The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Wizardman 05:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial cat. The main article suggest a link to domestic violence. However article added here don't seem to fit. Will we see further subcats of this? Like "Blond Murdered pregnant women"? Mootros (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Murder of pregnant women is a documented, notable phenomenon. If articles are there that shouldn't be, they should be removed (we discussed this on the category talk page some time back and cleaned it up, but some may have crept back in). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed more than half of the entries, as they did not fit at all. If people think this cat needs to be kept, it should be renamed to be more descriptive in its relation to domestic violence or murdered by close associate. Otherwise we will be pushing water up a hill. 08:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
We actually discussed that one specifically in the earlier conversation! It's too bad there's no way of informing people about category guidelines when they use the category, though I'll be bold and add a note to the category page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When people persistently misuse a category it is evidence the category name does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- Category:Women murdered while pregnant. This is more henous than otehr muders becuase the foetus is usually killed too. We may need a separate Category:Pregnant victims of terrorist attacks and Category:Pregnant victims of military conflicts. However, the whole subject is a difficult one, becasue most of the subjects will be notable only because their murder was notorious: most domestic violence murders barely make the local press. The intentional killing of civilians in war is a war crime, but I doubt it would be useful to have categories on women killed in WWII bombing who happened to be pregnant. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, we shouldn't categorize murder victims (if anyone) by their reproductive status (Women murdered while lactating, Virgin victims of terrorist attacks, Fathers killed in military conflict ...). DexDor (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article itself says it best: Statistics for pregnancy as being a motivating factor in the murder of a pregnant woman are unavailable at this time. Motives may vary, with a woman's pregnancy at the time of death sometimes being coincidental. No proven connection between being pregnant and being murdered, no proof that being pregnant makes one more likely to be murdered, being pregnant while being murdered coincidental. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above. DexDor (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but AFAIK we'd only have one article to go in such a category. DexDor (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that notable cases of murder of pregnant women would still belong. But it might make it clearer to other users that the category is not intended to contain articles on women who were coincidentally pregnant when murdered. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete better kept as an article. Otherwise this will continue to be filled with "coincidental" incidents. We don't usually classify murders by motive, so if pregnancy was a motive, we'd have to start classifying other murder+motives, e.g. "People murdered who were cheating at cards", "People murdered who were sleeping around", and so on.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do see your point, but unlike murder of pregnant women, neither of those examples is a distinct topic of academic, cultural, or social interest. The murder of a cheater or a sleeper does not trigger legal issues that are unique from any other murder; however, the murder of a pregnant woman in many cases does. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete as there is no article on the band or rename to Category:Shubdubs members based on the contents of the category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:do not rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename cat and all child cats. Murder is a legal term. In order to be a murder victim there must be a murderer. Many of those listed as alleged or hypothetical murderers were never charged or not convicted. Therefore saying the victim is a murder victim is a WP:BLPCRIME violation for the alleged actor. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Category:Murder and its literally thousands of sub-categories. It may be from a legal standpoint that "homicide" should be used instead of "murder", I have no specific knowledge or opinion at this time. But nominating a single sub-category out of a vast category scheme is not the way to broach the subject. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the part where I said "and child cats"? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the child cat is not tagged it is not part of this nomination. And even if all the sub-cats of the nominated category were included without being tagged, this category sits at the heart of a category tree that extends above it through the parent Category:Murder and to all sides of it through sibling categories. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Murder is a legal term, but does not require that a murderer be identified, tried, or convicted. It is sufficient that the victim was in fact murdered. Based on the logic of this argument, Lee Harvey Oswald could not be identified as the assassin of John F. Kennedy, since Oswald was never tried and convicted. GregJackPBoomer! 03:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about cases where the was a trial, but it resulted in acquittal. We list the victim as a murder victim, and give the name of the person that "murdered" them, even though they were found not guilty? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any such listing should be immediately removed per BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know this Cat, but I would assume acquittal doesn't mean the police stop declaring it a murder, they just stop pursuing the person the courts acquitted as the murderer. --Dkriegls(talk to me!) 20:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—while, yes, "murder" is a legal term, it is also the lay term for the event and the action. A victim of a murder is just as dead whether someone was found guilty or not. If someone successfully appeals their conviction for murder, does that mean that the victim wasn't murdered? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the situation. If the overturning was due to a declaration that the killing was a manslaughter... then yes, the victim wasn't a victim of murder, but a victim of manslaughter. Similarly, if a court finds the killing to be a justifiable homicide... they are a homicide victim, not a murder victim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup - There are, clearly, a number of victims of murder who have encyclopedic biographies. However, the point is well-taken that we must be careful to ensure that any reliably-sourced allegations in these articles do not suggest that guilt has been proven unless a court of law has so determined. If a perpetrator has been identified but was either convicted of a lesser form of homicide or acquitted on the grounds of justification, the decedent should not be categorized as a murder victim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The grounds for acquittal are generally not known (although certainly speculated upon in the media often) (and informed by what was argued by lawyers). When a non guilty comes in it could be justifiable, it could be "not proven beyond a reasonable doubt". I think in both cases it would be a blp vio to list the victim as a murder victim when the accused is named. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no meaningful distinction between a person who, due to the mental capacity or intent of the perp (or good lawyering), is a victim of murder vs. of manslaughter. However, is it a BLP violation to say X was a murder victim and Y was found guilty of negligent homicide or manslaughter or acquitted in self defense? And murder does get fuzzy at the edges as well - are collateral damage victims murdered? those killed in combat? targeted killings? those killed in self defense? All are certainly homicide victims. So, for BLP reasons, homicide seems better. But homicide does include executions, and justifiable homicide, which murks the waters.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At a more basal level than BLP, I think it's factually wrong and therefore violates verifiability policy. Murder has a legal definition, and implies a specific fact - that the person was killed by someone who had malicious intent to kill. If someone is killed through negligence, unintentionally... factually, they were not murdered, and it would be wrong to even imply that the perpetrator committed a murder. Although this also gets murky when it comes to felony murder... NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The precise definitions of the various culpable homicide offences may vary slightly from country to country, but most will have a distinction between intentional murder and negligent manslaughter. In UK, it is murder if you intended to kill or do very serious harm, but manslaughter if you lacked that intention; are of unsound mind; or it was the result of gross negligence. If it was a case of self-defence, you are innocent; killings in war are also not murder, because they are not contrary to the Queen's Peace. This was a common law offence, to which statute has added nuances, but that should mean that the basic concept will apply to most of USA and most Commonwealth countries. "Homicide" is a wider term, which includes deaths in self-defence, executions by the state, and manslaughter. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per common name. Wikipedia uses common names, not legally precise definitions. People will say "such and such a person was muderdered".John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
