Talk:Murder/Archive 3

Many people consider the wrongful killing of sentient non-human animals as murder
So why is there no mention of that definition in this article? —Beautiful Pony (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest review of the style guide, particularly in relation to unsupported attributions, reliable sources and fringe theories. Arllaw (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not a common or the legal definition of murder. We have to keep WP:Due weight in mind. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Jeffery Dahmer for example committed murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:8B40:6700:9129:4C68:56A4:512C (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I consider it murder..slaves and indigenous people are often believed to be animals regardless of what it says here..many people don`t believe killing them is murder but necessary and even just..more to the point the definition of murder is not strictly a legal matter..Merrion/Webster cites multiple meanings..one being simply being to kill another person which is how many if not most people take it..if I go into a bar and shoot someone dead in front of 100 people everyone in that place is going to say it was a murder regardless of the legal definition..this is the way the word is generally used by most people..it is not just a legal matter 2600:1702:2340:9470:C66:8450:D2FC:FDCF (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I ought to remove your post per WP:Not a forum. This section is not about humans. It's about non-human animals. No one stated that murder is only a legal issue. The point is that the idea that killing a non-human animal is murder is not at all a common definition of murder and falls under WP:Fringe. Otherwise, meat-eating would not be what it is.


 * And humans are animals, by the way. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Animal rights FRINGE
To answer 's edit-summary comments about me leaving the abortion content in the article while stripping the animal rights viewpoint: This article is about humans, not animals, and the content remaining said there were some laws declaring the killing of an unborn child as murder. However, there are ZERO laws that declare the killing of an animal as murder. That AR people use the word as an epithet to denigrate people who kill animals (such as abattoirs/slaughterhouses) is WP:FRINGE and has no place in this article. Normal Op (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, my POV is like yours. I also don't think murder should include nonhuman animals. However, that's irrelevant. There is a significant minority who disagree, and that needs to be reported. Also, Wikipedia's standards for inclusion are much less strict than requiring that a law supports every sentence. Mariolovr (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Read the wikipedia policies on the matter, including:
 * Fringe theories
 * Fringe theories
 * Neutral point of view
 * — Normal Op (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have. Could you explain why the links are relevant. These aren't actual fringe theories and they aren't given undue weight. If anything, there needs to be more context given about the controversy, as Neutral point of view says.
 * Remember, omitting negative information is also a violation of neutrality. Wikipedia is not censored. Mariolovr (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see this as a NPOV issue, not a weight issue. As the article is presently organized, I can see how an off-topic mention of how the term "murder" is used in a different context, even if for rhetorical purposes, might be briefly mentioned under "Use of the term". However, even if I assume that slogans like "meat is murder" are calls to criminalize all killings of animals under murder statutes, I would find a substantive discussion of that position within this article to give undue weight to that position, akin to the example of why it would be inappropriate to directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept in an article about the Earth.


 * Removal of an unusual conception of "murder" is not the removal of negative information. It's the removal of a conception that reflects a minority viewpoint that also happens to be off-topic. Arllaw (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard of any scenarios where animal rights folks say "meat is murder" in an actual attempt to criminalize all killings of animals under murder statutes. I just know it as your first interpretation, a popular and well know animal rights catchphrase or slogan. I've even seen it as part of the stereotype of animal rights activists. Mariolovr (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The point is that the use of the word "murder" in the phrase "Meat is murder" is a FRINGE usage of the word "murder". It is ONLY used by animal rights advocates and "ethical vegans" and only as hate speech, an epithet, for shock value and to get attention. It is not part of general speech or usage, not even close. Therefore, such content is UNDUE to put in an article in Wikipedia. As to your argument about me leaving in the abortion stuff, I wasn't comparing the meat/AR concepts to the abortion concepts; I said I left in the abortion content because it seemed to have a legal precedent (and I didn't feel like reading all four citations to see if it was true or not). However, I knew the animal rights use of the term "murder" was fringe. I don't know why we're continuing to beat this dead horse. Normal Op (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a line between censoring the viewpoint of a significant minority and dismissing an insignificant and minuscule opinion because including it would be a waste of time. We're obviously getting into censorship territory. Please see |What FRINGE is not. In particular, "Political opinions about recent history, future predictions, social opinion, and popular culture cannot be fringe because the basis of the opinion is not scientific or academic".
 * That undue rule is highly subjective, but even from a subjective perspective I can't imagine how a single sentence neurally describing some people's highly controversial usage of the word would tip this article in support of their view.
 * Also, whether or not you consider it hate speech, shocking, etc is irrelevant. Please leave your POV out of this. Mariolovr (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * FRINGE and UNDUE are not related to "how many sources use it" but are related to the weight an idea or action has in the world. The example it uses are the flat-earthers. There is probably a lot written about the flat-earth idea, but because it is so far fringe from ordinary understanding and scientific evidence that mentioning it (beyond a brief mention that "it exists as an idea") would be giving it undue weight. And even if you think that animal rights people are "in the right" and everyone else is stupid and asleep on the subject, gives you no right to be hostile here and tell me to leave my POV out of it. I'm following Wikipedia on this matter, and I'll say it one last time: the topic of murder is about humans! There are other places within Wikipedia that are about animal rights and you can go edit on those articles, but here is not where "Meat is murder" belongs. Like I said on another Talk page to you, dealing with you has been exhausting. I don't have to convince you of anything, nor do I have a duty to train you in Wikipedia policies. I've been polite; I've been stern. Neither has worked. Talk pages are not here for you to argue policy/guidelines with individual editors. It is every Wikipedia editor's job to learn the policies and work within those guidelines. If you don't like them or think they are wrong, there are other places in Wikipedia to argue your case, but here is not it. Perhaps you haven't yet been pointed to WP:ADVOCACY and WP:ACTIVIST; those might give you some insight into why your gung-ho charge into Wikipedi-ing has had a less than warm reception. Good luck in your editing. Normal Op (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I changed my argument once I realized the undue weight rule depended on sources, not fringe. But like I said, fringe is irrelevant because it doesn't apply to opinions. I thought I was quick enough to do it before you noticed. 02:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If I may quote the undue rule, "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." Animal rights activists aren't the same as FLat Earthers. The flat earther groups are an extremely small minority, but animal rights activists are a significant minority. As Jim Wales says, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." Many famous celebrities are animal rights activists, everyone knows about PETA, and "meat is murder" is the most well known animal rights slogan. That's incredibly prominent. Mariolovr (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As for not wanting to cooperate with me and reach a compromise, that seems to go against Wikipedia's community guidelines. Why don't you follow your own rules? Mariolovr (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * PETA is not a reliable source in Wikipedia, so don't quote them here. PETA may be vocal... and loud... and persistent... but they are not (nor represent) "a significant minority". Normal Op (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't change the subject. I know you've worked really hard to scrub out every citation referencing PETA on this site (and gotten a lot of flack for it), but we're not talking about sources. There are plenty of reliable sources on this matter. We're talking about prominence, and PETA is very prominent, which, by the Founder of WIkipedia's own definition, makes them a significant minority. Besides, PETA wasn't the only thing I mentioned. Mariolovr (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Causes section
The causes section as it exists, more so as recently edited, is problematic. It is magnifying the perspectives of researchers who are not established as either leading experts in the field or whose views are representative of researchars at large, presently to the point of relying heavily on the content of a researcher's thesis. Some recently added material is not meaningfully supported by references and, between that and the informal style, comes across as the opinion of the person creating the content, as opposed to encyclopedic content. The book, Homicide, is cited as if it is recent original research; it is a textbook that summarizes the findings of a number of studies in the section at issue. I think that this section needs to be better developed and supported by material that is more broadly or generally accepted by experts within the field, but I am removing some of the recently added content because it seems to be pushing the section in the opposite direction, away from consensus and more toward an aggregation of individual researchers' perspectives or beliefs. Arllaw (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fully concur. The section is citing to a summary article by Peter Morrall rather than his book on the subject. The relevant pages in that book reveal Morrall's style of analysis is anecdotal.  The causes section really needs to be reworked in terms of empirical data, if any is available.  But this is not one of my core research interests.
 * I am currently more interested in trying to understand the incompetent management of education policy in the United Kingdom for over the past nine decades in order to understand why British English grammar became so screwed up. (This is related to a larger long-running dispute between Wikipedia editors over punctuation, abbreviations, and capitalization in the Manual of Style.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I really did not like this edit; this is because it made it seem like only this researcher cites those things as causes reasons for murder. All of those things are reasons for murder, as stated by various sources. We know that people have murdered for any of those reasons. So the edit was misleading WP:In-text attribution. This edit is better, but that piece, and the section as a whole, still needs work. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * "Causes" should be changed to "Motives" or "Reasons." And it's better to note the researcher's name instead of stating "one researcher." Stating "one researcher" will get that piece tagged with Template:Who. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In my initial draft of the "Causes" section, i did name the researcher, but User:Arllaw changed it because he felt it was "magnifying the perspectives of researchers who are not established as either leading experts in the field or whose views are representative of researchars at large". However, removing the name-dropping attribution seemed to counter his own motive to me, so i then changed it to "one researcher". I agree that the section needs work, if not its own article (Causes of murder, akin to what we already have on Causes of sexual violence.), and what i wrote was really just intended as a starting point.
 * I do not think we should change "Causes" to "Motives" or "Reasons". The current section deals with the causes of murder in terms of motives, health, psychology, evolution, and economics.
 * Koopinator (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason why I stated that "Causes" should be changed to "Motives" or "Reasons" is because of what seemed to be an issue with using "causes", and the fact that the text you added states "the motives for murder tend to fit in 4 categories" (emphasis on "motives"), and the fact that "motives" (and even "reasons") is more accurate/encyclopedic than "causes" in this case. Researchers don't state, for example, that lust caused someone to kill. Not typically anyway. Instead, they say that lust was a motive. Likewise, researchers use the word motive when it comes to rape; well, they use "motive for rape" or similar more often than "cause of rape." Stating "cause" in the case of murder or rape can imply a certain degree of helplessness on the part of perpetrators...as though they just couldn't help themselves/it was out of their control, depending on what cause is cited. It can also come across as victim-blaming. I do see, though, that you added, "However, that same researcher stated that finding of a motive alone is insufficient to explain murder, as most people experience those impulses without killing." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't understand my point. If motives were the only thing discussed in the "causes" section, THEN i would agree with you. But it's not. In any case, finding of a motive alone is insufficient to explain murder, but that doesn't mean it plays no part whatsoever. Murderers do not (usually) randomly select victims to kill for no reason whatsoever, and it's not "victim-blaming" to point this out. Koopinator (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think you understand my point about saying "so and so caused murder" and why "motives" is preferred by experts. I can cite sources here for my points, but I'd rather not. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you say that people are "motivated" to commit murder by consumption of alcohol, evolutionary psychology and personality disorders? If not, why should these things be under a "motives" section? And in the same vein, do you also think we should move Causes of sexual violence, which discusses motives, social factors, childhood environment and other things to Motives of sexual violence? Koopinator (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's true that i don't understand your point. Currently i have three theories about what you're trying to say:
 * A. You didn't read anything in the "Causes" section that comes after "However, that same researcher stated that finding of a motive alone is insufficient to explain murder, as most people experience those impulses without killing", and you think that motives are the only thing discussed in that section.
 * B. You did read the entire "Causes" section, and you think consumption of alcohol leading to reduced self-control is something experts would call a "motive".
 * C. You did read the entire "Causes" section, and you don't think motives of murder have anything to do with why murder happens.
 * Koopinator (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you think that law and enforcement and researchers are going to categorize "he killed her because she wouldn't love him back" or "he killed her because she cheated on him" as a cause and that this isn't victim-blaming? Murdering someone because they cheated is a common reason for murder, but law enforcement and experts will call it a motive...not a cause.


 * Anyway, you're off on what I think or am saying. I'm not debating all of this. But to briefly state more: A person may blame it on the alcohol, but researchers examine the matter beyond that. They typically don't simply state "the alcohol made them do it." They may cite alcohol as a contributing factor, but they typically will not state that it was "the cause." If you want the title to remain "Causes", which you clearly do, because it has things like the alcohol aspect in there, I'm not going to fight you on that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Contributing factors" seems like an acceptable section title to me. In fact, i see it as more or less synonymous with "Causes". I could re-phrase your sentence as "They may cite alcohol as a cause, but they typically will not state that it was the cause." This was never about me being pro-"Causes" per se as much as anti-"Motives", in fact i have said earlier that if motives were the only thing discussed in the "causes" section, i would agree with you. I just thought that listing consumption of alcohol as a motive of murder was utter nonsense. Koopinator (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't and wasn't arguing for the consumption of alcohol as a motive. The only way it could be a motive is if someone killed another person for alcohol. We're going to have to disagree on the "a cause" thing regarding alcohol. Anyway, I see that you changed the title to "Contributing factors." Yes, that works. I thought about suggesting it. But then again, I think I thought I'd already suggested it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The word "control" in the description of what would remove ones right to lethal self defense: section 3.3 exclusions (justifiable homicide exceptions of murder)
The word "control" describing culpability or cause in a situation that removes one's right to self defense from a person who is causing them harm, does not fit the broad definitions of justifiable homicide at all and is too broad actually.

Quote:

"Self-defense: acting in self-defense or in defense of another person is generally accepted as legal justification for killing a person in situations that would otherwise have been murder. However, a self-defense killing might be considered manslaughter if the killer established control of the situation before the killing took place. In the case of self-defense, it is called a "justifiable homicide".[30] Unlawful killings without malice or intent are considered manslaughter."

Control (aka creating a situation of which they caused their own harm, thus they cannot reasonably act against that which they caused) would only remove the right to self defense if it was a criminally culpable action (or actions) which lead to the circumstances. Such as; when a person knowingly puts another in an unlawful situation, or via unlawful acts causing danger, or via engaging in a felony or design to commit a felony: like extortion, kidnapping, conspiracy to any felony, assault, rape, robbery or willing neglect of duty of care etc...

I think this insertion of the word "control" is to suggest innocent, legally abiding people can be denied their right to self defense due to participating in legal activities with a certain risk. This is not correct. Even people who agree upon manslaughter charges for certain neglectful actions reaching to a level of conscious knowledge of standard practice, do not remove people's right to self defense just because they "controlled" (aka participated) in a certain legal activity or legal sport or legal job, with a certain level danger.

You can only hold a person criminally liable for a homicide that would have normally been self-defense killing, if the homicide occurred under circumstances that were both unlawful AND with intent.

Mitradoe (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

in the absence of malice?
According to the article, manslaughter is But malice is a desire to harm somebody caused by a feeling of hate. Now, imagine that some crazy psychopath with a big knife is approaching your little child, and smiling saying that he will kill you all, just for the pleasure of killing. But first he will kill your child to see your misery and grief. The emotional response of your brain is immediate, but what exactly do you feel? No malice? Do you want to kill him to rescue your child, but don't you feel any hatred? Really? I don't think so. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is "malice" in a technical legal sense, not an emotional state. See malice (law).  It probably would be useful to clarify that in the first sentence, maybe with an explanatory footnote (an underused mechanism in Wikipedia). --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. --Trovatore (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thank you :-) 85.193.228.103 (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Murder versus "the unlawful taking"
According to the Wikipedia "definition" of murder as an "unlawful taking", then the legalization of the murder of Muslims or Jews would mean the taking of those lives would no longer be considered unlawful and hence not murder.

The above is a basic fault of relying on legal definitions alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardpearce (talk • contribs) 16:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not simply a legal but also dictionary definition that it's an unlawful killing. If a country's law legalizes killings of some kind than a killing under that law cannot be murder. You're making the mistake of giving your own personal definition of murder. Moreover, war is a very special circumstance during which different laws apply. Perpetrators of the ghastly crimes you mentioned are still liable to be found guilty of serious war crimes by an international tribunal.Tvx1 16:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 'Murder' sometimes means 'wrongful killing'. (One way that the OED defines it: "to kill (a person) wickedly, inhumanly, or barbarously".) When a vegetarian says, "killing animals is murder," this does not mean "it is illegal to kill animals for food" but "it is morally wrong to kill animals for food." Another example: "In imposing the death penalty, the government murdered an innocent man" - here the term means "wrongfully killed" not "illegally killed". Omphaloscope talk 11:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Murder case
For India Can a victim family demand of evidence in murder case if he found that police is not helping them. 45.251.48.254 (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a talk page for this article and how to improve it, not a discussion forum for the subject itself. סשסGrimmchild 07:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The article Involuntary euthanasia seems to be a WP:POVFORK of this article. The nazis calling something euthanasia does not make it not murder. I would like to merge it, but discuss it here first. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Imho it would be better merged into homicide, taking into consideration the broad generic definion of homicide versus the much narrower legalistic-technical definition of murder.
 * Basically "murder" is a specific verdict of a court, whereas "homicide" simply means the killing of a person by another person or persons. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dodger67 That seems fine to me. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not a POVFORK, but a common term used in bioethics as one of the three types of euthanasia (volutary, non-voluntary, and involuntary). It is a subset of euthanasia first, and only a subset of murder/homicide second, both of which are primarily legal rather than ethical terms, and when it has been advocated for (such as in the US pre WW2, and in Nazi Germany) it has been on (seriously misguided) ethical and social grounds (mostly eugenics). - Bilby (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge Mainly because "Involuntary euthanasia" is in principal a moral issue with legal issues secondary. Murder, on the other hand, is mainly a legal/criminal issue with moral issues of far less importance. Certainly not a POVFORK. I oppose both suggestions of merger, either to murder or to homocide. The Banner  talk 10:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose both directions as per Bilby, noting that non-voluntary, involuntary, voluntary make clear important boundaries between forms of euthanaisa (e.g. non-voluntary risks being involuntary if insufficient care is taken obtaining consent). Additionally, current research is using the term and the issue of involuntary euthanasia (at least accusations of processes being involuntary euthansia) are by no means history. See this discussion of the Liverpool care pathway in 2020 and more generally controversy surrounding Terminal sedation and withdrawal of fluids. Talpedia (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although the topics are somewhat similar, it isnt the same exact thing. I also Oppose it being merged into Homicide. All 3 are independent topics that are notable enough for their own article. Lina211 (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons as others. This is like suggesting that enhanced interrogation techniques be merged into torture as articles about the same topic. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to protect this page
We can’t have another “stabby stab” Blepii (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

"Triple murder" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triple_murder&redirect=no Triple murder] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"Judeo-Christian" problems
The "Judeo-Christian" section of this article has not only the usual problems of the phrase "Judeo-Christian tradition" (linking two strains of religions with very different traditions on the basis of an overlap in their holy texts, which they interpret differently)... it has the strange assumption that all these translations of the Bible are being made from the Latin and reflect how they interpret some Latin words. This is not the case -- for example, they are citing the World English Bible, and the FAQ for that translation makes it clear that they worked from Greek and Hebrew, no mention of Latin. The paragraph is not only heavily original research, it's faulty research. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, I went and retitled the section, rephrased the first sentence, and deleted the rest of section for being pure, bad WP:OR. This is absolutely not to say that there isn't more to say about the view of murder in those religions, and I welcome people to expand it with genuine and sourced information. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)