Talk:Murder of Laquan McDonald

Toxicology reports and PCP

I think the statement on toxicology reports and PCP is a bit misleading as written. It is missing too much context or information. There are at least two open questions.

First, we don't know when the PCP was consumed. According to long does PCP stay in your system: blood, urine, and saliva:

Most scientists believe that the half-life of PCP is three days, through effects on the central nervous system can last from seven hours to a week in chronic users. Detecting PCP in your system relies heavily on the type of test.

Second, we don't know the quantity of PCP consumed. According to long does PCP stay in your system: blood, urine, and saliva:

Low doses tend to mimic the feelings of alcohol consumption. Higher doses increase the feelings of numbness and lead to more agitated behavior.

I also have not been able to locate information on testing for the presence of PCP in a corpse. I'm guessing - and it is just a guess - the toxicology results will be similar in a living person and someone newly deceased. This leads to a third question, when were the toxicology tests performed.

Chronology, quantity, and testing methodology affects the veracity of the statement. As written, the statement only appears to be present to provoke or bias readers.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether it biases the reader or not can be discussed further, but the presence of PCP is the presence of PCP. How would you remedy the statement? As for post-mortem laboratory values, don't assume they are the same. There are several processes that occur as some dies then starts decomposing that can alter tested values. Forensic labs are supposed to know this and take the state of the sample in consideration. Regardless of the actual quantity, the statement makes no quantitative assertion (levels "high", "low", "trace", etc). More details about the pathology report could be helpful here. MartinezMD (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Here we go. I Googled more about McDonald, PCP, and level. Found this link https://chicago.suntimes.com/2018/9/27/18444151/van-dyke-trial-day-15-officers-taught-to-shoot-until-the-threat-is-eliminated that has the testimony of the defense expert "The pharmacologist called by Officer Jason Van Dyke’s defense team Thursday morning told jurors Laquan McDonald had enough PCP in his system to cause hallucinations, delusions, aggression and violence.

Pharmacologist James Thomas O’Donnell later added that the level of PCP found in McDonald’s body, 56 ng, could lead to a “feeling of omnipotence” that can make people feel like they are “able to do anything” and “leads to significant bizarre behavior frequently described as psychotic behavior.”

And then this other link, https://wgntv.com/2018/09/27/jason-van-dyke-trial-laquan-mcdonald-defense-testimony/ , quoting the same testimony "Dr James Thomas O'Donnell said the level of PCP in McDonald's system suggested the teen had taken the drug the day of the shooting" MartinezMD (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I made edits to the section based on the above. MartinezMD (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Good edit to the article. Thanks. Jeffrey Walton (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Opening paragraph missing accounts of McDonald lunging at officers

The opening paragraph says:

... McDonald was reported to have been behaving erratically while walking down the street, and holding a folding knife with a three-inch (7.5 cm) blade. Initially, internal police reports described the incident similarly and ruled the shooting justified and Van Dyke was not charged in the shooting at that time.

I believe the City of Chicago, the police department and the police union claimed McDonald lunged at police officers to cause the shooting. Later, when the dashcam video was released, the narrative was shown to be a lie.

Since the city, the department and the union all claimed McDonald lunged and caused the shooting, I believe it is an important detail that should be included in the opening paragraph.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you not read the next paragraph? - "When the police released a dash cam video of the shooting thirteen months later, on November 24, 2015, it showed McDonald had been walking away from the police when he was shot." MartinezMD (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I read the entire article. I'm specifically discussing the opening paragraph. Jeffrey Walton (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It's still in the lead. Propose an edit if you'd like our input. MartinezMD (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Reverting title back to "Shooting ..."

The earlier comments referring to reverting the title to the earlier "Shooting ... " title requires some more discussion, rather than "This is the way I like it." Most people would look up "The shooting of ...," not "The murder of ... ," even though the judicial verdict stands and Van Dyke is serving 7-year sentence. It is more important how a reader will search for the article on Wikipedia, and what most viewers would type into the search bar. The use of arguments such as "I just like it" or "I just don't like it" WP:JDLI are not logical, and are best avoided on talk-page discussions. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have verifiable proof that "most people would look up 'The shooting of ..." or is that just your belief, which invokes a form of JDLI? (By the way, what's with the reliance in the community to cite essays, rather than policy, lately?) This subject was discussed above and there was no consensus then to move it to "Shooting". Strikerforce^Talk 00:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Strikerforce^Talk, thank you for your time. Verifiable proof as to what someone would look up to identify anything on any shooting would of course first look up the name ... Laquan McDonald, followed by what happened, which is a shooting. No one would look up the "verdict," that is, 2nd degree murder or murder. The title has made it more difficult for people to research the topic. Less people are aware of it, logically speaking. As far as the previous discussion, I was not aware of it at that time, so I confess, I am questioning it at the present time. Thank God for talk pages! With all due respect, Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

What people would look up is a straw man argument. Either title links to here. We need to discuss the merits of one name vs another and any policies that may apply. MartinezMD (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

So, here's my counter argument to you, @Bigeez: - Wikipedia's search engine will, when a user enters "Laquan McDonald", will pull this article as a result. If we want to talk about simplest search terms, or what solves the problem of "made it more difficult", that is an obvious answer. The incident was adjudicated as a murder. The method of the murder was a shooting. Forgive me, if I'm wrong, but doesn't Shooting of Laquan McDonald redirect here, which also solves the problem that you've raised? Strikerforce^Talk 16:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Strikerforce^Talk, thank you for responding while I have some time, between my day job ;) ... I hope you didn't interpret this as any impertinence, but I don't believe I mentioned arguing at all. Therefore, no need for counter-arguments. It was meant as a suggestion, for that is what is done on talk pages.

Regarding the title, I personally had a minor issue in 2018 when I began writing up an article on the Dismissal of Robert Rialmo. As you are aware, it is linked to the essence of the Shooting of Laquan McDonald. Other wiki articles, like The Chicago Police Accountability Task Force, have written the title of the article as "Shooting." After I submitted the article in 2019, I was not aware that Shooting of Laquan McDonald had been changed. Besides, there are other Wiki articles linking to the Shooting of Laquan McDonald in addition to the one already mentioned. That was the driving force behind my post on this talk page. But since it all goes to the page as you mentioned, no worries. So there you have it. No "straw," edit warring, or playing confirmational bias as some blurt out before cognisant of all the facts. That is situational bias where, let's say, radiologists hone-in on one diagnosis — bowel obstruction on a KUB, but miss a lumbar compression fracture — or, provide medical advice "curbside" without knowing the entire history of a patient, these biases can result in patient diagnosis error and medical malpractice.

Incidentally, a Wiki deletion editor did not like the title of the article I wrote up and recommended that I change it to the Dismissal of Robert Rialmo from the "Shooting of Robert Rialmo." He wrote that more people would find it and that it is the essence of the story anyway. Eventually, that is what really happened: Rialmo was dismissed. The reader will find out, he wrote, that after digesting the article, and will know the history on their own. I did follow his advice, and changed the title. Please check my User talk:Bigeez page on the deletion editor's comments on Dismissal of Robert Rialmo. Maybe the title "Murder ... should be "Dismissal of Jason Van Dyke" or "Conviction ..." for that is its essence. Incidentally, one comment to the title change on this talk page was "remaining neutral," by another editor.

Lastly, perhaps the page views of the Murder of Laquan McDonald might reflect ease-of-use as verifiable data? They have dropped from a monthly high of 90k in early 2019, to 20-30k, down 75% in October, 2019. Analyse as you wish, for this might simply be due to relevance in the news, etc., but nonetheless, make any assessment you feel apropos. Please see my User:Bigeez/sandbox sandbox for my current work on an article subsection regarding "Collaboration/Resistance from World War II, the Dismissal of Robert Rialmo, as well as Eddie T. Johnson, (Superintendent of Police, Chicago) which I co-authored for any comments/suggestions.

Your comments are indispensable. I do value your time and advice. With all due respect, cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk, MelanieN (talk), and — Mudwater ^(Talk) might comment as well. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on the title of this article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In the opinion of a majority of editors who have posted in this discussion, the better title for this article is "Murder of Laquan McDonald". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the title of this article be "Shooting of Laquan McDonald" or "Murder of Laquan McDonald"? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• It would be better to rename the article back to its original title, "Shooting of Laquan McDonald". As outlined in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Naming, and in Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality in article titles, the titles of articles should conform to the Wikipedia Neutral Point Of View policy. For example, there's an article titled Battle of Fort Dearborn instead of Fort Dearborn Massacre. "Shooting" is a more neutral and less inflammatory word, and is therefore more appropriate here. The term "murder" is emotionally loaded, and evokes images of killings that are deliberately planned in advance, for reasons of personal gain. Also, "shooting" would be more in line with the names of some related or analogous articles, such as Shooting of Michael Brown, Shooting of Philando Castile, and Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Some editors may be emotionally invested in the idea that police officer Jason Van Dyke was not justified in shooting Laquan McDonald, that it was wrong for some members of the Chicago Police Department to have covered up what happened, and that the troubled relationships between some police forces and the minority communities they are supposed to serve is an ongoing problem for our society. That's understandable, or even commendable, but it should not detract from the neutrality of the article, including the title itself. Some editors have previously argued on this talk page that "murder" is better in the title of this article because Van Dyke was in fact convicted of second-degree murder (and aggravated battery). My challenge to anyone taking that position is this: George Zimmerman was found not guilty of second-degree murder in the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, but I would be strongly opposed to renaming that article "Justifiable self-defense shooting of Trayvon Martin". If you too would be opposed to that, how is this article title different? Thanks in advance to any sincere editor who participates in this discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, — Mudwater ^(Talk), for allowing me to participate. To be perfectly honest, I do see both points of view, eloquently addressed by Strikerforce^Talk. I followed your recommendations, Strikerforce^Talk and googled "Laquan McDonald." Yet, if one looks at the Googled major headlines of newspapers and TV media — after the verdict — they do not refer to it as the “Murder … ,” but rather as the “Shooting ... ,” i.e., New York Times, or ABC News with David Muir,, or the “Shooting Death...” and other Wikipedia articles, such as the Chicago Police Accountability Task Force and the Dismissal of Robert Rialmo. The “details” and ”outcome” of the event are well-known by the media venues referenced that keep referring to the event as the “Shooting of Laquan McDonald” or the “Shooting death of Laquan McDonald." Thus, if it is found in the media as "The Shooting ..." or the "Shooting Death ... " is Wikipedia’s editorialising concepts far above these other media venues? Further, considering the Neutral Point Of View policy eloquently addressed by — Mudwater ^(Talk), is neutrality, benignity, and clear judgment to be sacrificed on the altar of (WP:JDLI)? In other words, a title to an article should not be "Just because"??? ... which was my bringing this up in the first place;). Respectfully, cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Hello — Mudwater ^(Talk) and Strikerforce^Talk, I value your opinion, as I do MartinezMD (talk). To be perfectly honest, fair and impartial, I did discover some Googled titles which were identical to the title of the article (Murder of Laquan McDonald). Though, some were frankly saturnine. Most major media titles that I found were written as "Shooting...":

• “Laquan McDonald Shooting … ,”
• “Shooting of Laquan McDonald ... ."

However, there also were titles with "Death" and "Murder" or "Execution," albeit much less common:

• “Laquan McDonald’s Death … ,”
• fewer with “Murder of Laquan McDonald … ,"
• least common with “Execution of Laquan McDonald … .”

Eventually, it will boil down to the most appropriate and least volatile title that is found to be within Wikipedia guidelines that must take precedence among other editors. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

References

In terms of consistency "Murder of" is the appropriate prefix, as demonstrated by a prefix search - there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands of articles with 'Murder of" in the title. "Shooting of" used far less often and only when there is no conviction.

See WP:CRITERIA As Bigeez states: "Eventually, it will boil down to the most appropriate and least volatile title that is found to be within Wikipedia guidelines that must take precedence among other editors" List of articles that are titled "Murder of" - there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands of articles with 'Murder of" in the title. "Shooting of" used far less often and almost only when there is no conviction. End of discussion. "Murder of" is clearly the appropriate prefix as per title guidlines.

• To answer the question about the difference from the Martin case, a title should be concise. Additionally, the not guilty verdict means that Zimmerman was not proven to be guilty. It does not mean that he was proven to be not guilty. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Adoring nanny: thank you for responding. I'm a little confused, though. Since you invoked double negatives, are you saying Zimmerman was proven guilty? Respectfully, Eli Bigeez (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm saying he was not proven to be anything -- guilty or not. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Adoring nanny: sorry, but I am more confused. Are we referring to the T. Martin/George Z. judicial case? Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• point of order - Should this not belong in the section already covered that precedes this? Why are you revisiting a issue that was settled? and my comment - The major difference between this and other police shootings is that the officer is now a convicted murderer. So it's a not an emotional issue for me as it is a factual one. I like the ring of the "Shooting" title, but the details of the outcome favor "Murder" imho. MartinezMD (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Murder because the officer was convicted of murder. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• This specific shooting resulted in a Murder.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Murder The crime was adjudicated as such and, as I pointed out above, "Shooting of" redirects here, which would satisfy the "simplest terms" of a search, as you suggested elsewhere. Strikerforce^Talk 20:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Shooting - Per WP:COMMONNAME; after glancing at the sources briefly, it seems more commonly referred to as a "shooting" than a murder. To Tony's and nanny's points; the fact that it was murder doesn't mean that it wasn't a shooting. NickCT (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Murder as per Adoring Nanny Bacondrum (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• Shooting as per
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Naming = Wikipedia policy
  • Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality in article titles = titles of articles MUST conform to Wikipedia policy
  • Neutral Point Of View = Wikipedia policy. Bigeez (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bigeez: The keystone of my argument is solid - the defendant was charged with second degree murder, not second degree shooting. We report what reliable sources say, not what we think. Bacondrum (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Forget the charge. He has an actual conviction. MartinezMD (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right I misspoke, I meant to say convicted not charged. He was charged with first degree murder, convicted of second degree murder. Bacondrum (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Describing the murder of a person as the "shooting of" sounds super weasely to me. So I thought I'd look into it and found this compelling argument for the use of "murder" rather than shooting of, knifing of, strangulation of etc.

I also noted some arguments made about consistency, that other articles are titled "shooting of" rather than "Murder of", so this articles title should too, however that is a furphy. Most articles use "Murder of" which seems to be the obvious and better choice, I mean what do we do in the case of Agathocles of Syracuse who was murdered by use of a poisoned toothpick? "The toothpick poisoning of Agathocles of Syracuse" sounds rather stupid, I'm sure there are plenty of murder methods that would make a jarring title. In regards to consistency of titles, Murder of is the correct prefix - there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands of articles with 'Murder of" in the title. The courts decreed they were murdered, the title should reflect that fact, not the method of murder. Looking through articles titled "shooting of" it seems this title is used far less often and almost only when there is no conviction. Bacondrum (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Note: WP:CRITERIA "Murder of" is the correct prefix in terms of consistency with other articles. As per guidelines. There's also a compelling essay about the prefix here Bacondrum (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to let everybody know, I have posted about this Request for Comment at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, inviting interested editors to join in the discussion here. You can see what I said at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Murder of Laquan McDonald. (It's possible that some editors will comment there, but I've requested them to comment here instead, to keep the discussion all in one place.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

So a simple (yes I know about whatboutism and otherstuff) question how do we treat other cases where there was a conviction for murder?Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I was asked to comment because I started this article as 'Shooting of Laquan McDonald' which is now being debated. I strongly feel that the current article title Murder should remain. Here is my reasoning: 1.) There was a trial, and without ambiguity the murderer was convicted of second degree murder. 2.) Looking at Shooting of Michael Brown, Shooting of Philando Castile, Shooting of Trayvon Martin these point to situations where a shooting happened but no murder conviction was made. From what I can tell, 'shooting of...' articles seem to usually be titled as such because they describe shooting situations where a.) a murder conviction has not been made and b.) the 'shooting' title is used because it is a general term, without adjectives or further description like "Justifiable self-defense" which could be learned from reading an article itself - they are a wide catch-all category. By comparison , Murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner, Murder of James Bulger, Murder of John Lennon all are articles that describe situations where murder convictions were made. Describing THIS article (Murder of Laquan McDonald) with a general term would widen the description of the article to include it in a class of articles where murder convictions have not been made, which in my opinion at this time is inappropriate because a murder conviction has been made. 3.) The second degree conviction means that the murderer had malice a forethought, but did not premeditate or plan the crime. I'll say it another way - this murder was NOT "deliberately planned in advance, for reasons of personal gain" (which would describe first degree murder) and the article as it is now clearly states that this murder was a second degree conviction. Any reader can read the article and be better informed about the nature of second degree murder, the readers emotional response is not relevant. I will say that all future revisions of this article in my opinion should clearly state and link to this being a second degree murder to avoid confusion. 4.) I don't know how many sources cited in this article are from before or after the trial concluded. The date of publication of such sources should be taken into consideration. 5.) Redirects solve any naming issue, all potential names should exist as redirects to redirect to whatever name the article holds.

Victor Grigas (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

"Murder of" is the consistently used prefix when a conviction is recorded Special:PrefixIndex/Murder_of in terms of consistency with other articles, as per WP:CRITERIA. Some kind editor/editors took the time to write an essay explaining how, why and when to use Murder of for titles: Wikipedia:"Murder of" articles - also includes how to title massacres, serial killers and terrorism etc. I think this is a clear cut case - shooting is appropropriate only when there is no conviction for murder. Bacondrum (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

So (to the other side) is there an example of a murder we do not call a murder in the articles title (note one off murder, not terrorist attack)?Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

None that I can see:

• Articles with Shooting of prefix: Special:PrefixIndex/Shooting_of
• Articles with Murder of of prefix: Special:PrefixIndex/Murder_of

Bacondrum (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Bacondrum: I see your reasoning as well as Victor Grigas, and thank you both for your input, although I concur with @Mudwater:'s reasoning. Most of the references in the Shooting of Laquan McDonald more commonly refer to it as "Shooting" by a ratio of 8:1, from a total of 153 references in the article. I personally counted them as:

Shooting = 48

Killing = 9

Murder = 6

Shooting Death = 2

Slaying = 1

Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

PLease read WP:CRITERIA and Wikipedia:"Murder of" articles. The guidelines are clear. Bacondrum (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:"Murder of" articles is mostly about which murders are, or are not, sufficiently notable to have their own Wikipedia articles. It does say that "the general protocol would be to title the article "Murder of [victim's name]"", but in my view that's not the best title for this particular article, for the reasons that I outlined in my post at the top of this section. And WP:CRITERIA gives general guideines for naming articles. "Shooting of Laquan McDonald" would meet those guidelines at least as well as "Murder of Laquan McDonald". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I've read everyone's posts here, and I still think that the article title "Murder of Laquan McDonald" violates Neutral Point of View guidelines, for the reasons that I outlined in my post near the top of this section, and that therefore the name should be changed back to "Shooting of Laquan McDonald". To respond to a few specific points that others have made: (1) Are there other "shooting of" articles where the shooter was convicted of murder -- whether first-degree, second-degree, or whatever? I don't know. But for this particular article, "shooting of" is a better name. Any existing article naming pattern that we can infer does not prove that this article should follow the same pattern. (2) We definitely do not want to go around renaming articles based solely, or even primarily, on jury verdicts -- because the opinion of a jury might not be appropriate to put into Wikipedia's voice. As I said above, we should *not* rename "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" to "Justifiable self-defense shooting of Trayvon Martin", even though that's what a jury decided. That's not because of a pattern of article names, and it's not because it would be an awkward-sounding title. It's because the title would violate the Neutral Point Of View policy -- even though it would be based on a jury verdict. (3) The word "murder" has a number of different meanings. A jury decided that in this case the shooter's actions were second-degree murder, under the laws of Illinois. But that's not how a casual or even serious reader of this article might take it, if it were left in the name of the article. They might well think that Mr. McDonald was shot by someone who planned the killing in advance, for personal gain. In conclusion, "Shooting of Laquan McDonald" is the better choice here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No. The fact is, this case was adjudicated as a murder. Therefore, it does not - in my opinion - violate NPOV guidelines. There is no "point of view" involved to call it "Murder of", since that is now a fact of record. Most of the rest of your block of text is speculation about what a potential reader "might well think" and should be eliminated from consideration. Strikerforce^Talk 15:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Would you also say that it's "a fact of record" that when George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin, it was justifiable self-defense -- since that's what a jury found? And that therefore it would be appropriate to rename that article accordingly? And if not, what's the difference between that and this? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No we call it the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, because no murder conviction was recorded. This isn't debatable, there are clear guidelines and convention. Please actually read WP:CRITERIA particularly this bit "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles"...end of story, what you and me think is irrelevant, the guidelines are clear we follow the lead of other articles which use shooting when no murder conviction is recorded and Murder when a murder conviction is recorded. Not liking it is not an argument WP:IDONTLIKEIT Bacondrum (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Murder nothing has been said that demonstrates why this is any different form any of the other articles we title "murder of...". Its clear when it is a proven murder that is what we call it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Murder Thats what it was: murder. HAL333 01:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Murder Convicted. This RFC is a poster child for why there should be distinct Survey and Discussion sections and why people should follow the canonical !vote format of *'''!vote'''. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Murder - Among other good reasons, it is possible for someone to be a shooting victim, but not a murder victim. There is no reason to make the title more confusing than it needs to be. "Murder of Laquan McDonald" is a succinct and neutral title that tells readers what they need to know. Grayfell (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Shooting - (Summoned by bot) Per WP:COMMONNAME. "Murder" has 2,270 g-hits while "shooting" has 6,760. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. What percentage of those sources were from before the conviction? Grayfell (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

And for that reason Wikipedia naming convention should be given more weight than google search. As per prefix vs prefix Bacondrum (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This is done. The 3 people advocating "shooting" just don't like the murder title. MartinezMD (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@MartinezMD: on the other hand, the people advocating "Murder" just don't like the "Shooting" title. Look at the pageviews, which are plummeting. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others, but I've mentioned previously (above) that I actually like the sound of "shooting" better, but that I think murder is more accurate. Page views are falling because this is becoming old news, not because of a title change. As I see it, there are more than enough examples/precedent to use "murder", there is a specifying outcome difference (someone may survive a shooting, but not a murder), and the significant majority of responding editors have made the case to use "murder". I don't see "shooting" carrying. I think any further discussion will be wasted effort as we've made no new points on either side. I'd suggest accepting "murder" or escalating the case to admin to avoid delay/wasted time. MartinezMD (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @MartinezMD: thank you for taking the time to discuss and I do concur with your opinion on the title "shooting" as well as all your other points, though I am divided on the neutrality issue raised by @Mudwater: and best left in her decision whether or not to proceed to Admin decision-making. If they agree with leaving as-is then it's out of our hands. I believe @Mudwater: knows best how to go about it; I'm fairly novice at this sort of thing. Additionally, the pageviews downslide is coincident to the name change: for what reason, we'll never know. Regards and cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

At this point, it's rather clear that there is no consensus to change the title, I'd say, and this RfC should be closed as such. Addition You've now been trying to do this, between this RfC and the previous discussion above, which you allowed to run for eight days prior to opening this RfC, for five weeks and have only achieved the support of three editors other than yourself. Meanwhile, there have been better than double that number in opposition. If anything, consensus has been established to leave it as is. Strikerforce^Talk 17:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC) Addition Strikerforce^Talk 17:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not just consensus Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's been clearly demonstrated that the guidelines are against the change. End of debate, close the discussion. Bacondrum (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I started this Request for Comment 27 days ago. I'm going to go ahead and end it now, because I think the discussion has more or less run its course. The point of an RfC is to try to persuade other editors of one's point of view, and not to vote on a result, but, for whatever it's worth, here is my reading of the article title preferences of those who have posted here. Apologies if I've omitted or misrepresented anyone.

• "Shooting of Laquan McDonald" (4) -- Mudwater, Bigeez, NickCT, Meatsgains
• "Murder of Laquan McDonald" (10) -- Adoring nanny, TonyTheTiger, Strikerforce, Bacondrum, MartinezMD, Victor Grigas, Slatersteven, HAL333, DIYeditor, Grayfell

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:32, 13 December 2019 (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.

Although I was not able to persuade a majority of editors to agree with my opinions, I definitely think that having this discussion as a formal Request for Comment was both appropriate and worthwhile. Thanks to everyone who participated. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Mudwater: I agree, and thank you to all who participated and commented; for your time and insight. I know that I have learned quite a bit more about such processes than prior to it. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• PATF Final Report 4 13 16-1.pdf

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)