Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Larry King: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 392729775 by Rivertorch (talk)
Line 7: Line 7:
{{WikiProject California |class=C |importance= |southerncalifornia=yes}}
{{WikiProject California |class=C |importance= |southerncalifornia=yes}}
}}
}}

== Reactive Attachment Disorder ==
I want to clarify that I am not raising this issue as a form of character assassination against King. I don't care that he was gay (I'm bisexual), or that he had a gender-identity disorder.<br /><br />What I am curious about is his underlying personality structure. Isn't a diagnosis of reactive-attachment disorder often a precursor of sociopathy? Regardless, he was diagnosed with ADHD as well <I>(In recent times, a number of people who were initially diagnosed with ADHD later were labeled as possessing either a sociopathic, or an anti-social personality disorder)</i> which tends to be quite a bad trend. Additionally, he was on probation for theft and vandalism <i>(Juvenile delinquency, early behavior problems -- see the comment I made about the ADHD diagnosis, as well as the fact that he had to repeat the first grade)</i> which is also a bad sign and makes me wonder as well.<br /><br />Just to be clear here, I am in no way saying that this justifies his murder, or that it was a good thing that he was killed. I think McInerny's actions were completely unjustified, and in fact, I have some questions about his personality structure too <i>(He too had an ADHD diagnosis, he had a very bad childhood, and he committed an act of murder)</i><br /><br />I'd like to hear everybody else's opinions [[User:AVKent882|AVKent882]] ([[User talk:AVKent882|talk]]) 07:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


== Possible sources ==
== Possible sources ==

Revision as of 08:34, 11 May 2011

Reactive Attachment Disorder

I want to clarify that I am not raising this issue as a form of character assassination against King. I don't care that he was gay (I'm bisexual), or that he had a gender-identity disorder.

What I am curious about is his underlying personality structure. Isn't a diagnosis of reactive-attachment disorder often a precursor of sociopathy? Regardless, he was diagnosed with ADHD as well (In recent times, a number of people who were initially diagnosed with ADHD later were labeled as possessing either a sociopathic, or an anti-social personality disorder) which tends to be quite a bad trend. Additionally, he was on probation for theft and vandalism (Juvenile delinquency, early behavior problems -- see the comment I made about the ADHD diagnosis, as well as the fact that he had to repeat the first grade) which is also a bad sign and makes me wonder as well.

Just to be clear here, I am in no way saying that this justifies his murder, or that it was a good thing that he was killed. I think McInerny's actions were completely unjustified, and in fact, I have some questions about his personality structure too (He too had an ADHD diagnosis, he had a very bad childhood, and he committed an act of murder)

I'd like to hear everybody else's opinions AVKent882 (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

These may help:


Some more: — Becksguy (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • van de Mark, Brian (2008). "Coming out in adolescence". Gay & Lesbian Times. Retrieved 2008-10-13. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Published: October 9, 2008
  • Saillant, Catherine (2008). "Teen accused of killing his gay classmate had white supremacist materials". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-10-13. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Published: October 2, 2008
  • "Documents: SoCal murder suspect had racist items". The Mercury News (From AP). 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-13. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Published: October 2, 2008
  • "County, school district reject King family claims". Ventura County Star. 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-13. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Text "last" ignored (help) Published: October 1, 2008
  • Carlson, Cheri (August 9, 2009). "E.O. Green teacher says she suffers from seeing a student gun down a classmate". Ventura County Star. Retrieved 2009-08-10. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Title change

Shouldn't this article be renamed to Murder of Lawrence King? The shooting itself at the school isn't too well known, but the case of the murder of Lawrence King is definitely more known. The article doesn't really focus on the fact that a shooting occurred there, but about who was shot and how it has affected the gay community.

What do you guys think?Cyanidethistles (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some agreement on this but as this article has been a focus of dispute it may be helpful to allow the current RfC to run its course. -- Banjeboi 12:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also this recent thread. Rivertorch (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this if stopped people trying to delete the article, etc. Mish (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Murder of..." is generally the title used, even if the alleged killer hasn't been convicted. See Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom for an example. AniMatedraw 02:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We really should move this - the current title just doesn't make much sense. People don't know this as the "EO Green School shooting" - compare say Columbine - they know it as the Murder of Lawrence King. Rebecca (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it. I can think of no other high profile murder case that has been given a title like E.O. Green School shooting. Typically these articles are identified with the victim's name and not the location of the location of the event. Please see Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, Murder of Amy Leigh Barnes, Murder of Anne Pressly, and Murder of Meredith Kercher for some cases where the alleged killer(s) have not been convicted of murder yet the articles are at the accepted location. AniMatedraw 23:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. -- Banjeboi 13:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad call. There has not been sufficient discussion nor consensus to change the title. — Becksguy (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we might not have run it through an elongated process but now that it's at a rather standard title for these articles do you still think E.O. Green School shooting is a better title than Murder of Lawrence King? Or that a better title exists? -- Banjeboi 14:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also support move. I don't think more protracted discussion was necessary in this case, it was a bold, revert, discussion situation. -kotra (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC) (changed my mind, prefer "Killing of..." or "Shooting of..." variants, or even the original "E.O. Green School shooting" as a distant third choice -kotra (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC) )[reply]

Here are my concerns/thoughts/comments:

  1. The title change reframes the article from a shooting incident into a murder incident. Shooting does not imply intent, murder does.
  2. The "Murder of..." title makes the article more of a biography, with additional attendant BLP issues.
  3. The "Murder of..." is inherently less NPOV, since it presumes that King was, in fact, murdered.
  4. Although there is no serious dispute that McInerney shot and killed King, McInerney is only charged with the crime of murder, as the trial has not taken place yet. The preliminary hearing is currently scheduled for July 20th.
  5. The article was moved three times within a week (from "E.O. Green School shooting" to "Murder of...", back to shooting, and again to murder. I really don't want to see yet another edit war, and I don't think any one else does either.
  6. There are at least two established editors that are against this move, and there really should be more discussion before a major change.
  7. The shooting title is the way the incident was reported initially, although it's possible that more reporting is centered on the murder viewpoint now. Needs checking.
  8. I can't think of any title other than the two used so far. And I'm not sure there are any others that would work.
  9. I would totally agree with and support "Murder of ..." if McInerney is found guilty of murder.

— Becksguy (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying however murder is being used as the common definition rather than the legal definition. Would calling it homocidal shooting of be better? Clearly E.O. Green School shooting isn't helpful so we should go more accurate. Once there is a final verdict it can be moved again. -- Banjeboi 17:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Becksguy 100%. At this stage of the criminal proceedings, changing the title in this way is definitely problematic and will almost certainly lead to more unnecessary drama here. Incidentally, I didn't realize that bold, revert, discussion applied when discussion was already underway. Rivertorch (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does apply when discussion is already underway. The purpose of BRD is to break up deadlocks in existing discussions. -kotra (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no deadlock. The discussion had barely resumed, following a lengthy pause while the RFC ran its course. Rivertorch (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Becksguy, you bring up some good points. Maybe "Murder" is premature. How about Killing of Lawrence King or Shooting of Lawrence King? "Homicidal shooting" is somewhat redundant. -kotra (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So far I'm not seeing any compelling reason for the change (followed by more changes). Also, I wasn't aware there was a deadlocked discussion on the matter. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One reason is very few people know the incident by the name of the school it took place in, so it E.O. Green School shooting doesn't meet WP:COMMONNAME. As for being deadlocked, that was my impression, but it doesn't really matter at this point. We should continue to discuss, and in the meantime revert the move if people object to it. -kotra (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another option (not my preference) might be Alleged murder of Lawrence King. -kotra (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems odd that the discussion had been around for two weeks without any negative comments, which would give some impression that there was no opposition and that the consensus was to rename - then within 24 hours there is more discussion than in the two weeks the question was open. The consensus still appears to be with the change, however, so unless there is consensus to rename from the current title, it would be best to leave as it is. Mish (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the objections to this move, but precedent says that this is the correct title. I can see no reason why this article should be treated differently than other articles. AniMatedraw 20:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with "Murder of...", and suggest we leave it as is - if only for the four examples of similar articles with similar circumstances AniMate provided above. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is consistency of that sort really a good rationale, though? Numerous articles may have flaws, but that doesn't justify repeating the flaws elsewhere. Precedent shouldn't override reason. The title is problematic because it is imprecise. Murder has various meanings, but its legal meanings have special relevance while the criminal case is being adjudicated. A trial (or acceptance of a plea agreement) could effectively validate the use of the word, but until that time, its use here implies that WP might in some way be judging the defendant. From a standpoint of strict neutrality, I think that's unfortunate. From a standpoint of trying very hard to avoid providing fodder for taggers and trolls, I think it's very unfortunate. (Btw, MishMich, the discussion has been around much longer than two weeks—this is the second thread on this page dealing with the question of title—and whatever one's reading of consensus, opposition has been expressed by multiple editors.) Rivertorch (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the title convention universally used for someone who has been killed in such a way, regardless of any legal proceedings. It certainly beats making a title up out of thin air, as with the previous title. Rebecca (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Rivertorch - (I wouldn't know, my attention was drawn to this discussion, not any previous discussions, and this discussion has been going for two weeks, and there appears to have been no opposition until after the change)

More comments on opposition, naming conventions, and BLP & NPOV violations:

  1. There has been significant opposition to the move both before and after the latest move on 15 July. See Talk:Murder of Lawrence King#Title above from 14-18 June 2009. Also, the article was moved to Murder of Lawrence King on July 8, 2009, and reverted a few hours later by User:Damiens.rf with the edit summary: "... undo unexplained move. no debate. no consensus". Rivertorch is correct that multiple editors have expressed opposition, so I do not see consensus for the change.
  2. There is no universal convention for titling articles of this kind with "Murder of ..." Other titles have been used such as "Killing of ...." and "Shooting of ...", or variants. For example: Killing of David Wilkie and Kathryn Johnston shooting.
  3. While "E.O. Green School" does not have the name recognition of, for example: "Virginia Tech" in Virginia Tech massacre, or "Columbine" in Columbine High School massacre, or even "Kent State" in Kent State shootings, there is also a convention for naming shootings after the locale. See SuccessTech Academy shooting, Campbell County High School shooting and Weston High School shooting for examples that are not massacres.
  4. The "E.O. Green School Shooting" was used in newspaper headlines, so there are reliable sources for that title.
  5. Most importantly, the word murder is a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP violation in this case, and policy trumps any convention.

— Becksguy (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a particular objection to either of your examples under (2). I do object to titling under the school since that is not what it is referred to in the vast majority of reliable sources. Rebecca (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Becksguy makes some good points here, but I don't see "E.O. Green School shooting" as being the most recognizable name of those that are available to us. For example, of the 5,280 Ghits that are without a doubt about this incident, only 1,520 even mention the school's name. "Killing of Lawrence King" or "Shooting of Lawrence King" would be fully accurate, easily recognizable, and, until we get a verdict or guilty plea, neutral. As an aside, any other articles that also use the term "murder" before the actual ruling are also not fully neutral, and if we were bound by a "precedent" composed of a few chosen articles, Wikipedia would be in much worse shape than it is. -kotra (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. How about "Killing of Lawrence King", then, as you suggest? It's descriptive and neutral. One possible objection might be that many of the articles refer to "Larry" instead of "Lawrence", but I don't think that's a big deal. I'd support it with the proviso that Murder could replace Killing in the future if there were a murder conviction or if it can be demonstrated that multiple reliable sources (not necessarily in the sphere of journalism) describe it as a murder. An alternative might be "Lawrence King homicide", which I think sidesteps the neutrality problem but sounds a bit stilted. Rivertorch (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of this, including the change to "Murder" upon conviction or a demonstration of multiple reliable sources (I see Newsweek calls it a murder, but most of the other citations don't). As for "Larry" vs "Lawrence", Google says Lawrence is slightly more common than Larry, and some of those 'Larry King' results are actually from 'Lawrence "Larry" King' anyway, so I don't think 'Lawrence King' is a problem. If nobody objects, I propose we move it to Killing of Lawrence King (personally I have a slight preference for Shooting of Lawrence King since it's a bit more specific, but that's trivial). -kotra (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me also that "...of Larry King" might also be slightly problematic considering Larry King. -kotra (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but as I reread my comments I find I left out an important point. I never expressed my agreement that the article's title E.O. Green School shooting is no longer the best name per WP:Naming conventions (although it was used at the time in the press, and I was defending that use when the article was created), so I agree with Rebecca's original point about using recognizable names, as well as Kotra's point. My only real concern with the current title Murder of Lawrence King is the word "murder", as expressed above. I'm fine with the suggestions by Kotra for Shooting of Lawrence King or Killing of Lawrence King. Also, Kotra is correct about the possible confusion with Larry King, the TV personality (as shown by doing a Google search). So another suggestion is to move this article also using the victim's middle name "Fobes", in order to minimize possible confusion with Larry King.
Bottom line, my current vote is for: Shooting of Lawrence Fobes King, since like Kotra, it seems slightly better. Although I am also OK with Killing replacing Shooting as a second choice. And there does seem to be some consensus for a compromise title. Later, if the trial concludes with a guilty of murder verdict (or a guilty plea), I agree with changing title to "Murder of ...' if there is consensus for that.
— Becksguy (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slaying might be a more neutral word. We know s/he was deliberately shot and killed. Shooting or killing includes accidental killing or shooting. If the killer is acquitted on some technicality (such as insanity), then slaying retains its accuracy whatever the verdict. Mish (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slaying sounds a bit dramatic (I see that word and think "Buffy"). Keep as "Murder" or move to "Killing of..." The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we don't know that King was deliberately shot and killed. Although apparently there is a school room full of witnesses that observed McInerney shoot King, McInerney has not make a public statement as to intent, guilt, circumstances, provocation, or state of mind. No jury has found for murder. It's speculation that McInerney's intent was to kill King, as it is also possible he was only trying to scare King and thought the gun was unloaded, or he was impaired at the time and didn't know what he was doing. Or some other scenario. So it's possible it was an accidental shooting, or maybe something else. Thats why any term that implies intent or motive has major NPOV and BLP violation issues. Especially including the term murder, or any other term with intent implications, including slaying. McInerney is alive and we have to err on the side of caution in ascribing motivations and intent per WP:BLP. There is much speculation swirling around this shooting; in the press, by involved people in Oxnard, and by people and interest groups with different viewpoints. However, we as editors don't report speculations, especially our own. We follow WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SYNTHESIS. especially in controversial subjects. There is no doubt that King was shot and that he died, as that has been very well verified. Shooting is the most neutral term we have come up with. — Becksguy (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that respect, Shooting of Lawrence Fobes King (adding middle name to distinguish him from CNN reporter) would probably be best. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No middle name. Nowhere refers to him as "Lawrence Fobes King". Rebecca (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Rebecca—no middle name. If we used "Larry", there conceivably might be confusion with the TV personality (although it's hard to imagine); if we use "Lawrence", it's fine. I don't like "Shooting": since it doesn't necessarily suggest fatality, it tells less about the immediate outcome of the incident, while the specific instrument of death is less important. If McInerney allegedly had used a knife or blunt object, the aftermath would be similar. "Killing" describes the immediate outcome and is neutral. People are killed by disease, tornadoes, wild animals, and a vast assortment of other causes, including other people, some of whom do so intentionally and some by accident; there is no implication of intent. Rivertorch (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feelings about using the middle name, as it was just a suggestion. Also, I'm fine with "Killing of...." Most of the editors above seem to be OK with either one, although there is some preference for one or the other. I think there might have been sufficient discussion that it's time to have an informal straw poll for moving the article. Anyway, lets see. — Becksguy (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll for moving article to Killing of Lawrence King
That is a very good point. Is it sufficient, though? It occurs to me that maybe the titles of articles with BLP content should be held to the highest possible standard in terms of exactness, not just echoing how other media phrase it. Then again, maybe if it's good enough for a RS, it should be good enough for an article title. I'm certainly having troubling wrapping my mind around the idea of its somehow not being murder. I'm just not sure. My preference is to sidestep the issue by going back to E.O. Green School shooting and having redirects from most of the other proposed titles, but I don't supppose that will happen. The change to the current title has, imo, taken up a lot of time and attention that could be better spent elsewhere unless all this leads to a WP-wide clarification of policy or guideline. In any case, I am changing my vote to neutral. Rivertorch (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of murder, ie: "an intentional unlawful act with a design to kill and fatal consequences," certainly fits this bill. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it's an intentional shooting by McInerney is a BLP violation, EB. He is only charged with murder, i.e. - not proven. If we can't settle on a neutral and non-BLP violating title, or go back to the original title, then this article needs to go to WP:ANI, or more likely, WP:BLPN. — Becksguy (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlawful Killing of Lawrence King would satisfy such objections - because whatever the motive, he was killed unlawfully, and that says nothing about anybody other than the victim. Mish (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "unlawful killing", I think, is that it has legal connotations (like "homicide") but is rarely if ever used in the U.S. We might as well go with "Lawrence King homicide" if we can get consensus that "homicide" is in fact neutral. Strangely enough, a quick dictionary check suggests it's problematic, although Homicide explains it the way I had always understood it: to include all manner of findings besides murder, such as manslaughter, insanity, self-defense, and so on. Rivertorch (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no denying it was an intentional act: it certainly wasn't an accident. There are witnesses who saw him draw a gun, aim it at King, and pull the trigger. "Unlawful killing..." is not an acceptable alternative for several reasons, including the fact that it's not a common phrase. "Homicide" suffers from similar problems. "Murder of Lawrence King" gets by far the largest number of Google hits, with variations on "Homicide of Lawrence King" getting no results at all. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(response to Exploding Boy) I said "multiple reliable sources". When it comes to BLP issues and the relative accuracy of different meanings of the word "murder", I would expect more than one reliable source to call it a "murder" before we can safely use it. Most of the other sources do not use the word "murder" except in describing the charges against McInerney ("charged with murder"). Instead they have chosen "slaying", "shooting", "fatal shooting", and "killing" to describe the event. I would assume this is on purpose. -kotra (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In common parlance we say someone was "killed in an accident" or "killed in Afghanistan." "Slaying" is overly emotional and sensationalistic. "Shooting" usually refers to someone who was killed lawfully, as in "shot by police during a robbery attempt." When a civilian dies at the hands of another civilian, and especially when all the evidence points to the killing being intentional, we call it "murder," as in "murdered by a serial killer" or "murdered by an unknown assailant." Exploding Boy (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with most of your assessment. I do agree that "slaying" is overly sensational, but "killing" and "shooting" are neutral and say nothing about the action being intentional, accidental, or otherwise. Notice that most of the sources cited use either "killing" or "shooting" to describe the incident. "School shooting", for example, is not describing a lawful act. "Killing" is just the most basic term for the taking of a life; dictionaries bear this out. Your use of "serial killer" demonstrates that "killing" does not mean "lawful". -kotra (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking of unlawful killing as a crime, but as a description - I now find that here we now do have such a law Unlawful killing - presumably not in the USA. However, there is an article List of unlawfully killed transgender people, which was so named (presumably) to account for those people unlawfully killed without there being a murderer who was brought to justice. King does feature on that list, so it might be less problematic and more accurate that just 'killing' or 'murder' at this point in time. Mish (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment wasn't addressing your suggestion of "unlawful killing", which I think would be accurate but unwieldy. I was contesting EB's assertion that that "killing" usually refers to accidental or lawful (in the sense that war is "lawful") death at the hands of another person. As for List of unlawfully killed transgender people, that article has several issues, one of which is King's inclusion there (he never identified as transgender, nor have any reliable sources described him as transgender). I also do not think the title of that article is ideal (I would prefer Violence against transgender people, like Violence against LGBT people), but this is not the place to discuss that. We should find the best name for this article, regardless of other articles. -kotra (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"School shooting" is a nice little quick-to-read, easily digestible, sound-bitey phrase that has come to denote something quite specific. But while we're on that subject, we would have been better off leaving the article where it was, at E.O. Green School shooting since clearly the move was not a good idea and we're currently unable to agree on a new title. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100%. A point on one of your earlier comments, though. You say "there's no denying it was an intentional act", but that's not quite so. In fact, the defendant and his counsel have effectively denied just that by pleading not guilty. For the purposes of this article, does it matter what you or I or anybody else thinks until the court case is concluded? The legal system of the U.S., where McInerney's case is being adjudicated, operates on a presumption of innocence, and for BLP reasons I think we should be very careful about choosing not to reflect that.
I can imagine other situations with very different victims and defendants where I would be very uncomfortable with an article title that can be viewed as presuming guilt. Believe me, in taking this line, I'm dragging my own biases kicking and screaming from the room. Thing is, I would expect other editors to do the same in other cases. Imagine an alternate universe where an alternate Larry King, tired of being bullied, brought a gun to school and, according to eyewitnesses, killed an alternate Brandon McInerney. Should an alternate Wikipedia then title the article "Murder of Brandon McInerney" while the court case was still pending? My alternate self would bristle at the idea.
I am open to using "murder" if multiple reliable sources use it, but I don't think we should be helping to blaze a trail here. Rivertorch (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that McInerney did fully intend to kill King, and with premeditation, and that his real reason(s) may not be known until during the trial, if ever. I believe this trial will not be about who killed King (since there is no serious dispute on that), but rather why McInerney killed King and therefore the issues of intent, provocation, contributing and mitigating factors, state of mind, developmental level, and premeditation will be the hinges on which the trial revolves. However, like Rivertorch and Kotra, I have to leave my personal viewpoints and opinions at the editing door. That's the policy and social contract here. We stay as neutral as humanly possible, especially in areas of BLP. As soon as a murder verdict or plea is entered, I will gladly endorse the "Murder of ..." title. Until then, its a BLP violation, since it's about intent. And all that's speculation at this point. A year ago, I would have probably gone along with the murder title, but my understanding of BLP has developed. As it should, since we are not a tabloid newspaper. Unless we can agree on a neutral title, lets go back to the original "E.O. Green ..." title for now. Read the phrases The New York Times (From AP) used in a current brief: "fatal shooting", "shooting death", "The authorities say he shot the boy twice in the head". The word "murder" is not used until the not-guilty plea.[1]. That is the kind of tone we should be taking. — Becksguy (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, and my suggestion of unlawful killing was to present what could have been a compromise between murder and killing that could have broken the deadlock - but it failed, as the deadlock persists. Mish (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be largely a British term and thus might be a poor fit for an article about a crime committed in the U.S. I will again float a trial balloon for "Lawrence King homicide", which I think might be a viable, west-of-the-Pond alternative synonymous with "unlawful killing of". If anyone is interested in that, please speak up. If not, or if no other solutions are proposed soon, I think we need to move it back to "E.O. Green School shooting" and perhaps file another RFC. I would note again that the move happened without clear consensus, and not all of the proponents of the move to the current title have participated in this latest discussion. In any case, where credible BLP questions have been raised, the default position should be the one that, however imperfect, is demonstrably neutral. Rivertorch (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. I really dislike E.O. Green School shooting, but Murder of Lawrence King, while in my opinion is probably accurate, is not acceptable at this time. If we can't agree on any other name, then we should, unfortunately, default to the previous, established name. Disappointing that consensus wasn't yet possible... we can only hope a verdict/plea bargain will make it easier. -kotra (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original name wasn't that good, homicide is not better than what is there now (it doesn't get round the issue of the verdict). I'd vote sticking with murder or move to killing if the alternative was a title that is pretty obscure. Mish (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mish, I think "homicide" has little to do with verdict. Check Homicide, consider all the different forms, and see what you think. Rivertorch (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of it's definition, I think readers are going to equate homicide with murder due to it's use in popular culture. Therefore it's also a BLP violation in my mind. I suppose since moving to Killing of Lawrence King failed, a move to Shooting of Lawrence King will also not gain sufficient consensus either, right? I really don't want to go back to E.O. Green School shooting, due to WP:NOTCOMMON, but we may have no choice if we can't agree here. Don't forget, there really wasn't sufficient consensus to move to the "Murder" title in the first place, and the original title was in place essentially since the shooting occurred in February 2008. An alternative: Rather than starting yet another 30 day long RfC, I'm strongly considering taking this to WP:BLPN for some uninvolved viewpoints. Now that the preliminary hearing is over, the trial may start soon and the process move along faster, making this discussion moot. Or not. — Becksguy (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Rebecca - thanks, as I say, we never use it here, but from the definitions linked to - yes - I would agree with going for homicide as it seems to cover all the various concerns. Only problem I can think of - do we have WP:RS using it? Mish (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose "homicide." Can you provide any other example of an article with such a title? Exploding Boy (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a couple:
There’s also a short discussion here that isn't exactly parallel but is still interesting.
Btw, two news articles from this week in the local paper of record refer to McInerney as a "murder suspect" (my emphasis) but the act itself as a "fatal shooting", not a murder: [2] [3]. Rivertorch (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break

In the case of Sandra Cantu there isn't a discussion per se, but rather two posts on the subject that I can see, and I agree with the first, by Jvsett, which reads in part "Whether Huckaby is convicted, the police have deemed this a "murder." In addition, other cases which there is no conviction yet are deemed murders (see Caylee Anthony homicide, JonBenét Ramsey, The Notorious B.I.G., David Bacon (actor)). In addition, other individuals who have been killed and the person convicted for a homicide other than murder (such as "voluntary manslaughter"), that person is still listed as a "murder" (See Harvey Milk as an example.)"

It's also highly relevant that McInerny has been charged with ... murder, not "homicide," "unlawful killing," "killing," "shooting," or anything else. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how that's relevant at all. When someone is charged with deliberately killing someone else, the charge is almost always murder. With the possible exception of "homicide", which is sort of a catch-all term that includes murder, the other words you mention aren't ever used by police or prosecutors when charging people with such crimes. Fortunately, police and prosecutors don't get to decide whether someone is a murderer; unless the defendant pleads guilty, there's a trial first. The sticking point here seems to be—please correct me if I'm wrong—over whether the charge itself, along with the Newsweek article, is enough to warrant the use of the word in the title.
In any case, those are the examples you'd asked for. I thought it was interesting that both articles had talk-page threads* about this very question. Clearly, this is a question that should be addressed Wiki-wide, but I've found precious little in policy, guideline, or even essay that helps at all. Rivertorch (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC) *How many comments does it take to make a discussion? Rivertorch (talk)[reply]
Hmm. Seems like it would be more than 2. It seems quite relevant: when someone is deliberately killed, outside certain strictly defined circumstances, we call it murder. Nobody has claimed, so far, that King's death was accidental. So it appears to me that the sticking point is that some people think that naming this article "Murder of Lawrence King" would be a BLP violation against McInerney because--despite the incident being widely referred to as a murder, despite it fitting the common definition of murder (and very probably the legal one too), and despite his being charged with murder--he hasn't yet been found guilty of murder in a court. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if he was charged with murder, but the defense made a case for a scenario that convinced a jury that it was not intended (say somebody passed him the gun which he thought was a fake), then that would be manslaugter - still an unlawful killing, but not murder. Same if the defence can show diminished responsibility, say if he was insane, there had been a problem with his meds (Ritalin or whatever). Unlikely - but the point is that until a verdict has been reached, all we know for sure is the case is being treated as murder, and until there is a verdict we cannot be 100% certain that the charge will stick. Mish (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you don't have to intend to kill to be found guilty of murder: intention to cause great bodily harm is considered indistinguishable from an intention to kill. Second, McInerney told a witness to "Say goodbye to your friend Larry because you're never going to see him again." He had experience target shooting with the gun he used, which he took out of his backpack after repeatedly looking at King, and shot his victim twice in the head. So it's unlikely that a claim that the shooting was unintentional would wash anyway. That leaves diminished responsibility; but would anybody say that King was no longer a victim of murder if such a defence actually stuck? Exploding Boy (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it was just a hypothetical example - point is, until there is a verdict, we don't know. If somebody is gunned down with no suspect, then using murder is OK, but as soon as there is a suspect, you have to be more careful, because if they wriggle out of murder for some reason, you have associated them as a murderer. I don't know what a killing is called when the killer ends up in a padded-cell in a nut-house cell for the rest of their life. The issue is, do we know it is still called murder though? Mish (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(@Exploding Boy) Let's keep in mind that we are not here to judge if a murder took place or not. We are only here to report what reliable sources say. I count one reliable source that calls it a murder, and, of those cited in this article, about a dozen that call it something else. A verdict will be a strong reliable source which may tip the balance to "murder", but it is not available yet. If "murder" is not well-supported by the dozens of reliable sources available on this topic, should we use "murder"? Does WP:UNDUE not apply here? -kotra (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but, when someone is killed in this manner, the outcome of court cases aside, we call it a murder, do we not? I dunno, maybe it's an issue of legal vs common usage of the term but certainly in the case of the latter there's no doubt King was "murdered." As for the former... I suppose it remains to be decided. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm past it - call it whatever you like. Mish (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Where do we go from here? Two days have passed since the discussion died away with no consensus. I'm uncomfortable with leaving the title as is because I think there is an unresolved BLP question that needs to be answered, not only for the good of this article but for the good of the entire encyclopedia. Becksguy has suggested taking it to BLPN. I have suggested restoring the previous title until consensus is reached, regardless of whether we go to BLPN. Restoring would be appropriate if there is no clear consensus for any of the proposed titles or the current title, I think, because it's better to violate the letter of WP:Naming conventions and ameliorate that with redirects than to potentially violate the spirit of WP:BLP. Thoughts, anyone? Rivertorch (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion of the word "murder" in the title hinges on what people think it's implication is. Murder includes intent, and that makes it a BLP issue, since that presumes the unknown and speculative motivations of McInerney and the future outcome of the trial. I gather those that prefer "Murder" don't see that word as implying intent, and therefore a BLP issue, but from Wikipedia's article on Murder: "Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide." [My emphasis]. Based on that, it's clearly a BLP violation, and either we revert to the original title, or we take this to WP:BLPN for resolution. The current "Murder..." title did not have consensus, and we cannot gain consensus here for any of the alternative titles. It's policy that we cannot allow a BLP violation to stand, therefore either revert or BLPN. Reverting will result in less drama. — Becksguy (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted back to original name

As per the above discussion, I've moved it back to the original name, "E.O. Green School shooting". I think this is what most of us agreed is the proper action to take when the title represents a possible BLP violation, or when the new name simply lacks consensus (take your pick). I think we are all in agreement that "E.O. Green School shooting" is not ideal, so let us hope that sources soon become available that will make a better name acceptable. -kotra (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also changed[4][5] the two mentions of "murder" (excluding those referring to McInerney's legal charges) as per the above discussion. I would like to pre-emptively stress that these edits were performed to avoid any possible BLP noncompliance, and no other reason. -kotra (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I endorse this reversion. The moment McInerney is found guilty of murder (or pleads guilty to murder), I totally agree with changing this title to Murder of Lawrence King. That title is currently a redirect to this article, so readers can find it easily enough. If he is found not guilty... well we will cross that bridge if and when. — Becksguy (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also Endorse (per all of the above). Rivertorch (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We did agree that "E.O. School" shooting was likely more problematic, can in not go to Shooting of Lawrence King until we get better information that something else is relevant? No one disputes he was shot do they? This issue is not the school and that is a less likely title than King's name. -- Banjeboi 18:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point and I see no reason not to move it to Shooting of Lawrence King. However, since the previous discussion was all over the place, I think we should quickly take a straw poll to help us gauge consensus (started below). -kotra (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of us really like the "E.O Green" title, and it isn't the best one per WP:COMMONNAME. But it has no BLP issues, and neither does "Shooting of Lawrence King" and "Killing of Lawrence King" (with "Shooting" slightly more neutral). Unfortunately the "Killing" title didn't gain enough consensus in the above straw poll. And the other alternatives had even less traction. Maybe the poll to move to "Shooting of Lawrence King" will work. Hopefully, as it's effectively the last realistic choice, other than leaving the title as it is until something happens to sufficiently change the status quo. — Becksguy (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll for "Shooting of Lawrence King"

This poll is to move the title from "E.O. Green School shooting" to "Shooting of Lawrence King".

The straw poll has been up for a few days, with a good amount of responses. What should we conclude from it? I'm inclined to say that, although most seem to be in favor of the move, there's a significant minority against it, so in the absence of clear consensus, we shouldn't move it. -kotra (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, but pending conviction then murder would be inapprorpiate to apply. Maybe we can try Alleged Murder of Larry King?? Shooting of Lawrence King or even Killing of Lawrence King as heretofeoremntioned would also be great. User:Smith Jones 18:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really I don't see the point of continuing to mess around with it at this point. We don't seem to have reached agreement on any of the half a dozen proposed titles, which is why we should just leave it alone at the moment. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. -kotra (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree. Insufficient consensus on any of the proposed titles. — Becksguy (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was announced on July 8th that the DA offered Brandon McInerney the opportunity to plead guilty to first degree murder in return for a reduced sentence of 25 years-to-life vs. 53 years-to-life. [6]. Since this is part of the pre-trial legal proceedings, I'm not placing this in the article just yet. — Becksguy (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three day preliminary hearing concluded on Wednesday, 7-22-09, and the judge found that there was sufficient evidence for McInerney to be held to answer for the fatal shooting of Lawrence King.[7] — Becksguy (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arraignment of McInerney is delayed until August 27, 2009 due to defense request for transcripts.[8]. My guess is that this is not going to be a short trial, since it's 18 months after the shooting and they are still engaged in preliminary proceedings. He hasn't even been arraigned yet. — Becksguy (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • McInerney pleads "not guilty" to all charges at arraignment on August 27, 2009. Pretrial hearing set for October 23, 2009 and a trial start date for December 1, 2009.[9] I'm placing this in the article as it's a significant legal milestone. — Becksguy (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On November 2, 2009, a state appellate court denied a petition to eliminate the "lying-in-wait" additional charge. That charge, if not overturned by the state's Supreme Court in response to a planned defense petition, would keep the trial in adult court. This is a setback in the defense attempts to have McInerney's trial shifted to juvenile court. [10] — Becksguy (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ventura County Superior Court judge denies request for additional delay, and orders trial to start. So presumably it started today (7/14) and there should be some forthcoming news on this subject.[15][16] — Becksguy (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • McInerney's attorneys filed a motion to have Ventura County Superior Court Judge Charles Campbell recused, claiming the judge can't be fair because he denied the additional delay last weekl as requested by the defense. This will delay the trial an additional five days.[17] — Becksguy (talk)

Newsweek blame-the-victim article

Is that article really a source that should be used in this article? Why:

--84.153.50.169 (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find these two sources in the article, but 19 references to one Newsweek source out of 30-odd sources within one article, where most sources get cited once or twice, is seriously unbalanced. It overweights the article. This is especially problematic when that sole source gives a controversial commentary that delivers a POV that the victim is to blame for being murdered. Overuse of this source presents serious POV issues for this article. Mish (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree in general that over reliance on one source could unbalance an article. This article has been a battleground in the past but has been quiet for some time now. Brandon McInterney's trial is now scheduled to start on July 14th [18], so I don't see much developing there for a while. However, things may change after Anderson Cooper's AC360 report tonight (May 16th) at 10 PM ET on CNN, titled "Bullied…to death". Lets wait until tomorrow at least and see what develops. — Becksguy (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is coming to trial, it is more important than ever that we do not place too much emphasis on an unrepresentative POV from a single source throughout the article. There needs to be a parity between this source and any other source. Failure to do so has certain implications which could conceivably affect a jury's judgement. Let's have this addressed, please. Mish (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AC360 broadcast was a 3 minute plus report that had nothing new. It was just a rehash of many of the issues related to the shooting. As far as the over reliance on one source, one thing we can do without changing the structure or content of the article is to replace as many of the Newsweek citations as we can with other sources that have the same information. More generally, I'm not happy with the article either, but avoided rewriting since it was stable and to leave sleeping dogs lie. However, maybe it's time to rewrite the article to get it into better shape before the trial starts, when presumably there will be a flurry of edits. Thoughts on how to proceed? — Becksguy (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going through each instance where the source is cited, and checking that it is a neutral addition. If so, then seek another source, if not, then either remove it or replace from a different source which does not promote one particular POV. Not to the extent that the POV is eliminated, but that it is represented in a balanced way in relation to other sources.Mish (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised this as a question Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Over-representation of one source, not specifically just for this article, but because I am sure I have come across this before, and would like the guidelines on this clarified for future reference.Mish (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this section has become overly long and a mostly chronological listing of the various legal proceedings and delays to the trail. Lets discuss how to restructure, if possible, the section to provide more context and to follow the {{prose}} tag suggestion. For example, there are several logical subject areas, such as content relating to:

  1. McInerney firing the public defender and hiring a celebrity law team.
  2. McInerney being tried as an adult rather than a juvenile.
  3. Attempts to recuse the judge.
  4. Attempts to recuse the prosecutor.
  5. Change of venue and using juries from other locations.
  6. Attempts to obtain King's sealed juvenile records.
  7. Charges of recording the defense team in private discussions.

All these have inordinately delayed the trial. The killing took place well over three years ago, and McInerney turned 17 in January. It's conceivable he may not get his day in court until he is 18 at this rate. And whatever else presents itself as appropriate. I am explicitly leaving out any of the BLP violating content, such as the Nazi related stuff, that has apparently been reported in some venues. I'm posting this for some hopefully constructive discussion. — Becksguy (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I was the last one to update the section, and I see it's already out of date. While I agree with you that the section shoudn't stand as is forever, I think that the chronological narrative form probably serves the article best until the case is adjudicated. It's easier that way to keep it organized and neutral and to make sure that nothing untoward creeps in. Rivertorch (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Larry_King&oldid=428550971"