Talk:Killing of Lizzie O'Neill

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the `image-needed` parameter once the image is added.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Sexology and sexuality: Sex work Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Requested move 4 September 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not done Naleksuh (talk) 06:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment.

Links: current log • target log

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

– The opening sentence of the Killing of Lizzie O'Neill article refers to the incident as "The shooting of Lizzie O'Neill". The usual convention for articles on Wikipedia that are about deaths by shooting is "Shooting of" (unless they are clearly murder and are called "Murder of"). This is consistent across hundreds of articles – see the consistent naming pattern of the large number of articles in Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Canada, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Australia, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Thailand, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Germany, Category:Deaths by firearm in Iran, and similar categories for other countries. This has been supported by recent consensus in a long series of RM discussions, including the recent multi-article RMs at Talk:Shooting of Roni Levi, Talk:Shooting of Sammy Yatim , Talk:Shooting of Breonna Taylor, and Talk:Shooting of Atatiana Jefferson, and also single-page RM discussions at Talk:Shooting of Neda Agha-Soltan, Talk:Shooting of Chaiyaphum Pasae, Talk:Shooting of Benno Ohnesorg, and Talk:Shooting of Yoshihiro Hattori. Using "Killing of" has undesirable connotations, whereas "Shooting of" is simple and objective and provides more information (i.e. that a firearm was involved). "Shooting of" typically indicates a fatality, as evident from the very small number of articles in Category:Non-fatal shootings. These few articles seem to be exceptions from the general WP:CONSISTENT convention that have not been discussed in WP:RM discussions. I would just submit these as WP:RMTR "technical" requests, but the matter seems somewhat controversial, so I am opening a discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's a convention, yes, but that doesn't mean it's a sound one. "Shooting of" in our own usage, does not always imply death ... see most recently and notably Shooting of Jacob Blake. But we can't retitle it Jacob Blake because of WP:BLP1E. And I reiterate and incorporate by reference in full my argument in a similar discussion a few months ago that, if we must title articles this way, "shooting death of" is far, far better than "shooting of" for the very real reason demonstrated by the Jacob Blake article linked above. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – For one, because we should give these people at least the same amount of respect for life we give to an ape (See killing of Harambe). The OP fails to note the killing of Ahmaud Arbery who was shot and killed (See Talk:Killing of Ahmaud Arbery/Archive 8#Requested move 21 June 2020). They also fail to note the many articles we have that begin with "Killing of ...". What method was used to kill them is immaterial. The most critical element of the case, the most notable aspect, is that they were killed by another. This consistency spoken of was built piece-meal with no general consensus from the community. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for three reasons:
1. Article titles should follow WP:COMMONNAME, not a one-size-fits-all rule for consistency's sake. I'm not seeing any evidence in the proposal about what the common name is for any of these topics.
2. The usual convention for articles on Wikipedia that are about deaths by shooting is "Shooting of" is a claim I'd challenge. See the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#"Shooting of" or "Killing of", which involved many editors, and IMO showed at least possible consensus for "killing of" for fatal shootings and "shooting of" for non-fatal shootings, and for C&C's flowchart. This consensus should be tested in a wider RFC, and that should be done before we move any articles from "killing of" to "shooting of" or vice-versa.
3. The examples given are not persuasive. Talk:Shooting of Roni Levi had 3 participants, Talk:Shooting of Benno Ohnesorg had 3, Talk:Shooting of Chaiyaphum Pasae had 4, Talk:Shooting of Sammy Yatim also had 4 and I was one of them, and my !vote was for either "killing of" or "shooting of", leaving only two editors actually in favor of "shooting of" over "killing of". Talk:Shooting of Breonna Taylor had 7 participants. But all of these RMs were moved from "Death of" to "shooting of". Also, all of them were started by BarrelProof, which means one of the votes throughout is the same editor. Talk:Shooting of Neda Agha-Soltan had 9 editors, but it was a move from "Death" to "Shooting" where the closer also found fairly strong support for "Killing" as well. Talk:Shooting of Atatiana Jefferson was actually a RM from "killing" to "shooting" with 10 editors participating, so that's one solid example. Talk:Shooting of Yoshihiro Hattori is from "Death of" to "Shooting of", and it's from 2018; not an example of current practice. Altogether, these examples do not establish any consensus or "usual convention". Le v!v ich 18:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the supposed consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#"Shooting of" or "Killing of", that was not a discussion of whether to support or oppose the proposal – only how to frame the potential question. When it looked like someone might be expressing opposition to the proposal, there was a response saying "Please let us avoid arguing this here." So the discussion of the merits was never held. Later, there was no objection to expressions of support, but expression of opposition did not seem welcome. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See related discussion at Talk:Shooting of Greg Gunn. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The most important point is that the person was killed, not that they were shot. The convention is incorrect, IMO. Consensus can change. —valereee (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY with Killing of George Floyd and numerous other articles of that nature. Using a different title scheme with different connotations, just because the killing occurred as a result of a shooting rather than any other methodology is silly. It's the other "Shooting of..." articles that should be moved. — Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify the situation here, I would like to point out that George Floyd was not shot. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes that's true, but that's my point. We shouldn't be naming otherwise similar articles in a completely different way based on differences in the detail of how they occurred. — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as more accurate, reflectine the most important aspect of the incidents. People were not simply shot, they were shot to death, i.e., killed. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per detailed nomination and per WP:CONSISTENCY. Since there are hundreds of English Wikipedia main title headers using the form "Shooting of...", it is counterintuitive for these nine headers to use the form "Killing of..." because, according to the currently established and as yet unchanged pattern, "Killing of..." is expected to appear in headers delineating killing by method other than shooting. Since, as pointed out in the nomination, there is a small number of "Shooting of..." headers under Category:Non-fatal shootings, I would likewise support moving this header to Fatal shooting of Lizzie O'Neill, along with Fatal shooting of Heidi Hazell, Fatal shooting of Stephen Carroll, Fatal shooting of Ronil Singh, etc and all other fatal shooting headers to the form "Fatal shooting of..." or, for that matter, to "Killing of..." if there is consensus for such an all-encompassing move. But until then there should be consistency. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.