The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Arab Emirates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Arab Emirates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United Arab EmiratesWikipedia:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesTemplate:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesUnited Arab Emirates
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
If Zvi Kogan was born in Jerusalem to Lithuanian Jewish parents, how is he a Moldovan citizen and has a Russian version of the Cohen name?BorisG (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost certain that Lithuanian mean in the context a nickname for a Mitnaged but i don't remember the exact borders of the Grand Duchy (probably not important) and the Russian surname is almost certainly because Moldova was part of the Russian Empire Multiverse Union (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 reviewafter 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 to Killing of Zvi Kogan. There's certainly a consensus to move away from the "death of" title, so it comes down to "murder of" vs. "killing of". This issue has been contentious in the past and deserves further discussion elsewhere. But for our purposes, what matters is that we take BLP concerns very seriously, and the WP:BLPCRIME argument is a real one, while the rejoinders are not very compelling (investigators' statements do not amount to a conviction...by a court of law, and the "of" vs. "by" distinction fades away when there are actual BLP suspects named in the article). At a minimum that suggests there's no consensus for "murder of", and the other issues raised at MRV (PIA rules; WP:NPOVTITLE) point in the same direction. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 12 December 2024. The result of the move review was Discussion reopened.
Oppose It should be moved to Zvi Kogan. If he had several pages about him, then sure, (like the assassination attempts on Trump). But since the murder is a main part of his importance, and there is enough information for an article about him, he should just have his own article with a large section on his murder. TimeEngineer (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The title should not be Zvi Kogan if the main part of his notability is his death, per WP:BIO1E. If his killing is the primary source of his notability, the article title should be about the event, not the person. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As BarrelProof states, the guy himself is not noteworthy, it's just his killing.
@Vice regent and others: I accept other articles exists that are titled "Murder of ....". However, in the original example provided the perpetrators were convicted of the murder of Ross Parker and I was providing a contrasting example where there was no conviction. Since people have been arrested in this case and are going to be put on trial, Wikipedia should follow due process and now wait until the judicial process reaches a conclusion, before labelling this crime a "murder", rather than jumping to the same conclusions as the partisan sources and prejudging the outcome of the trial. Otherwise this becomes "Trial by Wikipedia." Also, each article needs to be judged on its merits, so the use of the term "Murder" may be applicable in those other articles when it is not with this article. In two murders I am familiar with, the murder of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe and the murder of Mellory Manning, for example, people were convicted of murder, although those convictions were subsequently quashed on appeal, so a conviction was entered for murder. In this case, the trial hasn't even started and Wikipedia should assume the people on trial are innocent until found guilty. My opposition to calling this murder is that saying so is premature, process-wise, not that it is not one. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Focusing on just one solitary -- but important - point. CD's reaction is based on the premise that the suspects accused of the murder are the murderers. Yet no such assertion is made in adopting the title of -- as dozens of similar WP articles have done -- "Murder of ..." This is not a "Murder by .." article. Obviously, the subject may be determined to have been murdered, as the UAE has done. While the murderers perhaps have not yet even been arrested, or if they have been arrested determined to have been those who committed the murder. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The examples provided are almost exclusively of murders where either the suspects were never identified, murder-suicides where there are no BLP issues, and cases where all named suspects were acquitted or convictions that were later squashed and without new named suspects. Murder of Zhang Hong Jie needed to be updated to include the conviction. With the exception of Murder of Giulio Regeni (where I have made the necessary changes), none of these articles are similar to the case here where we have named suspects that are about to be subject to a criminal trial. Your list is not indicative that it would be acceptable to use "murder" here. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions09:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "Murder of ...." may be your standard. But some editors might be excused if they were to quibble that it is perhaps just a bit of an exaggeration for you to call it "Wikipedia's standard." Because if one bothers to click through, it says rather clearly, atop the page: "This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." --184.153.21.19 (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant. The UAE has stated that he was murdered. They have not stated who murdered him - and that is all that WP:BLPCRIME relates to. You are confusing the two. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't WP:KILLINGS just an essay that is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community? And the relevant government - the UAE, as well as the US and the NYT, BBC, Wall Street Journal, NBC, CNN, USA Today, Reuters, Newsweek, France 24, etc., and all manner of RSs, has stated that it was a murder .. which of course is a killing, but it is that subset of killings that is illegal. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right .. but WP:KILLINGS itself then, as it states, has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. While one or more editors may like it, it is not an explanation that has been thoroughly vetted, and does not stand for more than the opinion of one or more editors .. short of the community. Second, as to BLPCRIME, it is not relevant, as the UAE has stated that Kogan was murdered, but have not stated who murdered him - and that is all that WP:BLPCRIME relates to.--184.153.21.19 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Murder of", do not support "killing of". The relevant Emirati authorities have specifically described this as "murder"[1], without any use of the word "alleged". The authorities have named several individuals as "perpetrators" without any usage of the term "alleged"[2]. The "killing of" is used in cases where authorities still presume the perpetrators to be innocent, but it is superseded by "murder of" once the authorities are convinced of the crime. The Emirati authorities do appear to be convinced of the crime in this case. (Yes, the Emirati executive branch should not presume there is a crime unless without a judicial conviction, but this is not the place to WP:RGW). Finally, the real victim here Kogan, hence it is a bit of an NPOV violation to use euphemisms like "death" or "killing".VR(Please ping on reply)00:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant Emirati authorities that would make this a murder are the courts, which have not convicted yet. Public pronouncements by non-judicial officials are not convictions and even in liberal democracies, politicians and police officials will often prematurely jump to deem mere accused as criminals. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, but it is also not the place to prematurely label legally innocent people as murderers (see WP:BLPCRIME. "Killing" is an accurate description, and suggesting that it's a euphemism that rises to the level of an NPOV violation is arguably attempting to RGW yourself. You'll note that in the linked BBC article [3], "murder" or variants are only used in quotations or when describing official statements and never in the BBC's own words. That should be the standard for the article. It's okay to note what officials have said it's a murder, but we shouldn't do the same until there's a conviction. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions03:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support title being "Killing of". I would buy the argument above if it was from a country with fewer government sponsored human rights abuses than the UAE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMurder of Zvi Kogan per WP:COMMONNAME. The idea that gets parried around by some users that you can only use the term "murder" when a conviction occurs seems to be one that has arisen on Wikipedia, I have never seen this elsewhere. I await the presumably oncoming crusade against the phrase "unsolved murder", which is obviously an impossibility for them despite its widespread usage on Wikipedia. ITBF📢14:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ITBF Because it's an obvious BLP issue that we call someone a murderer when they haven't been convicted? Commonname trumps WP:DEATHS (though it's too soon after the event to see a true common name) but BLPCRIME is policy and trumps that as well. Common usage aside we do not want to be sued, and despite the layman usage of the term "murder" is a specific legal thing and not just someone being killed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anyone here proposing to label any living person a murderer. "Murder" is not a term of art like "manslaughter", it has a common English meaning. Are you aware of the article sequence "List of unsolved murders", List of unsolved murders (2000–present) being the most relevant to your BLP concerns? The perpetrators are presumably all covered by WP:BLP, that does not mean these people only become murder victims when someone is convicted of the specific legal offence. ITBF📢02:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the title is "murder" then we implicate the persons referred to named or not. Murder does have a specific meaning, given that it can only be defined by the law. It varies by jurisdiction, which is an extra reason that we need to be cautious. And those would be BLP issues if the perpetrators were indicated or implied or accused, but as they are unsolved and no information is given in sourcing or otherwise, it is not a problem - though legally imprecise. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing two things. It is one thing to say that a murder has been committed. That is what we have here. The UAE - the relevant jurisdiction - has concluded and states as much. It is quite another to say that person x committed the murder. But that has not been done in this article. Nor would using - as dozens of articles at wp have done - the article title "Murder of .." violate BLP. Why? Because it is not an assertion that any particular person committed the murder. That's why dozens of wp articles bear that title, without any murderer having been convicted. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Murder is very much a term of art that almost every single jurisdiction defines in its criminal codes (usually something like a premeditated unlawful killing). The article names three people as the alleged perpetrators who are currently in custody. Titling the article as a "murder' implies that they have already been convicted, which AFAIK isn't the case. As for unsolved murders, the BLP implications are considerably lessened, since they are by definition generally unlikely to have named suspects at all and especially not named suspects currently undergoing criminal proceedings. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions09:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, that analysis is wrong. Titling the article a murder is 100% supported by the country here. It has announced that it was a murder. That is entirely different from saying that the individuals committed or were convicted of the murder. As you yourself point out, they are only suspects. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. That they are only suspects - not convicted - is clear at the very mention of their names in the article. There is no BLP issue here at all. --24.193.163.158 (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an Emirati lawyer, so can you tell me what is wrong with the analysis? Is murder not a legally-defined crime in the UAE? Do murders not go through the Emirati court system but are decided in whole or in part by non-judicial public officials? Has a conviction already been obtained? Unless some of those answers aren't "no", then it would be a WP:BLPCRIME violation to use "murder in the title, since from a strictly legal standpoint that determination has not been made yet and doing so implies otherwise.
There is no issue with using "murder" in the context of the charges, alleged actions, or various quotations. Indeed, that is what a lot of non-Israeli news sources are doing and using "killing" or "death" when speaking in objective terms (e.g. BBC [4][5], CNN [6], Reuters [7], AP [8], Times of India [9]). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions07:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposed for now, but support move to "Killing of...". Regardless of what Emirati officials are saying, it has a court system that must rule before we should be labelling it a murder per WP:BLPCRIME, which trumps the article titles policy. No issue with using "Killing of..." since Zvi Kogan was in fact killed. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions09:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the article itself refers to the death as a murder, and there were signs of violence and struggle found in his car. Three civilians have already been arrested in connection with the murder so I think it's fair enough to move the article over. jolielover♥talk09:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relister comment: The move review ended in a consensus to overturn the original close, and accordingly the RM discussion is being reopened and relisted. I will be procedurally moving the title back to the pre-RM title of "Death of Zvi Kogan" until the RM is re-closed. Please note that this relist does not necessarily indicate a consensus (or a lack of consensus) for any specific title. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I came here from the move review and don't have a strong opinion on anything in the article, but in reviewing the close I think our standards clearly show convictions are required to call something a murder in the title of the article per WP:BLPCRIME, WP:DEATHS, and past precedent. Per WP:COMMONNAME, consistency in this topic area is the most important criteria, and not moving accomplishes this at the moment. I would support a move to "Killing of." SportingFlyerT·C04:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect - that’s obviously untrue. As reflected in the above discussion. Convictions are not required to call something a murder in the title of the article. There are dozens of WP articles - a healthy number listed above - where that is not the case. 24.193.163.158 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What our anonymous contributor and others who advocate for the article title to follow WP:COMMONNAME seem to fail to appreciate is that using a commonly recognizable name is only one of several WP:CRITERIA for naming an article. Article titles also need to be named neutrally, as well as be WP:CONSISTENT with each other. Wikipedia's process at arriving at a title should also be consistent across articles. What the guideline WP:BLPCRIME asks of editors is that a living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until they are convicted - this is a Wikipedia policy requirement. It implies the standard of proof needed for calling a Wikipedia article a "Murder..." is beyond reasonable doubt, and that standard is demonstrated by a conviction for murder. The crime of murder has two basic elements the act of killing and the intent to kill. The existence of a dead body may prove the act of murder and many sources may refer to this as a murder, but that doesn't prove the intent to kill, which requires the higher standard of conviction that is required of Wikipedia editors. Also, calling this article a "murder" at this stage of the judicial process implies Wikipedia holds a certain (i.e. biased) point of view. In other cases involving murder, Wikipedia hasn't even had an article about a murder until after a verdict was given. For example, an article about the Deaths of the Dickason children was only moved to Murders of the Dickason children after a jury verdict was given. Wikipedia might have numerous articles about murders, it also has numerous articles about deaths and killings, but the naming of each article needs to be judged on its own merits, not the merits of other articles, which may be different. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposed for now, but support move to "Killing of... since commonname seems to be mixed between murder and killing, and seemingly largely biased by the reporting source. The article itself currently evenly splits the word search for death and kill at 50/50. Without a clear commonname, regardless of personal biases, we defer to WP:DEATHS and without a conviction that guidance says "killing" is the appropriate term. While this situation might feel like "murder" is the correct term, that has not actually been proven, and without a consensus on commonname being death, we simply cannot simply move it as proposed. TiggerJay(talk)08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this article falls falls within a broad definition of WP:PIA given that Israel is accusing Iran, which notably sponsors several anti-Israeli groups, of sending assassins to kill Kogan. I raised this with the original closer, who agreed, [10] and that was not disputed at the DRV, but is something that should be considered by the eventual closer as to whether to disregard/strike non-ECP participants. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions19:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I'm allowed to discuss here after previously closing, but I oppose moving to "Murder of" and support moving to "Killing of," no conviction yet. Feeglgeef (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me that you may not have read all of the above heavily cited explanations as to why “conviction” is not a requirement here. Including the reference to a great number of articles where there has been no conviction. And statement here by the government that it was a murder. That is not the same as saying suspects x and y committed the murder. 24.193.163.158 (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that you comment like someone who has !voted, but has also intentionally decided to comment anonymously. As a broadly construed WP:PIA related article non-ECP participants are likely to be disregarded to struck as Patar mentioned above. TiggerJay(talk)21:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
