Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Killing NPOV

message: I've noticed a number of articles which use terms like murder, atrocity and massacre when it is not clear that the subject would generally or objectively be labeled as such.  I do not believe this is in keeping with the Wikipedia:NPOV policy unless these labels are offered as someone's opinion on the acts.
While it is common to believe that something like the Holocaust is objectively atrocious, murderous, wrong or evil, this is clearly not adhering to the NPOV policy.
These terms are no more appropriate for statement as fact than obviously biased labels such as "ugly" or "evil".
I'd like to forumate a section for inclusion in the NPOV policy because this is a very widespread problem which people seem to have difficulty grasping the bias of.
Fourdee 01:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Description of Killings

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

message: Rather than have this proposal set in stone as policy why not see about incorporating it into the words to avoid guideline? One Night In Hackney303 02:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me as far as the particular terms; I just wanted to generate some discussion on this, as it is a very common problem and it's frustrating to have to restate the concept over and over to people who feel that their particular values are "obviously factual."  I would  like to see some kind of statement in WP:NPOV (as above) clearly distinguishing between opinions of fact and value-judgments, and stating that the latter should never be spoken in the voice of the encyclopedia writer because they are never factual.  This applies to so many articles, and usually only the most controversial ones get a proper treatment (after much unnecessary debate).  Fourdee 06:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, this entire proposal merely reinforces something which is already somewhere in the NPOV project page jungle: let the facts speak for themselves.  You can present something as a "brutal murder", or you can lay the facts on the table and let people decide for themselves.  81.104.175.145 07:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Different solution

message: Killing NPOV?  Great idea!! YechielMan 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a joke 

message: There's also an argument from emotion, and a practical side to this, for those who may have a gut reaction against treating neutrally something that they find horrible.
Most, perhaps all, war, evil and cruelty is directly related to a refusal to see, and often complete ignorance of, any opposing point of view.  The supporters of a religion, or nation, or political cause often remain ignorant of (or simply discredit) the other side of things and any act on the part their opponents (who likewise feel completely justified) only adds to their righteousess.
If there is a single great thing Wikipedia with its policy of neutrality can do for humanity, it's teach people that there are "always two sides" to any conflict.  If we can help people understand that in any disagreement there is someone else who has precisely equal factual foundation for his or her values, maybe a few people will step back and try to find a compromise, and there will be fewer holocausts.  So in that, neutrality itself is an agenda - and a good one.  Fourdee 07:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal to emotion 

message: The hypothesis is that the terms mentioned should never be spoken in the voice of the encyclopedia writer because they are never factual. I disagree with the hypothesis.  The following are a few examples from the Encylopedia Britannica
*Jack the ripper pseudonymous murderer of at least five women...All but one of Jack the Ripper's victims were killed...On one occasion half of a human kidney, which may have been extracted from a murder victim
*Katyn Massacre The discovery of the massacre precipitated the severance...firm physical evidence that the massacre took place in early 1940...
*My Lai Massacre..The massacre and other atrocities revealed during the trial divided the U.S. public...
*Leon Trotsky was the object of two assassination attempts...
I do agree that not all incidents labeled as massacres are in fact massacres.  for example, the Encylopedia Britannica entry
*Boston Massacre skirmish between British troops and a crowd in Boston, Mass...The incident was the climax of a series of brawls...
The excerpts are from the full (pay) version.  I can pull similar examples from other encyclopedias. I challenge anyone to show me an encyclopedia that conforms to this proposed policy.  I understand Fourdee's good intentions.  However, I feel his solution is draconian and does not conform to current encyclopedic practice.  I further maintain wikipedias current practice works reasonably well.  This practice is to label an "incident" a murder, massacre, atrocity, etc by consensus amongst editors.  If use of the term is controversial, consensus is arrived at by citing reputable, third party sources.
--Work permit 18:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Jack the Ripper example proves my point regarding the murder/killing example though. The victims were killed, it specifically uses that term rather than murder. The kidney part has to use murder in that context, as "killing victim" makes no sense and clarification is needed about how the person died. One Night In Hackney303 03:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid not.  Read the rest of the article. "...including that the murders were part of an occult or Masonic plot...The murder sites have become the locus of a macabre tourist industry...who disappeared after the final murders..."  The article constantly refers to the killings as murders.  I can give you numerous uses of the term  murderer instead of assailant or killer as well.  The article clearly is in violation of the proposed policy. But if you don't like this article, here's a twofer:
*Olof Palme ".. He was assassinated by a gunman in 1986; his murder remains unsolved."
--Work permit 05:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed the point completely. You earlier claimed that substituting killing for murder would make articles unreadable, and provided an example that did nothing of the sort, in fact it made the sentence more neutral and still made perfect sense. The article you've linked to already falls foul of WP:NPOV as it exists at the moment, by the constant use of the word murder as it doesn't need to say murder in every other sentence. The Olof Palme example falls completely short of WP:V. As the killing remains unsolved, who says it was an assassination? That's an opinion being presented as a fact. What if it was just a random killing? The very fact the crime is unsolved shows it can't be classed as an assassination. In fact I suggest you check Olof Palme assassination, in particular the section about Christer Pettersson, who was a criminal, drug user, and alcoholic. Judging by his background it could well have been a mugging gone wrong. Would that be an assassination? Not according to the definition of assassination, therefore we're back to WP:V again. Unsolved crimes fail WP:V when certain terms are being used. One Night In Hackney303 05:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You not only missed my earlier point.  You didn't even read it :)  Go back up to  and read my earlier point. I said "My point here wasn't that we couldn't substitute "killing" for "murder" and make a readable article. My point was it would create needless debates and bickering".  And here we are, debating and bickering :).  My point in this section is simple and clear. I have given numerous examples from the Encylopedia Britannica that use the terms in a way proscribed by this policy.  If you wish to maintain that the Encyclopedia Britannica, and all other Enyclopedias, are not encyclopedic, well have fun..--Work permit 06:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have a strict neutrality policy, it's not relevant to wikipedia in the least. Fourdee 15:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth (IANAL), it seems to me that Fourdee's trying to substitute a narrow legal definitions of words like murder and assassination for the common, plain-language usage. While this might be more precise, it leads to what appear to be absurdities. Take the Black_Dahlia: her manner of death was unquestionably homicide, but under Fourdee's proposal, we could not refer to her as a murder victim, because no one was ever convicted. This proposal will only lead to more wikidrama.70.227.232.162 15:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedia Britannica