could at least imagine a circumstance where the ruling was wrong. Therefore we are relying on reason there as well. Why not a third option like this:
Can the homicide reasonably only be a murder, as is reported, and are there no sources directly disputing that ruling such as self-defense or accident?
If yes, then say Murder of ___
What do you think? TanRabbitry (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I don't like that. "Can the homicide reasonably only be a murder" will lead to many different answers depending on who you ask. Not necessarily referring to the Chris Benoit case, but other cases, especially those that still have open investigations and the suspect isn't dead. Gottagotospace (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit simple, but what about:
Is the homicide a murder, reported as such, and are there no sources directly disputing that ruling such as self-defense or accident?
If yes, then say Murder of ___
The "directly" is important as some sources may say "killing," "death" or "slaying." Those don't contradict "murder."
TanRabbitry (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a perfect compromise. TanRabbitry (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Reported as such" would need expansion, otherwise people would be like "HEY HERE'S ONE ARTICLE THAT CALLS IT MURDER" and then go changing things based on that. Gottagotospace (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Then:
Is the homicide a murder, reported as such by a reliable source and/or official report AND are there no sources directly disputing that ruling, and claiming something else (such as self-defense or accident)?
If yes, then say Murder of ___
A bit wordy, but fair? TanRabbitry (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also no. One "reliable source" doesn't mean much in this case. If everyone is calling it a "killing" except for one news outlet that happens to be on the "reliable sources" list, we shouldn't instantly start calling it a murder. Gottagotospace (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gottagotospace
Earlier when editors changed the uses of the word "murder" to "killing" it was argued that that word is neutral. Under that precedent, how can "killing" be against "murder?" Murder is a type of killing. What if I change it to say "and," instead of "and/or?" I think if the police/coroner and at least some sources go with "murder," then it doesn't matter if others use "killing," "slaying," "crime" or "death."
TanRabbitry (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think "and" makes sense. Of course, wait and see what other people think too. Gottagotospace (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gottagotospace Great. Are we in agreement? Just to clarify, by "official report," I mean that refers to a police report or an indictment, although that does imply guilt on anyone's part. Although what to do in the case of murder/suicides, that's another question.
@162 etc. @Firefangledfeathers @Tonymetz What are your thoughts on the following?
"Is the homicide a murder, reported as such by both a reliable source and an official report and are there no sources directly disputing that ruling, and claiming something else (such as self-defense or accident)?
If yes, then say Murder of ___"
Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What problem is this proposed wording supposed to fix? If reliable sources, police/coroner reports etc., use "murder", then the article is titled according to WP:COMMONNAME and the flowchart is not used. 162 etc. (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc.
Shouldn't the chart reflect other suggested procedures? They shouldn't contradict each other. As it currently stands, the chart requires a conviction. The proposed change would allow "murder" to be used, if there are sources using the word and a police report or indictment. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The flowchart is used as a last resort when a common name is not evident. Let's make that clear: if there is sufficient reliable source evidence (which may include the type of sources mentioned in your proposed wording) to use "Murder of" per WP:COMMONNAME, the flowchart is not used.
Howver, in a situation where "Murder of" cannot be validated per WP:COMMONNAME, the more neutral "Killing of" is preferable, unless there is an actual murder conviction. Not all homicides are murders, but all murders are homicides.
Oppose. 162 etc. (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Killing of" is preferable. The concept that you can ever say it is a murder because I can't think of how it can be anything else makes zero sense. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one had said that. Please don't attack "straw men." TanRabbitry (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you have said this on multiple occasions elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have never said "I can't think of how it can be anything else." I said that according to the source reporting, there isn't a different reasonable cause of death. I have provided sources that say it was "murder." Others say "killing" which is neutral and could mean several things. Can you provide a source that disputes the citations I provided?
TanRabbitry (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't think one reliable source is enough, and I think the envisioned bar for what counts as an official report—like a police report or indictment—is too low. I would be fine if we restricted that to an official finding of fact, but that's pretty much the existing guidance. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
O.K.
How many sources would you suggest?
Just to be clear, by "official finding of fact" do you mean a court decision? Thanks, TanRabbitry (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that makes sense. I like this clarification on the official finding of fact part. Like if the police are like "okay this was a murder-suicide, case closed, let's move on now." (Obviously paraphrased.) Official finding of fact like that. Gottagotospace (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Or a murder that is never solved. Not every murder is resolved in court. They determine who committed the crime, not if a crime was committed at all (though occasionally they may determine that a crime wasn't committed).

TanRabbitry (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 August 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) → Wikipedia:Choosing article titles about violence and deaths – The title of this essay seems misleading. As far as I can tell, this is the only "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (xyz)" page that isn't a consensus-agreed Wikipedia guideline. Unlike other similarly named titles, such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), etc., this is merely an essay. It shouldn't have a title that says it is an agreed Wikipedia naming convention when that's not what it is. It purports to be merely explanatory, but it advocates a particular method of choosing an article title that is not found in the actual policies or guidelines. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A helpful page, but not a guideline. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I would similarly support other "Naming conventions" essay pages being moved, if there are any. I say this as someone who supports upgrading this to guideline. Even assuming everyone agrees (they don't), it takes time, and we can always move this back if that happens. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About WP:NPOV

[edit]

Hi everyone, I'm relatively new here and I just came across this flowchart in which the difference between "Killing of" and "Murder of" is determined by conviction. I'm wondering if convictions involve opinions by the judges/juries, thereby undermining the neutrality WP:NPOV. From my perspective, it would be more neutral and less controversial if the titles are always like "Death of" or "(Killing/Assassination) Case of" regardless of conviction status. Gu0427 (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]