Talk:Murder of Larry King/Archive 1

Um...
Resolved. This incident is 11 days old. Why does it already have its own Wiki entry? Don't we want to wait a little while to see if it holds any true historical significance? SchutteGod (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, SchutteGod, but for me the murder of one adolescent boy by another because the victim was apparrently gay has true historical significance for me and certainly for the victim's family. This kind of stuff has to stop, and for that to happen, people need to take notice. I certainly did.Cassiusw90s (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Every second history is writing itself
Resolved.

SchutteGod, history is writing itself as the seconds role along. Onces that gun was shot, it became a historical event. Many articles on wikipedia are being written as the events go along. You will sometimes see templates on pages displaying that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP
The murderer of Larry King should NOT be withheld from this article, regardless of the fact that he was a minor. His name and picture have already been publicly released via many news sources, including CNN, and the police department. If this were a small incident, and had little to no media attention, then the protection of his name could be argued. But the fact is, it was not and because the mass media attention already being shined on this event, and the many witnesses claiming he was the shooter, the murderer does not rightfully deserve to be protected by WP:BLP. And people who are removing the killers name from this article are only removing it do to a bias twist of the WP:BLP. Publicly released information is not protected by WP:BLP. The two students who committed the Columbine High School massacre, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, have no right to have their name protected from being on the Columbine High School massacre article, and neither does the murderer of Larry King. It is understandable that the killers picture should not be displayed until he is charged for his crime, but his name has no right to be protected by WP:BLP.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Taken from [| WP:BLP - Privacy of names]: "Caution should be applied...When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated". The killers name has been widely disseminated, and as such, his name is not protected by the WP:BLP clause.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is without a doubt a very tragic event for everyone involved, especially since both the victim and alleged perpetrator are children. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had a lasting effect of the zeitgeist, and it is not clear that this event will have a similar impact yet. There is no deadline here and no rush to add problematic material about minors. We can wait a few weeks or months and see what the long term impact will be before deciding if the name of the murderer is an essential part of the story. Until then we should remember that the fundamental ethos of the BLP policy is "do no harm". henrik •talk  21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Cooljuno411. There's no point in refusing to name the alleged perpetrator; most or all the sources for the content of the article name him. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What does naming the suspect add to the readers understanding of the event? (This is a serious question) henrik •talk  22:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "What does naming the suspect add to the readers understanding of the event?". That is an ignorant thing to say, what if we learned in history class that just some president freed the slaves, or just some dictator in the middle east killed many of his nations citizens. That would be and injustice to history and the people of the past. A name is just as important as the event that happened.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, I'm reminding you to be civil and do not use personal attacks like implying someone is ignorant. This is not helping the discussion. Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Related question at Help desk
Is it against WP policy to state the name of a suspected murderer when the suspect is still legally a minor? There seems to be a disagreement on the E.O. Green School shooting article. Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored, and as news sources appear to have released his name and picture (according to the talk page), I'd say that the information should be included in the article. Just make sure to provide a reliable reference, as per the terms of WP:BLP. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you've got a source. The relevant policy is WP:BLP. Prodego  talk  22:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've copied this discussion to the talk page, as the discussion there appears to be ongoing. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding and interpretation of WP:BLP is that sourcing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for contentious material. There are other concerns, such as privacy and the ethos of not harming real people. This is doubly important to get right when the involved are minors. henrik •talk  22:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As i previously stated in my argument above, the murderer is not protected by WP:BLP. By committing this crime, he has put his name in public domain. He has no right to privacy because he in fact did kill Larry.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you watch CourtTV or news shows, you'll hear the host or reporter using the word 'suspect' alot during a trial. That's because legally, they cannot say the suspect did in fact commit the crime. The same applies here. We cannot call the suspect a murderer and say "He killed Larry" in the article. It would be considered libel. Naming him as a suspect is another thing, which is what this discussion is all about. If the minor is found guilty in the upcoming trial, then it would be ok to say in the article that the person did in fact commit the murder. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, this discussion is not about how the suspect should be classified but about how user:henrik is removing the name of the suspect from the article entirely by claiming WP:BLP. But in fact, the suspect has no right to be protected from by this clause. Also your mention the legality of prejudging the suspect before being prosecuted. Do to this fact, i think it would be appropriate to re-add the suspects name, insuring that we classify him as such.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's "due" not "do." The tone of your comment reflects your unwillingness to engage in a polite conversation. I was simply replying to how you referred to the person as a murderer and said "he in fact did kill Larry." Just because I used the word suspect doesn't mean you now have a right to add it to the article. I was giving an example and I think you realize that. You are now trying to twist my words and I'm not going to further this discussion with you. I'll wait for someone who doesn't imply editors are ignorant (as you did in the above section) or reply sarcastically by using quotations around a word that they don't like I used. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that i offended you AgnosticPreachersKid, in my eyes i thought you were trying to give an alternative to this problem and i was agreeing with you that the suspect should be classified as a "suspect" within the article. In addition, henrik is using the fact that he is a "minor" as an excuse for not displaying his name. But under California Proposition 21 his is recognized as an adult. In addition, the whole "minor" thing is just an interpretation, as i stated above, people are construing WP:BLP context. And correct me if i'm wrong, but i can't find anything within WP:BLP that shields a minor.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is important to get it right, especially with minors involved. That is why I am advocating restraint and patience in this case. In any case, you have quite clearly articulated your view, and I have mine. I suggest we back off for a while and allow other people to weigh in at this point. In fact, a discussion has been opened on the BLP noticeboard here: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard henrik •talk  23:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What is there to get "right". He is currently recognized as a suspect in the crime by the state of California. And do to this, it is regarded as fact.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Fact"? Ummmm... Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty..." Aleta (Sing)  01:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh yeah, i know what innocent until proven guilty means. Your the one that needs a lil' information. When you are referred to as a "suspect", that means you are being charged with the crime but have not yet proven innocent or guilty.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Cooljuno411, you're obviously passionate about the article and this issue. I applaud you for that, but I would ask you to step back and carefully review input from other editors. Not because I think you're wrong, but because sometimes passion is blinding, and your wishes may not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia.
 * Because this is a current event, we have to treat this different (for the moment) than Columbine. Those people have already been convicted, at least in popular opinion, and they committed suicide. The person who is being accused of this crime is still living, and therefore certainly falls under BLP guidelines - he is a living person. One part of BLP states "Do no harm" - we don't go around labeling people with highly contentious terms or naming them as suspects in high profile cases without extremely good reason.  And perhaps you're absolutely right and the boy is proven guilty.  At that point we can add the information to the article, but we're not under any deadlines here. So cool it - let things settle for a couple days or weeks. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I don't need educating, thanks. I understand the word suspect.  What I perhaps don't understand is what you are calling "fact", because it sounds like what you are saying above is that his being charged means it's a fact that he did the crime, which is why I made the comment about presumption of innocence. Perhaps you could be a bit clearer in your comments. Aleta  <font color="#990066">(Sing)  02:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cooljuno411's meaning seemed clear to me. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 15:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Conclusion? --Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Since no has anything else to say on this topic, i am going to include the name of the suspect on this article.

Reasons Why:
 * Taken from [| WP:BLP - Privacy of names]: "Caution should be applied...When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated". The suspects name has been widely disseminated, and as such, his name is not protected by the WP:BLP clause.
 * The minor argument is illegitement. There is no part of the WP:BLP that states that is a negotiable argument. That is a bias interpretation the wording.

Additional input form []


 * Wikipedia is not censored, and as news sources appear to have released his name and picture (according to the talk page), I'd say that the information should be included in the article. Just make sure to provide a reliable reference, as per the terms of WP:BLP. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 22:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you've got a source. The relevant policy is WP:BLP. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  22:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actions that will be taken
I will reinstate the suspects name. And i will insure to include multiple citations.

Discussion on the issue of using the accused minor's name is on the Bio noticeboard
Those interested can join the discussion here. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#ff6699">boi 02:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo request
Can we get a free photo of Larry King? <font color="#32127A">Aleta <font color="#990066">(Sing)  14:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Name of the suspect.
Given that the suspect is a minor, and that their name is not necessary for understanding the context of the article or the event it discusses, I feel WP:BLP applies strongly (in particular the section Privacy of names). I have removed references to the suspect's name.

Adding it again will end up in the article being protected, the editor blocked, or both. &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What? You're threatening to block people who act in disagreement with your interpretation of BLP? That seems very heavy handed. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 03:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, I think you're misapplying the Privacy of names section. Here it is:
 * Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.


 * Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger.


 * In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.
 * I bolded the parts I thought were salient. The fact is, the perpetrator is a) well-known via widespread news coverage, and b) one of the two most important figures in this topic. As such, as far as I can see the 'Privacy of names' section doesn't apply to him. And furthermore, the section doesn't mention minors. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 03:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Anchoress here. His name is in, among others, an Associated Press article which by definition makes it widely disseminated. Evil saltine (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) That's entirely besides the point. The section doesn't mention minors, but common sense does. The article gains absolutely no context from naming the suspect; whereas the suspect and his family stands to lose by greater exposition. Basic human decency indicates that we should withhold names of suspects in general when it brings nothing to the article (and, obviously, the subject is not independently notable); all the more reason to not spread around the name of a juvenile suspect. For one, we have to be careful to not presume or imply guilt. Also, there is the family of the suspect we need to be concerned with.

Simply put, there is no valid encyclopedic reason to include the name a suspect, but plenty of BLP concerns that should stay our hand. I stand by my removal, and I expect the admins who then protected the articles feel the same. You are welcome to bring this to a wider venue if you feel it necessary, and I will cooperate in clarifying the matter, but I will not reverse myself on this. &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Although at first I thought naming the minor was against WP:BLP policy, the more I have researched and found articles such as the one Evil saltine mentioned, I have decided that naming the minor in no way violates the policy. His name has been mentioned by the LA Times, CNN,The Huffington Post, Examiner, TIME magazine and Daily Kos. These are only a few of the websites that have mentioned his name, as a google search of his name will prove.


 * Also, IMO I don't think threatening people with a block that disagree with your opinion is the best way to handle the situation, especially if you're implying you would be the one to administer the block. According to this, you aren't supposed to block someone because you've been involved in the content disupte. The second paragraph in that section says the exception is poorly sourced contentious biographical material about a living person. The name of the minor is not poorly sourced and the links I provided are from mainstream news outlets.


 * You said WP:BLP applies strongly in this case. According to this, the sources I mentioned are reliable. WP:BLP also states "Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'." If these news outlets have decided there are no legal consequences to naming the minor, then why should WP worry about legal issues? Also, we are not doing any harm to the minor because his name has already been mentioned countless time by television, newspaper, and website outlets. By WP mentioning his name, no harm will come of it. The only thing that will come of it is educating WP readers about the details of this case.


 * According to the LA Times article, he "has been charged with premeditated murder and will be tried as an adult." Being charged as an adult should also be considered in this case. He is 14, but because of the wide-spread news coverage and because he is being tried as an adult, I think there is more than enough reason to mention his name. You said, "we have to be careful to not presume or imply guilt." I agree that adding he is a suspect is key in avoiding legal issues; no one has an issue with that. Mentioning he is a suspect in no way suggests he is guilty because news outlets constantly use the word when referring to people charged with a crime. Wikipedia is not censored. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't the entity causing harm here. The name is already widespread in the media, so what more of an effect could inclusion have? Obviously the suspect of a murder will lose out from his or her name being widespread, but that in itself isn't a reason to censor it. It would be like removing the names of the shooters from Columbine High School massacre. Maybe the name itself isn't a part of the context, but it's still a relevant piece of information. Evil saltine (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * An example of a national news story where the suspect's names have been mentioned in a WP article: 2006 Duke University lacrosse case. An older version of the article can be seen here. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition, specifically what BLP violations do you refer to (since that is what you cited)? People differ in what they consider "basic human decency." Evil saltine (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are descriptive, not prescriptive. This means they describe common actions and outcomes, not enumerate a list of items that must be followed. One shouldn't try to nitpick your way through the policy looking for the exact sentence something violates, but instead try to understand the greater reason the policy tries to describe and then apply it to the situation at hand. Wikipedia policies aren't laws, they're descriptions of what usually happens in many common situations. This means they're obviously not complete.

Five different admins have now acted to express the view that the name is not appropriate for this article. Wikipedia should not be a shaming pole, nor satisfy the base curiosity of onlookers of a tragic event. The suspects name in no way enhances the article, and my previous question on why it needs to be in were met with very weak replies. To put the name there I think we would need to hear some very compelling reasons why it is encyclopedic and enhances the readers understanding to know exactly which 14-year old did a terrible thing he is sure to regret for the rest of his life. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  06:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize the views of admins were more important than those of the rest of us; I thought they were fellow editors entrusted with special tools. You're right, of course, about what Wikipedia shouldn't be, but I think you're very wrong about the suspect's name not enhancing the article. If we are to have articles about current events—and maybe we shouldn't, but we do—it is absurd not to name names that have already been used widely in the news media and are readily available elsewhere online. The name enhances the article because it represents the identity of the person responsible for the article's existence in the first place. What constitutes "encyclopedic" is highly subjective, it's true, but omitting the name here would be akin to omitting the author's name in an article about a book, and what kind of an encyclopedia would do that? Your statement about the "terrible thing he is sure to regret for the rest of his life" is really conjecture and sounds just a little POV. This has nothing to do with shaming anyone and everything to do with creating a complete, neutral article.


 * I've read WP:BLP five times now and cannot find in it a compelling reason to redact the name. Not even close. Neither can I think of a common-sense reason. If there is a subtle reason that I'm missing, I'd be very interested to hear it, but in the meantime I question the need for page protection. There's certainly been no clear violation of BLP, no persistent vandalism, not anything close to an edit war—just some pointed disagreements that mostly stayed civil, then an extensive discussion, then consensus. Sounds like the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Rivertorch (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well howabout if the trial uncovers something like the suspect was framed, severely impaired, delusional, a part of some sci-fi plot or just maybe on trial for murder? This kid is only known for being a suspect, this article will not in any way be enhance by knowing his name is Jonny Gunfire or Ronny Raygun. This is a news event and we are covering the event not the person. Once the trial and appeals are sorted out we can revisit whether the name will have any encyclopedic value. Until then we should leave the news to newspapers. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#ff6699">boi 07:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What if? His name is already out there. Whatever we do won't have any effect on that. If it turns out he was innocent we would of course include that in the article. We are covering the event, but he is a part of the event, otherwise we wouldn't mention that there was a suspect at all. Evil saltine (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly Evil saltine, his name is already out there...in countless RS.
 * In regards to Benji's comment, "Until then we should leave the news to newspapers," so what you're saying is people shouldn't update WP articles with facts they find in newspapers? Your statement doesn't make sense.
 * In regards to henrik's comment, the fact is we know the suspect's name, and obviously it's not illegal or libel to mention it or else CNN, TIME, and the LA Times wouldn't have mentioned it. It's encyclopedic because it's a relevant part of the case to mention the name of a suspect. All media-covered cases report the suspect's name and wikipedia covers current events, so why would we leave out all of the information given to us by news outlets, except the name? Instead of being constantly asked the question, "Why is it encyclopedic?, I'll ask why it is not encyclopedic. I, along with others, have given the reasons (pointed out with links to news articles, links to BLP guidlines, and common sense) we believe it is indeed encyclopedic and we basically get this response: "Well, 5 admins think we know best and we've protected the article in the version we like and protected it so no one can edit it even though there was no reason to place full protection on it...and oh yeah, we'll block you if you try to make an edit we don't like." Powertrip much?
 * In regards to henrik's other comments, you said "Wikipedia should not be a shaming pole" How are we shaming the person when his name has already been plastered all over news sites, newspapers, and television? Do you really think he will sit and cry because WP mentioned his name? All we are doing is staying current with facts that deal with the case and for the 500th time, naming him as a suspect does not mean we are saying he is guilty. It is a legal term that is commonly used when describing someone involved in a case. Also, when you say "satisfy the base curiosity of onlookers of a tragic event," are you suggesting WP readers just come to read this article to satisfy some odd curiosity to see who might have killed who instead of wanting to learn about the whole background of the case? That phrase doesn't make sense. You said, "One shouldn't try to nitpick." To whom are you referring? When you say, "Wikipedia policies aren't laws, they're descriptions of what usually happens in many common situations. This means they're obviously not complete" does that mean since WP:BLP doesn't specifically mention anything about not mentioning suspect's names, we shouldn't do it? If so, that's your own interpretation and not everyone has to follow it. You said, "my previous question on why it needs to be in were met with very weak replies." That is your own opinion. We have given replies, nothing weak about them. In contrast, we have given you links to show our reasoning, while you and others have done nothing of the sort. You said, "To put the name there I think we would need to hear some very compelling reasons why it is encyclopedic." My suggestion would be to read this entire section again, because "compelling" reasons have been given. Lastly, I see you didn't respond to my mentioning of the Duke Lacross case where the suspects' names were mentioned in the WP article...and you admins are setting bad examples of how WP should operate by reverting to a version you like and then placing full protection on it. I've only been on WP for less than 2 months and have seen this happen several times. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I never implied that we shouldn't use RS nor that I'm an admin. Back on point I see no encyclopedic value in revealing the name of a minor whose yet to face trial in a murder. This kid's name is currently splashed around the news because that's what they do. Five years from now who will care what the name of the person who pulled the trigger? Do our readers need to know is was John Killer or Ronny Raygun. Will that somehow make them well informed? I agree that it would be nice to have a policy that editors need to show exceptional reasons to print the names of minors but absent such a policy isn't common sense enough? There seems little encyclopedic value to gain by printing the kid's name and is more likely to cause them harm, IMHO. And, they haven't been convicted of anything quite yet. Perhaps we can let the actual judge and jury have a go first before we jump on that bandwagon. If you really think they are so notable take a try at created a bio on them and see how that goes. I bet it's halted asap because this kid's only notable for one news event. Their are likely to regret it for the rest of their life and we don't need to compound that harm. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#ff6699">boi 10:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP seems to cover much of this. I also ask those who insist on including this to consider the implications of the shooter's motivations, which we think we know but are unsure of, and how our permanent enshrinement of their deeds will play out over the years while the trial(s) plod on and the news media moves onto the next hyped event. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#ff6699">boi 10:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems a bit over the top. The kid walks in, [redacted] it's reported by multiple reliable sources, and yet some of you think BLP applies? Have we lost our collective minds?!? The kid's name is no secret, as has been pointed out above. It's reported everywhere. To not include it in the article per BLP concerns would smack of wikilawyering, if it even made any sense according to WP:BLP, but it doesn't. Bellwether B  C  11:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Benji, who implied you were an admin? I didn't and am very glad you are not one. It doesn't matter if he is "likely to regret it for the rest of [his] life" because WP and news outlets are just reporting a fact that he is a named suspect. If this hurts his feelings, that's not our problem, it's the court's problems since the court is the one that charged him with murder and his name was released into the public domain. To not report it is withholding the facts about a case many feel to be an important one, all because some think it's mean and might "harm" him. No one said he is notable enough to warrant his own article and thanks for the attitude. (note: Benji likes to takes the opposite side of every discussion I'm involved in and the snarky comments are common practice) We know he is only notable for this one event. Not one person has suggested he is worthy of his own article, so I don't even know why you're talking about that. The fact that he is the one charged with the shooting in an article about a shooting is the most elementary way I can explain to you the reason he should be included. Once again, Benji mentioned that we would be doing harm to him, while his name has already been mentioned countless times on tv, newspapers, websites, etc. I guess some think WP's article on this event should not contain all of the facts in the case. People come to WP to gain knowledge and our primary role as editors is "to write articles that cover existing knowledge" Benji, for someone that got awfully upset when I was removing porn links and very long lists of porn titles from porn actor articles, I'm kind of surprised. You said I was removing encyclopedic information from the site and that "Wikipedia is not censored." I guess it is when one sees fit. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Benji, with respect, you're contradicting yourself big time. If it's a news event and we're covering it, then we hardly can "leave the news to newspapers." The article is indeed about a news event, and every major news outlet has decided the name is newsworthy. And we're "covering the event not the person", huh? How on earth can the two be considered separately when the person is alleged to have created the event in the first place!
 * Should events take an unexpected turn in the case (e.g., dismissal of charges, acquittal, change of suspect's status from adult to juvenile), the name can be removed from the article history, and I would support that. Would the hundreds of Web sites carrying wire-service reports, and the dozens of sites with their own original articles, be so diligent? Doubtful. Arguing that there's necessarily any potential permanent harm by including the name here is specious, since there isn't necessarily any permanence. Rivertorch (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * AgnosticPreachersKid, please stop. Your veiled personal attacks on me are unwarranted and unwelcome. It was inferred above that it was a bunch of admins abusing their powers to censor and not use RS's - I was stating that I was suggesting neither. The concept that I "likes to takes the opposite side of every discussion I'm involved in and the snarky comments are common practice" is simply wrong if not delusional. In fact I've unwatchlisted a few articles because you edited them to avoid some interaction. People don't always agree, that's fine but suggesting in any way that I choose a side opposite yours is simply false. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#ff6699">boi 21:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rivertorch, we are the world's encyclopedia. We are as much or more permanent and accesible than seemingly every other media out there. Much of what we write is the only version of an event people will ever see. We are affecting not only the alleged shooter but also their family, and anyone else with the same name who can't prove they aren't the shooter. What we do here can cause real harm to real people. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#ff6699">boi 21:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wording
I changed "reported" to "alleged" because the original sentence "It was reported that the suspect's motivation for the crime was that King was gay, and as such, the shooting was deemed a hate crime murder by prosecutors." implies without question that he did it. Evil saltine (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem with that. But note that the page is protected, and should NOT really be edited.--Docg 09:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I figured that it was under the scope of BLP as being potentially libelous. Evil saltine (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection template
The page is currently protected citing WP:BLP. BLP does not apply - all information is easily and readily citable, as the name of the suspect is all over the mainstream press. As BLP does not apply, the page should be unprotected, unless it's actually protected to prevent edit warring - in which case the template needs changing.

Given the lack of BLP issues, of course, the article should really be unprotected, and the name included. But that would require an admittance of wrongly protecting the article, so won't happen. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  12:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Unprotection is likely to lead to edit-warring. Best get agreement first.--Docg 12:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The only reason it would lead to edit warring is that some here are misapplying the WP:BLP standards to apply to a person whose name has been splashed all over multiple reliable sources [redacted]. No one has even attempted to show how including the name [redacted] would violate BLP, instead citing vague spirit-of-the-rule nonsense. And it is "nonsense", as the spirit of the rule was not intended to protect cold-blooded killers. Bellwether B  C  13:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neil said, "But that would require an admittance of wrongly protecting the article, so won't happen." You hit the nail on the head. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could simply start referring to him as "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named", a la Voldemort. You know, Say the name and be blocked!!!! Bellwether B  C  15:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Or we could pick an obscure Unicode symbol to represent him and call him "The Suspect Formerly Known As [self-censored]". Rivertorch (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, we could give him a code name, like the Secret Service does the President. I propose we call him "Mork from Ork." Any other suggestions? [I really like the symbol idea, though. Simple, straightforward, and no one living under a rock (but a rock with Wikipedia access) would be any the wiser as to the name of the killer.] Bellwether B  C  17:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To gain consensus
Is there anyone who would object to unprotection of the article and the reinstatement of the suspect's name, provided it is heavily referenced and very neutrally written? Please bear in mind WP:BLP only requires all contentious information to be strictly referenced - it has no clauses about "protecting minors". Such a claim is particularly moot given the abundance of reliable sources identifying "BM" as the suspect, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and 150 or so others. Please comment. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  14:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support, per my above comments. Bellwether B  C  14:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support, per my reasoning on this talk page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support, per BLP and common sense. And I would support semi-protection of the page until the criminal case is resolved. If the name had been redacted by most or all media outlets because the suspect had been charged as a juvenile, I would feel very differently. Rivertorch (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't shoot down the proposal, but I still think that naming and shaming a child is wrong (regardless of what was said below, my personal view is that this applies here). I recognize that there may be a significant cultural difference between different regions of the world in this question though. This is primarily a US-related article, and given the press it is apparently culturally acceptable there. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not one thinks naming and "shaming" the suspected murderer (or child as you call him) is wrong, it has already been done by mainstream media outlets. We are here to report the facts of the case, and the fact is we have a name. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Henrik, I respect you greatly (especially the cool tool you made), but no one's advocating "naming and shaming a child." We're advocating factually recounting what multiple reliable sources have reported about a [redacted], who happens to be under 18. Bellwether B  C  17:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You've just proven my point right there. The named teenager is emphatically not a cold-blooded killer unless and until he is convicted of being one!  At worst, at this moment, he his suspected of being one, and it is alleged that he shot the victim.  I'm sorry, but your choice of wording clearly indicates that there is a fundamental problem with the naming.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (To be more clear, the fundamental problem is that by naming the suspect we prejudge his guild regardless of how weaselly we manage to be in the wording, or how many "alleged" we sprinkle in. The sensationalist press may have no qualms about causing a teenager to be hung in public opinion, but we are an encyclopedia, and we have no need to drum up our sales by such horrid travesty of faux neutrality).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BS. The [redacted] has been "named" in multiple reliable sources. They're not prejudging his [legal] guilt or innocence. The fact is, he [redacted]. Period. What the legal system does with that fact will also be written about in the article. It is a complete and utter misapplication of BLP to claim that it prevents a young man [redacted] from being identified by name, where multiple reliable sources identify that young man by name. This is ludicrous in the extreme. Bellwether B  C  18:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, it's increasingly obvious that your intent here isn't neutral documentation but an understandable (if misguided) sense of wanting "justice". The fact is, you do not know what the facts are, you are not allowed to judge what they are, and you serve neither justice nor the encyclopedia by insisting that the suspect be named.  We are not a social cause, we are an encyclopedia.  The article gains nothing from the name of the suspect.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Coren, just because one person is intent on saying killer doesn't deter the fact that the rest of us are using a legal and neutral term, suspect. Please don't open and shut this case by using one person as evidence of why the name shouldn't be mentioned. So far, consensus is in favor of mentioning the name and we have given reasons why the article does indeed gain from mentioning the name. You have not given us a reason other than you don't think it's right. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct, but that's not quite what I'm doing: I'm using that person as illustration of why it's dangerous and unwarranted to name the suspect.  People will presume guilt. Simply being named as a suspect is enough to destroy a life (regardless of actual guilt).  The fact that even editors here, in the midst of discussing the very distinction, are unable to separate being named as a suspect from being guilty is exactly why we should not do so.  Yes, newspapers and TV news have done so.  They were amoral bastards for doing so, IMO.  But the fact that someone else did it does not excuse our doing it.  And, FWIW, my personal opinion is that the little monster who killed that kid should be drawn and quartered, and the parents who let their kid grow up to be a murderous bigot should be put to task.  But my opinion should not, and does not, affect what is or is not appropriate to put in an article.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, just because someone on this talk page is not using the word suspect (note: Bellweather did say he/she knows the difference between mentioning that in the artcile and the talk page) does not mean readers cannot understand what the word suspect means. I don't think WP readers are that naive. Being named a suspect is part of the judicial process and is what happens when someone is accused of such a horrendous crime. We can even wikilink "suspect" in the article just in case some is unaware of the term. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Coren, why did you just remove my reply to Bellwether's latest comment? I actually agree that saying col-blooded killer was not the right thing and to use the word "suspect" instead. BTW, because Bellweather did not use the word suspect does not mean you have proved any kind of point...at all. Others, including me, have consistently referred to him as a suspect. I'd appreciate it if you didn't remove my comments from the talk page again. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You also erased Anchoress' comment about supporting the mentioning of the name. Was this on purpose? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course not. We seem to have beat each other over with edit conflicts; and apparently I saved an older modified version above one that had been edited in the meantime.  The joys of unthreaded discussions.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) At any rate, the argument has been made. I still am convinced that inserting the suspect's name into the article introduces a significant amount of needless sleaze; and that is serves no encyclopedic purpose. I will request that anyone who still wishes to seriously examine their motivation for doing so, but I will not, of course, edit war against the consensus that will have emerged after the protection expires (which serves the same immediate purpose my earlier warning did, preventing kneejerk reinsertion of the name). Let's hope this apparent tendency of confusing writing an encyclopedia with yellow journalism is a passing fad. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So now we're assuming bad faith (read: "yellow journalism" and your extensive commentary on my motives) are we? It is not "yellow journalism" to report the widely disseminated name of a young man [redacted]. It's called writing an encyclopedia, and no amount of arguing that you think it's "sleazy" will change that fact. That you can type with a straight face (presumably) that including the name of the young man [redacted] doesn't "add anything" to the article is beyond me. (note: I have stopped referring to the young man [redacted] as a "cold-blooded killer", even on the talkpage. Hope that helps us get over the red herring that was being tossed out.) Bellwether B  C  20:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to editors, if you disagree with an admin's personal interpretation of WP guidelines and insert facts that are widely reported, you are apparently inserting "sleaze" in an article. Inserting the name is apparently a "kneejerk" reaction and the insinuation is that we haven't "seriously" thought about it. I guess this whole talk page is not proof enough. Also, the snarky line about confusing writing with yellow journalism (we are apparently guilty of scandal-mongering, sensationalism, or other unethical or unprofessional practices) is "very" administrative of you. Bravo for assuming good faith. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support per my previous comments. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 18:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree with henrik's take on this, seems unfortunate and I regret that we are doing this. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#ff6699">boi 21:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What is there to "regret", other than the fact that we have now had this article up for quite some time with no mention of the actual name of the young man [redacted]? It's a straightforward case of misinterpretation/misapplication of WP:BLP to a case where it does not apply. Bellwether B  C  21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Bellweather, that's enough. I've snipped that last statement.  Any more labelling the suspect as a murderer and you will be blocked. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  21:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, agree with Neil. Evil saltine (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support The information can be very well sourced.  It is integral to the topic of the article.  WP is not censored.  Other articles about crimes list the names of suspects (see, for example, Ipswich 2006 serial murders, where there has now been a conviction, but for over a year beforehand, we gave the suspect's name.)  The only reason I can see to withhold this information is the suspect's status as a minor; unless we specifically add that to WP:BLP as a reason not to name someone though, I think we should. <font color="#32127A">Aleta  <font color="#990066">(Sing)  02:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also strongly support re-adding the suspect name. Histories actions are worthless without a name to go along with them. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of BLP
BLP was developed, in large part, to protect individuals (many of them minors) from 'naming and shaming' in instances where they achieved notoriety against their will, or for something that wouldn't have been notable except for the viral qualities of the internet.

It was developed to protect people (who are otherwise unremarkable and anonymous), in instances where, for example, an overweight child slips and falls on chicken grease at KFC, and it's caught on someone's cameraphone and posted on YouTube, and someone who watches it recognises and names the person, and then if that person's name ends up on Wikipedia it would live on forever. Or instances where the irrelevant (to the story) names of minor children who are passive participants in an event come to be known.

It was not developed to force or allow us to avoid naming critical, active participants in notorious crimes that have been major news. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 14:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal versus Actual and talkpage versus article
To be clear, legally (and in the main article) we can not call him a "cold blooded killer." In actual fact (and on the talkpage) I can refer to him as that, since it's beyond any doubt that's what he did, and that's what he is. There's a large difference between what is legally true (and reported in reliable sources), and thus included in the article, and what is actually true (beyond doubt), and can be talked about on the talkpage. Bellwether B  C  18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Although there's much leeway for stating (relevant) opinions on the talk page, one shouldn't call him that here either. The presumption of innocence is well worth respecting, I'd say, and talk pages are just as accessible to the public as article pages. "Alleged" is the operative word used by journalists, and it's worth using here and everywhere (along with the name of the suspect). The "cold-blooded" modifier is unfortunate not only because it's sensationalistic but also because it suggests you know something about the case that the rest of us don't. Were you there? If not, how can you possibly know what is "actually true (beyond doubt)"? You're making presumptions. Rivertorch (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * From the facts in evidence, and the fact that no one contests he did it, it's pretty clear he's a "cold-blooded killer", but that violates WP:SYN so it doesn't belong in the article. And though I think it's unnecessary, I've also stopped referring to him as such here.
 * Bellweather_BC, please limit yourself to referring to him as a "suspect" - continuing to refer to someone yet to be convicted as a "killer" or "cold-blooded" or anything similar will see you blocked - yes, on the talk page, too. I'm with you on mentioning the suspect's name in the article, but that is all we should be describing him as, on the article or on the talk page - a suspect. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  21:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cut the threats of block. Now. I've done nothing even remotely blockable. I've already unequivocally stated that I won't refer to him as a "cold blooded killer", but there's a distinct difference between what's legally true (he's a "suspect") and what's actually true (based on common sense, and what we know transpired). I don't appreciate having my comments "snipped" because you don't like them. I won't restore them, but you really need to stop. It's very unbecoming. Bellwether B  C  01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an argument for deletion discussions. In protesting my warning (not threat), you made the same error, again . There is indeed a difference between what's legally true and what you think is true.  Stick to the former, please. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  01:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. I just realized that you even object to him being referred to as they "young man who killed the other young man." Wow. No one doubts he did it. It's just a matter of having a trial to see if there were factors mitigating enough to temper any actual sentence he might receive for doing so, or to even potentially find him "not guilty by reason of mental defect" (which is far different than saying he didn't do it). Anyways, it's hard for me to fathom that you find even my new benign wording blockable somehow. (After edit conflict, what is legally true is that he's a suspect. What's actually true is that he killed him. Please save your lectures for someone else.) Bellwether B  C  01:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Bellwether_BC: I agree with you in principle - this isn't a situation like a dead body found by the side of the road where the suspect, even after arrest, may be exonerated. The evidence is pretty cut-and-dried. However, could you please stand down a little? Neil is a very good, level-headed admin who is basically on our side, and I'd hate for this issue to get side-tracked because we end up splitting hairs over what constitutes an unacceptable characterisation of the suspect on the talkpage the way certain other editors have been splitting hairs over keeping his name off the article page. With all due respect, let's just drop this red herring, call the kid 'the suspect' and get back to determining the boundaries of BLP v/v this issue? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 02:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already agreed to do so, even though I find it extremely banal that we can't refer to him by what we know beyond doubt he did. And the only reason I'm upset with Neil is that he keeps dropping warnings and block threats on my page for edits that aren't blockable. If he stops doing so, I have no issues with him. Bellwether B  C  02:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I realise that, and I guess I'm just asking you to drop it, or take it off this page and to yours or Neil's talkpage. Thanks for your forebearance. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 02:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Day of Silence
This annual event is likely to focus heavily on this case. Those interested may want to add it to a "See also" section for future use. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#ff6699">boi 22:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Date of death
I note in the lead that the date of death is said to be February 12th, whereas in the body of the article, it says he was withdrawn from life support on February 15th. I propose that there be a request to edit the protected page to correct this error; I presume the lead is the one that should be changed, rather than the body of the article, based on the references. Risker (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a summary of what happened: "King ... was pronounced brain-dead at St. John's Regional Medical Center in Oxnard about 2 p.m. Wednesday [Feb 13]. He was taken off life support Thursday night [Feb. 14], according to hospital nursing supervisor Sue Crews" . I would recommend changing the "date of death" to the 13th, per brain death: "Today, both the legal and medical communities use "brain death" as a legal definition of death." Evil saltine (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think instead of trying to interpret the meaning of 'dead' (I'd vote for the date they took him off life support), let's cite a reference stating when he died. If there is a contradiction, go with the clear majority of refs or indicate in the text that different sources offer different dates. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 03:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Death is when the person's heart and breathing stops. (I'll see if I can find the relevant statute for that state.) Brain death is not relevant; many people live for years after brain death.  When did the organ harvesting take place?  That will be the date of death. Risker (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Were you replying to me? Because I agree with you, no need to tell me all that. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 03:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The law seems to state that death occurs with either brain death or cessation of circulation and respiration. California Health and Safety Code Section 7180: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead." Evil saltine (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources I've seen take the easy way out and say "was declared brain dead on Wednesday, removed from life support on Thursday." Evil saltine (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A question of process
Is it acceptable to edit another user's statements because you don't like them? Neil did this above, redacting the words "who killed another young man" from several of my written statements. I find this incredibly offensive, pedantic, and--when combined with the block threats he left at my talk page--intimidating. I'm open to other opinions, though, and welcome them here. Bellwether B  C  02:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Bellwether, although we agree that the suspect's name should be mentioned, you're going about it the wrong way...and I say that as friendly advice. Also, please read WP:KEEP. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My question had more to do with what folks think about Neil editing my rather benign comments because he didn't like them. Bellwether B  C  03:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Neil's action. While he might not have liked your words, that wasn't the reason he removed them. With all due respect, I think your comments weren't exactly benign and were, in fact, counterproductive to the discussion. That's my humble opinion. (As the Toyota commercials used to say, you asked for it, you got it.) (OMG, I'm dating myself.) Rivertorch (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Threat singular (if you can call it a threat). It's not because I don't like them, it's because we have a policy - WP:BLP - that, ofr very good reasons, requires comments about living persons to be neutral - even on talk pages.  Until the suspect is found guilty of anything, he is a suspect, nothing more. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  08:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus
It seems there is a consensus per the above discussion to include the suspect's name, provided he is only referred to as a suspect and the statement is carefully, neutrally referenced. Keep it encyclopedic, people. I have reduced the protection for the article down to semi-protection. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  08:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Photograph
I find the photograph used distracting. The victim was 15 and dressing as a female at the time of the alleged crime. Is this picture--which seems to be 5-8 years out-of-date--the only one available? Avocats (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See a discussion on the photograph here. That may answer some of your questions. — Becksguy (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * According to various news articles, King actually was not "dressing as a female" on the day he was shot and killed. (No opinion on whether that should go in the article sooner rather than later.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I read through the discussion of the photo, which revolves around whether to use a photograph based on "fair use."

My concern is that the photo is clearly of the victim much younger than 15--as someone acknowledges in the photo discussion, a "cute kid" is always more sympathetic. The LA Times routinely runs a close-to-contemporaneous picture of the perpetrator (who was 14) next to this picture of the victim. Can anyone report that it is not years out of date? Avocats (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

True, many news articles ran pictures of King and McInerney side by side, and some ran one or the other. This picture has been used by The Ventura County Star, CBS News, The Associated Press, The LA Times, and most likely others. King was lightweight and short, and non-aggressive appearing, all of which seems to make him look younger. I don't think the picture is "clearly" that of a much younger King, or any younger than the others I've seen. This picture has been here for well over three years now and has been used by the press, so I just don't see it's use here as an issue at all. It's not as if someone went looking for a sympathetic or cute picture to pump up support for the victim. — Becksguy (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Updates on legal proceedings

 * 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. . 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)


 * 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. — Becksguy (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Arraignment of McInerney is delayed until August 27, 2009 due to defense request for transcripts.. 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)


 * 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. I'm placing this in the article as it's a significant legal milestone. — Becksguy (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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. — Becksguy (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Trial of McInerney is scheduled to start on May 14, 2010, with a pretrial hearing scheduled for May 7, 2010. — Becksguy (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The California Supreme Court rejected a defense appeal to preserve the possibility of shifting McInerney's trial to juvenile court. — Becksguy (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Trial of McInerney is now scheduled to start on July 14, 2010, after a grant of a two month postponement. — Becksguy (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Defense is requesting another delay in starting the trial; request is pending. Prosecution opposes delay. As of now, trial in adult court is still scheduled to start this Wednesday, July 14, 2010. — Becksguy (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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. — Becksguy (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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. — Becksguy (talk)

Rewrite Pretrial legal proceedings section
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 tag suggestion. For example, there are several logical subject areas, such as content relating to: 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)
 * 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.


 * 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)

I updated the pretrial legal proceedings. — Becksguy (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like things are finally moving to the point of potentially starting the trial after more than three years. Jury selection started yesterday, Monday June 20th, and the prosecutor removed the plea bargain option from the table. The trial is still scheduled to start July 5th, two weeks from now. — Becksguy (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There are currently 54 editors watching the article. My hope is that things will stay calm and ordered. Any thoughts about how to handle developments during the trial? I wonder if we'll be walking a fine line. WP shouldn't function as a news provider, but while I'd personally prefer that the article simply state that the trial is in progress and note only unequivocally major developments, I'm unclear on whether well-sourced details can be legitimately omitted until after the fact. (With the plea bargain option off the table, this could could continue to drag on for years, with appeals .) Rivertorch (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not an article of world importance, and we are not a news provider, so I agree with Rivertorch in reporting only major developments during what is planned to be a 4-6 week trial. The article has been stable for about two years now. It appears to me that this trial will probably hinge on issues of intent, premeditation, provocation, and mitigating factors, at least based on the news coverage so far, and those will most likely be the contentious issues. Well sourced details still have to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. It kinda also depends on how the trial unfolds and how much and what kind of news coverage there is. Most of the later news coverage up to now was reported by the Ventura County Star, after the initial news flurry died down. Maybe major newspapers (e.g. - LA Times) will reengage once the trial starts and becomes more newsworthy. I also hope that any potentially contentious content will be discussed here before insertion and that the process remains calm. — Becksguy (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Trial Starts
Well, the trial finally started on Tuesday July 5, 2011, with a change of venue to Chatsworth, Los Angeles, but with the same judge and prosecutor. I suggest one sentence at the end of the lede announcing the trial start with the venue change (and with an RS inline citation), but nothing else at this point. — Becksguy (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. (The final ¶ also needed to be changed.) Rivertorch (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Where did he get the gun?
Seems very relevant, but no info available... Where Mcinerey get the gun ? CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * CNN reports it belonged to "relatives". (I have added this to the article.) I have a vague recollection of something more specific being reported last summer, but I can't find it now. Rivertorch (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * He took the gun from his house without his father's or grandfather's knowledge. It wasn't clear which one the gun actually belonged to. And I can't find anything more specific either. — Becksguy (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Murder of Larry King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228033820/http://medianewsgroup.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/medianewsgroup-lang-sangabriel-pub01-live/current/launch.html?maven_playerId=videos&maven_referralObject=13a7db9f-9daa-46a8-9faf-01a14ba07a9c to http://medianewsgroup.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/medianewsgroup-lang-sangabriel-pub01-live/current/launch.html?maven_playerId=videos&maven_referralObject=13a7db9f-9daa-46a8-9faf-01a14ba07a9c
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsweek.com/id/147790%26GT1%3D43002
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130205103453/http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/jan/27/hearing-delayed-in-fatal-school-shooting/ to http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/jan/27/hearing-delayed-in-fatal-school-shooting/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511210515/http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/2277.html to http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/2277.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220090642/http://eogreen.huensd.k12.ca.us/ to http://eogreen.huensd.k12.ca.us/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Larry King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080429190044/http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/2291.html to http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/2291.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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)
 * 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. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   12:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See also this recent thread. Rivertorch (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support this if stopped people trying to delete the article, etc. Mish (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "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. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="black" size="3">AniMate <font color="Black">draw  02:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

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. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="black" size="3">AniMate <font color="Black">draw  23:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   13:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad call. There has not been sufficient discussion nor consensus to change the title. — Becksguy (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support move. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   14:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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) )

Here are my concerns/thoughts/comments: — Becksguy (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   17:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Another option (not my preference) might be Alleged murder of Lawrence King. -kotra (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="black" size="3">AniMate <font color="Black">draw  20:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * @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: — Becksguy (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 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.


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * No middle name. Nowhere refers to him as "Lawrence Fobes King". Rebecca (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)

Straw poll for moving article to Killing of Lawrence King

 * Support - Becksguy (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Oppose abstain  - no, there is a valid point here.  What did the coroner call it?  I would support Unlawful killing Mish (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Support Neutral. Rivertorch (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The killing of King appears, by all currently available evidence, to fit the definition of murder, ie: "an intentional unlawful act with a design to kill and fatal consequences."  Exploding Boy (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support for now. The end result of the trial will give us a more accurate description I assume. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  23:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Murder doesn't imply guilt on behalf of the suspect, though it should be interesting to see some of the main objectors here apply this standard to the other "Murder of..." articles. <font face="Segoe Print" color="black">AniMate draw 18:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Murder is standard, less clunky, and within normal usage. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per my reasons above. Murder is misleading at this point. All articles using "murder" need either a conviction or multiple reliable sources describing it as "murder". Each article must be evaluated individually, and precedent takes a back seat to improving the encyclopedia. -kotra (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Um... the Newsweek article that constitutes the bulk of this article's sources is titled "Young, Gay and Murdered." Exploding Boy (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * (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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)

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.. That is the kind of tone we should be taking. — Becksguy (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * Here are a couple:
 * Sandra Cantu homicide (related discussion here—please especially note Spadaro’s reply, which is highly relevant);
 * Caylee Anthony homicide (related discussion here).
 * 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: . Rivertorch (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * (@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)


 * 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)


 * I'm past it - call it whatever you like. Mish (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

I have also changed 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)


 * 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)


 * I also Endorse (per all of the above). Rivertorch (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   18:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)

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".


 * Support. -kotra (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Lawrence King was shot.  The criminal who shot him wnet to the school to shoot him.  The article is about that set of facts. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments above. — Becksguy (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Regardless of intent, he was still murdered. "Shooting" doesn't tell the whole story. It should be Murder of Lawrence King (preferable) or Killing of Lawrence King. -      allstar ▼ echo     22:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But which of these two options, "Shooting of Lawrence King" or "E.O. Green School shooting" do you prefer? -kotra (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If I'm opposing moving it from from "E.O. Green School shooting" to "Shooting of Lawrence King", which is the question of this poll, then that would mean I prefer it stay here at "E.O. Green School shooting" would it not? -  <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:7.4em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  allstar ▼ echo     00:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought that might be the case, but from your explanation, I thought you might be just opposing both. -kotra (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Leave it where it is for now.  Exploding Boy (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - for all the reasons discussed before - when the verdict is in, we can change it if necessary. Mish (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  01:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Prefer to leave it as is until verdict or plea. Second choice would be "Killing of". "Shooting of" doesn't give enough info. Rivertorch (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support It's not the preferred title, of course, but it is an improvement. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   06:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as second choice. The name is the recognisable feature. First choice is "Murder of..." Current title leaves much to be desired. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is just as bad as E.O. Green School shooting. He wasn't shot, he was killed. Killing in the title is the minimum necessary. <font face="Segoe Print" color="black">AniMate <font face="Segoe Print" color="black">draw  18:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but Killing of Lawrence King failed to gain sufficient consensus in the earlier straw poll. I've said I'm happy, and so have others, with either "Shooting" or "Killing", depending on consensus. But definitely not "Murder" as a BLP issue. And "E.O. School" is not very self-evident or known. — Becksguy (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per River's view that we should wait until verdict or plea. Ned 06:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caden (talk • contribs)

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)
 * maybe we should stay with death uncitl the outcome of McIrney's trial. either that or shooting would be a good idea. I think that murder wil be a good choice after the trial but not yet. User:Smith Jones 23:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Except the article isn't so much about his death as about his murder.... Exploding Boy (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Agreed. -kotra (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also agree. Insufficient consensus on any of the proposed titles. — Becksguy (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Why do you all think the school is more important than the victim? Why does the title need to be "Murder of ..." at all? Look at Category:American victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes, the lemmata are just the victims' names. Why not make this article Lawrence King (something)? Which raises the question what the something should be. It's not nice to define someone by his being a murder victim, but sadly that's how he gained wikipediability, not by coming out at school in a defiant way. There's already Charlie Howard (murder victim). Btw the murder-or-whatever-else issue should be settled soon when the trial is over.--82.91.32.67 (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No one, let alone us "all", said that the school is more important than the victim. If you read the comments carefully, you'll see that there were sharply differing views that led to no consensus to change the title. I believe that will change with the end of the trial. (Btw, you're reopening a two-year-old discussion. When the next round of archiving occurs, would you prefer your comment to be archived along with the rest of the thread or broken out as a new section?) Rivertorch (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

McInerney
Since his lawyer is arguing that I'm right it's insanity to claim we have to be afraid he'd sue us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaspiker (talk • contribs) 17:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. There are several things at issue here. One is indeed BLP policy (which is not merely about litigation); there are also WP:NPOV and synthesis to keep in mind, as well as WP:NOT. I'm pressed for time and hope that other editors will jump in and contribute to the discussion. For now, I'll simply point out that the article has been stable for a long time, and there's no reason it should become a free-for-all now that the trial has finally begun. Rivertorch (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn it how did you know sweet talk was my weakness? It's going to be hours before I can post again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaspiker (talk • contribs) 17:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to wait until the trial is over. It's planned to last for 4-6 weeks, and assuming that it's a reasonably accurate projection, we will have a verdict very soon compared to the 2 years that the article has been stable, and the almost 3.5 years since the shooting. — Becksguy (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have removed again the unsourced content added by Iaspiker as a breach of WP:BLP. It is always unacceptable to attribute feelings or emotions to a living subject without a reliable source; in the case of someone currently on trial for murder, it is an egregious violation. Everything the article says about McInerney should be based on what reliable sources say.

For the record, I also

Concur with all above changes by Rivertorch. And I reverted a later BLP about running out of the classroom also, since RS says "walked from". Running from (flight) can imply guilt. — Becksguy (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reverted the part about "sexual advances". It was not supported by the source cited at the end of the sentence.
 * Reverted the removal of the link to Violence against LGBT people under "See also". Whether King was gay, transgender, or both is uncertain and may never be definitively known; that he was at least one of the above is supported by multiple reliable sources.
 * Reverted the link to Francine Hughes, which has no connection with the King shooting that I am aware of.
 * Did not revert the removal of . I concur with that removal, not for the reason mentioned in Iaspiker's edit summary but because it would be better to wait for the trial's conclusion, since hate crime figures in the charges. Rivertorch (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Rivertorch (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of your points River but I disagree with you on the second point. It's not clear whether King was homosexual or transexual. None of the reliable sources clear this up. Therefore the link should go. As for your removal about "sexual advances", I will look further in to that since I own the magazine. I do remember King's father saying that he believed his son sexually harassed Brandon. It was in the Newsweek article I think. I'll check that out to be sure.  Caden  cool  10:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A vast array of reliable sources identify King as gay; some mention the possibility that he was transgender; none that I'm aware of propose he was neither. In any event, he self-identified as gay, which should be enough. Sexual harassment is not synonymous with sexual advances; either can exist without the other. Rivertorch (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A side by side summary of defense & prosecutor arguments in the Ventura County Star is a quick way to see the progress of the trial. Not for inclusion in the article, just for those of us that are following it. More or less continuously updated with latest in red. See here. — Becksguy (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed a sentence about McInerney seeking to recruit others to participate; it was not supported by the source cited. Avocats (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually it is supported by a quotation from the prosecutor (included in the cite below), as reported by the LA Times, in the cited reference for the second sentence:
 * That citation supports both sentences in the paragraph, so I restored the edit and added the existing link to the restored sentence as well, so both sentences now have in-line cites. — Becksguy (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That citation supports both sentences in the paragraph, so I restored the edit and added the existing link to the restored sentence as well, so both sentences now have in-line cites. — Becksguy (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/05/newsweeks-ramin-setoodeh-cant-stand-sissies.html
 * http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/07/21/2399


 * 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)


 * 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, 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * I have raised this as a question Reliable sources/Noticeboard, 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)

Change article title after guilty plea
Now that McInerney has plead guilty to murder (actually second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and use of a gun), we can reopen the question of changing the article title. Of course it doesn't have to change. Thoughts? — Becksguy (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No specific suggestion—just noting that (1) there should no longer be legal or ethical concerns with using the word "murder" in a revised title and (2) Lawrence "Larry" King, whether by itself or othewise, seems wordy and awkward. Rivertorch (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal
Six months have passed. I propose that the article be renamed either Murder of Larry King or, if that seems a bit confusing, what with the several notable Larry Kings in the world, Murder of Lawrence "Larry" King. (I prefer the former, for simplicity's sake.) The current title should be left as a redirect but really isn't appropriate as the primary name, since few people unfamiliar with the case or outside the vicinity of Oxnard will care about the name of the school where it happened. Rivertorch (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good River. I endorse your choice to rename it Murder of Larry King.  Caden  cool  14:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with both River and Caden (obviously per my post above) and support changing the title to Murder of Larry King, provided that we place an hat note for disambiguation. There is an existing disamb page at Lawrence King which lists six Larry Kings in en-wiki. — Becksguy (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. The guilty plea clearly defines this as a murder. Either Larry King or Lawrence King works, though I agree with the need for a hat note. AniMate 22:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This thread has been ongoing for seven days without any disagreement. I read through the previous threads about moving the article and many argued that E.O. Green School shooting was a poor title. It was reluctantly accepted because "Murder of ..." had BLP issues (now moot because of the guilty plea), and we didn't get consensus on the alternatives. We now have consensus to move to Murder of Larry King. Admin not needed. River, why don't you do the honors. — Becksguy (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm planning to do it in the next 8 hours or so. (Need to be distraction-free to do page moves!) Rivertorch (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite?
This article is written in a highly leading way that appears to blame Larry King for provoking his own murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.168.171 (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to be way more specific than that if you want to make that case. The article was crafted with considerable care to meet WP:NPOV and other core policies, but if there are some passages in particular that you find problematic, please say. Rivertorch   <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   15:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, this article is one of the worst I've ever seen. It focuses on the murdered (which itself is unusual) and moreover a great amount of the article speaks of the victim's actions in the lead-up. There is a line which reads, "King was seen "parading" back and forth in high-heeled boots..." I don't understand how this, and quite a few other unattributed quotes, made it in here. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, you can't use direct quotes unless there's a specific reason. And even still, who claims to know he "paraded". This, and most other parts of the page, are clearly forcing the blame on young Lawrence and makes him look like some freak pervert who, to paraphrase the article, didn't love his carers (and the part where one is his carers is accused of abusing him should be next to that claim), letched and bothered the other boys and the killing wouldn't have happened if he had just not goaded the murdering other kid (like how scantily dressed women invite rape and verbal harassment) etc... The real tragic irony is that exactly the kind of thinking and perceptions that got that boy killed are rampant on this wiki page too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.218.131 (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

i tried to correcting the article with the correct pronouns and name. the same editors continue to misgender Latisha and use her deadname. it’s so disrespectful. Therealkagome (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Transphobic Article
I tried to edit this article by inserting Latisha’s correct and chosen name along with her correct pronouns. There has been other editors trying to correct the issue as well as early as 2017. The constant misgendering and use of Latisha’s deadname is blatantly disrespectful and transphobic. It saddens me how the deceased are still disrespected and told who they are. It’s distasteful, for the community and shows that even in death, trans men and women can’t even die as they wished to live. I would love to hear others respective thoughts on this. Therealkagome (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This RfC is premature, there is no indication that WP:RFCBEFORE has been exhausted. Also, no RfC category was used. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, The article before this edit clearly mentions the name Latisha as appropriate and all the changes are not warranted. While the long time consensus has been to mention both names in the first line, the edit only mentions one. The edit incorrectly identifies his birth name in the infobox. In the paragraphs that were changed, one is a direct quote so it changes what they said. The other changes what his father believes without citing a source. The only other changes have already been corrected by other editors. The reasons given for the edits above mine do not cite any sources, support from past discussions or respectfully comment on content. Fettlemap (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I have commented on changes, Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)