Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Killing NPOV

Description of Killings
I've noticed a number of articles which use terms like murder, atrocity and massacre when it is not clear that the subject would generally or objectively be labeled as such. I do not believe this is in keeping with the NPOV policy unless these labels are offered as someone's opinion on the acts.

While it is common to believe that something like the Holocaust is objectively atrocious, murderous, wrong or evil, this is clearly not adhering to the NPOV policy.

These terms are no more appropriate for statement as fact than obviously biased labels such as "ugly" or "evil".

I'd like to forumate a section for inclusion in the NPOV policy because this is a very widespread problem which people seem to have difficulty grasping the bias of.

Fourdee 01:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added my below, which is more generally applicable. Fourdee 06:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Terms

 * Murder is appropriate when the crime of murder has been committed and prosecuted. However it is often used on wikipedia as a pejorative label for a killing which was not necessarily treated as that crime.  This is not a neutral point of view, as not everyone would necessarily agree a given act was wrong.  Unless the act is treated as "murder" in the jurisdiction and circumstances it occured, it should be refered to as a killing.  Also, if the killers have been acquitted in a court of law, it is definitely not factually accurate or reasonable to continue to refer to it as a murder.


 * Atrocity is always a biased label and should not be used on wikipedia except as a quote. No act can objectively be labeled an atrocity.


 * Massacre is sometimes used as the common title for an incident, and in that case it is appropriate for use on wikipedia. However when used to describe an incident, even one commonly labeled as a massacre, it is pejorative and biased.  More neutral terms such as "incident", "events", or "killings" should be used.


 * Brutality is an opinion, not a fact. Except when offered as a quote of someone's opinion, this is not an appropriate adjective for Wikipedia.


 * Barbaric is a pejorative label and never a fact.


 * Victim is not neutral when used to refer to any act for which there is not a clear criminal offense, as it applies a value judgment to the act. It is sufficiently neutral when there is no opposing point of view ("victims of food poisoning" for example).


 * Assassination is a killing by order of (a faction of) the apparatus of State, or those opposing the State, as admitted by the parties involved. It is otherwise a murder as decreed by a court of law, or simply killing where there is no legal judgement. Assassination as a political act is an extremely sensitive issue, and requires the strictest application of NPOV in its reportage.

Please add any similar biased terms here.

Examples
Please place examples of articles with this bias in this section.

Opinion of Fact versus Value Judgment
There is a distinction to be made between an opinion of fact and a value judgment.


 * An opinion of fact reflects a belief about what is objectively true, such as whether the Apollo astronauts set foot on the moon, or John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a single shooter.
 * A value judgment is a characterization of one's opinion of the moral, ethical, aesthetic or other subjective quality of something or someone, such as that something is beautiful, proper, praiseworthy, brutal, atrocious or wrong.

It's appropriate for a biology article to operate under the assumption that evolution is true, as that is the prevailing opinion of fact in that field and it would be tedious to always mention creationism (or even more esoteric theories), however it is never acceptable to to state a prevailing value judgment as fact, like that Hitler was evil (the easiest example). A value judgment of any kind should always be stated as a cited opinion of some person rather than as a fact.

Characterizations of Violence
It is important to remain neutral when characterizing violence, war and killings, as there are often two clear sides to these events which hold opposite opinions on the ethical justifications for them. For example, the use of murder to describe actions which were not classified as the crime of murder in the place and time they occurred, or for which there was an acquittal (or conviction for crime other than murder), or for which there is a credible opposing characterization, is probably a pejorative value judgment rather than a statement of fact. The use of massacre in reference to events which are commonly known as massacres may be appropriate, but more neutral terms (such as "killings", "events", etc.) can be used when not using the full common name of the event, for example the Boston massacre or St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. Describing actions as "brutal", "barbaric" or "an atrocity" is never a statement of fact, and should only be offered as a cited opinion.

Comments
Please place any comments you have in this section.


 * I'm not sure I'm comfortable with such a prescriptive section becoming policy. I think there are probably a lot of valid exceptions to this rule.  Specifically, if relevant sources almost universally refer to an event using one of these POV terms, I think it would be problematic to avoid using the term.  The word "massacre", for instance, has a very specific meaning: it means an event where a large number of people were killed indiscriminately.  If this description of an event is supported as a fact by a large majority of sources (i.e., it is the mainstream point of view) then describing it as a massacre doesn't seem a problem to me.  Some of the other words in the examples sections are more of a problem, though, and I agree that describing something as "barbaric" or an "atrocity" is almost never warranted. JulesH 07:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I definitely see what you're saying. Let's take the Boston Massacre though.  I mean, that's what the event is known as so it obviously should reflect that in the title of the article.  However, should the body of the article call it "a massacre" (a pejorative label) any more than "atrocity" or "murder" when the solders were acquitted of murder and from their perspective had every reason to fire on what they believed was a violent mob?  If a court of law found that it was not "murder", how could the article describe it as "a massacre" - versus the factually common label of "The Boston Massacre" which is of course necessary since it is the name of the event?  I think this applies to very many articles (of which I personally have varying opinions on the events) that include a subtle bias in their choice of terms.  I think the most neutral terms should prevail in all cases.  Whatever the prevailing value judgment is, it is only a value judgment and should not be treated as a fact. Fourdee 07:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that massacre only relates to "indiscriminate" mass killing. The word arose from the practice of putting ones enemies to the sword after a battle or seige. It was used by the Romans to discourage rebellion as part of military doctrine, but otherwise was a rare event. In (European) Medieval times the opponents in a conflict could expect "Christian Charity" from each other (well, the nobility could - nobody asked or cared about the 'poor bloody infantry') so killing your enemies once they had surrendered was a notable event. Not only notable but a specific act against a specific group of people.
 * It is only lately that the idea of the mass killing of defenceless people (including those whose weaponry were so outclassed as to render them defenceless) has devolved from the previous understanding. LessHeard vanU 21:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a problem with this proposal, wich is that most opinions are hardly universal. Usually, in most such cases, something just seems universal but only within a certain group (wich can even be a country, or a part of the world). Unquoted opinions and judgements should be avoided, even if all the US or all the "occidental world" support them, as not doing so would fill Wikipedia with a systemic bias. Perón 02:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * These definitions are too narrow. One of the focuses of this issues has been the characterization of Emmett Till's death as a "murder". I do agree with the dislike of the term "barbaric" but that's already covered by existing NPOV language. Yes, "massacre", "genocide", and related terms are loaded and their use results in serious editing dipsutes. I don't think these rules will change that. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And I think the existing strictures of WP:NPOV are already flexible enough to deal with cases in which a questioning of terms is warranted. I do generally think this proposal is losing sight of the forest for the &c. &c.  Ford MF 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's come up again in Reign of Terror and probably exists in a lot of articles. I tried to remove "draconian" and "victim" (victim to describe people who were legally criminals at the time - stunning example of bias and newspeak, whatever my personal opinions might be), and they were quickly restored by someone saying "draconian" is merely descriptive (I'm sure someone thinks marijuana laws are draconian, should that article read as such?  and someone probably thinks rape laws are draconian, perhaps it should read that also) and that "victim" is not POV - when at the time the "victims" were "criminals".  I agree the current NPOV policy covers this, but I don't think it makes clear between on an opinion on a fact (like evolution), and a pure opinion of value, such as "wrong", "evil", "draconian", "atrocity", "beautiful", "stunning" etc. etc. etc.  A value judgment is never a fact no matter how many people agree with it.  Maybe just a quick paragraph or section heading in WP:NPOV could cover this without getting into specifics.  Fourdee 21:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jules, this approach is way too globally prescriptive. Though I sympathize with the motivations here, I feel that the details of the choice of language is something that often needs to be driven by discussion in individual cases.  Also the line between value judgment and opinion of fact is a lot fuzzier then I think you make it.  For example, one of the American Heritage Dictionary definitions of "atrocity" is an illegal act of cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians or prisoners.  That definition could be objectively applied, especially as relates to war crime prosecutions and the like.  As another example, consider the practices of some past armies.  At times they wanted to be perceived as "barbaric" so that no one will dare oppose them (the Mongols under Gengis Khan come to mind).  Is it wrong to describe something as barbaric if both the initiator and the victims saw it that way?  Or for that matter to discuss the fact that being barbaric was the whole point?  Dragons flight 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think that the existing NPOV structures are capable of removing the majority of the concerns here. It must be remembered that many of the words here do have an objective basis, and while seemingly pejorative in nature, do have a proper objective context where they would be appropiate. In truth, it's a case-to-case basis, and really depends on the decisions made upon the structure of specific articles. Sephiroth BCR (Converse)  21:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think something along the lines of Fourdee’s Proposed Addition to WP:NPOV would be a useful clarification to an issue that WP:NPOV treats weakly. I see particular value in his discussion of the distinctions to be made between “an opinion of fact” and “a value judgment”, because it’s a problem frequently – and often contentiously – encountered on Wikipedia.  However, I do have a problem with including something like his “Terms” list in a policy like NPOV; an essay would be a more appropriate venue for capturing these IMO.


 * In fact, an essay might cover not just objectionable terms for violence, but other labels (positive or negative); this would be a particularly useful aid for our many editors for whom English is not their mother tongue and lack an apprehension of the implications and subtleties some of these words convey. Having an explanatory guide such a user can be directed to may save a lot of heated discussion about “POV” as well as revert wars.  That said, though, I have problems with several of the example terms given above.  For example, assassination is inaccurately defined, and there is a lot of debate over whether victim is always to be treated as the subject of intentional violence (or an inherently non-neutral term), or (with all due respect to JulesH) whether massacre “has a very specific meaning”.  Placing such terms – and explanations of when they are or are not appropriate in a an encyclopedic work – in an essay would also allow such contentions to be addressed in a way that doesn’t disrupt talk page discussions of the policy itself, which is an “overly exercised” place already. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Proposed Addition to WP:NPOV (and that alone) is actually kind of reasonable, I think, in that it concisely addresses and clarifies a certain aspect of NPOV. I regard the Characterizations of Violence section as hopelessly narrow.  And I vehemently oppose the idea of any kind of list of terms, which puts Wikipedia editors in the position of language police regarding what words may or may not appear in Wiki article.  Any list of forbidden adjectives (because that's what such "terms" would be) would soon become so long (or so embattled) as to be unmanageable, and useless to those you suggest it might help (i.e. non-native English speakers).  Ford MF 01:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This article may be worth reading.  Λυδ α cιτγ  23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how this discussion came about, but I was involved in a similar one recently here. The general consensus that came out of that was that deaths should be always described using "kill" (add suffix as applicable) not "murder", and that if someone was convicted of murder a clarification of "x was convicted of his/her murder" was to be used. One Night In Hackney  303  02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing is just nonsense. We already have rules on verifiability and so forth, trying to shove something that should be self-evident into NPOV policy is a waste of time. Furthermore, much of the above is still wrong. Claiming that you can;t call a murder murder unless someone is prosecuted is just completely wrong. Take the Jack the Ripper murders, for example. Those were murders. Everyone knows they were murders, They were not suicide. It'd be fair to call them brutal murders. But nobody was ever prosecuted.

This whole page is a long winded solution to fix a problem that doesn't exist in a ham-fisted way that will cause more problems than it solves. DreamGuy 06:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Under UK law a murder cannot be classed as such unless the person committing the act is of sound mind, which isn't likely to be proved unless a conviction has occurred. Therefore to describe any killing as murder without a conviction fails the verifiability policy. One Night In Hackney  303  12:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's exactly right, precisely what I'm talking about. All of wikipedia needs to be gone through to remove that sort of bad (logically incorrect) assumption and/or bias.  The goal and policy of wikipedia is to report facts neutrally, not to report conjecture and opinion as bald fact.  It's difficult to report things completely objectively but this particular variety of bias should be pretty easy to identify - fighting tooth and nail with other editors who refuse to see the assumptions they are making might not be easy though.  Fourdee 11:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Killed is a more neutral term, and if used correctly it doesn't sterilise or whitewash an article. Providing the circumstances in which someone was killed are made clear, the reader can draw their own conclusions. Therefore the facts are being presented neutrally and speaking for themselves, as recommended. One Night In Hackney  303  17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the proposal, and agree with DreamGuy. I will go further and say that systematically applying this rule will create far more WP:NPOV problems then it solves. For example:
 * The term "Katyn massacre" originally referred to the massacre incident, at Katyn Forest
 * Since "More neutral terms such as "incident", "events", or "killings" should be used" to describe a massacre..oops, I meant incident. Personally, I don't understand why we can't call a massacre a massacre.


 * specialized units called Einsatzgruppen murdered killed Jews and political opponents in mass shootings
 * Just imagine the edit wars when we strictly apply the rule "Unless the act is treated as "murder" in the jurisdiction and circumstances it occured, it should be referred to as a killing."


 * Well, if we leave personal judgements or political ideas behind, a murder is a crime and agents working for a state and executing it's policies and commands can hardly be considered criminals. Were the Einsatzgruppen acting on their own? Had they abused of their authority doing things they were not legally allowed to do? Perón 23:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, if the circumstances in which someone was killed are adequately described, the use of loaded POV terms such as murder is not necessary. One Night In Hackney  303  23:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And thus I make my point regarding "the edit wars" when editors delete the term "murder" describing anything having to do with the Holocust, because it wasn't a crime in the jurisdiction and circumstances it occured. My point here wasn't that we couldn't substitute "killing" for "murder" and make a readable article.  My point was it would create needless debates and bickering.--Work permit 01:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If the holocaust article currently contains the term "murder" that should (must) be removed. There is no more reason for it to be in there than the Hiroshima bombing article.  Murder is not a neutral term for killing, it says the killing was wrong, and wrongness is an opinion.  The prevalance of some opinion or even international law does not make a value judgment a fact.  The only reason I can see someone would prefer to have the term "murder" in place of "kill" is that they prefer the connotations and value judgment applied by "murder".  "Kill" doesn't say whether it's right or wrong, and Wikipedia should not state rightness or wrongness as a fact. Fourdee 02:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We would need to remove Virginia Tech massacre and Columbine High School massacre from the article on Mass murder. In fact, entirely delete the Murder-suicide article, since by definition it doesn't exist.


 * Remove any mention of Crime against humanity which "consists of acts of persecution or any large scale atrocities against a body of people", since "atrocity is always a biased label" and "No act can objectively be labeled an atrocity." --Work permit 22:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Something to that effect needs to happen. No value judgment should be stated as fact, particularly in categories, lists, section headings, etc.  In the absence of some sort of proof (which is generally considered to be a criminal conviction), who's to say which party killed whom in what circumstances in a "murder-suicide".  Perhaps they were legally insane and not able to be convicted of murder in that jurisdiction?  Perhaps it involved some kind of mitigating circumstances which make it manslaughter, or a justifiable killing?  "Murder" is not a fact, it is a pejorative term for a killing, and also the name of a crime.  The pejorative sense is never a fact, and the crime can only be determined true in a court of law.


 * Consider this hypothetical scenario: husband threatens wife with gun, wife wrestles gun away and shoots him in process, shoots self in despair. The police might say "this appears to be a murder-suicide" but that is not proof that it was, and in fact in that case it was not, it was just suicide.  The article on "murder-suicide" itself is *quite* appropriate since that is a label we use, however applying that label as a *fact* to any given scenario is outside the policies and intent of wikipedia.  It would be appropriate to say that the police felt it was a murder suicide, not that it was definitely a murder-suicide.  A police statement about something like that is not subject to the same rigorous proof as a court case.  It is appropriate to say something like "so and so died in an apparent murder-suicide[1]" and cite the police statement to that effect (which would surely read that it *appeared* to be so).


 * As far as crimes against humanity, if there is a conviction in some court of law, it is of course appropriate to mention that *fact*, which would apply to the actions of specific individuals. A number of people who had some involvement in the holocaust for example were acquitted, or simply never charged with any crime - to describe their actions as criminal, atrocious, murderous or wrong would be pejorative and/or factually incorrect.  By most international legal standards, the Hiroshima bombing should be called a war crime too.  The victors have a great degree of power in defining who was an "aggressor" or "war criminal" and these obviously biased value judgments should not be reported as fact.  It is not neutral.  Fourdee 02:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't mix things. Calling this or that situation as a "murder", a "Crime against humanity" or similar is one thing. To explain, in an abstract and unfocused way, what is a murder or a crime against humanity, is another. Perón 03:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it's an important point to make. The articles Murder and Atrocity and etc. are quite appropriate because they are (biased) terms which we use.  However to label something as factually being one of those value judgments is obviously not NPOV. Fourdee 05:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Work permit - I don't understand why you seem to think that the Holocaust evidence that some killings are "factually" atrocious, murderous or wrong. Wrongness is not a fact, period. For every killing there is probably someone who thinks it was awful, likely there are a great many people who do, and other people who do not. Personally the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre (for example) is very disturbing to me - but I still want the article to be neutrally phrased. What WP:NPOV and WP:V insist on is that we report only facts - facts which may include published opinions (cited as such) - and represent all major sides "equally" - especially that we offer no particular opinion in the voice of the writer of the article. If you want the Holocaust article to include the claim that it was wrong, atrocious, brutual, murderous, whatever, cite a fact (including a published opinion) which supports that. Anything which is not directly a quote, or is not cited as an opinion of some person, needs to be limited strictly to what is factual. This is pretty easy to understand, and as Jimmy Wales said, it is mandatory.

I really think it is important to understand the distinction I drew above - there are opinions of what the facts are (did the holocaust occur, did man walk on the moon, did we evolve from dinosaurs, etc.), and there are pure opinions - value judgments (good, wrong, evil, ugly, pretty, better, etc.). It is never appropriate on Wikipedia to offer a value judgment in the voice of the article writer. Fourdee 05:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I find your distinction artificial. There is a gradiation between "things that everyone agrees on" and "things that many people disagree over".  There are factual statements that nearly everyone agrees on (i.e. the Earth is round) and there are factual statements that many people disagree on (i.e. man evolved from apes).  Similarly, there are value judgments that nearly everyone agrees on (i.e. torturing children is wrong) and their are value judgments that few people agree on (i.e. Clinton was the best president ever).  WP:NPOV tells us that "by 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute'", and there is no fundemental reason that can't treat as factual a value judgment that is not seriously disputed.  For example, our articles tell us that Genghis Khan "forged a powerful army based on merit to become one of the most significant and successful military leaders in history" and and that "New York City is an important economic center, ... important cultural center, and ... important center for international diplomacy."  Obviously, being "significant", "successful", or "important" is a value judgment, so by your logic all of these statements should be predicated by who thinks so and be followed by opposing viewpoints (if you can find any).  However forcing the use of such constructions when essentially everyone agrees will generally lead to stilted language and may give the false impression of meaningful dispute.  NPOV is about fairly presenting conflicts of opinion by attributing opposing views to their principle proponents and giving appropriate weight to each side.  It isn't and shouldn't be a prohibition on subjective language even in the absense of substantive disagreement.  Dragons flight 07:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I think all those terms "important", "significant", "successful" "powerful" should be cited, qualified or removed (who says "New York is an important cultural center" and what are their qualifications to define what is factually important - and important in what regard) If they are not properly cited, how are they verifiable in any way?  Between WP:NPOV and WP:V I those terms are always not allowed to be stated in the plain voice of the article writer.  For matters over which there is no disagreement, nobody is really going to care so it's not important, even though it still does not meet the standards of those policies.  I also dispute that there are very many value judgments which nearly everyone agrees on.  The holocaust is not one of them, and was certainly not one at the time it happened.  It's safe to say every war, massacre, atrocity, religious conflict, etc. is quite controversial.  At any rate, there is the obvious point of view of the "perpetrator" in every single case of a "victim", and the polices require us at the least to give equal, neutral voice to those two points of view.  Best way to do this without citing a lot of horrible stuff neither you or I would care to cite is just use a neutral phrasing.  Fourdee 07:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect, I think you are reading more into WP:NPOV and WP:V than is actually there, and taking their directions to an unproductive extreme. That's not to say that there aren't many cases where "murder", "massacre", etc. are disputed terms and should be treated with balance, because there are many cases where such language is problematic.  However, it does not follow that all subjective language should be verboten.  Dragons flight 08:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree, WP:NPOV already clearly supports the distinction I am making. To quote:


 * "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.


 * By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion."


 * That addresses exactly what you are saying but doesn't phrase it clearly enough. "That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion."  This could as easily (and should) read something more extreme - "That killing civilians is wrong is a value or opinion" or "That the holocaust is wrong is a value or opinion" or that "That New York City is an important cultural center is a value or opinion."  Those are not facts which can be asserted in the voice of the article writer, they must be attributed.  Absolutely no value-judgment is a fact.  NPOV needs to be updated to make clear what it already says.  Fourdee 08:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" and "a piece of information about which there is some dispute" are the controlling language. If there is no significant dispute then it is a fact under the meaning of NPOV.  Value judgments can be facts if there is not significant dispute.  Obviously you disagree, but in my opinion the text you quote does not support your conclusion.  Yes, it should be updated, but to make it clear that NPOV is about dealing with disputed views and not simply subjective language.  Dragons flight 08:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I accept that labeling a value judgment as "a fact" is not the normal meaning, but it is the meaning I believe is appropriate to applying NPOV. Dragons flight 08:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not my reading. "There are many propositions which very clearly express values or opinions" implies to me that such a proposition is not to be treated as a fact.  The "serious dispute" portion is intended to refer to disputes over facts, such as the JFK assassination, evolution/creationism, etc.  The section, to carry out what appears to be its intent, should define 3 categories:


 * undisputed facts (or not credibly disputed facts) - mars is a planet - only these may be stated in voice of editor
 * disputed facts - JFK was killed by a single shooter - may be offered as cited
 * value judgments - something is good, bad, better, worse, ugly, beautiful, important, praiseworthy, wrong, right - may only be offered as cited and attributed opinions of published source


 * The very meaning of neutral voice is one without bias, one which doesnt ascribe values to things. It seems to me that to pick apart the phrasing of WP:NPOV is avoiding its intent.  A value-judgment per se, in and of itself, is not a fact in any meaning of the word (it's a fact people have opinions, e.g. a citation, but the values they ascribe are not factual qualities of what is described) and I have a hard time believing that the intent of NPOV was to allow any value-judgments at all to be given in the voice of the editor.  Fourdee 08:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On a personal level, I think we have to agree to disagree. But I would simply state that there is no bias in plainly stating those judgments that are generally agreed upon (e.g. "The United States is a powerful country with an important impact on international affairs.")  On a policy level, I would encourage you to seek additional input from others and refer them to this discussion.  Dragons flight 09:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no value judgement in using proper words to describe events. I maintain that Polish officers at Katyn, as well as students at Virginia Tech and Columbine were massacred.  By this, I simply mean a large number of helpless or unresisting human beings were wantonly killed.  I maintain that atrocities were committed at the My Lai massacre.  By this I mean there were acts of unusual cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians or prisoners (in addition to their just being killed).  I didn't call these acts evil, immoral, or unjust.  I placed no value judgement on them at all.  I simply describe them with the vocabulary that is widely used to describe such acts. If you choose to interpret massacres and atrocities as immoral or evil, that's your own value judgement--Work permit 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "acceptable killings" do exist as a type of opinion about the death of people. But is there such a thing as an "acceptable massacre" or "acceptable atrocity". Would the people supporting such actions ever refer to them with those names? Perón 03:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * reasonable point. --Work permit 06:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wantonly", "unusual cruelty" and probably "helpless" as well are never facts. These are ascribed values. Without values like these, the terms massacre and atrocity are impossible define as you want (with an ascribed value differentiating them from other mass killings of people not directly involved in fighting a conflict). You might as well see the hiroshima bombing was objectively cruel, wanton, etc. These are not facts. Fourdee 15:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Homicide
I find this discussion rather interesting since it does not mention homicide. Killing is a type of homicide, so is murder or an assassination. If you are going to try and clear something up. Start using the term that covers the specific act. Vegaswikian 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Killing is not a type of homicide. Far more people who are killed are killed in ways other than homicide than by homicide. Homicide is a specific legal term that doesn't carry over to all jurisdictions anyway. It's a really bad term to use. DreamGuy 06:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Different solution
Rather than have this proposal set in stone as policy why not see about incorporating it into the words to avoid guideline? One Night In Hackney 303  02:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me as far as the particular terms; I just wanted to generate some discussion on this, as it is a very common problem and it's frustrating to have to restate the concept over and over to people who feel that their particular values are "obviously factual." I would  like to see some kind of statement in WP:NPOV (as above) clearly distinguishing between opinions of fact and value-judgments, and stating that the latter should never be spoken in the voice of the encyclopedia writer because they are never factual.  This applies to so many articles, and usually only the most controversial ones get a proper treatment (after much unnecessary debate).  Fourdee 06:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If anything, this entire proposal merely reinforces something which is already somewhere in the NPOV project page jungle: let the facts speak for themselves. You can present something as a "brutal murder", or you can lay the facts on the table and let people decide for themselves.  81.104.175.145 07:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a joke
Killing NPOV? Great idea!! Yechiel Man 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Appeal to emotion
There's also an argument from emotion, and a practical side to this, for those who may have a gut reaction against treating neutrally something that they find horrible.

Most, perhaps all, war, evil and cruelty is directly related to a refusal to see, and often complete ignorance of, any opposing point of view. The supporters of a religion, or nation, or political cause often remain ignorant of (or simply discredit) the other side of things and any act on the part their opponents (who likewise feel completely justified) only adds to their righteousess.

If there is a single great thing Wikipedia with its policy of neutrality can do for humanity, it's teach people that there are "always two sides" to any conflict. If we can help people understand that in any disagreement there is someone else who has precisely equal factual foundation for his or her values, maybe a few people will step back and try to find a compromise, and there will be fewer holocausts. So in that, neutrality itself is an agenda - and a good one. Fourdee 07:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica
The hypothesis is that the terms mentioned should never be spoken in the voice of the encyclopedia writer because they are never factual. I disagree with the hypothesis. The following are a few examples from the Encylopedia Britannica I do agree that not all incidents labeled as massacres are in fact massacres. for example, the Encylopedia Britannica entry
 * Jack the ripper pseudonymous murderer of at least five women...All but one of Jack the Ripper's victims were killed...On one occasion half of a human kidney, which may have been extracted from a murder victim
 * Katyn Massacre The discovery of the massacre precipitated the severance...firm physical evidence that the massacre took place in early 1940...
 * My Lai Massacre..The massacre and other atrocities revealed during the trial divided the U.S. public...
 * Leon Trotsky was the object of two assassination attempts...
 * Boston Massacre skirmish between British troops and a crowd in Boston, Mass...The incident was the climax of a series of brawls...

The excerpts are from the full (pay) version. I can pull similar examples from other encyclopedias. I challenge anyone to show me an encyclopedia that conforms to this proposed policy. I understand Fourdee's good intentions. However, I feel his solution is draconian and does not conform to current encyclopedic practice. I further maintain wikipedias current practice works reasonably well. This practice is to label an "incident" a murder, massacre, atrocity, etc by consensus amongst editors. If use of the term is controversial, consensus is arrived at by citing reputable, third party sources. --Work permit 18:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Jack the Ripper example proves my point regarding the murder/killing example though. The victims were killed, it specifically uses that term rather than murder. The kidney part has to use murder in that context, as "killing victim" makes no sense and clarification is needed about how the person died. One Night In Hackney  303  03:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not. Read the rest of the article. "...including that the murders were part of an occult or Masonic plot...The murder sites have become the locus of a macabre tourist industry...who disappeared after the final murders..."  The article constantly refers to the killings as murders.  I can give you numerous uses of the term  murderer instead of assailant or killer as well.  The article clearly is in violation of the proposed policy. But if you don't like this article, here's a twofer:

--Work permit 05:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Olof Palme ".. He was assassinated by a gunman in 1986; his murder remains unsolved."


 * You missed the point completely. You earlier claimed that substituting killing for murder would make articles unreadable, and provided an example that did nothing of the sort, in fact it made the sentence more neutral and still made perfect sense. The article you've linked to already falls foul of WP:NPOV as it exists at the moment, by the constant use of the word murder as it doesn't need to say murder in every other sentence. The Olof Palme example falls completely short of WP:V. As the killing remains unsolved, who says it was an assassination? That's an opinion being presented as a fact. What if it was just a random killing? The very fact the crime is unsolved shows it can't be classed as an assassination. In fact I suggest you check Olof Palme assassination, in particular the section about Christer Pettersson, who was a criminal, drug user, and alcoholic. Judging by his background it could well have been a mugging gone wrong. Would that be an assassination? Not according to the definition of assassination, therefore we're back to WP:V again. Unsolved crimes fail WP:V when certain terms are being used. One Night In Hackney  303  05:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You not only missed my earlier point. You didn't even read it :)  Go back up to  and read my earlier point. I said "My point here wasn't that we couldn't substitute "killing" for "murder" and make a readable article. My point was it would create needless debates and bickering".  And here we are, debating and bickering :).  My point in this section is simple and clear. I have given numerous examples from the Encylopedia Britannica that use the terms in a way proscribed by this policy.  If you wish to maintain that the Encyclopedia Britannica, and all other Enyclopedias, are not encyclopedic, well have fun..--Work permit 06:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have a strict neutrality policy, it's not relevant to wikipedia in the least. Fourdee 15:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth (IANAL), it seems to me that Fourdee's trying to substitute a narrow legal definitions of words like murder and assassination for the common, plain-language usage. While this might be more precise, it leads to what appear to be absurdities. Take the Black_Dahlia: her manner of death was unquestionably homicide, but under Fourdee's proposal, we could not refer to her as a murder victim, because no one was ever convicted. This proposal will only lead to more wikidrama.70.227.232.162 15:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)