Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

The Mann Act

The Wikipedia article about the Mann Act has Charles Manson listed as "convicted" under this law. Charles Manson's biography on Wikipedia says he was aquitted of this charge. Both authors of these articles cite the same source. To the reader the distinction between the two words is critical to gaining proper insight.

"Missing persons" category

When a missing persons case is resolved, does that make categories such as Category:Missing person cases in the United States no longer applicable? My take is the case is a missing persons case, even after resolution and the person is no longer missing. A robbery remains a robbery even after the perpetrator is caught and restitution made, by comparison.

I noticed a couple of removals today of this cat ([1], [2]), and while I don't think the removal is appropriate, I'm unsure and unable to find if there's a consensus in the crime community on this; hence the question. TJRC (talk)

Assistance on Murder of Zachary Turner

I would like to receive some assistance from members of WikiProject Crime in composing Murder of Zachary Turner. I would like to finish the article amid my busy schedule, so anyone who can help me complete some sections of this article -- including some info on Canadian custody and bail laws -- would be most appreciated. --Scoutstr295

AfC submission

Hello there! Could anyone have a look at Draft:Desistance from crime? Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• I just came on here to do the same thing. I've declined it because technically it reads a bit like an essay and bits and pieces read like they were a little too closely paraphrased from some of the source material for comfort. It's not so bad that I'd label it as copyvio, especially since there's only a few ways to really rephrase stuff like this, but it's enough to where I really do think that it'd benefit from someone a little more familiar with criminology helping out. I think that it has a heck of a lot of merit as an article topic. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Does "murder" presume "murderer"?

Does calling a killing "murder" on Wikipedia, in the body, infobox or categories, presume the suspect(s) in a resulting and ongoing/upcoming murder trial is/are "murderer(s)", contrary to the presumption of innocence bit of WP:BLPCRIME? 16:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it does Even admitted killers and sole suspects can be acquitted of murder, with a successful justification or excuse. Murder is not a synonym for homicide. If we say someone did the thing, and the thing was murder, it logically follows that we're saying someone is a murderer. This is both unfair to the accused and inaccurate, pending a judicial decision. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:13, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

We cannot say "someone did the thing" unless third-party, reliable sources say so. If our sources define the "thing" as "murder", then this is how we label it perforce in Wikipedia, too, on account of the encylopaedia's rules: We're not here to write the truth as we perceive it but write what third-party, reliable sources are saying about something notable. -The Gnome (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I put this here because it seemed the most relevant place. But if there's a place where more eyes can see it, feel free to link this there. Whatever the answer to this is, it should be well-discussed and globally binding. Some discussion has already been had here, here and here. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:13, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. It means the suspect is a "suspected murderer". That there has been a murder means someone committed a murder; but that there is a suspect doesn't mean that the suspect is guilty, just that the person is suspected. Omnedon (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

What about where only one person confesses to the killing, witnesses/police say only one person did it, but (s)he pleads not guilty to murder? James Eagan Holmes, for instance. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:38, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed there was a verdict yesterday. Weird timing. Someone like Holmes, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:40, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

In that case, again, and always, we file what the competent authorities are saying, and, if this is disputed, we also file what the accused person is saying. If the authorities state "this is a murder" and the accused denies being a murderer, we simply reproduce this. We are not here to work for "justice" or "truth," but to present what third-party, reliable sources out there are saying. -The Gnome (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes Per InedibleHulk, stating that a murder has taken place before the courts have ruled that a killing was in fact murder is a clear and unequivocal breach of the presumption of innocence. I am frankly surprised that anyone even needs to ask this question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Surely though, it is possible for the fact that a murder has taken place to be determined before the perpetrator has been identified. Omnedon (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope. A murder verdict requires a trial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

To be clearer, if a body found in a field goes to a coroner with a hammer in its skull, the report will almost certainly have the "homicide" box checked, but there is no "murder" box, since that depends on knowing the killer(s)' intent and circumstances. But while there's no suspect, it's not a BLP problem, just a less serious, possibly wrong guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:57, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

But laws vary from country to country. And in any case, the fact that a murder took place is not the same as determining who did it. Omnedon (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Until there is a verdict of murder there is no 'fact that a murder took place'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase -- the determination that a murder has taken place is not the same as the determination of who did it. Omnedon (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

And the determination that a homicide has taken place is not the same as the determination that a murder has. Just a less important distinction when the suspect is unknown or dead. See Dolla (rapper) for a case where a man was clearly killed by another man, but the trial determined no murder occured. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:24, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree; yet as has been stated by others, the term "murder" is used in both legal and non-legal contexts. If a reliable source uses the term, we can too. It still doesn't mean that a suspect is guilty; that's another matter entirely. Omnedon (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• No per Omnedon. The number of suspects is irrelevant, they're still just suspects until proven guilty, but that does not prevent the act — whoever did it — from being murder or homicide if that's what the reliable sources call it and there's no dispute over whether or not it was accidental, natural, etc (in which case we describe the dispute between the sources). You might also want to note that BLPCRIME only applies to "relatively unknown people". When a suspect is well known, even if s/he's become well known because of publicity surrounding the crime, then WELLKNOWN applies. Per WELLKNOWN, being well known is determined by whether or not there are "a multitude of reliable published sources". Therefore in most sensational, widely-publicized-and-discussed murder cases the suspect is not entitled to the protection of BLPCRIME. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I will point out that both "murder" and "homicide" can be legal terms. In Texas, where I live, the chapter of the penal code containing offenses regarding killing people is entitled "Criminal homicide" but the individual sections naming the individual offenses include "Murder" and "Capital Murder" (along with "Manslaughter" and "Criminally Negligent Homicide"). But we have to remember that we're writing a general-readership encyclopedia here and that if the sources call something murder (or homicide) then we follow the sources unless there's reason not to do so. On the other hand, however, if the sources shy away from calling a killing murder, then we should do so as well so as to avoid original research. But either way, I don't think that BLPCRIME, when applicable, requires us to call the act something other than what the reliable sources call it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

General audience doesn't mean only the ignorant, just includes them. Includes people who know the difference, too. And sources that use "murder" loosely generally also use "killing" or "shooting" or "homicide" or whatever, as do those which don't. If the neutral term is used more often in sources, we should reflect that, and not tailor our articles toward mistaken readers, particularly if we're Wikilinking to murder, which would contradict their idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:34, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

• no per transporterman. A murder is a murder whether or not a specific individual or group has yet been determined to be the murderer.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• No clearly. Distinguishing "Murder" and "Homicide" is all very well in technical articles but in common parlance if someone was killed by someone else, they were murdered (specific exceptions apply). To conflate that issue with the issue of whether someone "suspected of murder" is a "murderer" just muddies the waters. The dead person with the bullet hole in their chest the police have found was probably murdered. Most sources will omit the probably and the general presumption will be "there was a murder" whether or not any suspects are found and whether or not those suspects are eventually convicted. As to whether Murder presumes "A non-specific murderer" the answer is again clear, yes. But that murderer is the anonymous other. SPACKlick (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• No, obviously not. If reliable sources report that someone's death was a "murder" then wikipedia should label it as such. The question of whether or not individual(s) suspected of being involved in the death are guilty of the crime of "murder" is a completely separate question. We shouldn't be misled/confused by the nom's narrowly legalistic interpretation of what the word "murder" actually means - while a legal definition of murder may require that someone's motives be examined and a jury find them guilty, the word has a much broader and more inclusive meaning in general usage. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, defines it first and foremost as "The action or an act of killing." Calling someone's death a "murder" does not necessarily imply or impart guilt on anyone, and it's incorrect/misleading to suggest that it does in all cases. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This Oxford is pretty clear with the "unlawful" and "premeditated" parts. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:40, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

That's the free online version. The complete/real OED Online (regrettably, it's paywalled and is not available w/o a subscription) lists several different definitions, the first of which is (as I said) "The action or an act of killing." Fyddlestix (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this what you're talking about? If so, that's just the general "1" overview. The first ("a") definition is the most prominent, and the one about unlawful killing. The other two are about subjective things like terribleness and moral reprehensibility, which Wikipedia shouldn't deal in. "b" seems archaic, as well. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:01, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for acknowledging my point, which is that in general terms the words has a more flexible and varied meaning that the wording of the RFC suggests. At this point I'm wishing I hadn't brought up dictionary definitions, though, because it's tangential to the main point, which is that calling someone's death a "murder" is emphatically not the same thing as calling someone who is merely suspected or implicated in their death "a murderer." Fyddlestix (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not so varied. The first definition is relatively huge, in common usage. Four total definitions (sorry to snub "d" earlier), but not four equal parts. This question most importantly applies to those who have confessed to causing the death, but contend it was no murder. There, the act and the actor are inextricable. The "I didn't kill anyone" crowd get the presumption of innocence, too, of course. We shouldn't even call those "killers" without an "alleged" or "suspected". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:34, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

• Sometimes yes, sometimes no; common sense must be used here. Where there is genuine doubt as to the circumstances of a killing, such as whether there was a justification for it, the word "murder" is best avoided in favor of a more neutral term. But for example, if Wikipedia had existed on the evening of November 22, 1963, it would not have breached any policy for us to state that President Kennedy had been murdered that afternoon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

...and we would have looked rather silly had it turned out that a police sniper in the book depository building, tasked with protecting the president, got bored with scanning the crowd through his scope and decided to take a peek at JFK -- and accidentally killed him. Negligent homicide it not the same as murder. BTW, what did the initial autopsy report say was the cause of death? Did it actually say "homicide"? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Mortal Errors happen, sometimes. But Kennedy's death certificate doesn't seem to have a "manner" field. The back page says an "assassin's bullet" did the deed, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

• What is the specific change you are asking about making? Like, if we would say "Yes, it violates BLP", what changes would we make to wikipedia? My view is that if there is any challenge whatsoever to the death being a homicide, we should not title the article "Murder of Jane Doe". For instance, the Death of Caylee Anthony is properly titled. If it's an uncontroversial murder, reliable sources have called it a murder, even the defense is not contending that the death was self defense or was from other causes, I don't see a big problem with titling it "Murder of Jane doe", although I can't see any major reason not to just title it "Death of Jane Doe" instead. If there is any question, we should go with "death" and describe the "murder" as the contention of the prosecutor as opposed to an objective fact. I have major issues with categories such as "American Murderers" or leads that describe guilt in concrete terms. For instance, "Jane Doe is an American woman convicted of the murder of John Smith" is preferrable to "Jane Doe murdered John Smith". In one circumstance, the set of facts is true regardless of what may happen in the future. We might find out 10 years down the road that she was wrongfully convicted. The first lead has provided the reader with an accurate set of facts, the second lead has been false for 10 years. So I guess the answer to your question is: it depends. Bali88 (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If this passes, killings with untried and known defendants will drop any "Murder" categories and infobox designations. Any reference to it in the body will be reworded, as suitable.

Killings with unknown and/or dead suspects are related to this BLP issue, but shouldn't be directly affected. Any decision could be used in consensus building on those. A case like Jack Ruby's, with an overturned sentence and an early death and the "kooks", would be far more complicated. I try to stay away from all things JFK. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I think we should take caution even with convictions. For instance, had Casey Anthony been convicted, we should still refrain from calling it a murder because there is some contest to that cause of death. Basically, it just depends on whether or not the "murder" is contested or not. That's how I look at it. I suspect it might be overkill to strike the word murder from all pages. Bali88 (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• No. A murder can occur without knowing the murderer's identity or with the person being charged with that murder being innocent. They are separate determinations. SMP0328. (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

How do you tell a murder from a homicide if the identity of the killer is unknown? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If a masked man is videotaped fatally shooting a person who was no threat to him, we can definitely call that a murder despite not knowing who is the murderer. SMP0328. (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Not if it's an insane masked man. Or a masked man with permission to kill. Or a masked man who actually did have his life threatened, but you couldn't see it from that camera angle. Or if the masked man only intended to wound the guy. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but your last example is still murder. Knowingly using a lethal weapon while "only intending to wound the guy" is otherwise known as Depraved Indifference and, if a death results, is prosecuted in the US as second degree murder (which doesn't require premeditation, but only the knowledge that death is a possible outcome).--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 07:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Aye, I figured someone would call me on that last one. A good lawyer might be able to make it work, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:55, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

Or if the man's not wearing a mask when he clearly kills, butchers and eats a guy in public, but has the triple defense of carrying out an execution approved by the god he imagined, for self-defense purposes. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference between murder and homicide? Is there a difference? I think there are some murders that are non-controversial. The murder of Holly Staker, for example. There is no reasonable contention that a tiny 11 year old girl who is raped, sodomized, then stabbed to death while babysitting was another other than a murder. The DNA from the rape kit was linked to an unidentified serial killer. Certainly no one could argue that it was a suicide. It's incredibly unlikely that it was self-defense given the details. However, I do agree that there are other killings that might be more difficult to pin down the exact scenario by which they died. If there is some question, it's definitely better to be more conservative. Bali88 (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• No If we say someone is suspected of an offense, it does not mean they committed it. In some cases of course a suspect may admit homicide, but deny a criminal intent to commit murder, e.g., insanity, manslaughter, self-defense. A good general approach is to use the phrasing in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - if a trial hasn't concluded with the verdict of murder - I think we should shy away from using the word - because there's no verdict. Even if the media reports it so, it gives the impression that there's a trial that ruled the verdict of murder. Use killing / death / shooting / stabbing. starship.paint ~ KO 07:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Νο and that means "not by any stretch of the imagination", although some of my fellow editors are evidently able to go beyond that! :-) The death of a person can be attributed to natural causes, suicide, accident or homicide [edited]. Irrespective of whether a person has been charged for the murder of a deceased person, we have to denote the death with whatever term the competent authorities are labeling it. If it happens to be "murder," then so be it; "murder" it shall be in Wikipedia. Note that "competent authorities" does not mean the media! And in case of a death whereby the authorities and other, respectable third parties (as determined by Wikipedia's rules on reliable sources), disagree on the causes of death, e.g. the death of a political activist which the authorities proclaim a suicide while political opposition calls it a murder, the Wikipedia entry should reflect both views, on the basis of the notability rule. In short, if the death is determined to be a "murder" by, say, the police, then that should be what's in the Wikipedia entry, no two ways about it. -The Gnome (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You're 75% right, if you're talking about death certificates and medical examiners. There are four definite boxes in the "Manner of death" field: Natural, Accident, Suicide and Homicide. That last box gets checked even when it's absolutely justified, and not a bit like murder (cop and soldier killings, for instance). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:55, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

I just want to add that just because a medical examiner has ruled it a homicide doesn't necessarily mean we should call it a murder in the article. There are very commonly medical examiners who disagree on the cause of death. I can list a dozen cases off the top of my head where one ME says homicide, one says undetermined, one says natural causes. A better way to handle the situation is to attribute the statement. So like, the title can be "Death of John Smith", and then in the lead we can say "Medical examiner Jane Smith ruled it a homicide. A second autopsy commissioned by the defense lists the death as undetermined". That way the information is accurate and the reader has a full picture of what has happened. Bali88 (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

If there were two (or more) examinations, of course we'd say what each found, just for being significant info. But your first point is essentially the point of the RfC. A murder trial isn't even possible unless the death was ruled a homicide. That's why nobody holds homicide trials. It's a relatively easy determination, usually a one-man job. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:59, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

It may be worth discussing adding a box that says "Disputed." But deciding whether or not to report someone was murdered based on whether a conviction has been made is obviously wrong. That's like saying I don't know if this egg I'm eating was cooked or not because I haven't met the chef.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Before this gets out of hand: The overarching rule in Wikipedia is notabilty and, therefore, we are obliged to follow and copy whatever the competent authorities are saying, i.e. label the death by whatever category they've chosen. I listed the four causes of death in passing; they're not the point in this discussion. The point is, we follow whatever the reliable sources out there are saying about the death in question. And that's all there is to it, 100 percent! :-) -The Gnome (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

And if the reliable sources say something the competent authorities don't, like this "murder of Trayvon Martin" from well after the acquital? (Also beside the point, but those are manners of death, not causes.) InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, July 19, 2015 (UTC)

If the reliable sources are disagreeing with the competent authorities, we list the labels both of them have put out. Because this is what Wikipedia editors do. Once more, and always, we are not here to seek the truth, nor are we the paladins of justice! We are here to reproduce and present what others (not us, not our intelligence, and not out conscience) say happened. That is the supreme guiding rule in every Wikipedia article. When we view this debate here under the appropriate light, we can discard the many false notions involved. -The Gnome (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

We're sort of here to seek truth. Reliable sources say many things. Some are significant, some are emotionally loaded, some are jargony. We put on our paladin of justice/editor helmets and use our flails/keyboards to separate the wheat from the chaff. It would give The Telegraph's passing comment undue weight if we cited it to call George Zimmerman's act a murder. So far we don't. The truth outshines it, and readers are better off. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

If what the sources contain is "jargony", we change the jargon into simpler language per Wiki rules. If it's "emotionally loaded", then either we include what the text relates or we don't - but we do not amend the text! That would be equivalent to inserting our opinion into the text. To sum up, again: There is no way we can wiggle our way, as Wikipedia editors, into elevating our authority! We are not allowed to judge what the "proper" term for a death is when the competent authorities per the relevant, reliable sources call it otherwise. There is no "sort of" line here between personal opinion and what's-out-there; it's a clear, big line. -The Gnome (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If we're quoting someone, we don't amend the text, but if we're not, of course we do. Otherwise, it's plagiarism. If CNN says a "brutal, savage murder" occured at 7:07 pm on July 7, we're certainly competent and authorized to cite that for saying whatever we call the thing happened at that time. If we just copied and pasted, we'd be aggregators, not editors. Editors use editorial judgment. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

No one is against proper editorial judgment. There is nor argument there. But "amending" the text can only mean a change in the wording; not in the meaning. I do not advocate always copying verbatim because this is impractical and raises copyright issues. I advocate following what third-party reliable sources are saying, as well as the competent authorities. In your example, CNN called something a "murder" followed by various adjectives; so, "murder" is what gets into the entry, no matter how we "amend" the rest of CNN's wording. -The Gnome (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

So when a source uses the word "murder" to mean killing instead of actual murder, we can say "killing" and keep the meaning. Just loses the sensational connotation. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, July 28, 2015 (UTC)

No, sir. When the Wikipedia-accepted source calls it "murder", that is precisely what the Wikipedia entry should have, as well. We are not allowed to use third-party, reliable sources through changes to their text's meaning! That'd be original work on our part. We are not supposed to go into a semantics dispute every time. As to whether a word such as "murder" is "more sensational than the word killing", we are not to judge that either. If it is indeed sensational for some people, so be it. Wikipedia does not shy away from controversies; all it does is reflect what's out there; and not how we want the world to be. How clearer can this point be made? -The Gnome (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

When a paper calls a death a murder, before a court does, it's clear they're using the word in a colloquial sense, because there's absolutely nothing yet calling it a legal murder. It's not a decision we have to make, it's the only possible meaning. And in that sense, "killing" means the same thing. So we're certainly allowed to paraphrase with a synonym. Just like when someone refers to "the President" doing something, we can change that to the president's name, given the context. We're not robots. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

• Not necessarily, but use with caution, per much of the above common sense. Something can be definitely known to be a murder, and someone can be a suspect, and it's not a POV problem for us to say it was a murder, only to "convict in the court of public opinion" by implying that the suspect is guilty rather than just accused. This is another case of "follow the sources". When something is not definitely known to be a murder, but definitely known to be a homicide, we should use that word. It is not "technical jargon". Everyone old enough to read and competent to understand Wikipedia knows what that word means, since it's used about 100 times per week in TV shows. When it's not definitely even known to be a homicide, use "death".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• No That a crime has been found to be a murder presumes that there is a murderer (or sometimes manslaughter-er), but not that the specific suspects cited or investigated in the case are actually murderers. They might be actually innocent and an unknown else is the murderer, or it was manslaughter or a lesser crime. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Only if reliable sources make the presumption, generally per WP:SPADE, and generally no. If reliable sources call the event a murder, then so do we. Likewise if reliable sources call it manslaughter, homicide, death by misadventure, killed by badger, and so on. Use caution as others have said, but if reliable sources call it murder and we call it something else, we're publishing original research and that's especially problematic in WP:BLP articles. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Yes in far too many cases vide the common definition from Google "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" where "unlawful" is stressed. We are best off not making any such claim on our own, and also best off requiring very strong sourcing before calling any death a "murder." Collect (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

A reliable, third-party source is a reliable, third-party source. Notability and proper sourcing are the foundations of Wiki rules. Without those, we'd be in a permanent state of edit-warring. What the sources say is what should be reflected in the article. We're not here to adjudicate, arbitrate, judge or make claims of our own. -The Gnome (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously. Until all the facts are in, that it is a murder, or a killing, or manslaughter, or something gone terribly wrong, it is fasr better to be cautious implying facts, and to default to calling these things "deaths". Note importantly, that newspapers and other journalism are not reliable sources for what sort of death it was, these sources bias to sensationalism --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC).

You're suggesting to change Wikipedia's rules on what constitutes and how we use a reliable, third-party source. Until that happens, when a newspaper or other forms of journalism that are judged to be "reliable sources" are calling it "murder" and the competent authorities agree on the label, then there is not room for "discretion": We are obliged to call it "murder". -The Gnome (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@The Gnome: - that's assuming the competent authorities agree on the label. Methinks we should just follow the competent authorities, instead of journalists. starship.paint ~ KO 08:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

We've already been through that: The entry should reflect, per WP:RS, how third-party, reliable sources are labeling the event, on the assumption that their take is the same as the competent authorities'. In case of a discrepancy between the two viewpoints, the article should reflect the discrepancy, citing both. We are not here to second-guess what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources; we're not here to help "the truth outshine" the media's faults (!); and we're not here to make sure "readers are better off" through our personal interpretation of events! We are explicitly not "paladins of justice and truth", contrary to what our colleague InedibleHulk argues. -The Gnome (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, at least sometimes. Technically, calling the deed a murder doesn't mean that we are calling any particular person a murderer. It just means "whoever did it is a murderer. The suspect may or may not be a murderer, depending on whether he's the one who did it."

However, in a case where there isn't really any doubt who did the deed, and where what is at doubt is the circumstances surrounding the deed, calling it a murder is indeed equivalent to calling the suspect a murderer. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, because killing someone is broader than murdering someone, at least in a lot of court of laws. It's sometimes best to say Person A killed Person B if Person A haven't been convicted of murder, particular if Person A is still living. ^{Recruited by the feedback request service} I dream of horses (T) @ 02:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Probably not but if we can't find a single reliable source that directly addresses this then the information probably doesn't belong in an article, especially a BLP. ElKevbo (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Given there is no clear consensus, it would be nice to know why we're even having this conversation. Is there a particular case we should be examining? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2012 Aurora shooting and 2015 Charleston church shooting were the catalysts. The first has been resolved. The second won't for a year. Also applies to Murder of Khaled Idris Bahray, Murder of Becky Watts, Murder of Ryōta Uemura, ISIL beheading incidents, Murder of Jagendra Singh, Kidnapping and murder of Moisés Sánchez Cerezo and others (those are just a few from the "Murder in 2015" category with untried suspects). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

• No. Whether or not a death was a murder or not should be determined by the release of the autopsy, toxicology report, coroner's report, court determination, or some other reliable, relevant party that can be referenced, regardless of the culpability of the suspects. A death can be ruled a murder with no suspects, with suspects, or with a conviction.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Autopsies and medical reports never determine whether something was murder. Only whether it was homicide. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:59, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

• Depends. I see no problem with "arrested on suspicion of murder" or "charged with murder" etc if there are indeed charges. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That's definitely fine. This question's only about directly calling a killing a murder before a court does. Like "The murder occured on Pine Street" or "Janie was murdered." Also about listing such articles in categories about murders, or adding "Murder" to an infobox (in the Attack Type field, Motive, Cause of Death or whatever). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, July 25, 2015 (UTC)

• Depends:Per Wikimandia's point, I believe it is encyclopedic to report charges. 'Charged with murder' seems to suffice before a trial has concluded. Murder should be used when talking about what has been legally found to be murder, through a conviction or through an investigation in which no murder was necessarily found. Rubbish computer 23:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, this question isn't about what to call the charges. Only the event, and only before an official determination. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:54, July 26, 2015 (UTC)

Also should mention that official determination does not necessarily mean that is what we should say, it depends on reliable secondary sources. Sometimes they disagree with verdicts. TFD (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

If you're talking about news outlets, they'll often disagree in editorial sections and phrase things to bait the most clicks. When they become a significantly viral denial, these dissenting opinions can be covered in Media sections. Rarely (ever?) do they outright contradict the fact of the matter. If they did, they wouldn't be reliable. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

• No If reliable sources are calling it murder all we can do is relay the information from the sources. Fraulein451 (talk) 13:28, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not asking what we can do, I'm asking whether the word does what I say it does when we use it early. If your answer is no, it doesn't. because all we can do is relay the information from the sources, I can't see the logic, but that's alright. If you'd like to clarify, it'd be nice, but feel free to stick with that, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, July 28, 2015 (UTC)

• No as asked. But under certain facts, the answer is yes: calling a killing a murder implies a suspect in the upcoming trial has committed a crime, which can violate WP:BLPCRIME. Note that WP:BLPCRIME does not say that an event is presumed not to be a crime until a court of law has found it to be so. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• No. To answer the question as asked (without getting into the other issue of whether we should call it "murder" at all or just "death of", etc.), calling it "murder" means that the suspect in a related ongoing/ upcoming trial is at most an alleged murderer, since if the trial has not concluded then s/he hasn't been found guilty of anything (including murder) yet. TheBlinkster (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

They'll often confess to the act, and plan their defense on justifying it or mitigating it down to a lesser charge. That's where it gets most problematic. One death can't be both a murder and manslaughter, or legal and illegal. When it's a question of whether it was the defendant or someone else who did the killing, it's less pressing, just possibly inaccurate. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the question as asked uses the phrase "a resulting and ongoing/upcoming murder trial". This presumes that murder is one of the charges and that there is a "resulting' and "ongoing/ upcoming murder trial". As long as the trial is "ongoing/ upcoming", in other words the judicial process has not concluded, then the D is at most an alleged murderer. If he has confessed to the act but is offering a defense (let's say self-defense), he is still an alleged murderer until the judicial proceeding has concluded in some way - either due to a successful plea bargain being entered or by a finding of guilty or not guilty at trial if there is no successful plea bargain. Obviously if the final verdict or plea is not "murder" then the title would need to be changed to something else such as "Killing of John Doe" at that point to be accurate. There is an argument to be made for making all the titles "Killing of John Doe" rather than "Murder of John Doe" to avoid having to revisit these articles later, but I see no aspersion cast on the alleged murderer until the conclusion of judicial proceedings has determined all issues. TheBlinkster (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If the defendant is always at most an alleged murderer until the trial concludes, the act should logically be at most an alleged murder. If we say someone certainly did the killing, and the killing is certainly murder, it logically follows that the someone who did the killing is certainly a murderer, which then clashes with the claim that he's only an alleged murderer.

We seem to agree on everything but the conclusion, leading me to think there must be a misunderstanding. I'm not talking about calling the trial a "murder trial", the charges "murder charges" or the suspect a "murder suspect", if that clarifies anything. That's all fine. Just the event itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, August 7, 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon

Hi. I'm looking for help in writing Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon‎. I was born many years after the event, but from what i can gather, the Ratcliffe-Gordon disappearance is second only to the Beaumont children disappearance for South Australians and ranks alongside the Beaumonts and the Disappearance of Eloise Worledge for Australian child crime history. Paul Austin (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)