Jump to content

Talk:2007 Carnation murders

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Carnation Massacre)

Subjective title name

[edit]

Isn't the title "Carnation Massacre 2007" too subjective? It doesn't fit in the category of a massacre, so it should be renamed to "Carnation, Washington shooting" or "Carnation, Washington slayings." The year added in the title is also unnecessary.

An example of this would be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crandon%2C_Wisconsin_shooting

70.137.148.27 (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I think that, given the total way that this thing played out, "massacre" might be an appropriate descriptor. But I do agree that the 2007 is unnecessary; how many such events have occurred that could be so named? Unschool (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the List of events named massacres the term "massacre" is generally used when the killings are indescriminate, while "shootings" or "killings" is used when the victims are targeted; however, a Google search shows that some media identify it as the "Carnation Massacre". momoricks (make my day) 04:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the heading of "perpetrator(s)" to "suspect(s)" as they are not currently guilty under law, and so it would be incorrect to identify them as perpetrators at this time. It should be revised once they are found guilty, assuming they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.100.121 (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Watts Riots which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 December 2014

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the pages as proposed, except move Carnation Massacre to 2007 Carnation murders, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


– Routine case adjustment per MOS:CAPS after WP:BRD; these are not consistently capitalized in sources; there is nothing in sources to suggest that they are, or should be treated as, proper names. Please review Talk:Watts_Riots#Move_to_close for the unopposed status of these, and raise objections here if any. I am also OK leaving the "of year" bits on the last two if people care, but I don't see why they are there. I will follow up shortly with ping of editors who participated in the recent relevant discussions, per advice there. I will copy and elaborate source data from the other RM to here if anyone really needs that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon, Dekimasu, RGloucester, Tony1, Calidum, Red Harvest, and Djembayz: @Jakec, North Shoreman, HughD, Edison, Chris troutman, Cptnono, and Lukeno94: @Blueboar, ErikHaugen, BD2412, Hmains, Arbitrarily0, Neil P. Quinn, and Anglo-Araneophilus: @SMcCandlish, Labattblueboy, Skookum1, and Ohconfucius: Since you have participated in or closed one or more of the recent riot/massacre/etc. decapitalization discussions, you are being pinged in case you want to be aware of this one; as agreed at the close linked in the move rationale above. Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – please note that @Cptnono: unilaterally moved Seattle Mardi Gras Riots to the singular since I open this RM, and @Dekimasu: adjusted the proposal above. This is even though I pointed out at the previous RM that only 2 of 25 books use the singular form. He may be right that it was really just one event, and WP generally prefers singular, so I'm not going to argue, but the present RM is for case of whichever way it ends up. The Englewood one also looks like it should be singular, even though it lasted two days (see the article); I'm amending the proposal accordingly. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Dicklyon (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This series of conversations is stupid, Dicklyon. We should be concerned with actual writing and maybe even layout before MoS title nuances that the reader doesn't care about. It has taken up too much time that would have better spent improving the prose. As the primary author of that article and as someone who was in the melee, the plural was a mistake on my part since there was an attempt to lump all of the weekend's events into one article. When some dude decided to make a stand while using a 6' chain as a whip I gave him his space. I'll do the same to you if you feel it is really important.Cptnono (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do serious writing in topic areas that I'm serious about, in wiki-gnome maintenance in others as a leisure-time alternative; beats watching TV. I do appreciate that there's lots more important work to be done, too; go for it. And thanks for acknowledging and fixing your title error there. Dicklyon (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—nowhere near consistently upcased in sources, as would be required (that's just one reason). Tony (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:CAPS, WP:NDESC, etc. These are not proper names, and not consistently capitalized in sources. We have to stop over-capitalizing every random journalistic turn of phrase, and appellation pulled from a headline.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, "Carnation Massacre" should not be titled "Carnation massacre" either. As I told Mr Lyon earlier, no sources call it "Carnation Massacre". One source describes the events as a massacre, but does not call the event that. Since we are creating a WP:NDESC title, we should not use value-laden terminology specifically discouraged by the MoS. Something like "Carnation murders" would be much more appropriate. The news article cited here calls it the "Carnation slayings", but I'm sure you all understand why that's inappropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 14:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, but that's not the issue at this RM. If an alternative is proposed and seems OK I don't care if the closer goes that way. No books call it "Carnation murders", either. Web sources go both ways; e.g. "Carnation massacre" here. Dicklyon (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we're constructing a WP:NDESC title because there is no one neutral unambiguous common name for the event, so it doesn't matter what "books" call it. We are WP:NOTNEWS, so their sensationalism doesn't apply to us. See WP:LABEL. RGloucester — ☎ 19:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that WP:COMMONNAME is not really applicable to descriptive titles; we still want to be informed by books and news in our deliberations, though; I just pointing out the error in your assertion that no sources call it "Carnation Massacre". Perhaps you meant no source that calls it that capitalizes it. I agree. Dicklyon (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Carnation massacre" is not a proper name. If we're using a descriptive title, we must be neutral and nonjudgmental. We cannot editorialise in Wikipedia's voice. RGloucester — ☎ 19:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it's not a proper name. You'll have to work harder to show that it is editorializing or non-neutral. We have at least hundreds of articles "X riot" and "X massacre" including many where both terms are used, from different perspectives. If you'd like to start a campaign to find better names for these events, that are neutral and based in sources, that will OK by me. Dicklyon (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're not hearing me. I'm talking about this article, not other articles. Nothing in reliable sources supports calling this event a "massacre" in Wikipedia's voice. The only sources for the word "massacre" seem to be from low-quality news publications that are either sensationalising or editorialising. If it is not a proper name, as has been established, we cannot be calling it a "massacre" in Wikipedia's voice. WP:LABEL makes clear that we should not call this a "massacre" on this basis. We must maintain WP:NPOV. The only neutral description of this is "2007 Carnation murders", which is standard for WP:NDESC titles. We cannot, in Wikipedia's voice, equate this event with the Nanking Massacre. "Massacre" only adds emotion. It is not pure description, but a term laden with emotions. We must neutrally describe the events, and not write "laden" with emotion. RGloucester — ☎ 20:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I heard you fine. You just repeated, "If it is not a proper name, as has been established, we cannot be calling it a 'massacre' in Wikipedia's voice." I'm just saying that I don't know of such a principle, and that precedent appears to be against it, so it's not a slam-dunk argument as you'd like it to be. I think a better argument would be that the killings were not indiscriminant, but rather were targeted at known individuals, so this doesn't fit the definition of massacre; murders fits better. But you need to read sources to figure that out. If you use a sensible rationale, you're more likely to get the result you seek. Dicklyon (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) If there's no particular objection to Carnation murders or 2007 Carnation murders, I think it would be productive to support that proposed title and move on; it's certainly precise enough to identify the scope of the article and it's in use. You seem to be objecting to RGloucester's comments about what Wikipedia "cannot" or "should not" do, but in this particular case it really seems like it would be enough to say, "Let's rename that one to 2007 Carnation murders then, since we can all be happy with that title and it adequately follows our naming guidelines." Dekimasuよ! 20:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with any of those if others are. But I don't want this to be seen as a precedent for another of his odd rationales. Actually, I'd prefer not to have it complicating this RM; he can just do it as an uncontroversial move later if no objection is evident, or open an RM if needed. But I defer to the closer. Dicklyon (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an "odd rationale". It is based in WP:LABEL, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NDESC. We are bound by neutrality, whereas two-bob newspapers are not. Can you think of any reason why this should be called a massacre in Wikipedia's editorial voice? There isn't any reason, because we don't use emotional words like "massacre" unless they are support unambiguously by reliable sources. "Massacre" is clearly not supported here. I can barely find any sources on this event at all, outside local media in the area that it took place. There is plenty of support for using murders or killings, not only from a WP:NDESC viewpoint, but also from sources. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to insist that the rationale is "If it is not a proper name, as has been established, we cannot be calling it a 'massacre' in Wikipedia's voice." then I will oppose. You arguments about what is found in sources is the same as mine, so if that's what you want to go with, I'll support. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not playing games here. I support both arguments you mention. However, it doesn't matter what I argue. This is not a battleground. What matters is that we choose a title that is right for Wikipedia. If you agree that the proposal is more correct for Wikipedia, it shouldn't matter what the heck my argument is. That'd be quite POINTy. RGloucester — ☎ 21:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might be pointy to object to the proposal, but I'm only objecting to the rationale. It appears very much like your usual game, as if you'd want to use this argument on a bunch of other articles to either leave them at, or move them to, capitalized "Massacre" when the usage in sources if mixed. That's what insisting on "If it is not a proper name, as has been established, we cannot be calling it a 'massacre' in Wikipedia's voice" feels like to someone who has just spent a ton of work dealing with your other spurious rationales, and has a ton of work left to do. If you want the move, it is exceptionally pointy of YOU to insist on the rationale that is objected to. Dicklyon (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what the rationale is, because unlike you, I'm not a "Wikilawyer". Make the rationale whatever you like, as long as the end result is good. If a title clearly makes sense for Wikipedia, as does this one, it should be implemented. I don't believe in precedent, and I have no interest in moving larges amounts of articles. You are not going to see me writing up a large argumentation here that I'll use to argue for the moving of other articles. I don't do that, unlike your prior moves that you said were based on precedent established at poorly-advertised requested move discussions. In fact, that was the thing I most objected to about your behaviour. The only reason I got involved in this mess, which I'd rather not be apart of, is because I had the Chicago page on my watch-list after the earlier unilateral moves in October. So, make whatever rationale you want, and add it to this request. I'll support it regardless. RGloucester — ☎ 22:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should have something like Godwin's law, but for "Wikilawyer". Dicklyon (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't deny, Mr Lyon, that you have a fondness for policy and technicalities. You wouldn't be mass-decapitalising articles otherwise. I'm not a lawyer. I despise lawyers. As I said, as long as the result is good, I don't care about all of the tiny and intricate legal technicalities. If you'd like, follow the advice of できます. Change the proposal to that title. The rationale can be that that is more commonly found in sources, as it is. RGloucester — ☎ 22:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're funny. I remind you of this edit of yours. If the shoe fits... But thanks for acknowledging that my decapitalization moves were based in policy and guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is that comparable? It is one thing to cite policy in a discussion, it is another to interpret it in a way not supported by consensus and force it on everyone else unilaterally. They were not based in policy and guidelines, but in your interpretation of them. That's where the "lawyering" comes in. RGloucester — ☎ 23:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I made this just for you: WP:WIKIGODWIN. Dicklyon (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not forced any changes. All of my changes have either been accepted or reverted and discussed, and sometimes made again; not sure what you think you're referring to. Dicklyon (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me, Mr Lyon. "I do not recall" is a cliche response. You made mass changes across many articles, citing "precedent", where none existed. In fact, you later admitted that at least one of the articles that you moved was "above 80% caps in sources", showing that you shoved these moves through without adequately analysing their validity. You should've known not to do this. RGloucester — ☎ 00:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, discussion and further examination of one that was reverted got me to accept the revert, and you want to use that as evidence that I "shove things through"? What about all the others that were reverted that I might still take to move discussions, or might not? Are those also examples of me shoving things through? Or is that just WP:BRD working? Are you saying I'm not allowed to be WP:BOLD any more? Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you've come to the discussion table, and it appears the "shoving" has stopped. We can all be bold, but boldness must be exercised responsibly. Moving tens of articles at once sans discussion is not responsible, especially given that it is clear that this is an area of conflicting opinions. It is evidence that you planned to "shove things through" if I hadn't taken the time to revert the moves. If I had not reverted you, would that article still be at a decapitalised title inappropriately now? Perhaps. This is why hastiness is not warranted. RGloucester — ☎ 00:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get to be in the 500 most active wikipedians by going slow, it's true. But I have never shirked discussion. Yes, I have moved probably thousand of articles by now, 99% with no comment from others. Please review them if you think not enough other wikipedians pay better attention to guidelines that I do. Start with the 2 new articles I moved today. Dicklyon (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Her Majesty's Inspector-General for Dicklyon Affairs. If you seek to hire one, I suggest you put an advert in the paper. As far as I'm concerned, I'm going to wait for the wind up of these requests, then flee to my more usual territory. RGloucester — ☎ 01:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course; thanks for the advice.
By the way, you have used the "massacre not OK in descriptive title" argument against a proposed move at Talk:Pottawatomie Massacre#Requested move. You might be right that we shouldn't describe this event as a massacre, but that's what sources do, and they don't do it with caps more than half the time. This one should close soon, and your use of the bogus rationale there may cause a closer to keep it capitalized, contra to guidelines, if you don't back down on it. Can you see why I was rankled? Anyway, I had forgotten that that's where the problem was, but I just worked on it (adding more explicit data like what convinced you to yield on the Houston Riot of 1917), so I recommend you take another look. It would seem odd in the extreme to continue to insist on capitalization where sources mostly don't. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. That one is supported by the Britannica, meaning that the question of the encyclopaedic register comes into play. It cannot be decapitalised. RGloucester — ☎ 06:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So some other encyclopedia gets to decide our house style. Tony (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources do, given that "house style" tells us to consult reliable sources. WP:UCN tells us to give extra weight to encyclopaedias in this instance, as they give us indication of titles appropriate for the encyclopaedic register. Strictly-speaking, we do not have a "house style" for this matter. Capitalisation is not uniform, but determined by "reliable sources". If we were to have a "house style" on this matter, we'd mandate capitalisation for all article titles, as would've been done in a proper encylopaedia of old. RGloucester — ☎ 07:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Background needed

[edit]

Joseph Thomas McEnroe especially. See his court behavior here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXFm24lKhek

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Carnation_murders&oldid=1256554994"