Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg

File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Tano Badalamenti.jpg

File:Tano Badalamenti.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

James Holmes, cropped.jpg

File:James Holmes, cropped.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:BostonSuspect2.jpg & File:BostonSuspect1.jpg

File:BostonSuspect1.jpg and File:BostonSuspect2.jpg have been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

2012 tour of She Has a Name

2012 tour of She Has a Name is currently up for a Good Article Nomination and the reviewer has requested an independent copyedit. If anyone who has not had previous involvement with the article would be willing to perform such a copyedit, it would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sterling Hall bombing proposed subpage merge

I recently proposed a merge that would return several subpages of the Sterling Hall bombing back into the article per the WP:CRIME subpage guideline. Since the page in question is part of the project, I thought I'd drop a note in case you're interested. czar · · 18:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The-tsarnaev-suspects-fbi-photo-release.jpg

File:The-tsarnaev-suspects-fbi-photo-release.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspect1and2.jpg

File:Suspect1and2.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Bindy Johal edits

Uncited material has been added to this page, plus a reformatting of the list of charges......the claim that he committed the most crimes in Canada is definitely in need of citation, if it's true. This page and other Vancouver gang-related articles seem to have a lot of IP edits.....hoping members of this group place this and related articles on their watchlist; not an article I like messing with "because of who it is".Skookum1 (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Boston Marathon finish line explosion.png

File:2013 Boston Marathon finish line explosion.png is under NFCR -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Waterboard3-small.jpg

File:Waterboard3-small.jpg is listed at NFCR -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Mugshot of Josef Fritzl on the night of his arrest.jpg

File:Mugshot of Josef Fritzl on the night of his arrest.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Lawende.jpg

File:Lawende.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Building after 1998 bomb blast.jpg

File:Building after 1998 bomb blast.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Categories for prostitution

There is a discussion going on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism#Help cleaning up Category:Prostitutes which could use input from this project – specifically on a few questions around categorization:

Is there a general rule as to what *sort* of categories can/should be created to classify those who have committed crimes?

More specifically:

What are your thoughts on creating a category for Category:People convicted for prostitution
What are your thoughts on creating a category for Category:People convicted for solicitation

Thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Shah Commission files

have been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Input required at Talk:Alger Hiss

A couple of editors have been edit warring over some specific wording in the lead of Alger Hiss. For the most part it appears the content dispute relates to the reliability of and weight to be given to specific sources. The editors are now trying to craft an RFC to address the content dispute in a rational manner. Input from interested parties in this project would be useful. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Silver Dollar Group

Has anyone ever heard of the secret organization founded in the early 1960s known as the Silver Dollar Group? I believe it is important to some articles. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Boston Strangler/Albert DeSalvo

An article that you have been involved in editing, Boston Strangler/Albert DeSalvo, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.--dashiellx (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Caption for 'Japanese Naval Landing Force, waiting for attack order with wearing a gas mask.jpg'

The caption on File:Japanese Naval Landing Force, waiting for attack order with wearing a gas mask.jpg is under discussion at WT:CHINA -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Curious? Re: my involvement with this project.

Good morning, I am working on my final exam requirements for my adopter Jackson Peebles and part of the exam is to become a member of a project or two. I "joined" this project way back when I was a bit newer and always just assumed that since I joined and have worked on cleaning up or adding to some of the articles in this category that I was doing as I was supposed to do. My question is: Is there anything that I can do to become a more involved editor on this project? Is there a list of tasked needed to be completed and can I just jump in or do I wait for someone to assign me some things to do on a particular project? If so I would love some "assignments" if not maybe a suggestion or two as to what it more pressing at this time. Thank you so much for your time and attention, in advance, to this matter.Tattoodwaitress♥LetsTalk 17:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

"Mafia"

Albert Fish's GAR

Albert Fish, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 02:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Do dogs count as part of the death count?

See Talk:Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson where we are having a discussion on the issue -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about Crime – Skysmith (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

RobFordCrackHouse.jpg

File:RobFordCrackHouse.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Mugshot of Josef Fritzl on the night of his arrest.jpg

File:Mugshot of Josef Fritzl on the night of his arrest.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Alexis Reich

Could someone help this biography? In particular we are stating she is a convicted criminal but I keep seeing that charges have been dropped. Can anyone help sort this out? Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

GAR

Zodiac Killer, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dana boomer (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World

Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World

I've created the new article about the book Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World, which discusses the subject of targeted killing.

Further suggestions for research and additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page, at Talk:Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:LouisBuchalter.gif

File:LouisBuchalter.gif has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Flag of Anonymous.jpeg

File:Flag of Anonymous.jpeg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls

The article about the human trafficking documentary film Nefarious: Merchant of Souls has an ongoing featured article candidacy here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Created Category:Targeted killing

Category:Targeted killing

I've gone ahead and created Category:Targeted killing, a category to encompass articles related to the topic of Targeted killing.

Suggestions for additional articles to add into the category would be appreciated, feel free to add them yourself or suggest them at Category talk:Targeted killing.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Move proposal on State of Florida v. George Zimmerman

The title renaming is proposed and has been relisted. Go to Talk:State of Florida v. George Zimmerman and post your opinions on the proposal. --George Ho (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Lambeth slavery case

Anyone want to help me with Lambeth slavery case isn't exactly my area of expertise. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Glen Ridge rape

The topic of this article is highly sensitive. The article says that the mentally-challenged girl with a mind of "8-year-old" was raped, yet the boys were acquitted of all charges, including one convicted of conspiracy. And it's mostly unsourced. I think about taking this to WP:BLPN, but I want to bring this here first. --George Ho (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI James Dubro up for deletion

Canadian investigative journalist specializing in crimes, the mob. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

African Americans & Latinos

This has a lot of info about US prisons locking up mostly poor minorities: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/US_Locks_Up_More_People.html Hillmon7500 (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Deadbeat parent

AfC submission

Could you peruse this submission? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"Mark Read"

AfD notice

There is a deletion discussion occurring here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimi Hendrix: Canadian drug charges and trial. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Pogrom list inclusion criteria

An RfC has been opened at Talk:Pogrom, regarding the appropriate WP:LSC for the events listed. Comments are requested with thanks. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Peculate

Peculator

Category:Organized crime people

Fugitive slave

Mary Kay Letourneau

An RfC has been initiated here to receive outside input on the question:

Should the lead include a summary of the reliably sourced content in the article that is not related to her crime(s)?

Your participation there would be appreciated. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC).

Need help with a DRN

Hi all, this is regarding a dispute over the usage of the words violent crime regarding the conviction of Oscar López Rivera. While it has been shown that Oscar López Rivera has been convicted of bank robbery, the dispute is about whether it can be added that he is convicted of violent crimes. As Wikiproject Criminal Biography was not added to the talk page of the article, I am doing so, and opening this section to invite comments from editors of this project. Please be brief and concise in your comments and refrain from personal attacks -Wikishagnik (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Sources_for_sexual_violence_against_men

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse#Sources for sexual violence against men. Please join this discussion on whether Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse should be in the category Category:Violence against men Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessments

I've been contributing to crime-related articles for the past five years and have noticed that most articles in this WikiProject go unassessed. Is there any way I could help? Thanks, ----GouramiWatcher^(?) 19:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Article page for Megan Huntsman? Maybe?

Megan Huntsman, of Pleasant Grove, Utah has been charged with six counts of murder after police found the bodies of six babies in her house. She is 39 years old and is alleged to have killed the babies between 1996 and 2006. --Japanesehelper (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Ian Gow

Please direct your attention to Talk:Ian Gow#The fully-protected car (or its absence), where the question is whether the make of Ian Gow's car (the one he got blown up in) is relevant enough to warrant inclusion in the article. There's an ongoing dispute, going on for over three years, and an RfC (that is, you) might could help settle that. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List_of_organizations_opposing_human_trafficking

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of organizations opposing human trafficking. A move request of interest to editors of this article. Thanks. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Nicole Redhead → Death of Jaylene Redhead

Nicole Redhead has been proposed to be renamed to Death of Jaylene Redhead, see talk:Nicole Redhead for the discussion -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BDP and crime allegations advice

Over on Talk:Bob Brozman there's discussion about adding allegations of child molestation to the page. Brozman died in 2013. A few other editors, myself included, have asserted WP:BDP as reason for the removal of this content. One user advocating for its inclusion, Hzh, wonders if by next year it could be included as WP:BDP would (theoretically) no long apply. WP is not terribly clear on how to handle allegations against dead people. In my view, it should not be included at all, ever, as there is no widespread coverage of the allegations in news media outlets or other high-quality reliable sources. Because of the nature of the allegations (among the most heinous crimes), it would seem to me that we should use seriously consider not including the information per WP:LIBEL. I come here to ask experienced users who work on crime-related articles their opinion on the matter and perhaps point to more specific policy or precedent one way or the other. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Crime and Criminal Biography At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed – for free – as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets

Adikhajuria (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Clutter murder and In Cold Blood articles should be separated

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kansas#Separate article on Cutter murders and In Cold Blood WhisperToMe (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Madeleine McCann requests for comments

I have started two requests for comments at Talk:Madeleine McCann. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually they are at Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. --Stfg (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Noteworthiness of Victim and Perpetrator Details

In 2014 Isla Vista killings, how should we balance victim and perpetrator details? I think that the crime is notable, and then the issue is what information is noteworthy. All sorts of details about the perpetrator are in reliable sources, so seem to qualify for inclusion. One detail about the victims… their college major… is widely reported in reliable sources. Some feel that their major is unrelated to the notable event, which is the crime, and should be omitted. But many details about the perpetrator are also unrelated to the notable event. What is your advice? We could trim all information not directly related to the notable event, or allow any information that is available in reliable secondary sources and thus deemed by them to be noteworthy. Discussion is here.snug (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No advice? The issue of how much info to include on victims must have come up sometime somewhere. We really need help! snug (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is the Mariette Bosch trial transcript?

After reading a post by a user identifying himself as Tienie Wolmarans (boyfriend of Mariette Bosch) here: Talk:Mariette Bosch#Mariette Bosch – "facts" in your article shows serious lack of research done to get to the truth. I want to know where I may find the trial transcript of Mariette Bosch Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy

I have submitted the article Not My Life for a featured article candidacy here. The article deals with a documentary film about human trafficking. Any constructive comments you are willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible source: 21st Century Criminology: A Reference Handbook Intelligence and Crime

Here is a possible source:

Miller, J. Mitchell. "21st Century Criminology: A Reference Handbook Intelligence and Crime." SAGE Publications. Online publication: September 17, 2009. Print date: 2009. Print ISBN 978-1-4129-6019-9; Online ISBN 978-1-4129-7199-7; DOI: 10.4135/9781412971997; Print pages: 93-100

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Crime and Criminal Biography articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC – Should the article 2014 Isla Vista killings (Elliot Rodger's killing spree) be in the category "Violence against men"?

Please participate in RFC Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings#RFC – Violence against men category for article 2014 Isla Vista killings regarding whether or not the article 2014 Isla Vista killings should be in the category "Violence against men" Category:Violence against men, which is described as category: "for articles on the topic of sexual or gender-based violence against men or boys". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User BoboMeowCat ignored work on a separate RFC that was designed to address the higher issues that involved several editors who came to a consensus on this, put in this recent RFC the way she wanted it, ignoring other views, and is now shaping it per her POV here. And now we have editors concerned that the RFC was malformed and a rehash of past efforts that have led deadlocks.Mattnad (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ignore. I recommended that if editors were interested in changing or clarifying the inclusion criteria for the "Violence against men" category, that an RfC be done for that specific category page. Then it was recommended by an uninvolved admin that the category Violence against men stay out of article 2014 Isla Vista killings for now. Unfortunately, the category was re-added and an edit warred ensued which resulted in article being locked down and the admin who locked it down requested immediate RfC for the Isla Vista page. The current RfC is neutrally worded. It does not promote any POV. Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings#RFC – Violence against men category for article 2014 Isla Vista killings . If there is a later RfC that changes the Violence against men category, that could certainly later change things, but this RfC is for the current description of the "Violence against men" category which includes: This category is for articles on the topic of sexual or gender-based violence against men or boys...The scope of this category includes sexual violence against men, sexual and gender-based violence against men in conflict situations, domestic violence against men (including honor killings of men), and violence against trans men. Organizations, literature, events, books, etc for which the topic of gender-based violence against men is defining are also on-topic. This category should not include violence where men happen to be the victims. Rather, it should only include acts of violence where the gender of the victim is an important determinant in them being selected for violence, when there is a gendered nature to the violence itself, or when it otherwise fits the definition in the literature of sexual or gender-based violence.' Category:Violence against men--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Leigh Leigh FAC

The article Murder of Leigh Leigh, which is listed under the scope of this project, is currently nominated for featured status. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Leigh Leigh/archive1. It currently has two people supporting it, but more reviews are needed. For those unfamiliar with FAC, reviews most be reasonably thorough; one line reviews are not very helpful. I would be ever so grateful if someone could review my nomination. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The article now has enough reviews to pass per se, though as one of the FAC coordinators has noted, none of the reviewers did a source check for accuracy and/or close paraphrasing. This is now needed in order for the article to pass. If someone could spare the time to do some source checks I would appreciate it. The article uses many offline newspaper and journal sources; I can email pdf copies of these to anyone on request, though there are plenty of online source which can be used for source checks as well. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The nomination is now at the bottom of the list, and is liable to be closed without further notice. It still requires a source review; I would be eternally grateful if someone could give it one. Please state your intention to review at the nomination before reviewing as the nomination may be closed soon otherwise. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move of Benoit crime

You are cordially invited to Talk:Chris Benoit double-murder and suicide#Requested move. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

School shootings notability

Let's discuss and consider this guideline:

If there is uncertainty of whether a school shooting is notable for Wikipedia, then it should be assumed that any shootings resulting in fewer than 3 deaths shall be not notable. If there is certainty that it is notable, then shooting resulting in fewer deaths can be deemed notable for Wikipedia. EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like instruction creep. What's the need for this? 68.125.34.17 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Death / Murder article titles?

I'm planning on moving Carolyn Wasilewski to a page about her murder, either Death of Carolyn Wasilewski or Murder of Carolyn Wasilewski, which I don't think will be controversial based on the recent AfD. The problem is that I'm not seeing a lot of consistency of guidance on whether to use Murder of.. or Death of... "Death" seems more neutral, so I tend to be in favor of that, but it's hard to parse. You have Death of Molly Bish, Death of Shaima Alawadi, Murder of Skylar Neese, Murder of Odin Lloyd and even Shooting of Jordan Davis. I don't see any guidance on this in WP:NCE. Is there an agreed upon nomenclature? That should maybe be added to WP:NCE if so. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 16:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC at Talk: Bath School bombings

There is a Request for Comments at Talk: Bath School bombings concerning how the article should be named. Shearonink (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The article List of British mobsters is being considered for deletion.

The article List of British mobsters is being considered for deletion. Consider sharing your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Featured Article promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion

2012 tour of She Has a Name, Featured Article promoted in 2013, has been nominated for deletion.

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Watergate burglaries

FYI, there's a request for cleanup at WT:USA about this article -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings is nominated as AFD. You can join in to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Barbara Stager notable?

I'm wondering if the Barbara Stager article really is sufficiently notable, per WP:CRIME. Before I propose it for deletion and/or merging into some other article, I'd like to know if anyone else has an opinion. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I find the article notable. The case has recieved coverage throughout the years and the sources at hand are notable and sufficient to "survive an AfD process". I can see reasons to discuss the formatting of the article but not deletion or merging.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes too limited

What about victims of crime? What about criminals that are not serial killers? What about named one-time-event killings, (e.g., Career Girls Murders? Or theft events (e.g., 1798 Bank of Pennsylvania heist? I think infoboxes need to be developed with the entire scope of crime in mind. Also, crime should not be confused with justice. That's an entirely different subject. In the Career Girls Murders I'm just using a plain event infobox, but that's really not descriptive enough. I don't know how to create infoboxes, but some of you do. What do you all think? MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 15:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with crimes miscategorized as sex scandals

Hi WP:Crime,

It's my view that it's inappropriate to categorize rape/assault/abuse cases as "sex scandals" (Category:Sex scandals, Category:Political sex scandals, etc.), but can I get the Project's opinion on how best to handle them? Are they adequately handled by the categories for sex crimes, sex crime trials, child abuse and so on, or would it be necessary or desirable to create a "sexual assault scandals" category? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Good Article promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion

WP:GA article Critical response to She Has a Name, promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion, discussion page is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name. — Cirt (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sony Pictures Entertainment hack

I need your help on creating an interesting statement, so the article, Sony Pictures Entertainment hack, can be featured on the Main Page. --George Ho (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the article Domestic violence (of interest to this wikiproject) was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review (please see the article's talk page for details). Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on the article's talk page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Piracy in Somalia

FYI, the article Piracy in Somalia has been proposed to be renamed, for the discussion, see talk:Piracy in Somalia -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hard Choices, new article about crime film

I've created a new article about the crime film, Hard Choices (film).

Help with suggesting additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Hard Choices (film).

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

How to get articles reviewed?

Noob question. Been working on two gang articles: Mexikanemi and Latin Kings. How do I get them on the list to be reviewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyjosephwood (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Requesting comments at Blackfriars Massacre

There is an ongoing requested move discussion at Talk:Blackfriars Massacre. Please comment. RGloucester — ☎ 02:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Historical gangs

Category:Historical gangs, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Defunct gangs. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Boston Marathon bombings listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Boston Marathon bombings to be moved to Boston Marathon bombing. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

State of Florida v. George Zimmerman listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for State of Florida v. George Zimmerman to be moved to State v. Zimmerman. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) to be moved to Columbia University performance art controversy. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Juan Rivera (wrongful conviction) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Juan Rivera (wrongful conviction) to be moved to Juan Rivera (Illinois). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance

There is a discussion at the BLP noticeboard which may be relevant to this wikiproject. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC – Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

There's currently an open RfC on a topic that may be of interest to readers of this wikiproject.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

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

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

Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon

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

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Respondents to the RFC answered from two different viewpoints, the killing, and the accused. There are two conclusions that almost reach consensus, but dont, so this is closed no consensus. They are to evenly matched and the discussion was strong on both sides. AlbinoFerret 20:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your hypothetical case of a body with a hammer in its skull, could of course have been killed by a hammer falling from an airplane. I appreciate that your example and mine are silly, but it is precisely because the 'obvious' isn't always the truth that we have trials and presumptions of innocence.Pincrete (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A killing can be an "alleged murder" in general if there is some uncertainty whether the person was murdered, or whether the death was due to something other than murder (suicide, death by natural causes, etc.) A killing can also be definitely a murder, in the sense that the coroner has ruled with little doubt that the victim was intentionally killed by some person, but be an "alleged murder" with respect to a particular person who is accused. To address the overarching point (not the "question as asked"), I'm not a big fan of the word "murder" being used in any article where there is not either a completed judicial proceeding resulting in a murder conviction or the equivalent, or some historical understanding over a long period of time that a murder definitely occurred (example: Jack the Ripper's victims are generally regarded as murder victims although "Jack" was never identified or caught, much less prosecuted for murder). "Murder" in some jurisdictions has a specific legal meaning, and even where it's not used in its legal sense it does cast an aspersion even if I say it's "alleged murderer" – there are many cases of alleged murderers being ostracized by their communities and so forth even if their guilt is not proven and they are later found to have been not guilty at all. "Homicide of", "killing of", or even "death of" would seem to be easier terms to use overall in keeping with neutral tone. So yes, we are more or less in agreement, but the question as asked specifically referred to an "ongoing/upcoming judicial proceeding" which affected my answer.TheBlinkster (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems like you might be confusing murder with homicide, as to what coroners determine, unless you mean by inquests (which still happen after the trial). Typically, especially in America where most of our murder articles come from, they stop at saying someone killed someone. The same "Homicide" box is checked whether the subject is executed by the state, accidentally run over or straight-up ripped. Intentions are a lawyer's game. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Νο as per everything said by theGnome. If a court or inquest has ruled murder (or other locally used term), that should be what we use, I especially agree with theGnome about ignoring media terminology. Whether the perpretator is known or not is irrelevant.Pincrete (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The question's about before a court or inquest has ruled it that. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Involved party's analysis of RFC results: I !count — and others may !count them differently by a !vote or two — 6 Yes, 13 No, and 13 Depends, with good arguments all around. I'd evaluate this RFC ending in "no consensus" but with the observation that there seems to be a bit more support in the community for the "no" position than the "yes" position, but if the no and yes statements, above, are carefully considered to look for qualifications in their reasoning that it's probably the "depends" position which really comes out with the most support, but still ending in no consensus. Anyone else, of course, who wishes to make an analysis is free to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New criminal bio article I wrote

Looking for a bit of feedback since this is my first attempt at penning an article: John Ruffo

White collar/financial crimes are my cup of tea and there are several others I would like to start as well. If any of you already have an article in progress covering crimes like bank fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud etc. I would love to help. I am a bit surprised many of them do not already have articles. I guess criminals stealing hundreds of millions of dollars do not have the cachet or staying power in the media as the violent varieties. Thanks in advance. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The Mann Act

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

"Missing persons" category

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

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

Assistance on Murder of Zachary Turner

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

Need feedback on whether to add date of death

Need additional feedback on discussion regarding Death of Caylee Anthony. There is discussion as to whether concensus exists as to Caylee's date of death. All feedback is welcome. Please comment on the talk page for that article. Bali88 (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Black Mass (film)

With this movie coming out Whitey Bulger-related content will probably be getting some hits. Winter Hill Gang and related articles are in pretty bad shape if anyone is feeling motivated to take a look. I put one of the more egregious bios up for AFD but some others that could use attention are, for example:

Basically any of the bios linked from Winter Hill Gang. Lots of OR, sketchy sources, and unencyclopedic tone. Cheers, Vrac (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this death in Houston notable?

Hi! I collected sources about a 2006 killing of an MS-13 gang member in Houston by a 16-year old girl: Talk:Montrose, Houston#2006 gang incident in Ervan Chew park – Archived articles – It received a lot of media coverage through the Houston Chronicle series "The Butterfly and the Knife," and Texas Monthly did an article about the girl years after the incident. I found a Houston Press article that stated that "The murder trial of [the girl] fascinated Houston "

This falls under the WikiProject since the girl (16 at the time, criminal responsibility age in Texas is 17) who killed him pleaded guilty to aggravated assault as part of a plea deal.

Do you think that there are enough sources to write about this case, or should I look for additional ones? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Help with List of events named massacres

I've started a discussion on talkpage about a recent massive ip insertion of events not commonly named massacres to the list. Does anyone here have an opinion one way or the other? BusterD (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Does this qualify for an article? What should it be called?

A young mother and her daughter were last seen by their family in 2008 in Alice Springs, Northern Territory. A woman's body was found in Belanglo State Forest in 2010. A child's body was found near Wynarka, South Australia (1100 km from Belanglo) June this year. The police have determined in October that the bodies are Karlie Pearce-Stevenson and her daughter Khandalyce Kiara Pearce, they were both killed violently, and neither where they were found.[3] Both bodies and the identification have attracted news coverage across Australia. My questions are whether there should be a separate article to avoid undue wight in the two articles about the places where the bodies were found, and what it should be called. I have not found relevant crime notability or article naming guidelines. Thank you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft article now at User:ScottDavis/sandbox3 but I don't like the name I used in the first sentence. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone suggested a better name, so the article is now at Deaths of Karlie Pearce-Stevenson and Khandalyce Pearce. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Scientific American source/prevalence of domestic violence data at the Domestic violence article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Domestic violence#Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included? A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Population numbers skew statistics

It appears to me that the figures listed for South American cities are based on number of homicides per metropolitan area population. Statistics for American cities are definitely quoted in homicides per municipality. For example- if the Baltimore figure were adjusted to be homicides per metropolitan area- it would be total homicides from both the city and surrounding suburbs- and, in fact, would be much lower. The municipal population of Baltimore City 620k. The metropolitan population is 2.7 million^[1]. Conversely, the population of the Belo Horizonte metropolitan area is 5.2 million with a municipal population of 2.4 million^[2]. I don't know enough about this city to know if adjusting from metropolitan to municipal would raise or lower this rate- but it would definitely be different. And it should be determined whether the number of homicides quoted per city is per metro area or municipal area. So the entire chart needs to be revised one way or the other before it can be called an actual ranking. This should be removed from your site until it is corrected as it is clearly misleading. In any case- I am from Baltimore and I hear every day about another homicide in the city. We are at 300+ this year- a sad statistic that led me to this unfortunate list. Nonetheless- the list is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.1.221 (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

References

RfC: Does "murder" presume "murderer" #2

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus against presuming the suspect is a murderer. The majority opinion is that just because a murder has taken place, without a conviction we can not say the suspect is a murderer. AlbinoFerret 23:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed before here, and that discussion was closed with no consensus due to the differing opinions with clear points to back their arguments. However, it's become a bit of an issue again and I'd like to bring it up a second time so a clear consensus can (hopefully) be reached and we can put this controversy to a rest. I'll repeat the question posed by InedibleHulk, because I can't phrase it any better: "Does calling a killing 'murder' on Wikipedia, in the body, infobox or categories, presume the suspect(s) in a resulting and ongoing/upcoming murder trial is/are 'murderer(s)', contrary to the presumption of innocence bit of WP:BLPCRIME?" Versus001 (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes Rather than repeat everything from last time, I'll just say I still believe it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment If you want a real RfC on this, you need to follow the steps. As is, only people coming by this page will see it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. Versus001 (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

All's well that ends well, so things that fix themselves early should be OK, too. You can delete this part now, if you'd like. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Did I do something wrong? Because no one else seems to be participating... Versus001 (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's a busy place. Maybe people aren't aware of the RfC, or maybe they don't care (or just don't care to comment again, so soon after the last). Sort of like how buying a pinball machine doesn't mean you'll profit or break even, even when pinball was cool. You might have skimped a bit on the publicity, but technically, it looks fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh... Versus001 (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

NO When police or investigative bodies report that a killing was indeed a murder, even if they are not certain whom the perpetrator might be, Wikipedia is right to label it as such with the use of valid references confirming it. Murder is a legal term that suggests other(s) were involved in a killing, whereas a tree falling on someone is a killing without a murder. Differentiating between happenstance and intent by at least one other is fair game, even when we are not certain who that might be. If an article mentions a suspect, it behooves editors to use the words "alleged" or 'suspect' without assigning guilt. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This is where the last one failed, too. Homicide is the term for people killing people. Murder requires that killing to be unlawful, inexcusable and intentional. Only a court can decide the latter, which is why pre-trial investigative reports don't use the word and newspapers use it with "alleged".

This question is only about how this affects "the suspect(s) in a resulting and ongoing/upcoming murder trial". It's not about unknown people. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

No The articles in question are more focused on the events rather than the suspects from my perspective. There's only one section dedicated to the suspect (excluding any info at the end of an "Event" section that details the suspect's arrest), and even then, it doesn't outright presume he/she is guilty (which I think is the problem, if I'm reading this correctly). If anything, I think the real issue is keeping the amount of info related to the suspect at a bare minimum to prevent any unintentional implications. I.e., no infobox, limit/monitor the amount/wording of info, probably no photo. Warner Sun (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Essentially No BLP issues should not dictate how an event is described, but considering BLP issues can guide us in how an event should be described. In most articles a description of an event will be made in Wikipedia's voice and that description should present a neutral POV based on information from reliable sources. If RS's say event is "type A" and the description is not seriously and/or broadly contested in RS's, then it should be OK to say it in Wikipedia's voice. If it is contested, we find some neutral way to describe it that is not likely to be contested and BLP issues can be used to find neutral wording. For instance, in the case where someone was shot and it is contested that it was murder, we usually describe the event as a shooting. In the case where someone calls it a murder, but it is too contested to say so in Wikipedia's voice, we only mention murder making it clear who is saying it and only if the POV is notable enough to mention. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No, but be cautious. There are plenty of crimes that are pretty obviously murder, even if there is no suspect. The naming of a suspect does not, practically speaking, make such a crime no longer a murder nor does it imply guilt of the accused. There is not a strong enough BLP concern here to warrant a blanket ban on calling crimes murders until someone is convicted; it needs to be a case by case analysis that balances WP:V with WP:BLPCRIME. And for crap's sake, Versus001 (and anyone else) quit interpreting case-by-case discussions as applicable to every other article in the encyclopedia. VQuakr (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of case analysis and caution, it may interest you to know that Versus001 has been convicted of impersonating the DisuseKid, who is allegedly your Igor-like sidekick. And also User:Warner Sun, because this cloak and dagger horseshit wasn't convoluted enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: yup, the indef should preclude the article-space disruption I was complaining about above. VQuakr (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No. If there was a murder then naturally someone committed it, but if that person's identity has not been proven, then Wikipedia cannot state that some person is the murderer. Omnedon (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

If there was a murder. Sometimes deaths look like murder, but turn out to be other things when the facts have been argued in court. Or they actually are murders, but justice failed. In those cases, we still have to take the presiding judge's word for it. Before a judge rules, best to allow for all possible outcomes. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That's what I said: if there is a murder. If there was not a murder, this question is irrelevant. How would we allow for all possible outcomes by calling a suspect a murderer? Omnedon (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

We wouldn't. We'd do it by not calling deaths murders while the process of figuring out if it was a murder is ongoing. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

But you are again missing the point. If it has been determined to be a murder, we cannot call anyone the murderer until that is determined. Omnedon (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There's definitely some sort of confusion here, either about the question or the answer. It almost seems like we largely agree, despite the Yes and No parts. This happened a lot last time, too. Maybe we're on different pages regarding "determining murder". How do you think a murder is determined, if not by trying the suspected murderer(s) in court? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment – This is a bit of an aside... but before the discussion goes further, we need to draw an important distinction: Wikipeida recognizes that there is a difference between NAMING and DESCRIBING. Please read WP:POVNAME (part of our WP:Article titles policy), WP:POVNAMING (part of our WP:Neutral point of view Policy) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Maintaining neutral point of view ... if an event is routinely named "The X Murder" by reliable sources, then it should be named "The X Murder" in Wikipedia (regardless of whether the event fits the legal definition of murder). However, if the sources merely describe the event as being a murder, we should be much more careful about doing so ourselves... we want to use accurate terms (so this is where legal definitions need to be taken into consideration). Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No, not least because the identification of a victim as having been murdered can't reflect on a suspect as anything other than an alleged murderer — as opposed to implying the suspect is unqualifiedly a murderer. (Possibly I'm being overly nitpicky, but this seems an area in which we should all try to use language as precisely as possible, lest we libel by accident.) While it's true that the technical term used by medical examiners in describing the manner of someone's death is "homicide" and not "murder", using "homicide" as a verb is nonstandard English, and thus official statements by police and prosecutors tend to refer to victims as having been "murdered", not "homicided". (Families and friends of victims tend to say "murdered" as well, but there's rarely reason to expect them to know the technical definition, much less reason to expect them to want to be fair to potential suspects.)

Referring to a dead person as "murdered" or "murder victim" before there's a dispositive trial for that murder could cause some potential issues for us as Wikipedia editors, mostly because readers may wrongly infer that if there was a murder, then the suspects must be murderers. But I'm not convinced that the fact some readers may misunderstand plain English is grounds for not using plain English.

I see more potential issues in cases where everyone including the suspect agrees that the suspect's actions lead to the victim's death, but the question of whether the correct verdict is "guilty of murder", "guilty of manslaughter" or "not guilty (because it was an unforeseeable accident)" has yet to be decided by a jury; I'm inclined to think that in cases like that, because there's a real question remaining as to whether a murder/homicide has been committed, Wikipedia should avoid use of "murdered" and "murder victim", and only refer to "murder of [victim name]" if that's overwhelmingly how the event is referred to by reliable sources. But for cases where the main question is who murdered the victim, rather than whether a murder happened at all, I think that "murdered", etc. should be acceptable usage. As for what to do about cases where a trial has returned a not guilty verdict and no further trials seem likely, I think the case of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman would be a useful example to examine, because while some (such as O.J. Simpson) have argued that "the real killers" remain at large and others believe Simpson simply got away with murder, I've never come across someone arguing that Brown Simpson and Goldman weren't in fact murdered. (Sorry for the wall of text.) —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 18:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not, in response to the specific question asked. We are required by WP:V and WP:NPOV to repeat only how sources describe an event; if sources describe an event as a murder, then so do we. That does not automatically imply that anyone associated with the event is a murderer, not in any way, unless we state explicitly that they were convicted of the crime. And of course we would not do that without reliable sources. There seems to be a point of confusion here that describing someone's death as murder requires a conviction; it certainly does not: as GrammarFascist struggled to point out, a person can have been clearly murdered without the murderer being identified at all, let alone convicted. If sources describe an event as a murder, then so do we. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
No, suspects of a murder are not presumed to be murderers. Without a known murderer however, we may still describe a killing as a murder if many reliable sources do, and have good reason. -Darouet (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Applying WP:BLP to Shooting of Jeremy Mardis

This seems like a good place to seek advice on this issue. A couple of other editors and I have been working on Shooting of Jeremy Mardis, but none of us has experience with applying WP:BLP to suspects or victims in a crime, and there was information in the article (now removed, at least temporarily) which possibly should not be included even though it's sourced appropriately. Contributions to the discussion going on at Talk:Shooting of Jeremy Mardis#Allegations about living people: How careful does WP:BLP require us to be? would be greatly appreciated. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 06:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wanted pages

Is there a list of wanted pages here? There's some old userpage skeleton of possible pages at User:MadMax/Organized crime/Wanted articles and User:MadMax/Encyclopedia5 amongst other so if there's interest, they can be reworked into this project I guess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Help an article?

Hey, I'm going to post this on multiple WikiProjects so there will be some cut/paste – my apologies for that. I was recently going through the articles at Category:Proposed deletion and came across Effects of genocide on youth. The article was written by AMWilkinson, who created the article as an assignment for Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Drake University/Global Youth Studies (Fall 2015). It's currently up for PROD as WP:OR, but I do think that there's merit in covering this specific part of the topic. Now whether or not it could merit an article outside of the main topic is a good question.

A quick, offhand look at the page does show that it's written like a student paper, which is a frequent issue with student assignments but not one that can't be overcome. I need someone to help salvage the article, which will likely require some searching for sources. I tried doing some very quick and dirty searching but it wasn't exactly easy, since a lot comes up with a general search without limiting anything, even when I search an academic database like JSTOR. This will likely be a massive undertaking.

I can help out some, but it really won't be until after my school is done for the quarter, which won't be for another week at least, and this needs some urgent help. I could move it to the draftspace, but I'm afraid of it getting neglected. Anyone willing to help? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Style guide?

Is there a relevant style guide for crime-related articles? I'm looking at a discussion at WP:BLPN and thinking that there should be a page that contains definitions about how Wikipedia normally uses some words. These should include these (please feel free to improve):

Victim: A person who was harmed. The harm may or may not be the result of a crime. The victim may or may not make any reports or accusations. For example, a victim of homicide.
Perpetrator: A person who committed a crime, or, more broadly, a person who performed an action, especially an action that is morally or legally wrong. Use this when there is reasonable certainty that a crime was actually committed. For example, an unknown perpetrator smashed every window in this building or they are the perpetrators of this elaborate rumor.
Accuser: A person who makes an accusation. The accusation may or may not be true. The accuser is not always a victim; it is possible to make accusations about victimless crimes and about crimes that affected other people. For example, their accuser said that these employees formed an illegal sports betting pool or their loudest accuser is the mother of the murder victim.
Accused: A person who has been accused. The accusation may or may not be true.

There are probably more words that should be added to the list. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Reassessment

Could someone reassess Gangster please ? Anthere (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2015‎ (UTC)

"Death of..." vs. "Murder of"

Hello, I'm looking for some clarification or consensus regarding when an article should be titled "Murder of Joe Schmoe" as opposed to "Death of Joe Schmoe". Up till now, I have figured that "Death of Joe Schmoe" is appropriate where it is unclear whether an actual murder occurred, in that no one has been convicted of murder and/or the circumstances raised a question of whether the death was murder or something else like manslaughter, accident, etc. However, today I was cleaning up Death of Jason Sweeney and wondered why it is not called Murder of Jason Sweeney given that the circumstances of his death were clearly not an accident (his face was beaten in to the point of unrecognizability), and furthermore, three people have been convicted of first-degree murder in his case and a fourth pled guilty to third-degree murder. So he was obviously murdered. Is there any reason why the article title shouldn't reflect this, for clarity? TheBlinkster (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Since no one seems to have a concern about this, I went ahead and moved the page to Murder of Jason Sweeney. TheBlinkster (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Notability of theft-murder case in Santa Rosa, Laguna. Philippines

Last time, a mother was found unconscious, and her son was found dead on a house in Santa Rosa, Laguna, Philippines, after their house has been robbed by men disguised as Internet repairmen. Currently, the Philippine National Police are still trying to track the location of the two, and one has used a fake ID with a picture taken from Facebook.

This raised concerns on the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, and it is said that it has an effect on Internet repair contractors regarding the legitimacy of their employees.

I think that this deems notability as its coverage persisted for several days after the crime happened. Can someone tell whether it will be notable for an article.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"Battery"

The usage and primary topic of "battery" is under discussion, see talk:battery (electricity) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Genocide-related flag icons

Since this is a listed project, there is an ongoing RfC to determine the validity of flags in Genocide-related articles. It's at Use of flag icons on genocide-related articles. Please comment there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible article topic?

I'm helping out with an upcoming edit-a-thon at the University of Virginia, which will be part of their yearly Take Back the Night event. One of the women in charge of the event wanted to predominantly edit articles that already exist on Wikipedia, but also thought it'd be nice to create an article as well. If any of you have any suggestions or want to edit remotely during the event, the page is here.

One of the things I found that might merit an article is the topic of on-campus stalking. As far as I can tell, we don't really have an article that deals with this. I'm not sure if it'd be best off as a subsection in an existing article (like the main one for stalking) or if it'd merit its own article like campus sexual assault. I'd say that CSA might be a good place for a subsection, but the two aren't always the same.

I wanted some feedback with this since an article of that nature would be a fairly huge undertaking even for experienced editors, let alone as part of an edit-a-thon. If it is something that has merit, I'd definitely want some experienced editors helping to monitor this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Nazi criminals

I have noticed that we have Category:Nazis convicted of war crimes but don't have a category for all the Nazis convicted after the war for non-war related crimes (and there is lots!), like membership in the Nazi Party or SS. Two of many examples are Ludwig Ruckdeschel and Karl Wahl, neither of them a war criminal but nevertheless convicted and jailed. Category:20th-century German criminals would be suitable but isn't really specific enough. Any ideas what the name for a suitable category should be? Category:Nazis convicted of crimes? Any suggestions would be welcome. Calistemon (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Murderpedia.org as a reliable source?

There are nearly 200 search results for the term "murderpedia" on wikipedia. I couldn't find much information about the site, but it appears to be an online encyclopedia that's similar to wikipedia, which makes me doubt its reliability. It often contains citations to reliable sources like news stories and court cases, but shouldn't those citations be used as sources instead here on wikipedia? Should we remove/replace references that link to murderpedia? Downwiththesyndrome (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Those links should ideally be updated with links to the actual citations being used that would support the original material. Open wikis are not reliable sources, as discussed at WP:SPS. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I already went ahead and moved references to murderpedia.org to the external links section, like what we do with IMDb. The site may help lead people to finding reliable sources like news articles, but it cannot be used as a source by itself as it is self published. Downwiththesyndrome (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

DonIago (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Police department phone number at the top of an article about an open case?

Disappearance of Asha Degree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user recently added a message above the introduction to this article: "If you have any information concerning this case, please call the Cleveland County Sheriff's office at 704-484-4822. This disappearance is still unsolved." This is totally non-standard and feels like it runs against MOS; however, I can't find anything to outright say not to do it.

How has this been handled before in articles on unsolved crimes? What's the best placement for this information, if at all? —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"Crime Investigation Department"

The usage and topic of Crime Investigation Department is under discussion, see Talk:Crime Investigation Department (India) -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

A discussion of interest to this project...

...can be found at Talk:Prostitution#Sin. BMK (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob^Talk 22:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Brock Turner listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Brock Turner to be moved to Brock Turner sentencing controversy. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Request for comments: Steven Avery

There is currently a discussion on the Avery talk page as to whether he served 12 years or 18 years for a crime he didn't commit. Please read the discussion and weigh in. 32.218.39.240 (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Brock Turner sentencing controversy listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Brock Turner sentencing controversy to be moved to Brock Turner sentencing controversy. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Semantic objection

What I am about to suggest would be a bit of a massive undertaking, so much that I would not expect it to be done unless a bot could be programmed to do most of the work...

But for the majority of cases, like for example Category:Criminals and so forth, I would like to suggest the substitution of the rename Category:Convicts and similar renames of all sub-categories.

The reason for this is verifiability and also for living people, BLP concerns.

We can with greater accuracy and neutrality say that someone is a convict because there are records of convictions.

Given that sometimes people are convicted of crimes they did not commit, we can't always say that about criminals.

Even if someone is later exonerated, the fact they were convicted at one point remains, so no categories would need to be removed. Whereas we would have to go in a mad rush to remove 'criminal' if someone's exonerated. In the long run this saves on work.

This isn't to say there's no place for 'criminals', it could apply for example to a criminal who dies before they are tried and convicted for the crime. But as a whole, it seems much less presumptuous and much more neutral to substitute 'convict' whenever possible. Ranze (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers nominated for deletion

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the lead mention that the majority of victims were Hispanic, and should the lead mention that Pulse was hosting a Latin night?. - Mr X 13:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Notable enough to warrant its own article?

This question was left several years ago on the talk page of the Charles Ng article. The editor is still active and I thought the question should be posed to a more suitable forum than an unrelated article's talk page. (Transplanted by GentlemanGhost (converse) 18:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC))

"Reading the account of Ng's trial following one of the links (seemingly endless filings running the trial cost over $14 million) reminds me of a local murder case: Howard Hawk Willis was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of abuse of a corpse in the October 2002 deaths of Adam and Samantha Christmer in Johnson City TN. The case has been tied up in court since then, with Willis' courtroom antics leading the judge in the case to accuse Willis of "manipulating the system" to avoid going to trial.

Has gaming or manipulating the system to avoid trial for murder become notable enough to warrant its own article?" Naaman Brown (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC at SIG MCX re: Orlando shooting

Talk:SIG MCX# RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? Please post on that page if you have a comment. Felsic2 (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Lochtegate

This article is about a Rio Olympics related crime. The naming of this article is under discussion, see Talk:Lochtegate -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Eric Frein merger discussion

A merger discussion is taking place at Talk: Eric Frein. This comes after a contentious AfD/user talk discussion. I would like additional third party comment/opinion, and felt uncomfortable closing myself. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles

This RFC covers two automotive articles with similar disputed material.

Should the Ford Ford F-650 medium duty truck article include a mention in the body of the text or via a see also link the Oklahoma City bombing?
Should the Chevrolet Caprice article mention in the body or via a see also link the Beltway Sniper's use of a Chevrolet Caprice?

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Request for Comment: Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles. Felsic2 (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion at the Murder of JonBenét Ramsey article

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Murder of JonBenét Ramsey#Requested move 20 September 2016. Among the concerns noted in the move discussion is whether or not WP:Undue weight is being given to a recent documentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The lead sentence at Darren Sharper

There is currently a discussion that may be relevant to the subject of this project. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion on the article's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

White House Farm murders listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for White House Farm murders to be moved to White House Farm Killings. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Murder of Adrianne Jones requested move to return article from Diane Zamora

There is a discussion at Talk:Murder of Adrianne Jones about returning the article content that was copied to Diane Zamora back to Murder of Adrianne Jones through a technical move.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move notice

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:2016 Yerevan hostage crisis#Requested move 17 November 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Archive 4 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Maria Ladenburger

There is quiet a heated debate about the article about the Murder of Maria Ladenburger which sparked a heated political discussion in Germany about crime and immigration. The discussion is largely about the amount of details about the victim of the crime and her family that should be included in the article. I argue for the removal of all details that are not directly related to the crime itself, others are arguing for the inclusion of more details about the background and family of the victim. Input from more authors with experience and in this field and unbiased opinions is highly welcome. Nearly all aspects on the discussion page are still open for discussion. Thanks a lot. LucLeTruc (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead image discussion at Talk:Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward

Several of us are discussing whether one of the screenshots is appropriate and helpful. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Definition of WP:NPOV at the Death of JonBenét Ramsey article and its relation to article titles and article content

Will editors here weigh in on a dispute about the definition of WP:NPOV and its relation to article titles and article content? It's now an RfC; see Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy?. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Fake news website – move discussion

Article is Fake news website.

Requested move discussion at: Talk:Fake news website#Requested move 7 December 2016. Sagecandor (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about crime is updated – Skysmith (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Marsy's Law (crime victims' bill of rights) request

Hello, Are any editors interested in crime-related articles able to look at an edit request on Marsy's Law, the crime victims' bill of rights. The article needs to be updated to include recent Marsy Laws in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. I have a financial conflict of interest (I work at Mac Strategies Group and am posting as part of my work there on behalf of Marsy's Law For All) so I am aware I should not edit the article. Can someone look at my request and add this new detail to the article? Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for page : Nancy Ziegenmeyer

Taking Back My Life: The Nancy Ziegenmeyer Story (1992)

"True story about a rape victim who took a stand that rape is never the victim's fault and inspired many other victims who felt shame about what had happened to them to speak out."Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Projects only half merged

Back in 2007 WikiProject Crime was sort-of merged with WikiProject Criminal Biography. However, the banner templates were never merged and there are still separate {{WikiProject Crime}} and {{WikiProject Criminal Biography}} templates that refer to the previously separate projects. There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force which is still a task force of WikiProject Criminal Biography, not WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. This is a mess that needs to be cleaned up, but I'm not sure what the best way to clean it up is. Should the projects be unmerged or should the merger be completed? And if they are to be merged, wouldn't "WikiProject Crime" be a better title for the merged project? Kaldari (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Question re: use of appropriate tags on talk pages

What is the current thinking regarding the use of tags on talk pages regarding what is in scope for WP:Biography project and the WP:Criminal Biography project? I imagine that if the article discusses a missing person, a biography tag should be added to the talk pages for missing people, etc. and a criminal bio tag for perpetrators... however there is inconsistency regarding the application of tags; see below:

Talk:Disappearance of Terrance Williams and Felipe Santos = blp tag; no bio tag for WP Biography project

Talk:Disappearance of Patricia Spencer and Pamela Hobley = bio tag for WP Biography project

any guidance appreciated; I looked at the archives and didn't see anything directly helpful. Thanks in advance, --FeanorStar7 15:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, according to this talk page: Talk:Johannes S. Andersen both a bio tag and criminal bio tag are used... --FeanorStar7 15:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Gerald and Charlene Gallego, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team}

Crime hotspots biased

This article describes potential risks and problems that arise with the use of spatial analysis and crime mapping. Further the impact of poverty, racism, are not included into crime mapping leading to this factor not being considered and individual peace officers bringing their own vices, judgement calls into the process. Crime is not a mythical construct, it has tangible root causes that range from financial poverty, to biological causes (hormonal imbalances, etc) to desperation. --2604:2000:DDD1:4900:CC8B:F5A9:75ED:29F4 (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

How to describe the Emmett Till case in the lead sentence of the Emmett Till article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Emmett Till#RfC: Should we include the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect in the lead or specifically the lead sentence?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Yolanda Saldívar, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team}

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Archive 4/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of The Plot to Hack America for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Plot to Hack America is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Plot to Hack America until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Merge Proposal: From Michelle Carter (manslaughterer) to Death of Conrad Roy

I don't see a case for two articles, and the Michelle Carter one has BLP issues. I've proposed a merge. There needs to be some time for discussion but I expect the consensus to support this move. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 23

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 23. Marchjuly (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC discussion on May/June events at Talk:2017

There is an RfC discussion on which event that occurred in May/June 2017 to include or exclude (Talk:2017#RfC: Events in May and June 2017). Join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png

The image was undeleted, was relisted, and is discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 7#File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png, where comments are welcome there. --George Ho (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Red links in infoboxes

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Errors of fact in Article "Stabbing of Adele Morales by Norman Mailer"

Mailer was actually arrested the night he stabbed his wife and taken to night court, where Dr. Rosenberg's note, intended for the admitting psychiatrist at Bellevue was presented a evidence in order to obtain an involuntary commitment. It was a reporter at the court who broke the news publicly.

(I'm sure there are sources that present the story more accurately, but I'm not updating actual wiki page. My source is that I'm the son of the doctor who wrote that note and called the police to report the incident and told the officer to take Mailer to Bellevue. Coincidentally, Dr. Rosenberg was a police surgeon which gave him the rank of Depoty Inspector, far outranking the responding officer. But that didn'e make him an authority on legal procedures and the officer knew he needed a court order before taking to Bellevue against Mailer's wishes, so he took Mailer to court and the note intended for the admitting psychiatrist became part of the coufrt record, rather than the medical record.

Further, while Mrs. Mailer initially insisted publicly that she'd fallen on glass, the nature of the wound made it obvious she hadn't and she accurately described the weapon (under medical privilege) to the surgeon who performed surgery, so he knew what he was dealing with. (Far as I know, there is no recognized credible source or surviving primary source for that part.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikerose2 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Using "illicit" to describe Letourneau's interaction with Fualaau at Mary Kay Letourneau article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#Regarding "illicit". A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

At what point does an article fall under the project's scope?

In an article about a death or deaths, at what point does the article meet the scope of this project? When someone is arrested? When (s)he is charged? When (s)he is put on trial? When (s)he is convicted? Jim Michael (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

proposing CHARGED WITH categories

Example: Category:People acquitted of murder and Category:People convicted of murder could fall under a parent category of Category:People charged with murder.

An additional use of such a category is for notable individuals who have had charges pressed against them but who have neither been acquitted or convicted. Usually because the trial has not begun/finished or other reasons.

This would be valuable for neutrality while tracking notable individuals associated with criminal charges. ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but it's not such a defining characteristic as the other two. To be convicted or acquitted means actively winning or losing, largely by the subject's own actions. Being charged or not is entirely up to someone else, and doesn't so clearly reflect anything the subject did or didn't do. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Wade michael page police handout.png relisted for discussion

The image File:Wade michael page police handout.png is relisted into Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 August 27#File:Wade michael page police handout.png. You are invited to comment. --George Ho (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Harvey Carignan

Hi, I was just gnoming around, and I clicked on this article. The categories describe him as a serial killer, but there's not a single mention of his serial killings in the article. I'd fix it myself, but I have no idea what counts as a good source for crime articles. Red Fiona (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

A crime- and race-related RM and RfD

FYI

– Pointers to relevant discussions elsewhere.

Please see:

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

AFD: 2017 Plano Shooting

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Plano shooting Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Are misdemeanents eligible for "Criminal Biography"?

I wonder if people who were convicted of misdemeanors (but not felonies) are eligible for "Criminal Biography"? That would include Joe Muto, who pleaded guilty to misdemeanors in relation to a Fox News leak – he later wrote a book about the case, An Atheist in the FOXhole WhisperToMe (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:PERP, the seriousness of the crime has nothing to do with getting an article. Just the level of coverage. Like any person, really. Not sure if attempted theft would make a bio "of interest" to this WikiProject, though. Winona Ryder, convicted of actual theft, is not. He might have to settle for being a notable writer and producer. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The book itself should be notable just from reviews. Joe Muto got a lot of media coverage from his stunt, and by making it into a book, notability's clinched. Rather my question had to do with whether Joe Muto would be covered by this project or not. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW do you think would someone who takes an Alford plea qualify for this project too? @InedibleHulk: WhisperToMe (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd think so. Not much different, effectively, from someone maintaining their innocence while the prosecution wins the case the long, normal way. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC about victim lists in tragedy articles

I invite anyone interested to participate in an RfC about WP:NOTMEMORIAL and whether or not we should list individual victims in tragedy articles. The discussion can be found here. Thank you. SkyWarrior 04:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Missing persons

Is anyone able to have a look at this thread on my talk page and offer a second (third, fourth...) opinion? The TLDR version is that a good-faith editor has created a large number of articles on missing person cases. In my opinion most of them don't meet Wikipedia's definition of notability, since the only coverage is mentions in local papers and incidental listings on databases. However, going in and deleting them will literally wipe out almost the entire contribution history of a relatively long-term Wikipedia editor, and he's understandably upset at the prospect. (And yes, I'm aware that not all of them are technically crime articles – however, this project is where people with access to the relevant sources are most likely to be found.) ‑ Iridescent 19:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

terrorism, crime or no?

Noticed category:Terrorist incidents in Virginia was in category:crime in Virginia but reading articles like http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450467/charlottesville-terrorist-attack-virginia-should-prosecute-not-feds says terrorism is not a federal crime?

Is it at least a state or municipal one?

To classify terror as crime there has to be at least one "terrorism" charge on SOME level of law. Any articles like criminal terrorism or terrorism crimes to clarify? ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

International terrorism is a federal crime. Domestic terrorism is not a Federal crime but is a State-level crime in some states including Virginia. From the National Review article you cited:

"Still, violent crime remains primarily a state responsibility. Field committed a heinous intentional homicide, a capital offense in Virginia. The attack resulted in vicious assaults on several others, also serious crimes. The Old Dominion, moreover, is among several states that added domestic-terrorism crimes to their penal codes following 9/11. Virginia’s terrorism provision is a potential death-penalty offense"

So yes, Category:Terrorist incidents in Virginia belongs in Category:Crime in Virginia. –dlthewave ☎

Perhaps we could have category:American federal crimes and category:American state crimes or similar to clarify? ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Quoting the contributor: "To classify terror as crime there has to be at least one 'terrorism' charge on SOME level of law." However, a terrorist can get killed in action and his mass-murder will still be terrorism. We look for references that it was terrorism, not for primary sources. gidonb (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Is having an image of the perpetrator in an article about a crime glorifying the killer?

@Mukogodo:

In regards to the removal of the image of Louis, Jones, Jr. from the article of Murder of Tracie McBride, is having an image of the perpetrator in an article about a crime glorifying the killer?

I disagree that it is (I think it's simply reporting the factual appearance of the killer) but I would like to get more feedback. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Unless a photo of the crime itself, the image of a criminal has too little relevance to the crime to be included. From here the perception of glorification is reasonable, not necessary. Key imho is the question of relevance and this perception may be taken into account as well. gidonb (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

DNA test results in Stuart Heaton case

"In July 2001, Heaton was granted a new round of DNA testing by a Fayette County judge."

I would like to add the results of the DNA tests. However, the only source I can find on the results is a forum post, and the source in the post is no longer available. What should I do?

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/archive/index.php/t-68996.html

PEllis (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

wave of sex crime allegations in entertainment industry late 2017

Are there enough of these for us to make a page about? Seems to be more coverage of this with each situation leading to more against new people. SNL took a poke at it showing 5 guys, various reports have highlighted on the multiple instances. Just not sure what to name it.

2017 celebrity sex crime accusations maybe? ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Common name v. BLP

Which policy takes priority? I voiced a WP:BLPCRIME concern about a living person at Talk:2017 Lower Manhattan attack#Requested move 3 November 2017 who has been charged of crimes but not convicted if them, and it was simply closed as WP:SNOW due to people citing WP:COMMONNAME.

If enough newspapers say a person did a crime does that mean even though they have not been convicted we are free to ignore our BLP policy and say they did that crime by choosing a page title which does so?

Why do we have this policy at all if it is possible to ignore it and only apply it selectively? ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The assumption at the core of your question and move request is plainly wrong. There is no contradiction. WP:BLPCRIME says: "editors must seriously consider". We did and in light of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:FRINGE we decided against it. gidonb (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems like 'seriously consider' is thrown in there to basically mean that BLP has no teeth at all, so we can selectively weasel out of applying it whenever the mood strikes. What actually does have teeth then? If community is arguing about whether to be neutral and not call unconvicted people criminals vs cave to the media calling unconvicted people criminals, this is simply resolved by the unilateral power of admins to choose a favored stance and declare that to be consensus even when there is none? ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse vs. child molestation

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Child sexual abuse#Child sexual abuse vs. child molestation again. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not to differentiate child sexual abuse from child molestation in the lead of (and/or possibly lower in) the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Pop culture seems to assume all molestation is sexual molestation but it can have a broader meaning without qualifiers. Molestation can also occur without it being an abuse of authority, like I think it is 'abuse' when an adult does it but if a same-age child peer molests does the law still call it abuse? I thought a molester had to have authority/power for the term abuser to also apply. ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

We are going by what reliable scholarly sources are stating on this matter, as shown at the article talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Crime

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 14:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of an AfD

Your participation is requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Heather Rich

Could someone please look over the Murder of Heather Rich article please? (as for that tv episode about it being called A Murder before Homecoming, does anyone think that an episode about a same aged male victim would have been called A Murder before Flipping Burgers?). Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Death row

Recently, list of people on death row and list of inmates on death row were created to redirect to List of death row inmates in the United States. Is this correct? Do other countries have death rows, or places that US English would refer to as death rows? -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Eyes needed...

...on current editing on Aryan Brotherhood. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Appropriate scope on use of “criminal” categories and Infobox items?

This is triggered from their application to the free-speech campaigner Richard Carlile, whose pursuit of these causes in the early 19th century UK brought sedition and blasphemy convictions.

It seems to me that there is a gap between applying factual categories such as “People convicted ...” or “Prisoners...” and mapping a “Criminals” category onto anyone whose beliefs and activities brought them into conflict with a regime in a time and place.

In attempting to remove the “19th-century English criminals” category from the Carlile article a couple of weeks ago, I did advance the edit comment "seeking freedom of thought is not opting to make one's living on profit from crime" (subsequently opposed by an IP). I appreciate that instant benefit-based distinction is hardly exhaustive but an under-defined characterisation of “Criminals” which could apply consistently to Richard Carlile and Samuel Carlisi, to Galileo and Joseph N. Gallo seems too loose.

It may also dilute and undermine analytic use of the Infobox data? Applying the categories and Infobox parameters to all those imprisoned or executed after a process would draw in philosophers and religious figures, discarded wives and courtiers in monarchies, those executed in the Terrors of France in 1793 and the Soviet Union in 1937, opponents of the Nazis but not all the Nazi leadership themselves, astronomers, geneticists, etc.

I am curious about others’ views on how the "Criminals" characterisation should be defined for consistent application. (Apologies if I’ve failed to identify a previous discussion in the project archives) AllyD (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC notice: Coverage of mass shootings in firearms articles

An RfC relevant to this project may be interested in has been opened at

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Coverage of mass shootings in firearms articles

Interested editors are invited to participate. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

AfD comments for Operation Brand please

Right after being made, the article Operation Brand (which has come under this project) got a deletion nomination. The AfD discussion is 2-3 so far --not enough feedback for a real quorum. Please, editors, take a peek at the AfD and maybe weigh in. Best wishes, Cramyourspam (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

New article on Relisha Rudd (8yr old who disappeared in Washington DC)

The Rudd case has been upheld as an example of media and authorities failing to respond to the disappearance of a poor African-American child, contrasted with missing white woman syndrome. I have started a short article on Rudd, but there are a lot of details that can be filled in. Posting here in case anyone wants to contribute. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Usage differences between articles and categories for the term survivor

@WikiVirusC: agreed with me in Talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting#Survivor classification that this would be a good place to have this discussion. I imagine WP:Wikiproject Death and WP:WikiProject Firearms would also be related, should they be looped in?

The issue is the descriptions of categories:

Category:American shooting survivors These are people of American nationality who survived injury from a shooting.
Category:Shooting survivors These are people who have survived serious injury from a shooting. For those who did not survive, see Category:Deaths by firearm.
Category:Shooting victims This category is for victims who sustained gunshot injuries.

Three articles David Hogg (activist) and Emma González and Cameron Kasky all refer to their subjects as "survivors" and cite sources which refer to them as survivors. However because none of the 3 were actually injured during the Stoneman shooting, they do not fall within the parameters of the descriptions of the 'American' category or the 2 above it in the chain.

I am looking for opinions regarding whether or not we should change the descriptions of these categories to include people who did not sustain gunshot injuries.

If so, I would like us to create new categories reflecting the old definitions, so we can set apart those who survived gunshot injuries vs those who survived being in a place where a shooting occurred but who were not actually touched by a bullet. Perhaps category:shooting victims who were shot or a briefer Category:shot shooting victims ?

If not, then perhaps we should create a subcategory of Category:Crime witnesses (where I have placed the 3, as I removed the 'survivors' categories from their pages until the discrepency with their definitions is resolved) like Category:Shooting witnesses more specific to them?

@James James Morrison Morrison: given that you reverted my changes to these 2 of these 3 pages just now, perhaps you could provide some input regarding this? The categories you added to these 2 pages have descriptions which mislead readers as to what happened to these people.

@MrX: since in special:diff/828491044 you did also (I have to award JJMM the "better summary" award here) I'd also like your input regarding this issue. What is the better solution? Changing the category descriptions, or leaving as-is and creating different categories to reflect non-injured witnesses present in the general area a crime occurred? ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

We have to go by what the sources say. The media is using “survivor” in the sense that the students survived the trauma of the school shooting. Those that hid, but weren’t wounded, are referred to as survivors as well. For example (copied from Cameron Kasky and Emma González references):

"How the Survivors of Parkland Began the Never Again Movement"^[1]
"Students Who Survived Florida Shooting Want Politicians To Know They're Angry"^[2]
"Parkland-Shooting Survivor Logs Off Facebook After Death Threats"^[3]
"School Shooting Survivor Allegedly Getting Death Threats From NRA Supporters"^[4]
"Survivors of the Florida School Shooting Are Planning to March on Washington"^[5]
"Florida survivors to march on Washington"^[6]
In addition, an article by a “survivor” from a different school shooting is titled "I Am a School Shooting Survivor." She hid but wasn’t wounded.^[7]

-JJMM (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I didn't add the category American shooting survivors for Cameron Kasky or Emma González, and it shouldn't be changed to the category Crime witnesses (@ScratchMarshall-as you had done) because these kids were more than witnesses. -JJMM (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best (and simplest) to change the description of the category American shooting survivors to reflect the way the media is using the term "survivor." For example something like, "These are people of American nationality who survived direct trauma from a shooting, by hiding and/or being wounded." -JJMM (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

^ Emily Witt (February 19, 2018). "How the Survivors of Parkland Began the Never Again Movement". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 25, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Interview with Kelly McEvers (February 16, 2018). "Students Who Survived Florida Shooting Want Politicians To Know They're Angry". NPR All Things Considered. Retrieved February 25, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Madison Malone Kircher (February 22, 2018). "Parkland-Shooting Survivor Logs Off Facebook After Death Threats". New York Magazine. Retrieved February 25, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Chris Harris (February 26, 2018). "What to Know About Cameron Kasky, School Shooting Survivor Allegedly Getting Death Threats From NRA Supporters". People. Retrieved February 27, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Bruney, Gabrielle (February 18, 2018). "Survivors of the Florida School Shooting Are Planning to March on Washington". Esquire. Hearst Communications. Retrieved February 27, 2018. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
^ "Florida survivors to march on Washington". BBC News. 18 February 2018.
^ "I Am a School Shooting Survivor. This Is the First Time I've Had Hope in 25 Years". TIME. 27 February 2018.

Regarding the TIME piece by Devorah Heitner, I'm not sure if we should include self-ascribed survivors when weighing this, probably a conflict of interest. Better to rely on uninvolved journalists.

@James James Morrison Morrison: regardless of what conclusions we reach on whether to describe them as survivors, they were certainly witnesses too... or is it possibly to survive a hazard without witnessing it? The only case I can think is where someone is asleep/unconcious prior to the hazard beginning and I don't know if that applying to anyone here. I suppose it could qualify to someone who is shot in their sleep.

The first 6 all appear to apply to the recent case. Looking more broadly though, has no distinction been made between survivors of "X" v "attempted X"? Or basically, does being a victim of a shooting primarily mean that you were shot, or shot AT ? If we adopt the inclusive 2nd usage and not the 1st exclusive usage, I think it'd be useful to have a category which specifies people who actually got hit by bullets.

If we look at people who populate the category (50 Cent, Reagen, etc) these are people who were actually hit by bullets. I believe there are people interested in that (what the category is currently defined as including) without bloating the category with people who were not hit by bullets.

Aside from these 3, are there other people in this category not hit by bullets? I think we should split it in the hit / not-hit aspect.

I'm not even sure if 'shot at' even applies here, because I don't know if any of these 3 were in Building 12 or not. If they were not, then media appears to be using a broad sort of...

even if you were not shot, even if you were not shot at, if you were on a school campus with a shooter, even if they were in an entirely different building, you are a victim and a survivor because the idea of other people getting shot in nearby buildings is traumatic

meaning?

Makes me wonder which portion of New York City is a 9/11 survivor, if it extends beyond those who escaped the towers to those in adjacent buildings?

I can submit to a broadened 'survivor' definition than what category definitions use, but in this case I believe in applying a new definition, to deal with a potential new influx of additions, we should create subcategories with the old definitions with names that reflect the old definitions. Thus the Category:shot survivors idea.

We could then move any who apply (probably most of them, since they would be pre-redefine) into the new subcategory on a case-by-case basis. People actually hit by bullets, actually injured by shooting, deserve a special distinction. Distinguishing physically injured from psychologically injured is obviously the intention of the present definitions, and also conforms to Sheriff's department victim tallies.

I'm not sure whether or not "direct trauma" wound be appropriate for hiders. Do we have any reliable sources referring to hiding-based trauma as "direct" trauma? Being wounded seems a lot more direct than hiding to me. For example the direct "victims of murder" would be the people actually murdered, while "indirect victims of murder" I think would refer to people traumatized by witnessing the murder or hearing about it.

JJMM what do you think would be an appropriate name for the proposed subcategories specific only to physical wounds? Did some redlinks above. ScratchMarshall (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If editors want to add a new category to differentiate and reflect the way the media is referring to the Parkland survivors, it should be named "American school shooting survivors." The description should align with the way that well-established, notable, reliable media is using the term “survivor,” as a survivor of a school shooting trauma. The only people currently affected by this discussion are the three prominent Parkland survivors with Wikipedia pages: Kasky, González, and Hogg. I have nothing further to add at this point. Thank you for asking for my input. -JJMM (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point that those who were never injured should not be called incident "survivors." It begs the question: were ALL hundreds of students there "survivors"? What of those outside say during lunch? How about neighbors who might have taken in theory a stray bullet? Does "survivor" extend to the whole evacuation/shelter-in-place zone? "Involved person" or "associated-person" could imply guilt. Maybe "shooting witness" or "incident witness" for those reasonably close enough to qualify. Cramyourspam (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A classic case of overthinking. The Parkland kids ain't dead. They were hunted down but survived. Case closed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC notice

An RfC has been opened on whether Colt AR-15 should mention the Port Arthur massacre. –dlthewave ☎ 19:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

RM notice at Islamic terrorism

The discussion can be found here:

Talk:Islamic terrorism#Requested move 10 April 2018

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Guideline for crime related articles / timeline

Hello, coming from Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics#Port Arthur massacre I have done some work for Port Arthur massacre (Australia). By this I now reached a point of open questions. I took a look to a number of similar articles and found that it common to have a list of victims in this kind of articles. What I miss in this articles is a shortened time line which could look like Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks#Significant events. In my opinion it should be a standard to have this kind of overview in crime related articles. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Gun politics task force

Hello! I thought you might be interested in joining the Gun Politics Task Force. We work on coordinating, expanding and improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics broadly related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Project Page. Thank You!

This may be of interest to members of this project. –dlthewave ☎ 19:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Help for Article Port Arthur massacre (Australia)

Hello, I try to perform WP:Cleanup for the article Port Arthur massacre (Australia). Up to now I did a lot to verify sources, made some minor improvements in the article and left info at Talk:Port Arthur massacre (Australia)#Improvement of Article / Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics. Sorrowfully I do not find help from other wikipedians as I asked for in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics#Do we help each other as collegues ?. By this I may address an additional request for help in this project part of wikipedia. Any help, hints or criticisms are welcome. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Asaram

There is currently a discussion on Talk:Asaram that may interest people on this project page. Please leave your opinions under the header "Moving rape conviction in the introduction" HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion notice

A discussion related to this topic is taking place at NPOV Noticeboard. –dlthewave ☎ 02:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Help with article name

I could use some help choosing a name for an article about an alleged serial killer & investigation, at Talk:Bruce McArthur#Requested move 18 May 2018. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:La Mirada Punks

Another editor has created Draft:La Mirada Punks, which has been rejected more than once. Disregarding the self-published references (two web sites), I think that notability has been established, but I would appreciate it if editors with knowledge of criminal organizations could take a look at the draft and make any changes that seem appropriate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC notice at Template:Infobox Criminal

The discussion is open here:

Template talk:Infobox criminal#RfC on "trial" parameter

--K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Page split discussion

Hi, I haven't done anything like this before so my apologies if I'm posting in the wrong place but I have opened a discussion on Talk:United Kingdom football sexual abuse scandal about whether to split off a section into a separate article on one of the convicted offenders. Thanks Harambe Walks (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

City Harvest Church Criminal Breach of Trust Case

Hi, the tag asking for expert needed was in May 2016 and has not been removed since then. Not sure whether if it is still relevant but I like to request someone from the project to have a look at the article City Harvest Church Criminal Breach of Trust Case. Thanks. --08:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

policy guideline requested/needed

Disappearance of the Beaumont children lists (as of this edit) the full address of the house the Beaumonts lived in. My concern/query is that because this house still exists and is still a private residence, Wikipedia should not encourage pranksters and ghoul tourism. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Swedish Crown Jewels Stolen

I can't find any updates to existing articles and this frankly strikes me as being worth its own stand alone. Somebody has nicked part of the Swedish collection of royal bling. The whole thing sounds like the opening scene from a James Bond flick. [4] [5] -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Murder of Nia Wilson

Would one or more interested editors please review Murder of Nia Wilson, as there may be a BLPCRIME issue with the current level of coverage of the accused and am not sure how (Low importance) crimes awaiting trial are normally to be handled. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 22:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should there be an article on Emma Sulkowicz?

Hello! At Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) § RfC, there is an RfC on the question "Should there be an article on Emma Sulkowicz?". You are being notified because the page is tagged as being of interest to this WikiProject. :) -sche (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Naming of article on the Laredo sex worker killings

Hi! I created a move discussion over at Talk:Juan David Ortiz (the article about the recent killings in Laredo, TX) to discuss moving the page to a different name to reflect that the article should be about the killings rather than the person due to WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP. Thought some of you might be interested in the discussion. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Ithikkara Pakki

Could someone please create an article for Ithikkara Pakki ? He is a heroic outlaw roamed in the 19th century British India, a Robin Hood-esque highwayman and savior of the poor. He along with Kayamkulam Kochunni are the most popular bandits of Kerala and legends on them are part of the local folklore. Not much of any information is available, but there are few. I have added some info in my talk page, anyone can use it to create the article.--2405:204:D08D:C7D8:85A8:8E23:EB1C:35F (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Murder of Eliud Montoya

Is this notable? Or does it merit instead a mention is an article on US immigration policy debate or the Great Wall of Trump? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Murder of Rachael Runyan

Just bringing your attention to Murder of Rachael Runyan. Whoever created the article decided to emhphasise Rachael's status as a toddler beauty queen. It's not as if she needed her female sex enhanced, not many little boys are called "Rachael"... sigh... Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Assassination attempts, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team}

[1] Baltimore

[2] Belo Horizonte

[twsNewYorker2-3] Emily Witt (February 19, 2018). "How the Survivors of Parkland Began the Never Again Movement". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 25, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[twsNPR1-4] Interview with Kelly McEvers (February 16, 2018). "Students Who Survived Florida Shooting Want Politicians To Know They're Angry". NPR All Things Considered. Retrieved February 25, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[twsNYMag1-5] Madison Malone Kircher (February 22, 2018). "Parkland-Shooting Survivor Logs Off Facebook After Death Threats". New York Magazine. Retrieved February 25, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[PeopleFeb26-2018-6] Chris Harris (February 26, 2018). "What to Know About Cameron Kasky, School Shooting Survivor Allegedly Getting Death Threats From NRA Supporters". People. Retrieved February 27, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[EsquireFeb18-2018-7] Bruney, Gabrielle (February 18, 2018). "Survivors of the Florida School Shooting Are Planning to March on Washington". Esquire. Hearst Communications. Retrieved February 27, 2018. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

[BBCNews-8] "Florida survivors to march on Washington". BBC News. 18 February 2018.

[9] "I Am a School Shooting Survivor. This Is the First Time I've Had Hope in 25 Years". TIME. 27 February 2018.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]