Wikipedia talk:"Murder of" articles

Sources of Referenced Guidelines
Within this essay, from the date its first draft was completed until quite recently, it stated, "In the death of Caylee Anthony, the prime suspect was put on trial for murder, and the public widely held beliefs of murder, but since this defendant was acquitted and legally can no longer be tried for murder, the case cannot be labeled as 'murder' under Wikipedia guidelines." That text has been edited to its present form, "If the prime suspect was put on trial for murder, and the public widely held beliefs of murder, but since this defendant was acquitted and legally can no longer be tried for murder, the case cannot be labeled as 'murder' under Wikipedia guidelines. Likewise such a case should also not be labeled as 'killing'. If a new prime suspect emerges, this does not apply." As far as I can tell, no link has been provided to the referenced guideline. The reference may be intended to be to WP:DEATHS, but that is also not a guideline. Further, if that is the referenced page, then the flowchart on that page would indicate that the death, which was determined to be a homicide, should be titled "Killing of..." unless there is a commonly recognizable name, in which case the commonly recognizable name should be used.

If there is a guideline, it should be specifically identified and liked. If there is no guideline, then this essay should be corrected to indicate that it is referencing a suggestion as opposed to a requirement. If the intent is to refer to the suggestions on the deaths page, it should be consistent with that page and the essay should be corrected to indicate that the acquittal of the prime suspect in a homicide case may warrant the retitling of the article as a "killing". Arllaw (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I am the editor who made the edit you describe. If no such guideline is found, can the section be removed entirely? Kire1975 (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Separating the Facts of the Death from the Criminal Prosecution
This article suggests, "If an article were to be created, the general protocol would be to title the article 'Murder of [victim's name].' Such a title focuses not on the perpetrator or victim themselves, but on the event, since the creation of such an article makes the presumption that the event is notable as opposed to the perpetrator or victim." That makes sense. Turning to a historic example, the murder of Lizzie Borden's parents, there is no dispute at all that they were murdered. That is true without regard to the identification of Lizzie Borden as a suspect, and remained true after her acquittal. They did not accidentally fall repeatedly on an axe, then hide the evidence. If Lizzie Borden was innocent, it's an unsolved murder. If she was not, it was still a murder, just one in which the defendant was acquitted.

This subsequent suggestion is inconsistent with keeping an article about a homicide focused on the event, as opposed to the perpetrator or victim, "If foul play has been officially determined, such as by a coroner who ruled homicide as a cause of death, but a murder has not (yet) been adjudicated, the article still can't be titled 'Murder of [victim]', but it should also not be titled 'Death of [victim]', as this would be imprecise. Instead, the article should be titled 'Killing of [victim]'." The status of a prosecution is separate from the facts of a homicide. If the suggestion here is that a death has been officially determined to be a homicide, but has not been determined to also be a murder, then the title "Killing of..." makes sense because not all homicides are murder. But when the homicide is unquestionably a murder, the question of whether a criminal case has been or can be adjudicated should not be relevant to the article title. An unsolved murder is still a murder, even if it is never adjudicated.

The essay also states, "If the prime suspect was put on trial for murder, and the public widely held beliefs of murder, but since this defendant was acquitted and legally can no longer be tried for murder, the case cannot be labeled as 'murder' under Wikipedia guidelines. Likewise such a case should also not be labeled as 'killing'. If a new prime suspect emerges, this does not apply." I have separately raised the issue that there does not appear to be any such guideline. If there is a guideline, I would appreciate it being specifically identified and linked.

Such an approach unquestionably shifts the focus of the title from the facts of a death to the suspect. There are many murders in which a prime suspect was acquitted, but in which there is absolutely no dispute that a murder occurred. Whether a prime suspect is incorrectly identified or manages to secure an acquittal despite factual guilt, the facts of the case should govern how the article is titled. A theoretical article about the murder of Lizzie Borden's parents should continue to identify them as having been murdered. Those charged with the murder of Emmitt Till were acquitted, but their acquittal did not render his death something other than a murder.

Similarly, where there is no question that there is a culpable homicide short of murder, the fact that a person accused of committing a killing may have resulted in acquittal does not warrant retitling the article to suggest that the wrongfully killed person merely died. If another person was instrumental in causing the death, it would require some very unusual facts for the case to not be reasonably described as a killing. Arllaw (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I propose rewriting the "When murder is uncertain or not unlawful" section as follows:


 * == When murder or death are uncertain or not unlawful ==
 * Within the context of this discussion the the word "homicide" means "the killing of one person by another, whether premeditated or unintentional". The description of a death as a homicide does not of itself imply legal culpability. For example, a homicide that is determined to have been a lawful exercise of self-defense is a killing of one person by another but without legal culpability.


 * The determination of whether a homicide was a killing or a murder should be made based upon reliably sourced information. The finding that a death was the result of homicide is not sufficient to support an article title that describes the death as a murder. If there is doubt that a death by homicide was a murder, the article should be titled "Killing of [victim]".


 * The legal definition of murder differs between legal jurisdictions. A simple definition of murder is an unlawful homicide that is committed with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought includes premeditation but also describes a state of mind for deaths that are not intended by the killer, such as where a defendant causes the a death through intentional conduct that shows conscious disregard for the lives and safety of others. The determination of whether a homicide was a murder is not one that should be made by an editor, and an article should not be titled "Murder of [victim]" in the absence of reliably sourced information sufficient to support that title.


 * === "Death of" articles===
 * If the cause of a death is unknown, may be the result of an accident or may be attributable to natural causes, the article should be titled "Death of [person]" instead of "Killing of [victim]" or "Murder of [victim]". For example, in the Death of Mutula Kilonzo, the victim died under suspicious circumstances but foul play was never conclusively determined, so such an article must not be labeled as a murder.


 * === "Killing of" articles ===
 * If the cause of death has been determined to be a homicide but has not been determined to be a murder, the article should be titled "Death of [person]" instead of "Murder of [victim]". If there is doubt that a death resulted from homicide, the article should be titled "Death of [person]".


 * === "Murder of" articles ===
 * Laws that define murder vary by legal jurisdiction, and the classification of a death as a murder should be established through reliable sources. Individual editors should not title an article as a murder based upon their own beliefs or popular theories about what may have happened in a given case.


 * === Official findings and proceedings ===
 * Although official determinations of the cause of death will not always be available, when those determinations are available they should be considered when titling an article.


 * ==== Determination of homicide====
 * When a death certificate includes a finding that the death resulted from the act of another person, such as by describing the cause of death as a homicide, or the death has been determined to be a homicide after an official inquiry such as a coroner’s inquest, the article may be titled in a manner consistent with that determination. A finding of homicide supports a title, "Killing of [name]". Such a finding in association with other reliably sourced information, or a more detailed finding that the death resulted from murder, will support a title, "Murder of [victim]".


 * Later legal proceedings may justify or require that the title of an article be revisited. For example, a later inquest or trial may result in the determination that no homicide occurred, in which case the article should be titled as "Death of [name]". Conversely, a death that was initially determined to be a natural or accidental death may upon further review be determined to have been a homicide, in which case it may be appropriate to title the article as "Killing of [victim]" or, when appropriate, "Murder of [victim]".


 * ==== Criminal prosecution and verdict ====
 * The prosecution of a suspect or suspects in a homicide case and the resulting verdict may be relevant to how an article should be titled.


 * ===== Undisputed murder =====
 * In some prosecutions there will be no dispute that the death resulted from a murder, with the focus of the prosecution being whether or not the defendant committed the murder. When murder is not in question, even if the defendant is acquitted the article may remain titled as "Murder of [victim]".


 * ===== Admission of homicide =====
 * In some prosecutions a defendant will admit the death was a homicide and that they committed the homicide, but will defend on the basis that the homicide was not a murder. For example, a defendant may be acquitted of murder but convicted of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. Following such a verdict, a article about the victim’s death may be titled "Killing of [victim]", but should not be titled "Murder of [victim]".


 * Similarly, a defendant may admit to the homicide but be found not guilty on the basis that the homicide was legally justifiable, for example as the result of the defendant’s being found to have acted in lawful self-defense. Due to the admission of homicide the article may be described as "Killing of [victim], but should not be described as "Murder of [victim]".


 * On occasion a defendant may admit to the facts of a prosecution, but be found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. As that verdict involves a finding that the defendant did not have the necessary criminal intent to be found guilty of murder, the article should be titled "Killing of [victim]".


 * ===== Denial of involvement =====
 * If a defendant denies involvement in a murder, the defendant’s acquittal is not relevant to the title of the article. A finding that the defendant was not involved does not make it any more or less likely that a death was by murder, whether committed by another known suspect or an unknown person.


 * ===== The verdict excludes homicide =====
 * In some cases the defendant will be the only possible suspect. For example, a defendant accused of delivering a lethal drug overdose to another person may admit that no other person was in a position to deliver a lethal overdose. A verdict of acquittal reflects the conclusion of the jury that no homicide occurred, and the article should be titled "Death of [person]".


 * Appropriate wikilinks would be added. I appreciate any thoughts and feedback. Arllaw (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Any objections to making these changes? Any suggestions beforehand? Arllaw (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello I am editor Alalch Emis who expanded somewhat and made some changes to this essay in October last year, bringing it from this revision to this revision. I have looked at your edits, they are great, and I'm in full agreement. This is just to give you some feedback as you commented on the lack of discussion. I haven't read this talk page yet. Are the issues still unresolved? Sincerely —Alalch E. 18:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the feedback. I implemented the changes, with a few refinements and corrections. I would of course welcome anybody to take a look at the present article and make suggestions. Arllaw (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

"public widely held beliefs of murder"
What does this phrase actually mean? The full sentence here reads: If the prime suspect was put on trial for murder, and the public widely held beliefs of murder, but since this defendant was acquitted and legally can no longer be tried for murder, the case cannot be labeled as "murder" under Wikipedia guidelines. It just doesn't seem grammatical to me. Should the coroner's determination be set aside in preference to the public's "widely held beliefs"? If a defendant was wrongfully charged of an actual murder and acquitted, regardless of whether the actual murderer is charged/convicted or not, how does that invalidate a coroner's determination? Does it mean something else? Can anyone rephrase this so it makes more sense? Kire1975 (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The public's beliefs about a death or homicide may be relevant to an article, such as in a high profile case in which there is broad public sentiment that there was a miscarriage of justice. Yet that would mean "public beliefs" as supported by reliable sources, not an editor's own beliefs or impressions about what other people believe. Further, even if somehow documented, the public's belief about how a death occurred does not seem relevant to how an article about a death should be titled.
 * The quoted passage also refers to a requirement that supposedly flows from Wikipedia guidelines, but (as one of the other topics on this page indicates) no such guideline is identified, and no such guideline seems to exist.
 * No matter how an article is titled, if there are appropriate reliable sources that document a coroner's finding, that may be relevant content for the article, as would any changes in a coroner's finding of cause of death if a case is revisited.
 * Where a defendant is acquitted, I think that Wikipedia should refrain from referencing the charge against that person as anything but historic (e.g., "Joe Smith was charged with murder, but was acquitted on [date]..."). We would need to avoid any WP:BLP issues. An acquittal alone, even of a prime suspect, does not transform something that was an obvious murder into either a non-homicide or accidental death.
 * Long story short, perhaps the intent is to suggest that when there is insufficient reliably sourced information to support identifying a case as a murder or homicide, we follow reliable sourcing instead of public opinion; but it needs to be revised for both accuracy and clarity. Arllaw (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)