Talk:Death of Luo Changqing

NPOV issues, reliability of sources, and general notability

This article has serious NPOV issues. It relies heavily on references to Chinese state media outlets (Xinhua, CGTN, Ta Kung Pao, China Daily), which have been excitedly and disproportionately showcasing this death in order to bolster the government's narrative that pro-democratic protesters are "black-clad rioters" at odds with "local residents". I will restate some of the observations I made yesterday on the now-deleted DYK nomination.

• The "Background" section provides no information on why this conflict occurred. No political context. No explanation of who the "masked rioters" are nor why they blocked the roads. Isn't this essential context? This is the kind of selective omission common in Chinese state media.
• The article describes government supporters as "local residents", subtly implying that pro-democratic protesters are not "local residents". The same NPOV issue has been raised repeatedly at 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. It aligns with a narrative advanced by Chinese state propaganda outlets, who portray pro-democratic protesters as outsiders clashing with "locals", when in fact protesters are also "local residents" who enjoy support from the majority of the Hong Kong population.
• Likewise, the pro-democratic protesters were exclusively described as "anti-government protesters" [note: this was addressed by Cold Season after I brought it up yesterday]. The protesters are not calling for abolition of the government, so why use this phrasing? Again, this terminology seems to echo that used by Chinese state media outlets, or those owned by Chinese interests, in order to portray the protesters as radicals (e.g. China Daily, CGTN, Xinhua, SCMP).
• The article relies heavily on media outlets that are controlled directly by the Chinese government (Xinhua, CGTN, Ta Kung Pao, China Daily). These are not regarded as reliable secondary sources in the Hong Kong context, but state mouthpieces or vehicles for state propaganda. A significant proportion of this article is founded entirely on references to such sources.
• The tone of the article was unencyclopedic and excessively emotional, using words like "perished" (rather than "died") and "fighting for his life", and even containing a lengthy and melodramatic quotation lifted directly from propaganda outlet CGTN (note: again, this issue has been partly addressed by two users since yesterday).
• The article ultimately reflects only the police/government's portrayal of this event, i.e. the police allegation that the death was the result of intentional murder. The article closes with quotations from five government figures or agencies. Did no pro-democratic figures or organisations comment on this event?

This article basically parrots the same narrative advanced by Chinese state media, which is not the role of Wikipedia. There needs to be more balance and impartiality. Lastly, what is the significance of this event (i.e. why does it transcend WP:NOTNEWS)? The claim to notability would appear to be that the death is "first fatality directly attributed to the 2019 Hong Kong protest". However, this is a dubious and highly contentious claim subject to relentless (and ongoing) discussion at Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests. I am therefore doubtful the event even meets the notability criteria at WP:EVENTCRIT. Citobun (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

My comments:

• Background section --> I have no desire to guess why this event occurred, what was in the minds of the protesters. The sources do not state it, neither Chinese nor western or whatever. Therefore, I do not state it.
• Local residents --> The term "local residents" (that is, those of Sheung Shui) is commonly used in the sources, including western. The less neutral name is "government supporters" as that makes a judgement about their ideology from nothing. But, both terms have been present in the article from the start. Protesters organize and rally from all over HK, not just Sheung Shui, but you are free to add that they are also local residents of Sheung Shui (if you can cite it).
• Anti-government protesters --> I have indeed removed "anti-government" but only because I have no desire to humor the discussion. I should note that western sources commonly use "anti-government protesters", including those sources that you probably use to underline the "government supporters" characterization for the local residents.
• Only if you ignore all the other sources.
• Police/government portrayal --> Pro-protest parties do not like to comment on this killing much. I think it's easily guessed why. This one-sidedness is a self-caused issue and not a POV editorial issue.

To your final word: I doubt you will have much success with a deletion request, but you are free to do so, otherwise I will remove the banner for notability issue sometime in the future. --Cold Season (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the notability tag. It's a no-brainer that the first fatality to be directly related to these protests merits an article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 05:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not the first fatality directly related to the protests. I've reinstated the tag. Citobun (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(1) The people who committed suicides are indirect deaths. Chow fell and thus his death is not directly due to the protest. Luo got killed because a protester threw a brick at him, direct consequence of the protest. (2) Also, are you going to address the other points? Like for example, providing sources to substantiate that the background section is incomplete? Or providing sources detailing protester responses? Because you claim that this is a POV issue, while all your points (to "fix" this article) are not present in the sources. (3) And if you unilaterally want to question the notability of the topic in this wiki article, please open a deletion request, as I oppose you trying to permanently tag this article while not going forth with it your claims. --Cold Season (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The other deaths seem directly related to the protests to me, and to many others at Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Please stop removing the "notability" tag with such haste while the issue is still under discussion. It's been less than a day, so it's an exaggeration to state that I am "trying to permanently tag this article". The background section doesn't provide any context as to why the event occurred or who the participants are. It's simply incomplete. I will consider a deletion request once more people have discussed the issue here. I don't have time to open a deletion request at the moment. Citobun (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You are doing a misrepresentation of consensus. I recall that the RFC made it explicit that suicides should not be listed, and that there was no comment of Luo and Chow's death.

I have already said, the background is not incomplete if there is no sources about the protesters' reasoning behind what they did. You are free to prove this wrong by exemplifying sources (you have not). Hell, maybe one of the protester will even come forward to tell you why they were there! I have no magic orb and this is not a POV issue (but you making an unreasonable request).

Similarly, I can not provide protester responses if pro-protest parties maintain silence over this killing (I wonder why). Again, this is not a POV issue (but you making an unreasonable request). --Cold Season (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The RfC was not a ruling on whether or not the suicides were directly related to the protests, it was a discussion on whether or not they should be included in a different article's infobox. And how about Chow's death – unrelated to the protests? Seriously? The notability tag hasn't been on the page a day. Maybe you should stop edit warring. You don't own this page and my concerns are well justified – the article, as originally written, read like it came straight from China Daily. Citobun (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

That was the closest ruling that was established, so what you said was a misrepresentation of a consensus. Also, the article as originally written contained over 20 references (and now close to 40), so that's also untrue. And once again, you are still not addressing my points. --Cold Season (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The RfC consensus isn't relevant to this discussion because it's about a different issue. Secondly, I'm not saying you pulled the article from China Daily. I'm saying the tone is unencyclopedic and read like a piece from Chinese state propaganda.

I don't see much to rebuke in your responses. The "Background" section still curiously omits any context. The use of the term "local residents" implies that protesters are not local residents, and given that the issue can be avoided through the use of alternative, neutral phrasing, and the issue has been raised repeatedly, I don't know why you still insist on using it. The term "anti-government protesters" is inaccurate and propagandistic and should not be used on that basis, not because you have "no desire to humour the discussion". Parts of the article continue to rely entirely on unreliable sources such as Ta Kung Pao. The article remains premised entirely on the police/government characterisation of this event. You haven't addressed MY points. Citobun (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I have responded to all your points in the SECOND comment of this thread.

• For example. I'm still awaiting for you to provide the sources for, for example, protester responses. Thus, proving that this is an editorial POV issue and I have omitted context. The reality is that protesters are maintaining silence over the killing (ironic), which proves that this is not an editorial POV issue. You are asking me to address your points... a unreasonable request to include that which basically does not exist --Cold Season (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I object to the characterisation that "protestors are maintaining silence over the killing" being the reality. The Stand News clearly cites the Citizen's Press Conference (民間記者會, a platform for the protestors) where they express their extreme condolences and hopes the victim rests in peace. [1] I have no desire to cast aspersions, but the failure to find such a source when it exists may unfortunately be indicative of a bias against seeking sources from the protestors' point of view. _dk (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't read Chinese beyond the most basic and that is "indicative" from my almost non-usage of Chinese sources, wizard. Besides, I have asked for sources, have I not? I have crawled the ZH WP for it too. You found one, add it.

Secondly, you can't deny that there is way less protester responses to this killing to be found (certainly not in English). They are more silent, which is reflective in the amount of sources for it. I stand by my statement. --Cold Season (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw you utilize a Chinese language source in the article and assumed you could read Chinese. However, you failing to find a source in English is not the same thing as protestors maintaining silence over the killing, which you repeatedly emphasize above. It would be more useful to know that you could not find any protester responses because of the language barrier (which the community can overcome) than a blanket statement saying such a thing does not exist because in your mind it cannot exist. _dk (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

"Basically does not", relatively speaking... In any case, that's why I am serious when I request sources, to which only you responded, because we can proceed from that (not from restating talking points). --Cold Season (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I see that User:Underbar dk and I have each had a go at overhauling the page to hopefully provide a more neutral point of view. Let us know what you think. Deryck C. 18:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I find it fair on a glance. --Cold Season (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Cold Season, I tend to agree with User:Horse Eye Jack on his removal of sources. Xinhua and CGTN are generally considered unreliable for anything connected to Chinese politics. None of those cited statements depend primarily on CGTN, so I think the removal of those citations was justified. But I want to ask you first because I don't want to give the impression that I want to start a fight. Deryck C. 13:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

(1) The fact that the info doesn't depend primarily on it is what is wanted. (2) Most don't even cite controversial statements if they do, e.g., that the body was transported to China. Really the only point that I'm most unflexible with. (3) The only controversial bit that I see, is the bit in the Response section. I think it's appropiate seeing how it's state media, and therefore reflective of political attitudes. In any case, a mass purge (over multiple articles, without specific consideration) isn't particularly persuasive. I appreciate the ping btw. --Cold Season (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The WP standard for contentious is a little bit of a catch-22, if its challenged it was by definition contentious the whole time. As I’ve challenged it its contentious. The *entire page* is controversial btw because the subject is, thats how that one works. If you want persuasion "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” you will see that I had no choice here, not did I have a choice in averting your revert. I was literally compelled by policy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No, this is you trying to ban specific sources over multiple articles from Wikipedia on your own. You challenged nothing, as you have provided nothing of a legitimate rationale for your unilateral removal of sources from multiple articles in a mass purge. There is also no community consensus to ban these sources, so your actions have no merit other than to impose your will. --Cold Season (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Since the subject is recently dead WP:BLP still applies so I was forced to revert to a version without the unreliable sources per the BLP policy. Cold Season do not revert it again, there are serious conseqences for violating WP:BLP. Chinese state media is unreliable for supporting facts on WP as not a single Mainland source is a WP:RS due to pervasive censorship, disinformation, and a lack of freedom of the press, this is not a controversial take. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Didn't we just discuss this at WP:RSN? Didn't I point out to you that almost all scholars of China rely heavily on official Chinese press? If you need a reminder, The Cambridge History of China even includes a guide on Chinese official sources. According to its authors, which include the most famous names in Western Sinology, "The Chinese press provides the staple for research on China: books, journals, and newspapers", and they go on to guide the readers on how to locate essential sources such as People's Daily and Red Flag in Western libraries (that was before the internet). These sources are obviously biased and need to be used with caution (and I see that Cold Season has used in-text attributions), but there's no justification for your mass removal of them. And don't use WP:BLP as a bludgeon: how long BLP applies after a person's death is itself contentious. -Zanhe (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I dont think its contentous that the period is at least a year... This person died Novemeber 14 2019. We did have a similar discussion at WP:RSN, specifically Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 279#People's Daily and Qiushi as opinion pieces and non CoI BLP realiable sources, you left my final question hanging (which you have a habit of doing when a discussion isnt going your way) so I assumed you didnt have an answer, as a reminder it is "The question is not whether they use/cite the Chinese press, the question is whether they say that the Chinese press is reliable, has editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and is independent of the Chinese Government and CCP.” Care to answer it now? It seems WP:VERIFY still stumps you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I already addressed all your points in that discussion, but as you seem to be a typical case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I decided not to waste more of my time. To summarize again: scholars generally agree that Chinese government media are overall reliable but highly biased. Their censorship works mainly by suppressing negative information rather than fabricating fake news. As such, WP:BIASED applies: they're useful for uncontroversial facts and attribution is needed for controversial topics. BTW, your constant WP:SHOUTING is getting really annoying. -Zanhe (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

If you review the discussion you will find that you didnt address those points. As for your oft repeated assertion that censorship makes Chinese sources more reliable and not less you will also find that Chinese state media has a long history of publishing misinformation along with censoring negative information [2][3][4][5][6]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you claim WP:BLP as a crutch for removing sources is laughable, considering you MASS PURGED sources from multiple articles without regard of the actual content (despite other sources being present in many cases) or whether it fits BLP at all (such as sources citing specific events beyond biography). DO NOT use this article as a side-channel to your efforts to MASS PURGE certain sources (i.e., Chinese media). I will remind you of the WP:3RR; you may address things directly and specifically related to the article. --Cold Season (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

When there are WP:BLP issues WP:3RR does not apply, see under exceptions "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial." Please review WP:CHALLENGE to learn what you must do now that you have taken responsibility for this text. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

See my literal first sentence, as you have literally provided zero legitimate rationale for it. No, you focus on Chinese media sources, not on material. In any case, what does or not apply is not up to you or me, and I do not care if you want to tiptoe that line. --Cold Season (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The BLP issues associated with using Chinese state media on a page so obviously part of a controversial social and political issue are massive. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You claim BLP, but your focus is to remove sources and not material. That's not BLP. That's you imposing your will to PURGE wikipedia from Chinese media sources (by using articles as a side-channel). -Cold Season (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Wait... So your argument is that I’m 100% right on policy grounds but have bad motives and yet you still reverted (as well as adding a rather nasty message on my talk page, thanks for that btw)? That doesnt make sense, if thats what you think then the proper approach per guidelines and policy is to challenge me on the talk page about my motivations but not to restore information you know is in violation of WP:BLP. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I say you have provided no legitimate rationales and are pulling inapplicable policies that do not support your actions. --Cold Season (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I can see that you said that. I respect your opinion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

BLP is for removing contentious material, not focusing just on sources. If these Chinese sources are not used for anything specifically controversial, there should be no issue in using them! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The point you miss is that anything sourced to Chinese state media is “poorly sourced” so either the bad source or the text must be removed, obviously you remove the one bad source among many good sources. Not all Chinese sources are unreliable, the SCMP for example is a WP:RS. Also given the subject matter the entire page is controversial, specific information cited was also controversial. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nice4What, Cold Season, and Zanhe: I think the question here is, what benefit are we serving our readers by keeping instances of CGTN and Xinhua citations where the text doesn't actually depend on them, despite their questionable reliability in this topic area? @Horse Eye Jack: SCMP is an English-language newspaper from Hong Kong... you have a rather over-generalised definition of "Chinese media"... Deryck C. 11:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I generally avoid using mainland Chinese sources on politically sensitive topics when neutral ones are available. My main issue with Horse Eye Jack is that he's been unilaterally removing Chinese sources from dozens of articles, most of which are not politically sensitive. Removing all Chinese sources as unreliable in all contexts is a radical position for which he's received no support. -Zanhe (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

That would be a radical position, but its one I’ve never taken. I clarified this for you yesterday on my talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It is certainly what you have been doing over multiple articles, running into the dozens, such as at [7][8][9][10][11] for a few examples. --Cold Season (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Although foreign-language sources are not prohibited in en.wp, I do feel that it is a disservice to the general readership that doesn't read, in this case, Chinese, for articles that only have FL citations. At the very least, there ought to be an EL source for every FL source. So I do get annoyed when I find citations only to Chinese news sources when EL sources are available, and I have been known to substitute them when they are too numerous. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: I agree that we should prefer EL sources over FL sources where both are available, but I don't think "there ought to be an EL source for every FL source". There simply may not be. It would place an unfair burden on editors to require anyone to deliberately look for an EL source in order to justify the inclusion of content that can be cited to FL sources. Deryck C. 17:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm glad that there's this discussion here about Cold Season. I had noticed a similar pattern of edit-warring and tendentious editing at articles relative to the protests, namely Death of Chow Tsz-lok. I didn't want to start a flame war at the time, so I merely cerated a thread on the Chinese noticeboard. It may be time now to examine other contributions of said editor, so I would invite assembled editors to examine for the same sort of pro-PRC bias which has been arrived at by similar tactics. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Given the long-term tendentious editing, edit warring, and repetitive conflicts with other users over the same kinds of issues, it may be time to take it to WP:ANI. Another blatant case of WP:NOTHERE. Citobun (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius, Citobun, and Horse Eye Jack: You know surf's up when Ohc complains that someone else has a pro-PRC bias[12] I would support opening a broader review of Cold Season's editorial behaviour and POV. Deryck C. 18:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Regrettably they have gotten more tendentious over time. They don’t appear to make a net positive contribution to China related articles anymore. Most likely time for a topic ban if not the whole enchilada, please tag me if a discussion is opened at ANI. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

-- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

CCTV version of incident video

@Cold Season: There is broad consensus that CCTV is inappropriate for use on controversial topics related to Chinese politics. The argument for inclusion is "cctv merely reproduces the video that is widely used in RS” which confuses me because if there is a comparable version of something available from a questionable source and a RS we should *always* use the version available from the RS. On a side note it would be helpful if in the future you would follow WP:BRD, although of course you are not required to do so. Also please don’t create an edit for the sole purpose of using the edit summary to continue your edit summary from a previous edit as you did here [13], use the talk page instead. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The SCMP one illustrates the entire clash (but has less clarity of how the throwing incident happened due to the worse quality unzoomed video). The CCTV one is only focused on the throwing incident (which has just that little bit more clarity that is not obtainable from the SCMP one). Both have therefore distinct value for inclusion, even though comparable.

BTW, that was a WP:SUMMARYONLY. --Cold Season (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I know it was a WP:SUMMARYONLY, thats why I said “please” instead of invoking policy. It might just be me but edit summaries are harder for me to keep track of than talk page discussion. I still think we have a problem using CCTV on a topic so controversial and directly connected to Chinese politics. If there is value in a zoomed in high quality version than one will have been published by a WP:RS, you are more than welcome to search for such a video from a RS. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It is already published by WP:RS. It's the SAME footage with the distinction that one depicts the entire clash and the other depicts the brick throwing with a bit more clarity.

Depicting the event, as is described and cited per WP:RS in the Wiki article, is relevant. Are you actually questioning the relevance of the brick throw?

Also, a lot of images/videos in Wikipedia is not from RS either but still relevant to the material in the Wiki article. It is appropiate per WP:EL as it has direct relevance to the topic and cited material in this Wiki article. --Cold Season (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Nonconsensual page move

@Cold Season: I’m challenging the move, please self revert to the old name until you have a consensus to move to this new title. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

No. This was the original name of the article, which was moved unilaterally without consensus or discussion. I have reverted the previous bold move. --Cold Season (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That was back in February, any challenge has to be timely. You missed your chance. I have challenged your move immediately therefore you must revert and get consensus before proceeding. Thats how things are done around here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Now that you know WP:RM#CM applies here please follow the relevant procedure. Its likely that your preferred name will win out, but lets do it the right way and have a discussion. I also note that since you created this page you are essentially edit warring when reverting the title to the original so perhaps you aren’t the appropriate editor to make that change. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I've undone the page move for now - I endorse HEJ's comment and prefer "death" over "killing" (which might have been my idea? As HEJ wrote, it was back in February so I don't remember). If you compare Special:Search/"Killing of"~ vs Special:Search/"Death of"~ you can see that "killing" is only used when it was a targeted act of harm. Deaths resulting from accident or indiscriminate acts of harm (to cover all possible interpretations of people's motives in this event) overwhelmingly use "death". The George Floyd precedent is irrelevant because it covers "murder" vs "killing", not "death". I think I made the same argument somewhere previously regarding this case but honestly don't remember where the chatlog was. Deryck C. 16:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Killing implies that someone caused the the death of another, whether intentional or not. In this case, prosecutors charged people with murder and there is footage of someone throwing a brick at another person. I compared articles with "killing of...", it still supports the current title ("killing of...") for this article. Your argument literally falls flat with the first article listed with that format, Killing of Rayshard Brooks. Your assertion that the "George Floyd precedent" does not discuss killing vs death is false, as it is literally in bold in their talkpage FAQ that it does.

You have undone nothing, you have reinstated your move without consensus. --Cold Season (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The Rayshard Brooks case is in line with the George Floyd case, not the Luo Changqing case - in the Brooks case the officer aimed and shot Brooks (regardless of whether or not they knew Brooks' identity). Luo was caught in crossfire and there is no evidence anybody specifically aimed a brick or any other weapon at Luo. Anyway, I've escalated this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Move dispute on Death of Luo Changqing / Killing of Luo Changqing since it is clear that the three of us will not reach a consensus. Deryck C. 17:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Crossfire? The video shows that the person took aim at Luo. Whatever you say, it is clear that, whether intentional or not, someone caused the death of Luo, and therefore it is a killing. Anything to avoid a RM... --Cold Season (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cold Season: 1. Please provide reliable sources for your interpretation of the video - neither CCTV nor Twitter are considered RS in this topic area. 2. "Anything to avoid an RM" applies equally to you if you insist on commenting thus. 3. "whether intentional or not, someone caused the death of Luo" is exactly where I think you misinterpreted precedents: the difference between "death" and "killing" is intention to harm a specific person. Deryck C. 17:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The citations that fall under ref 39 in the article, the murder charges. To your death vs killing argument, see the talkpage FAQ at the articles for Floyd and Brooks, which states "Any time one person causes the death of another – whether intentionally or not, whether criminally or not [...]". --Cold Season (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Quote: "Any time one person causes the death of another – whether intentionally or not, whether criminally or not – that's a homicide." That's quoting the legal definition of homicide, not Wikipedia editorial policy on when to use death vs killing vs murder. Deryck C. 18:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Link the editorial policy. --Cold Season (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cold Season: Just FYI the decision for the George Floyd page was explicitly made in the context of US law. As far as I can tell this incident did not occur in the US and as such US law is irrelevant so the Floyd page precedent is irrelevant here. An independent argument will have to be made, please do so. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I cannot find a consistent naming guideline for this. For instance, the death of Wang Yue (the two-year-old girl who was ran over by cars) and the death of Muammar Gaddafi use "death" instead of "killing", whereas Harambe is "killed". There is also a category for protest deaths and most of the entries seem to use "death" as well. Regardless, death of Luo Changqing is probably the common name of the incident since it is the search term that is more popular. OceanHok (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t believe there is one, probably something that needs to be discussed at a more centralized venue in the future but nothing prevents us from coming to a local consensus here for the time being. My own personal opinion is a preference for death over other options like “killing” and “murder.” I think we should let people have some dignity in passing and discussions of alternative titles all too often gets bogged down in politics and POV pushing. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 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: Moved as proposed. There is consensus to restore the "Death of..." title at thie time.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Killing of Luo Changqing → Death of Luo Changqing – I'm opening a formal RM to move this article (back) to "death of Luo Changqing" (again) since the WP:ANI thread has ended without any external participation. I've already discussed my rationale in the section above; further discussion is welcome. Deryck C. 16:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Ping all recent participants in discussions about this article - User:Citobun, User:Cold Season, User:Horse Eye Jack, User:OceanHok, User:Ohconfucius. Deryck C. 16:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice job canvassing. --Cold Season (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Support: per my rationale above. Death seems to be the more common search term. I also agree with Deryck's argument above. I would also like to point out that his death was insignificant if it was not discussed together with the protests, so only his death was important, how he died wasn't, and the article's title should properly reflect this. OceanHok (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Support: Although it's arguably foreseeable that someone could die during an exchange of rocks, it's almost certain that he could/would have dodged the lethal rock had he not been too busy filming the stone-throwers on the other side, or had he been doing so from the sidelines. There's not a shred of evidence that his death was deliberate that would warrant the article to stray from the conventional title containing "death of". -- Ohc ^¡digame! 18:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Victim blaming for the death does not make it less of a killing. --Cold Season (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to be so shirty with me. All I'm saying is that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Shit happens. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Support per my comments above, and support future community wide discussion on similar titles at a centralized location in the future. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Per the references that make it clear that it was not simply a death, but a death that was directly caused by a person (a protester throwing a brick at another person), a killing. Per the charges of murder, which is where the title would end up after conviction. --Cold Season (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You have made your views quite clear from the outset, and you are welcome to your opinions. I would however advise you not to try to move the article again should the convictions be returned by the court. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I second Ohconfucius, @Cold Season: you are on notice that any move to “murder” is already disputed so you will have to achieve a consensus before a move in the event a conviction is returned. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Support neutral term "death" rather than the loaded word "killing" which heavily implies deliberate murder, which doesn't seem accurate in this case. Citobun (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Move to Shooting of Luo Changqing because it was implied what happened actually. But I think move to Death of Luo Changqing can be used because it is more neutral tone than killing. 114.125.232.169 (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure "shooting" encompasses "throwing bricks by hand"... Deryck C. 18:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

---

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.