Arllaw

Hi Arllaw. I'm hoping to start up a dialogue with you about improvements to WP:DEATHS. Normally, I'd push for such discussion to happen at the talk page, but I worry others will perceive it as bludgeoning. I'm hoping we can settle on the clearest way to articulate the change and why it's an improvement and then bring it back there for review. Does that sound like a reasonable path forward to you? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think that if we can clearly articulate reasons for improving the page it will help.

A proposal for improvement needs to address the "common name" contentions up-front, that murders covered in the media will have a non-controversial common name as "Murder of...". See, e.g., Killing of JonBenét Ramsey -- but it's difficult to bring specific examples into the discussion because that is likely to result in a meta discussion about why there is or is not a common name (and what it is) instead of focusing on how to present sound, quality guidance to editors without any associated admission that "there will always be a common name" is not responsive to the problems with the flowchart.

I am happy to look at and comment on any draft proposal that you suggest, and to try to help ensure that it responds in advance to concerns previously raised in past discussions. To the extent that it might become an issue, I do not have a good answer for how to preempt editors who may have entrenched positions that will lead them to oppose any change or even compromise, or who may drive the discussion in circles that complicate and confuse the discussion, and understand that in such a context any attempt to push forward can be depicted as bludgeoning -- yet those approaches can amount to a filibuster, and when that occurs the choice is reduced to either trying to push through or (something not ideal for Wikipedia) walking away. A good, thorough, concise, understandable proposal (am I setting the bar too high?) is a sound starting point. Arllaw (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, that's the bar I'm looking at as well. I want to make sure I understand your proposal well. I asked a clarifying question at the talk page which I'll paste here, and I'd love to know your thoughts:

I'm also not sure I'm understanding Arllaw correctly, but I have a good guess. Arllaw, are you concerned about cases in which:

1. reliable sources are clear that someone was murdered
2. the sources do not frequently use the phrase "murder of X", thus no COMMONNAME
3. but there is no conviction for murder?

I agree these should mostly be titled "Murder of X", excepting some cases where this has unwelcome BLP implications. An example I can think of would be Murder of the Romanov family. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for the Romanovs as our ultimate example. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

In a case where reliable sources are clear that there was a murder, but reliable sources also reference the murder inconsistently (something that is very common, with undisputed murders also frequently referenced in headlines or the body of articles as deaths and killings), editors should be following the reliable sourcing as opposed to resorting to a flowchart that (incorrectly) lectures that if there is no conviction the article should not be identified as "Murder of...".

Common name is also something of a distraction from the problem with the flowchart. If we assume that we're not going to find a common name or, perhaps in a high profile case, some editors might dispute that the incident does not have a common name even though the cause of death is either indisputable a murder or is regarded as a murder by all but fringe sources, then the fallback should be what reliable sources tell us -- that the article is about a murder. The present flowchart, if followed, would overrule reliable sources in any situation in which there had not yet been a conviction, including unsolved murders.

If the flowchart is inappropriately followed because of a dispute over common name, or is followed in a situation in which there is a legitimate question as to common name, when reliable sources indicate that a murder occurred it leads to the wrong result. Arllaw (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ok. You're focused on cases where it's indisputable that reliable sources describe the killing as a murder, though they use enough other terms that COMMONNAME doesn't apply. In such cases, if there's been no murder conviction, the flowchart says to use "killing of". That's what you'd like to change? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have proposed changes to the conclusion of the flowchart, the portion in which the flowchart would override reliable sources. I would support any other appropriate changes that are proposed, if you believe that further improvement is possibe.

I question the idea that a COMMONNAME can be be objectively determined in cases of murder based upon reference to reliable sources. Sources often uses a range of terminology to describe specific incidents, both within and between articles, to avoid repetition of language -- writers will use synonyms and euphemisms. There will never be a situation in which all sources use the same language to describe a murder, which doesn't mean that there cannot be a COMMONNAME but raises the question of how it is decided that a COMMONNAME exists. It cannot be presumed that merely because there is no dispute that a particular death was a murder, editors will agree on a COMMONNAME.

Going back to the aforementioned example, the Killing of JonBenét Ramsey, there is no question that the case was a homicide that, under the facts, is prosecutable as murder under Colorado law. The imprecise measure of Google hits gives us 19,100 hits for the exact phrase "killing of jonbenet", 40,200 hits for "death of jonbenet" and 157,000 hits for "murder of jonbenet". As imprecise as that measure is, it indicates that "murder of" is the most common means of referencing that murder by a wide margin, and "killing of" the least.

We start by looking for a COMMONNAME. If "Murder of..." is by far the most common form of reference to a murder, and "Killing of..." the least, can "Killing of..." nonetheless be the COMMONNAME and, if so, by what standard? Similarly, if the determination is that there is no COMMONNAME, what is the standard for that determination?

If the COMMONNAME cannot be objectively and noncontroversially established, then even when the fact of a murder is not in dispute editors are going to look for guidance, and part of Wikipedia's guidance comes in the form of the flowchart. The flowchart provides the answer: There has been no conviction, therefore the article must be titled "Killing of...". Yet the fact that a murder remains unsolved does not transform a murder into something else. That remains true even if a defendant was acquitted (rightly or wrongly) of a death that the defendant admits to being a murder (e.g., OJ Simpson case), the defense being "It was a murder but somebody else committed it."

The error in the flowchart thus cannot be avoided by saying, "It's okay because COMMONNAME will fix things", because (reasonably or unreasonably) editors will not always agree on a COMMONNAME. When there is disagreement, people will look to documents such as the flowchart to resolve disputes over article naming. The flowchart seeks to impose a false position (there must be a conviction before an article can be titled "Murder of...") That position is incorrect whether it's being referenced in a dispute over whether a COMMONNAME exists or where editors are titling articles about murders where there is no COMMONNAME.

I am not advocating for the change of any article title, so please read nothing into my choice of example beyond how it illustrates the complexity of determining a COMMONNAME even for cases of undisputed murder. The flowchart is unhelpful in trying to resolve a dispute over COMMONNAME because it declares an incorrect standard of "It's not a murder unless there has been a conviction". Where there is no COMMONNAME, if applied, that incorrect standard will also override reliable sourced information in cases of murder. Arllaw (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do you think we could set the COMMONNAME discussion aside, or is that a central part of your argument for the proposal? Since COMMONNAME is policy, and DEATHS just an explanatory essay, I think the deference to policy is pretty untouchable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I do not think that COMMONNAME is relevant to the issue. I think it is a distraction, as the flowchart is simply incorrect. However, those who object to change insist that the box at the top of the chart renders the later issues with the flowchart irrelevant because they insist that murders will somehow automatically be seen as having a COMMONNAME of "Murder of...." I have no problem with proposing the change without introducing COMMONNAME, but the objectors are effectively holding that out as a trump card and will raise it again. Arllaw (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think that's why we should frame the issue using cases where COMMONNAME does not apply. Does that sound ok to you? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

That is absolutely fine with me. Do you want to try to use an actual case, or a hypothetical? Arllaw (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please let me know why you removed my improvements to the Limited Liability Partnership. Anand Singh7 (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

See WP:RS, WP:ADS. Arllaw (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, the proposed change is not sufficiently clear. From the best I can make out from your long circular arguments, the proposed change is completely unnecessary. And frankly you've bludgeoned multiple discussions here to the point other editors have walked away. This feels very disruptive, and I think you should stop. Valereee (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have been very patient with you, and have treated your often insulting posts as having been made in good faith. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making this personal, or engaging in further personal attacks. Arllaw (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Arllaw, please show me a diff of a personal attack I have made, or retract that accusation. Valereee (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Scroll up to your last post. Really, consider posting non-personal, relevant commentary that advances the discussion, or leave the discussion to others. Arllaw (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Give me a diff of a "personal attack", or stop. Also retract, but definitely stop. Valereee (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Let's take this to your talk to keep from creating issues here. Valereee (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

So, telling me to 'scroll up to (my) last post' and figure out what you mean is an example of the refusals you've been making to explain things to people, in this case refusing also when directly requested to provide diffs to support an accusation but instead asking me to go read back and figure out what you mean for myself. I made no personal attack in that post. I told you I thought you were bludgeoning the discussion, that bludgeoning was disruptive, and that you should stop.

The exchange that led to these is another, and also an example of your bludgeoning causing other editors to leave conversations. In fact although you have only been posting to that talk for less than six weeks, you are now the leading author of the talk page, with a full fifth of the page both by number of posts and volume of text being from you. The next four most frequent posters to that page have been contributing there for over three years. This is practically the definition of bludgeoning.

If that's literally all you've got to support your accusation that I've made a personal attack, you should consider this a warning that you should not make unsupported accusations. Valereee (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would appreciate it if you would end your one-sided grudge match. Your act is tedious and if you don't understand how rudeness, condescension and other obstruction of productive discussion is inappropriate for talk pages (including this one) I have much, much better things to do than to try to explain it to you. Arllaw (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

No grudge match, guy. You made an accusation about me, and I objected and asked you multiple times to support that accusation with evidence. I was literally just trying to get you to either back it up or retract it. You're going to do neither. It's fine. Best to you. Valereee (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

You are continuing with your rude, accusatorial behavior, right here and right now. If I tell you to read what you are posting and think about your words and tone, will you continue to protest that you don't understand how rude you are being? I have already asked you to stop. I would prefer not to have to ask again. Arllaw (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stephen Baldwin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friends & Lovers (film).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Arllaw, I don't know why that happened, but I saw today that you made some massive revert of content to many articles, with the edit summary "Promotional". For example reverting more than one year of modifications of the article artificial intelligence act. Is it a dysfunction of a kind of automated process? Anyway, I am undoing these reverts. Feel free to clarify what happened. Alenoach (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I saw that many edits intended to remove references from Mason Hayes & Curran. So I suppose it's indeed an error when executing an automated or semi-automated script. Please be careful when doing big modifications, and happy editing. Alenoach (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, it is not an error. The links were added to promote the site by an editor with a COI. Arllaw (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have no issue with removing promotional references. But then only the reference, and perhaps the corresponding content, should be removed. But several articles were reverted to old versions. For example, the one on the artificial intelligence act was removed to a version more than one year ago, which is obviously not good. Alenoach (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, when I looked again I saw that I inadvertently reverted to an old version. I am sorry for that error. Thank you for catching that. Arllaw (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply