Talk:Robin Williams/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Robin Williams. 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 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Committed suicide pre-RFC discussion

Discussion continued from #Note before making semi-protected edit requests

Should we !vote on this list of phrases?

Committed suicide

Died by suicide

Died in a suicide

His death was a suicide

Killed himself

Took his (own) life

Ended his life

Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

1) preferred term, 2 and 3) opposed, implies that suicide happened to someone and was not done by the person, 4) somewhat acceptable, slightly removes the sense of agency, 5) acceptable, if a little blunt, 6) opposed, the person already has their life, "taking" is a false concept, 7) opposed, overly flowery language. --Khajidha (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Khajidha, this is not the RFC; this is meant to be the discussion for how we frame the RFC. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good approach to resolving this dispute. I suggest that the problem to be solved isn't the language; the problem to be solved is that using this wording is creating unnecessary work for experienced editors.

As for the facts:

This wording is not required or even encouraged by any local or global RFC. The result of the biggest RFC on the use of the word commit was to warn experienced editors against tendentious editing and edit-warring to preserve the "commit" language. The only RFC on this page (ever) was about whether to list his children in the infobox.
Multiple clear, direct, and traditional alternatives exist. Previously, editors chose to use both "commit" and "non-commit" language in this article.
Almost every discussion – about 20 of them! – on this page this year has been a good-faith request to change this wording. These have all been declined on procedural (i.e., non-substantive) grounds. Using this wording, especially in the last paragraph of the introduction, has created an unnecessary burden on volunteers, who have to respond to these requests from other good-faith volunteers.

I don't think that voting on the wording of a sentence is effective. Prose by vote produces stodgy prose, not brilliant prose. But I do think that editors could vote about whether, in principle, they would prefer that volunteer time be spent patiently and gently responding to these good-faith requests vs replacing the language with something that doesn't produce so many requests. What exactly the "something" is could be sorted out later, by someone who can write. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Also: You can ask at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment for help with how to phrase an RFC question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Would that just come down to asking if "commit suicide" should be used? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

If you are trying to suggest to replace "commit suicide" with something else you should have a replacement in mind, though as with RFCs, there is usually a place for discussion for alternate answers. That is, to keep the question simple, the RFC could ask "Should the phrasing 'commit suicide' be replaced with '(proposed replacement)'?" which gives a simple yes/no answer and thus keeps the RFC short and sweet as it should be, but because this is an RFC, there can be further options given in those discussions. But still review how to phrase an RFC question to figure out how to word it best. --Masem (t) 18:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Kolya, I think that "should we use this phrase" doesn't represent the actual situation. The question is really "Should we keep what we have, which is this phrase plus a steady stream of good-faith proposals to change it, or should we change it to something that doesn't produce a steady stream of good-faith proposals to change it?"

"Should we use this?" doesn't help people understand the practical problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I would definitely at least describe what's been happening in a "background" section after the question. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The RFC question should be short and sweet and as neutral as possible (here, "Should we replace 'committed suicide' with X?" being reasonable on that end) so that when its advertized at central locations, it will not be overwhelming and others can understand it quickly. Complicated RFCs are doomed from the start. Should Kolya then want to add a background this should be careful to be neutral, enough to explain the BG and relevant past discussions (including the broader RFC) before going into rationale of why to change it. --Masem (t) 21:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this really does seem to me like a war of attrition being raged by people hoping their opponents will just give up and go away. I really am getting sick of repeating myself. (Is that what the change advocates want?) Putting it nicely, this has already been discussed a lot, here and elsewhere. At what point does Wikipedia just say "Stop!", and ban further discussion of this matter anywhere on Wikipedia for the next twenty years? HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this is getting soo old, these discussions on this topic. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Unwatching. Again. Yet another RFC is an ineffective way to proceed; for gosh sakes, just propose some reasonable wording and others will accept it; it wasn’t hard in the Lewy body articles (ps, stop focusing on the suicide and note that it was the Lewy bodies that led to that). If the wording about Lewy bodies is changed, I hope someone will ping me, as past versions had it wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

How about this RFC question: Can we rephrase sentences using "committed suicide" to avoid contentious terminology? Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"Can" is the wrong word. "Can we?" Yes, you're physically capable of clicking the [Edit] button. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Changing the lead?

Is the fact that he died by suicide what is most noteworthy for the lead, or is it more noteworthy that his suicide was extensively reported, or that there was a spike in the suicide rate following his death? We could propose a sentence beginning with "Williams' 2014 suicide ...." Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Anything but "he committed suicide" would be undue for the lede. As a famous celebrity, of course his death was widely reported and many tributes made, but it was not like, say, Death of Michael Jackson where there were tons of events related to the death as even to warrant a separate article. And there's very little support beyond one source making the claim about suicide increases after his death; this actually needs more sourcing or otherwise is UNDUE itself. --Masem (t) 21:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Masem, the lead currently uses the word suicide twice:

On August 11, 2014, at age 63, Williams committed suicide at his home in Paradise Cay, California. His widow, Susan Schneider Williams, as well as medical experts and his autopsy, attributed his suicide to his struggle with Lewy body disease.

If you think that's undue for the lede, then one of those could trivially be removed, e.g.,

On August 11, 2014, at age 63, Williams died at his home in Paradise Cay, California. His widow, Susan Schneider Williams, as well as medical experts and his autopsy, attributed his suicide to his struggle with Lewy body disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Reads great Moxy-

22:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This is good. Let's accept this wording and put this discussion to bed. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It reads to me like a clumsy and verbose attempt at trying to avoid writing "Williams committed suicide..." HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It uses one fewer word than the original, so I don't think that the charge of verbosity can be sustained. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll stick with just clumsy. It's NOT natural language. HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

What's clumsy about writing that "Williams died"? It looks like that quoted phrase appears in about 800 other articles: "Country singer Hank Williams died in Oak Hill". "Williams died at his home in Sans Soucis". "Williams died at his estate, Penryn Park, in Port Hope in 1854". "Williams died at Nice, France". "Williams died at his home in 2014". "Williams died at Ludlow Castle". "Williams died at his home in 1856". That doesn't sound awkward to me. Does it sound awkward to you in all of those articles, too? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Honestly -- I think this is a great compromise. It sidesteps whether we should use the weird "by suicide" phrasing, without keeping the "commit" language. I still don't think it's a necessary change; but I recognize that others disagree. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 05:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The phrasing is odd because the cause of dead (suicide) was known very much upfront, and not something discovered some days after the death via a medical evaluation. While the investigation did review to confirm he did commit suicide, that he committed suicide was all confirmed in initial reports. (To take in contrast, with someone like Prince (musician), it was not clear his death was initially a suicide and it was confirmed later it was not the case). So its odd phrasing to treat the exact cause of death (suicide) as something only discovered later, which is otherwise typical of people that die of natural causes. Further, Williams dying by suicide is readily known and we shouldn't be masking that just to get around what some may be consider objectionable wording (which WP has determined is not the case). --Masem (t) 05:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to lead with the cause of death just because it was immediately known. But if this alternative isn't the best, what should we !vote on? Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems extreme odd to mask a very well-known fact this way, in addition to the odd wording problems. It's just not a natural way of speaking about someone's death where the immediate cause of death was quickly known. (the Lewy body disease was a factor but not the cause of death) --Masem (t) 13:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

If you click through to those other articles, I believe you will find several that say things like "Williams died at home of cancer". There are are about ten thousand Wikipedia articles that use this language ("died at {his/her/their} home)". It doesn't sound the least bit odd to me.

Do you think it's odd when journalists use the same language?

"Ms. Simmons, who last worked on television in March, died at home in Tokyo on April 23 at 85, according to St. Alban’s Anglican-Episcopal Church in Tokyo, where she was a congregant. Father William Bulson, the church’s rector, said in an email that the cause was a pulmonary condition."[1]
"James Callaghan...died at home in East Sussex, England, on Saturday"[2]
"Jenkins died Oct. 5 at his home in Choctaw, Oklahoma, of complications related to dementia"[3]

Or is the real "oddity" that you think that suicide needs to be treated like a "special" medical situation? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Also seems odd because it makes his death seem like something outside of himself caused it. He didn't just "die", he killed himself. --Khajidha (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Suicidal behaviors in an agitated dementia patient are not the same as a teenager impulsively trying to kill himself because he failed a test or was rejected by his crush. I would encourage you to read up on behavior challenges for dementia. They include behaviors that would be considered crimes under normal situation, including violence (both self-directed and others-directed) and inappropriate sexual behavior. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what relationship your response has to my comment. --Khajidha (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by objecting to the phrasing this way. "Williams died" doesn't say or even imply anything about the cause of death. Also, aren't most causes of death "inside" you? Heart disease, cancer, infections, etc.?

I was guessing that what you meant was that saying "Williams died" doesn't, in your opinion, blame him enough, or impugn his character enough, for killing himself. That's why I suggested that you read up on dementia. Dementia increases the risk of suicide, not because they are bad people, but because they literally can't think properly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"Williams died" implies (at least in the version of English I am familiar with) that no human actions were involved in the cause of death. It's not a question of "blaming" or "impugning", it's a simple statement of fact. --Khajidha (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it implies that at all. I don't think that's a common perception, either. Abraham Lincoln#Assassination says "Lincoln died". William McKinley#Assassination says "McKinley died". The lead of James A. Garfield says "The wound was not immediately fatal, but he died on September 19, 1881, from infections caused by his doctors." If that implication were commonly held, I don't think that these articles would be saying that all of these assassinated presidents "died". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I was assuming that you would understand "Williams died" to be a reference to the phrasing under discussion ("Williams died at his home"). I should have been more exact. Every time I have seen "<blank> died at home", it has referred to a death from illness or age. Not accident, suicide, or murder. --Khajidha (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This appears in news stories like "died at his home...of a self-inflicted gunshot wound"[4], "died by suicide at his home",[5] "Four officers...have died by suicide. [...] died at his home on Thursday",[6] "died of an apparent suicide [...] He died at home Friday".[7]

I don't recall seeing suicide described with the wording "died peacefully at home". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Alternative:
On August 11, 2014, at age 63, Williams died at his home in Paradise Cay, California.[10] His death was a suicide which his widow, Susan Schneider Williams, as well as medical experts and his autopsy, attributed ~~his suicide~~ to his struggle with Lewy body disease. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you reread that, because its grammar is flawed. --Khajidha (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm also pretty sure that the "struggle with" disease formation is to be avoided in encyclopedic writing. --Khajidha (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

That's easily fixed. Just replace the old phrase "attributed his suicide to his struggle with" with "attributed to". (If that feels opaque, e.g., for readers who think that dementia is primarily about an inability to find your keys or remember people's names, then the typical phrase would be "attributed to complications of".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Changing the Death section?

Currently, Robin Williams#Death states:
On August 11, 2014, Williams committed suicide by hanging at his home in Paradise Cay, California. His body was cremated at Monte's Chapel of the Hills in San Anselmo, and his ashes were scattered over San Francisco Bay the next day. The final autopsy report, released in November 2014, concluded that he "died of asphyxia due to hanging".
An option could be to change this to:
On August 11, 2014, Williams died at his home in Paradise Cay, California. His body was cremated at Monte's Chapel of the Hills in San Anselmo, and his ashes were scattered over San Francisco Bay the next day. The final autopsy report, released in November 2014, "ruled [his] death a suicide that resulted from asphyxia due to hanging."[8] Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Look how many Google hits this quote has. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yet again, again, again, there is no need to change the current wording. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yet again, again, again and again! there is no need to change the current wording. (Attribution to HiLo48 Thank you. :) ) - FlightTime (open channel) 02:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

!Votes are for the RFC. We are just discussing how to frame it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Died by suicide is the most respectful way to phrase this kind of death. Coming from a family who has experienced a suicide. PiellaGibson (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@PiellaGibson: So, you created your account just to comment in this discussion ? - FlightTime (open channel) 01:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Piella. I hope that you find a way to contribute that you enjoy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Knowing that no disrespect is EVER intended, what is it about "committed suicide" that you find disrespectful, and why? HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to speak for any individual, but most explanations seem to center on the associations of the unusual grammar construction. A person can:

commit crimes (e.g., "He committed murder"),
commit sins (e.g., "He committed adultery"),
commit suicide, and occasionally
commit random acts of kindness – a phrase that deliberately plays on the fact that all the traditional "committed actions" are negative, and that unexpected kindness can be transgressive when selfishness, violence, and cruelty seem common.

You can commit to positive things, and you can commit objects to something (e.g., a burial at sea might be described as "committing his body to the deep"), but the only actions normally described as being "committed" are illegal and immoral actions, undertaken with intent. Some people therefore perceive the phrase as being disrespectful, judgmental, and/or inaccurate when applied to suicide. It implies that suicide is morally and/or legally bad, that the person who died was morally and/or legally wrong to die that way, and that they are culpable for their choice rather than what in legal terms would be considered a person unable to understand or having diminished responsibility for their actions.

There are other explanations, and I reiterate that I don't know what this individual's own explanation is, but this is a common explanation of why some people find the phrase to be objectionable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd have to review the psychological papers that were raised at the RFC, but from that angle, the "commit" word creates a sense of finality that mental health professional claim would have those that are feeling suicide to also decide to take their lives (hence the issue around copycat suicide after large media cover). Their idea is using language like "died by suicide" is less likely to have that type of impact. There's also a weaker claim that in a few isolated countries, that suicide is a crime, so "committing" suicide can imply they did something illegal (Even if the person didn't live in one of those countries). --Masem (t) 15:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Commit suicide is simply an idiom which is a holdover from when suicide was illegal in many countries and considered a sin, just like committing adultery. Virtually all serious RS have stopped using this term. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"McQueen, who committed suicide in 2010, discovered he was a distant descendant of How's, he dedicated his darkly dramatic autumn/winter 2007",[9] "Two federal jail guards who were assigned to monitor Jeffrey Epstein the night he committed suicide",[10] "Other theories have suggested he may have left the country, committed suicide, or been attacked by wildlife",[11] God, even the United Nations uses it: "Henry committed suicide in September 2016. According to a teacher, the close friend".[12] I've been monitoring this section and still I don't see the point of it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers often violate their own style guides. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe they don't have a style for those times someone suicides and you simply assumed that, quote, "Virtually all serious RS have stopped using this term" when it's not the case. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This sub-thread is about why some people find the phrase disrespectful. I don't think that whether (or how often) it gets used is relevant to that question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm merely proving that this whole pre-RFC section (and the apparently upcoming RFC) are a waste of time. Users will vote "change it to a neutral term as it is offensive" or "no, it is a valid idiom that is still being used and the sinful part is an opinion". Whichever side wins, if any, this will be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that will have no impact anywhere but here. Also, I was not the one that brought the popularity of the term to the thread, it was Koyla. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

As long as the local consensus does not contradict a global consensus (and neither keeping nor replacing this wording would do so), then a local consensus that affects only this article is exactly what we need and want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I made no such assumption, but I was imprecise. The Washington Post, etc, at lease disfavor "committed suicide". Compare committed suicide vs died by suicide. They're clearly discontinuing the term's use. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

So, you're saying that every baseball player who's ever committed an error was being described as a sinner? The word just doesn't carry that baggage of "sin" or "crime" in the English dialect I am familiar with. --Khajidha (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

That fits the pattern, because errors, like crimes and sins, are generally considered a bad thing. Have you seen a baseball player described as committing winning actions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

And suicide is a human death. It's not gonna be considered a "good thing", which is what avoiding "committed" seems to be trying to do. --Khajidha (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

And you are completely ignoring usages such as "committed acts of heroism" .--Khajidha (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that's bad English, but regardless, dictionaries and style guides are clear that "commit suicide" is nonneutral. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of the phrase "committed acts of heroism" before; it seems to be technical language for military awards. Here's the entire list of all articles using the phrase committed acts of (anything) in the English Wikipedia. Do you see any positive actions in that list? I didn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@HiLo48 and FlightTime: The sentence in the lead I think we'll need an RfC for, but can we agree on my proposal for the Death section, considering it's using an exact quote? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You need to stop beating a dead horse. You've been told there's no reason to change it. --Masem (t) 23:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

That's not a policy based argument. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yet again, again, again, again, there is no need to change the current wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe you need to stop beating a dead horse, because you've equally been told there's no reason to retain a version which has been disputed by at least two dozen editors for the last several years? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious whether those who advocate a "follow the sources" approach have actually looked at the sources used in this article, which cover his death. I have not found any that said "committed suicide". The article by his wife, Susan Schneider Williams, says "He died from suicide". The CNN source says "The death of actor and comedian Robin Williams has officially been ruled a suicide...Williams was found dead in his Tiburon, California, home August 11 from what investigators suspected was a suicide by hanging." The Sky News article says "Williams was found hanged". The LBDA article notes "his tragic suicide earlier this year". None of them feel the need to use archaic legal terms, it seems. -- Colin°^Talk 14:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

While the sources used at the time the death was first announced they would be careful obviously not to say "commit suicide" until it was confirmed. Sources (at least, US sources) in the weeks that followed that spoke of Williams all pretty much say "committed suicide" once that was confirmed; we're obviously not going to include all those sources on WP (its not necessary) but that's what we are reviewing here. --Masem (t) 15:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I have changed it to match the words used in the cited source FN 10. [13] It says "took his own life". The source does not mention the words "committed" or "suicide." Per WP:V the best thing to do in contentious situations is to closely follow the reliable sources, especially those cited. Jehochman ^Talk 16:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- As I pointed out above, the sources that we'd have used to document the death immediately when it happened and when it was confirmed are not likely to use "commit suicide" since it wasn't confirmed or would be repeating the coroner's statement of "death by suicide". But numerous reliable sources in the wake of the death, mostly all retrospectives that we do not include (as WP is not a memorial) use "commit suicide". Its easy to point out dozens of these just to support that language but that becomes an issue of being pointy and useless sourcing for that purpose. --Masem (t) 16:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  @Aoidh has reverted this change. I am doubtful of the claim in the edit summary that there has been a consensus to use this language in the lead. AFAICT from the archives, not to mention this discussion, there have been a long series of disputes with no evidence of consensus (either way).
  
  Masem, waving at the existence of sources that are not cited in the article is unconvincing. If none of the sources used to build the article use that phrase, then @Jehochman is right. Also, the cited source confirms that it was suicide ("Williams decided to take his own life"), so the argument that they didn't use the disputed phrase because they weren't sure that it was suicide does not align with the facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  - That, for all purposes, is cherry picking one source that talks about his death of several hundreds that editors choose to use as a reliable source to document the fundamental fact in the article. We should not be using one single source to judge the specific wording - particularly as the fact that suicide was involved is not contentious -- we have to consider what all reliable sources said the time, even though we're not using those reliable sources. --Masem (t) 17:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    - [W]e have to consider what all reliable sources said the time. No, we do not have to consider what RS said at the time. 2014 was a much different time than today in terms of the social consciousness of the media. All the best RS of the past two or three years which recount Williams' death do not use "committed suicide". Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
      - Per the site wide RFC on "commit suicide" there is no consensus that the term is outdated or needs to be replaced. And there are still plenty of RSes that still use "committed suicide" today, a point from the RFC that there's not strong agreement that the phrase should be phased out. --Masem (t) 18:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
        
        So you'd support us using the language of recent rather than contemporaneous sources? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
        
        Per the RfC: Perhaps the best idea is to see what the cited sources in each article say and follow their formulation. This will naturally cause us to track whatever trend exists in society. We must use recent sources if we are to properly track the trend. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
        
        No, there's nothing in policy that says we must follow recent sources, this is actually against what PRESENTISM said, as well as established at the RFC. You are continuing to beat at a dead horse, and this is becoming extremely disruptive. --Masem (t) 01:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
        
        That feels chilling. We haven't even launched the RFC yet, and I do not understand your argument for using the contemporaneous sources. For instance, should we call Christy Brown "crippled" in wikivoice if most RS during his time called him that, such as his obituary in the New York Times?[14] Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
        
        Let me refocus the question so hopefully we can finish this piece of the discussion: why do you favor the language of the contemporaneous sources on Williams' death?. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned that the discussion has become corrupted by statements that are not true. I don't think anyone here is lying, but that they believe and wish so strongly that it is true that they write it anyway without checking. I agree with WAID about Aoidh's edit summary that "committed suicide" "has been the consensus for quite some time". I looked through the archives and indeed see no consensus for "committed suicide". It is widely criticised. Wrt Masem's comments about sources, I am getting deja vu from a WP:V discussion when an Alice in Wonderland situation developed where words got personal definitions to mean whatever suited an argument. Let's be clear again. On Wikipedia, "sources" are publications cited to support the text in our articles. Anything else published could be a "potential source" but is really just "newspapers" or "web sites" or whatever. So, Masem, if your argument repeatedly is that we must be a slave to our sources, and our sources on this article do not use the term "committed suicide", then you can't suddenly change the rules to suggest "sources" means something else.

WAID notes that Masem's argument about why those sources don't say "committed suicide" indeed does "not align with the facts". Looking back at the archives, I also see Masem claim "I would add that for an American "committed suicide" does not imply a crime as it can for other countries. That's why it is acceptable here." Something that Suicide legislation#United States would confirm also does not align with the facts. Dictionary.com's explanation for avoiding that term is just one example of an American source that agrees the word suggests a crime (or a sin).

But I'm most concerned by Masem's allegation of "cherry picking". If they can demonstrate the multiple sources we cite to discuss Williams' death were hand picked to avoid "committed suicide" then you'd have a case for that bad faith allegation. Otherwise, I recommend Masem strike that suggestion.

Masem, you have been hoisted by your petard on this one. When our sources do not use the offensive term, it seems most WP:POINTy to demand that we do. Indeed this whole thing reminds me of the early days of Commons, where editors uploaded and battled to retain dubious images just to show off how uncensored they were. I a puzzled why some editors so persistently want to offend our readers, when there are straightforward alternatives. I recommend Jehochman's edit be restored and that that be an end to it. -- Colin°^Talk 10:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It is very easy to do a Google News search in the period starting a few months after his death (after the coroner affirmed the means) and in the few years to find articles about Robin Williams that use explicitly "committed suicide", but which we don't include in this article because they don't add new information or are relevant to this article. That doesn't mean these sources should not be considered in any evaluation or don't matter for that purpose. They clearly exist, but as we here work to summarize sources, we summarize the most relevant articles which were the ones at the time of his death (which either are going to avoid stating the cause or are going to repeat the coroner's report), and not the hundreds of memorials afterwards. I am not saying that the article was purposely developed this way to avoid the language, this is just the natural way we would use sources in an article like this, and that just happens to not use sources using "committed suicide" in the section about Williams' death, just due to timing factors.

Also a key point here is that the larger RFC has established that "committed suicide" is that the community consensus has deemed it an acceptable term and not offensive, and there's no mandate to replace its usage. That's the problem with situation here is that the argument is being started "but its an offensive term" which globally it is not, which keeps coming up and up. It would be far different if that RFC closed with the expectation that such terminology should be avoided, but that's not the RFC result. --Masem (t) 13:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

And to add, one of the first sources reporting on news of the coroner's reports which we have in the article (#162 current, the NBC News one, first in the 2nd para on the death section) uses "committed suicide"). So it's not like we don't have that in the article. --Masem (t) 13:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The NBC News article is not a source for the sentences that say "committed suicide". Yes it is very easy to search for particular phrases, but do let me know when Google has a search for "News reports that could have but chose not to say 'committed suicide' for whatever reason". I think you should be grown up enough to accept that if you bang on the "follow the sources" drum enough times, and it turns out our sources for those sentences use different word choices to "committed suicide", that it is time to stop beating the dead horse. It looks embarrassing now, if your argument is essentially "Well, when I said "follow the sources", I didn't mean the actual cited sources for the disputed text, what I meant was...." It is time to pick another biography with which to wage this war. -- Colin°^Talk 17:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

If you want to be that pedantic, it is really really trivial to simply reuse the NBC News source on the sentence in prose that states "committed suicide" (since that source also supports that statement too). As well as dozens of other sources that can be pulled into the article, though that would be source overkill. And one has to be aware of how reliable sources are going to report on people's deaths over time - they are not going to jump to conclusions and claim "committed suicide" on the same day it happened, but wait for investigations to be made and their conclusions reached (less reliable sources may jump to that conclusion). We have to be aware of the nature of reporting like this, which is not going to be something documented in sources. We're not mindless slaves to sources here, we have to be aware of how media works and the like. (The whole question of debate here is relying on the basis that media has since moved aware from using "committed suicide" in reporting, which we're talking as fact, though still doesn't change the basis of the RFC). --Masem (t) 17:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Masem, assuming that the RFC you're talking about is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 164#RFC: "Committed suicide" language, I see no evidence that "the community consensus has deemed it...not offensive". Whether it is offensive or not was not really addressed. The closing statement reads in part (I turn it into a bullet list):

A minority of editors think "commit suicide" is archaic, and if some other equal or better formulation exists and a change is made, we should not tendentiously revert it.
Likewise, I would urge editors not to tendentiously remove "commit suicide" everywhere it is found.
Perhaps the best idea is to see what the cited sources in each article say and follow their formulation.

So we have: 'if some other equal or better formulation exists and a change is made, we should' accept the removal, but we 'urge editors not to tendentiously remove "commit suicide" everywhere'. This is not an even division; it indicates a slight (perhaps very slight) preference towards non-systematic, case-by-case removal.

Also, notice that the follow-the-sources language specifically refers to "the cited sources", not to sources that might exist elsewhere. With my spot-check, the cited sources in this article primarily choose other wording. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The last part though is still pedantic, because it would just be a matter of inserting the numerous reliable sources that used "committed suicide" as citations, but that would just be citation overkill. In terms of how we'd determine language choices in nearly every other case, we don't limit ourselves to what is only used in the article, but the entire body of reliable sources available to review, a subset which we are included for summary purposes. --Masem (t) 03:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Masem, please answer if you support the proposed change at the beginning of this section. You stated: we summarize the most relevant articles which were the ones at the time of his death (which either are going to avoid stating the cause or are going to repeat the coroner's report).[15] The proposal meets your criteria. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You're taking my statement out of context, so no I don't support the change. --Masem (t) 14:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

What do you think about this sort of format for the RFC? I've quickly filled in a handful of supporting reasons, but the real ones could be written later.

Should this article use the phrase committed suicide in the lead?
No, we should change the wording.	Yes, we should retain the old wording.
Using this phrase is not required by any policy, guideline, or previous RFC. This phrase is not necessary in this article. This phrase has already produced about 20 edit requests, which produces extra work for volunteer editors. Some readers and editors find this phrase offensive or judgmental, which does not help the article maintain a neutral tone. The replacement does not have to be died by suicide.	Using this phrase is not banned by any policy, guideline, or previous RFC. This phrase is one of several traditional ways to describe deaths from suicide. It doesn't matter if editors keep asking for changes. We can just keep responding to the requests. Some sources use this phrase, so we can, too. If we remove this phrase from this article, then editors might try to remove it from other articles.

The main point is that they're brief and reasonably universal, rather than a viewpoint that is held by only one editor. (Individual views can be added as signed comments during the RFC.)

Do you think this would be a good way to present the pros and cons to keeping/changing the phrase? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The question is just for the sentence in the lead? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

That's the instance that draws more complaints, so I focused on that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The edit requests don't differentiate between instances; they object to the use of the term in this article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the RFC wording has some issues. The choice of yes/no and change/retain can influence voting quite considerably. See this paper, which is just the first thing that turned up on Google. This is a well studied phenomenon and for example, changes how independence referenda are worded. I find it a little odd that we have a no-change & yes-retain pairing. I don't know if that's an attempt to neutralise the influence but it may also cause confusion. Usually change is a thing one agrees to (a yes vote).

Which brings up the question of why the RFC is structured round "change" at all. The implication of requesting change that there is a current long established and consensus version (saying "committed suicide" in the lead). That's naturally going to default the vote to "retain consensus version". But the current text may reflect a long-standing enforcement of the will of some dominant editors, rather than actual consensus. Or it may be we got that phrasing more-or-less by chance, and those who object to change, any change, have dominated. Or some other reason. It would be more neutral to ask how we should word Williams' death.

I'm curious if there are other biographical articles where writers avoided the "committed suicide" term to begin with, and nobody has ever sought to change to that, or were ever successful in doing so. It isn't easy to determine that, but you can see that by focusing on the article where wording X was picked, got stuck, got fought over, it makes it look like X is something people fight for. But perhaps nobody ever (successfully) fights to change to X, if the article never included it to begin with.

The RFC proposes we change, and notes that a certain phrase many dislike does not have to be used, but doesn't actually propose what we should change it to. Voters don't know what they are voting for if they vote for change. Looking at the history, recent changes have been to write "died by suicide", which many say sounds unnatural. If you are going to poll, at least first find agreement on what good alternative wording looks like. Requesting change for change sake feeds into a "we are being pushed to change by woke politically correct social justice warriors" narrative. Can't we just have a choice of sentences to pick from? That may actually allow people to vote for one without all the wiki/social political baggage of having to agree that "committed suicide" should not ever be used.

Lastly, the comment about "Some readers and editors find this phrase offensive or judgmental" is rather weak and easily dismissed. Some readers and editors eh? Well some readers and editors think the Chinese invented Covid 19 or stuff about Bill Gates and 5G. It neglects to mention that requests to change or use alternative wording comes from those working in mental health (support groups and professionals) and have been adopted in style guides by organisations that are not advocacy pushing. -- Colin°^Talk 12:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen a dispute in which the article started with something like "He killed himself" or "The cause of death was suicide", and someone tried to change it to "committed suicide".

The problem with listing all the alternatives is that there are so many. Copyediting by vote is almost always a bad idea, because, in practice, votes get counted in a First-past-the-post voting system. Four editors who want one option seem to "win" over the 10 editors who want anything else – only those 10 editors are equally divided between five options, which makes it look like there is twice as much support for "committed suicide" vs each other phrase. The heart of this dispute is "use this phrase" or "don't use this phrase". The heart of the dispute is not which alternative phrase should be used. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the RFC should be to choose a particular phrase, but we should let people know what the alternatives could be. Maybe: Should the article say that Williams "committed suicide"? A no !vote will be followed by a discussion over possible alternatives .... If we do !vote on the terms, we could use rank choice voting, which I had previously attempted at Talk:Woman/Archive 19#Instant-runoff method. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that the FPTP voting may well result in a minority choice being selected. The problem is that the most commonly picked alternative "died by suicide" is unpopular, and that's the one opponents are going to claim (with evidence of edit history) would be picked if you vote against "committed suicide". So while heart of the argument is certainly one about avoiding a phrase rather than supporting one alternative, the history of the debate suggests that the lack of a popular alternative is an Achilles heal. If you do go ahead with an article RFC, rather than some general MOS one, then I don't see why the question should not be a simple concrete choice between two neutrally presented options. At the moment, the incumbent has too much advantage, and appears to be the incumbent through force rather than consensus. Consider instead how unhappy some would be if an RFC said "Our article uses the neutral term "died from suicide" per our source (which is also Williams' wife). Some editors want to change that to "committed suicide", which none of our cited sources use, and which is a term that many working in mental health say is judgmental and causes offence, and is deprecated by numerous style guides." But it doesn't get put like that, and the votes and dubious rationales exactly follow from how the RFC is presented. Thus we end up with Wikipedia being at odds with wise heads. -- Colin°^Talk 11:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

At the English Wikipedia, "died by suicide" is not the most commonly picked alternative. There are 1200 articles that say "died by suicide" vs 2400 that say "killed himself" (add about another thousand for "killed herself" and "killed themselves"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary. In this case the dispute is easily resolved by reference to WP:V. No RFC here can overrule a policy pillar of Wikipedia. Just use the wording of the source cited. If somebody tries to cite a different source that has a different wording, we can have an RFC about which source to use, and then match the wording to the source selected. Jehochman ^Talk 16:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
It could be, and it should be, but those efforts have been rejected and reverted several times. The fact that this has been disputed at this article for several years, without an RFC on this page, should be all the proof we need that there is no clear consensus and that consensus needs to be determined. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Jehochman, I believe that the policy pillar applicable to this case which is being improperly overruled is NPOV, "Prefer nonjudgemental language". According to dictionaries, commit suicide is an idiom which is nonneutral:
Dictionary.com usage notes for suicide state that the phrase commit suicide is "moralistic" and its use is discouraged.[16][17]

Cambridge dictionary states that commit suicide is "now considered offensive".[18]

Would you possibly reconsider your RFC close? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
No. The close follows Wikipedia policy. We should not be moralizing, anti-moralizing, or doing anything other than accurately summarizing what the reliable sources say, giving fair proportion to non-fringe views. Jehochman ^Talk 00:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The current wording seems to reflect what reliable sources largely say. - Aoidh (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Jehochman, I'm confused. I'm hearing you say that we should not be moralizing, but "commit suicide" is by its definition moralizing. But anyway, high quality RS mostly stopped using the term.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Except that it isn't considered moralizing in English as I was taught it. And many other speakers also report no moralizing connotations in their understanding. Seems to me that the moralizing is taking place in the heads of the readers, not the writer.--Khajidha (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Really? When you were taught English, the teacher explicitly reassured you that it was not moralising? The purpose of writing is to communicate to the reader. If the reader perceives that language choices cast judgement on the subject (criminal, sinful, immoral), and that is not our intention to do so, then all the more reason to avoid those language choices. An "I'm sorry if you were offended" statement is a non-apology that lays the blame for the offence on the recipient, and is considered to reflect rather badly on the person making it. Arguing that those finding offence are making it up in their heads is weak. I don't know about you, but when dictionaries (above) flag a term as offensive, that's the point I would think twice about claiming I know better. -- Colin°^Talk 13:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Even if someone had been explicitly told that a term was not moralising or offensive, and even if it were true back then, perceptions of language change over time. When you reach a certain age, you are likely to discover "the way it was when I was a kid" is not necessarily a durable standard, especially when we're talking about stigmatized groups. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we are in danger of revisiting RFC arguments in a section that was supposed to be about the format of an RFC. But Jehochman, multiple reliable sources and two dictionaries all state that "committed suicide" is judgemental language (either criminal or moral) and neutrality requires we do not do that. I'm not sure "anti-moralizing" is a word, but I think you are misreading what WP:V says sources are for. Primarily, we cite them for facts and reliably and neutrally report those facts in Wikipedia's voice. If we cite them for opinions (e.g. judgemental views of a persons actions, whether explicit or implicit, conscious or unconscious in their word choices) then we must not use Wikipedia's voice for those opinions, and make it clear whose opinion that is (e.g. by quoting and/or naming). If we cite a source that offers an opinion but are actually just using them for their facts, then we are not required to repeat their opinions in Wikipedia's voice. That's a misreading of WP:V. For example, we aren't required to repeat the political bias of our newspapers even if we cite them for facts. So if our sources use judgemental language (even unconsciously), we are not required by WP:V to be judgemental in our language. I think you'd have a hard time finding evidence that the weight of reliable sources explicitly judge Williams' act as morally or criminally dubious, so I think it is difficult to defend, per policy, that we are even permitted to use language that for many readers does exactly that. -- Colin°^Talk 09:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the merits of an RFC. Some at the very recent MOS RFC might agreed with dropping the term but felt documenting it in guideline was WP:CREEP or otherwise unnecessary. But mostly I think an RFC here would just repeat the same arguments, and just be another platform for uninformed comments and culture wars and egos. I'm particularly concerned that Jehochman's conclusion of the MOS RFC "to see what the cited sources in each article say and follow their formulation" has not been followed by two editors (User:Aoidh who reverted it and User:Masem who supports that revert with an argument that requires a redefinition of "sources"). (You can see from my comments above, that I disagree with Jehochman that we must be a slave to our sources wrt judgemental or offensive language, but my arguments have not convinced any majority). It seems in fact that this is an article where both sides should be happy without "commit suicide" because our cited sources do not use the term. That this page is therefore the wrong one to have a battle. If editors cannot agree on this, the problem then is perhaps one for the administrators noticeboard, rather than for yet another RFC. -- Colin°^Talk 10:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, because WP is a summary work, "sources" is not what is just cited material is in the article, but the whole of available RSes to consider, keeping in mind our selection of those RSes are based timeliness, quality and the wiki nature of the project. Asserting that the only sources in existence that matter are those cited is short-sighted (it only matters when talking direct quotes). --Masem (t) 13:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Masem, you can't just define "sources" to mean whatever you want it to mean. -- Colin°^Talk 17:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Masem, the language of the briefing on his death report fits your criteria of using the language found in many, many contemporaneous sources. Why don't we just use that language: "killed himself" in the lead, and the quote I discussed at #Changing the Death section? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  - The wording "suicide that resulted from asphyxia due to hanging" is the official ruling of Williams' death by the coroner so of course it is going to be super easy to find zillions of sources that repeat that extra phrase, and obviously we should include it in our prose in discussing the death. But it does not make for easy prose elsewhere such as in the lede or in the introductory part in on the "Death" section (since it is a phrase that chronologically happens after the fact").
  - Now, to that end, in the Death section, I can rationally support reworking that section a bit to take the stuff about his ashes later down, and merging the coroner's with his death so that we can THEN change the first sentence as to remove "commit suicide" by taking it from
    On August 11, 2014, Williams committed suicide by hanging at his home in Paradise Cay, California. The final autopsy report, released in November 2014, concluded that he "died of asphyxia due to hanging".[162][163] ...(rest of autopsy info here)
  - to
    William was found dead in his home in Paradise Cay, California on August 11, 2014. The final autopsy report, released in November 2014, concluded that he "died of asphyxia due to hanging".[162][163] ...(rest of autopsy info here)
  - This approach would be consistent with a more chronological approach of the Death section (I just checked the Aug. 11 reports to make sure that "found dead in his home" is consistent with how it was reported. (To review This EW article that day points out that it was a representative that talked about Williams' depression and thus led to the word of it being a suicide that day, as well as preliminary police reports. We don't need to go to that level of detail, but by flipping the statements around and putting the coroner's report next, we don't "bury the lede" here on the actual death cause.
  - I still think there is nothing inherently wrong with "committed suicide" in the lede, since this language is not succinct for lede inclusion. The representative changes in the table below are clunky prose for the lede, while "committed suicide" remains succinct. --Masem (t) 14:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    You didn't mentioned "suicide" in your proposed change. Did you mean to include "ruled [his] death a suicide that resulted from asphyxia due to hanging" Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    We'd want to say with the coroner's quoted death reason so instead it would be The final autopsy report, released in November 2014, concluded that Williams' death was a suicide resulting from "asphyxia due to hanging".[162][163] --Masem (t) 15:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    I made the change.[19] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    I moved the cremation/ashes part down to the last thing as to not breakup the narrative discussion on the reasoning related to Lewy body (better prose narrative/flow). --Masem (t) 15:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    I'm encourage that we have found a way in one section to avoid an idiom that some find offensive, archaic, misleading, etc even though not all editors are personally convinced they themselves find it so. That's a mark of professional writing. I agree with Masem that the proposed lead text below is clunky, as the trailing "His death was a suicide" is a short stubby sentence tacked on. But that is its only problem, and we already have RFC agreement/direction to consider the cited sources, which do not use the term "committed suicide". There are several alternatives. Since the lead is meant to be extra easy to read, can we just write "Williams killed himself at his home ...". This is as plain English as one can get, perfectly idiomatic and as succinct as the existing text. Personally, I cannot see any reason to not adopt that text other than to be WP:POINTy. -- Colin°^Talk 13:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    I have pointed out at least one used cited source used "committed suicide" so that's wrong. Second its still clunky in the lede: it either should be "Williams committed suicide..." or "Williams died by suicide..." (the later which is what tends to be the preferred form in broad strokes of those trying to get "commit suicide" replaced from everyday language, not specific to Williams); any other form splitting "suicide" from mention of death is being overly prose-y just try to to avoid "committed suicide". (It works in the body because we have room and that actually flows with the chronological nature of events). But when we get to these options, and review sources -not only those used but other RSes at the time, it still comes down to "committed suicide" as the more common phrase then; "died by suicide" gets more prevalence in more recent sources which are not used either.
  (And the argument "we have to use what is stated by the cited sources" is something that then becomes easily gamed. If we switched to "died by suicide" for example, and someone really wanted to be using "committed suicide" they would simply have to go through and swap out the sources that use "died by suicide" with ones that used "committed suicide" but otherwise supported the same facts of the situation, and would be right to change it. It's common sense that the evaluation has to be of all sources that would be considered for the article, just as with considering UNDUE for what points of view to include.) --Masem (t) 13:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  Thanks for fixing the "ashes" thing; it had struck me as misplaced earlier, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  
  You found one source used elsewhere in the article, but it isn't a source for the text we are discussing. I'm not at all interested in bad faith speculation about potential gaming because we are talking about sources used here, and such gaming would be quite obvious. The point repeatedly made was that editors naturally citing sources for this text would be guided by them. I'm not impressed with that point, but it was what the RFC recommended and here our sources in the lead do not mention that phrase.
  
  I think you've misunderstood my suggestion if you think it is "clunky". I'm not proposing a tagged on sentence. I'm proposing replacing the words "committed suicide" with "killed himself". That's far less clunky than the officious archaic legalese that we have now. -- Colin°^Talk 14:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  Basically, the issue of making a judgment on terminology or content of any sort but sticking only to the specific sources that happened to be used at the article at the time is pretty much antithesis to how nearly all other such wording and content calls are to be made, such as at UNDUE or the like (UNDUE does not base inclusion based only on the sources in the article). If we were directly quoting something, absolutely the source text must match, but that's not what we're doing here. It is important that we are not using our own terminology that doesn't exist at all in sources but again, that's not the case here, either. --Masem (t) 18:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

"Commit suicide" remains in the lead

Masem, are you saying that the reason why you want to say "committed suicide" in the lead is because most of the sources about his suicide in the weeks following his death include that term? I was confused by this comment of yours where you said I was taking your statement out of context. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Because as I explained around that comment, good RSes were not stating "committed suicide" until the coroner officially issued his report out of the same type of respect we give for BLP. Thus using sources only in the few days around his death would skew the results if you were trying to find the language to use. As soon as the coroner report came out that confirmed the death a suicide, then you can see from searching "committed suicide" was commonly used to refer to the event in the near-term past. That's going to be the case with any suicide death, that the media (at least, high quality sources) will not jump to the conclusion of "committed suicide" until its proven out by investigators. --Masem (t) 18:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

So you're looking at August, 2014 sources? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Ideally, you'd look at the range from August (day of death) to November (coroner's report), but checking even now, police statements on August 11, 2014 spurred the use of "apparently committed suicide", short of the official coroner's report. (eg [20], [21]). --Masem (t) 18:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. Based on your reasoning, why would we look at sources before the coroner's report was released? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The way you phrased it, I thought you were asking about the period of sources close to his death. My argument is that we should be looking at sources after the nature of death was confirmed by the coroner, meaning from Nov 2014 onward. I just happened to note when looking that you can still find, with "apparent"-language, "committed suicide" from the August to November period. --Masem (t) 19:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Masem, you attributed a specific motivation to the publishers (that they made their language choices "out of...respect"). I am curious what makes you think that this decision was based on "respect", and why that respectfulness is no longer appropriate after the publication of the coroner's report.

I'm going to see if I can find any change in the language choices based on your hypothesis that the language changes after the report. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Its the same type of reason they do not label a person that has only been arrested for a major crime as a "criminal" until a court of law convicts them. It would be presumptuous, though what was the most logical conclusion, to flat out say Williams committed suicide on the day it happened simply knowing he was found dead in his home. Most good RSes would wait until the investigation was completed before flat out saying that directly. It's not like there was a language choice between one way to say suicide and a different way to say suicide. --Masem (t) 20:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

So it is respect for the deceased, rather than respect for the coroner? And once it's officially declared a suicide, then the idea is that we no longer need to be respectful of someone whose death was a suicide? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The date-based theory isn't panning out in my search. Here's what I've found:

BBC:

August: "died in an apparent suicide"[22], "died in an apparent suicide last week"[23], "Police confirm suicide" and "Williams took his own life"[24], "killed himself by hanging"[25],
November: "found dead...in what authorities soon ruled a suicide"[26]
December: "A coroner later ruled his death was suicide"[27],

The Guardian:

August: "was found dead in his California home" and "suspected suicide" and "The statement said the coroner suspected the death to be a “suicide due to asphyxia” and that a comprehensive investigation would be completed before a final determination was made."[28], "passed away, due to apparent suicide" and "those who can’t seem to resist the opportunity to criticise, as they do these days whenever a celebrated or successful person commits suicide"[29], "suspected suicide"[30], "found dead at his California home"[31]
September: "committed suicide"[32]
November: "killed himself at his northern California home" and "The coroner ruled Williams’ death a suicide" and "His death had been preliminarily ruled a suicide" and "he was found dead"[33],

The BBC doesn't use the phrase "committed suicide" at any time; The Guardian uses that phrase only before the coroner's final report, which is the opposite of the hypothesis. Also, as the August news from The Guardian indicates, the coroner gave a preliminary statement that the death was suicide very early in the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Masem, "committed suicide" is not used by most sources following the coroner's report. Does this satisfy you so that we may change the lead? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't satisfy me. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a policy-based objection? Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

If you claim "committed suicide" is not used by a majority of sources, what is the phrasing otherwise most often used? My take of the sources is that while "commit suicide" may not be in >50% of the sources, it still is the most common way it was phrased succinctly, particularly compared to an option like "died by suicide". There are other constructs that are more clunky for the lede (eg the "Williams died on .. His death was determined to be a suicide".) For the lede we should be looking between the two brief options, and in that light, I'm pretty sure "committed suicide" is far more common. --Masem (t) 06:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Why not compromise and say "killed himself"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Ghits, the "died of/by/from suicide" formulations are more popular than "committed suicide", which is more popular than "killed himself". I'm not sure that copyediting according to Google search results is the best approach, but if "the most common" is the goal, then "committed suicide" appears to be the middle choice rather than the most common choice.

I'll be satisfied with any choice that stops the endless stream of complaints and requests on this page. If you want to switch it to any reasonable phrase that doesn't use "committed suicide" as a trial (three months should be enough?), that's okay with me. If the complaints stop, then maybe editors could get back to doing something important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree at this point that it makes sense to make a switch based on yours (WhatAmIDoing + Colin's) arguments along with sources Kolya has found, but I would make it clear this should not be seen to be rewarding the bludgeoning behavior that Kolya has engaged in on this page for more than a year, which has driven some editors away. That's not how consensus decisions are made. (This behavior is not actionable by any means, its just not how we expect WP pages to be built) --Masem (t) 19:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Masem, I'm very glad to see a solution to the many year conflict at this article. But I don't think "this should not be seen to be rewarding the bludgeoning behavior" is an acceptable mindset for any editor at this page let alone something appropriate to write on the talk page. Can we please avoid personal attacks and stick to discussing content. -- Colin°^Talk 12:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course. But as a meta comment, I hope that we all agree that it'd be ideal if talk pages were not places where editors felt beaten down.

@Masem, thanks for making the change to the article. I plan to check back in a few weeks and see if we're still getting complaints. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Beaten down is an accurate description of how I feel on this matter right now. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Definitional note

I am glad to see that you all achieved a compromise solution. :0) // For future reference, the Oxford English Dictionary explains the history of the word "commit" as applied to suicide.^[1]

commit, v. … II. To do something wrong; to perpetrate. 9. a. transitive. To carry out (a reprehensible act); to perpetrate (a crime, sin, offence, etc.) Cf. to commit suicide at Phrases 6.
… P6. transitive. to commit suicide: to end one's own life intentionally; to kill oneself. Also figurative and in extended use. Cf. sense 9a.

Historically, suicide was regarded as a crime in many societies. Laws against suicide existed in English common law until 1961. (emphasis in original)

Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 00:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

And the history of the word "understand" tells us that it meant being part of an army marching and fighting under a particular standard, or flag, making the history of a word have little relevance to how it is used today. And today, when someone describes someone as having committed suicide, they NEVER mean they committed a crime!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Suicide is still illegal in some countries, including in English-speaking countries such as Nigeria. It only took a moment to find sources such as https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/09/police-save-lasg-staff-from-committing-suicide-3/ and https://www.pulse.ng/news/local/why-is-attempted-suicide-a-crime-in-2019-nigeria/nq6z4l4 WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

That's nit-picking, and not a positive contribution to this discussion. Pedantic games never help. HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2015, rev. 2021), https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/37160

Formatting option 2

Should this article use the phrase committed suicide?
Yes, we should use it here	No, we should not use it here
Lead: On August 11, 2014, at age 63, Williams committed suicide at his home in Paradise Cay, California after having lived with undiagnosed Lewy body disease.	Lead: On August 11, 2014, at age 63, Williams died at his home in Paradise Cay, California after having lived with undiagnosed Lewy body disease. His death was a suicide.
Death section: On August 11, 2014, Williams committed suicide by hanging at his home in Paradise Cay, California. His body was cremated at Monte's Chapel of the Hills in San Anselmo, and his ashes were scattered over San Francisco Bay the next day. The final autopsy report, released in November 2014, concluded that he "died of asphyxia due to hanging".[34]	Death section: On August 11, 2014, Williams died at his home in Paradise Cay, California. His body was cremated at Monte's Chapel of the Hills in San Anselmo, and his ashes were scattered over San Francisco Bay the next day. The final autopsy report, released in November 2014, "ruled [his] death a suicide that resulted from asphyxia due to hanging."[35]

That seems somewhat backward to me. The suicide didn't result from the hanging, the suicide was carried out by way of hanging. --Khajidha (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Kolya, I still think you haven't explained convincingly why another RFC is necessary or would produce a different result. IMO the last RFC provided explicit direction that would support removing "committed suicide" from the two sentences that include the words, because our sources for those sentences do not use that term. Even the closer of the RFC agreed and edited the article accordingly. So while you and I don't agree with the "we are slaves to our sources word choices" approach, I think it is your best hope of fixing this article. If you so disagree with that approach that you think asking again for the uninformed opinions of Wikipedians might produce a different answer merely weeks after the last one.... -- Colin°^Talk 17:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to throw this out there as an option I guess. There are so many reasons why this should be changed now. If we go by the sources in the article now, "commit suicide" gets removed, if we go by the best sources, then we should not be using WP:OLDSOURCES in the article which are mostly the ones that use "commit suicide". And the RFC from nine and a half months ago did not seem to consider the NPOV arguments. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The site-wide RFC on the "committed suicide" term nullifies any issued on the NPOV issue, as consensus agrees there are no NPOV issues on the term. --Masem (t) 17:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The close said no such thing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Kolya on this point. The closing statement from that RFC didn't say that the phrase is inoffensive or neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

[1] Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2015, rev. 2021), https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/37160

[1]