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: no consensus. Valid and equally strong points have been raised by all sides of the discussion, and I don't see a consensus to arrive at a conclusive title. Per WP:NOCON, the title shall be moved back to its long established title. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Caylee Anthony → Death of Caylee Anthony – This article was retitled to "killing of" over "death of" earlier this year. WP:"Murder_of"_articles indicates this isn't correct. In fact it uses the Caylee Anthony case as its example for when "killing of" should not be used, quote: "In the death of Caylee Anthony, the prime suspect was put on trial for murder, and the public widely held beliefs of murder, but since this defendant was acquitted and legally can no longer be tried for murder, the case cannot be labeled as 'murder' under Wikipedia guidelines. Likewise such a case should also not be labeled as 'killing'." Shiningbell (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The current title is WP:BIASed especially since it was a “not guilty” verdict. Shwcz (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:DEATHS. "Orange and Osceola County chief medical examiner Dr. Jan Garavaglia testified that she determined the toddler's manner of death to be homicide"[1] 162 etc. (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Our article notes '...the cause of death was listed as "death by undetermined means."' What happened is disputed and we should let our readers come to their own conclusions. A biased title reduces the article's credibility.--agr (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose OP was doing fine up to the last line. Murder and homicide ("a killing") are two entirely separate things. The outcome of the trial is irrelevant to the medical examiner's determination. The determination was homicide. The 'means' are irrelevant. That nobody was convicted does not change its nature as a homicide. Editorial: She was two years old. So, it's extremely unlikely she committed suicide. Her remains were found in a laundry bag. It's highly unlikely a two year old would get lost/run away from home, then crawl into a laundry bag and therein die. It is possible, but not probable. The final legal determination by the medical examiner was homicide. It is the Killing of Caylee Anthony. And to put a finer point on it, from the WP:"Murder of"_articles page: If foul play has been officially determined, such as by a coroner who ruled homicide as a cause of death, but a murder has not (yet) been adjudicated, the article still can't be titled "Murder of [victim]", but it should also not be titled "Death of [victim]", as this would be imprecise. Instead, the article should be titled "Killing of [victim]". On that basis alone the proposal fails, while acknowledging the 'murder of' article is an essay, not a policy. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The section you quoted doesn't support your point. "If foul play has been officially determined, such as by a coroner who ruled homicide as a cause of death, but a murder has not (yet) been adjudicated" The "killing of" title would have been appropriate only before the end of the trial. Shiningbell (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The reason "yet" is in parenthesis is that it can be read as "but a murder has not been adjudicated" or "but a murder has not yet been adjudicated". In this case, a murder has not yet been adjudicated. It remains a homicide. That a person wasn't found guilty doesn't preclude a different person from being tried, nor does it change the evidence that led the medical examiner to declare it a homicide. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point there. But if you follow through with that logic, if we aren't implying Casey's a murderer with the title, aren't we necessarily implying Caylee was killed by some unknown killer? Which means endorsing a theory shared by almost no one - not the state, not the defense, not the judge or jury (they both point to the accidental drowning theory as the most likely 2nd option in later interviews) and not the media. Shiningbell (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP should never imply or infer anything - we simply provide the information found in the sources (I know - that's a big 'duh'!). But we also can't synthesize anything beyond the fact that the coroner ruled it a homicide. Nobody has been convicted of her murder. It's worth pointing out, as with many unsolved killings, evidence uncovered later - even decades - can be sufficient to bring charges anew. Who killed her - based upon the not guilty verdict - is not known. That it was a killing is known, and it was the "official" determination, and is rather obvious from the evidence in the case. It's a tough one. All sorts of things have been and could be speculated. But we can't engage in that speculation, not specifically (the best that can be done is for example, 'perhaps a boyfriend of "someone" killed Caylee on behalf of that "someone"'). So, absent evidence other than that it was a homicide, absent a conviction - yet - it remains a homicide by an unknown person by an unknown means. As I said, it's tough one, particularly with so much circumstantial evidence surrounding it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand what you're saying makes technical sense. But carry this through to its conclusion.

Say Derek Chauvin had been found not guilty, because the jury was convinced by the defense's argument that it was an innevitable overdose or heart attack. Would it be fair to still call that article "The Killing of George Floyd" (The coroner ruled it a homicide)?

That would be seen by any reader as a nakedly biased implication that George Floyd was murdered by police officers. The fact that the door is left open for Floyd being shot by an unkown assassin with a microscopic poison dart during the struggle does nothing to correct that.

There needs to be some concession to how real people will interpret the article beyond the purely technical. Shiningbell (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good points, indeed. As I said, a tough one, and one for which I just don't see a perfect path through. Honestly, I don't see why the title has to characterize it at all. simply Caylee Anthony seems like it would suffice. But then it falls even farther out from any particular convention maintained here with these sorts of cases. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per 162 etc. and anastrophe. Caylee Anthony died as a result of homicide, therefore the main title header should not use the form "Death of...", which obscures the fact that criminal charges were filed and intimates that the death was either a natural one, as in the main header Death of Ludwig van Beethoven or was the result of an accident with no ill will or attempt to conceal details, as in the main header Death of Jill Phipps. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The prosecution claimed it was a homicide. The defense claimed it was an accidental drowning. The defense admitted there was an attempt to conceal details. That alone does not make it a killing. The jury did not accept the prosecution's argument. We should not attempt to judge the nature of the death, just present the full story and let our readers decide.--agr (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as this case was a homicide. cookie monster 755 18:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No verdicts are needed to declare whether a homicide happened; just acceptance by reliable sources. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There is general division of opinion in new sources involving Caylee's death, thus it would not make sense for Wikiedia to refer to it as a "Killing", especially when there is no convicted killer. Auror Andrachome (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: "Killing of" suggests that a homicide did occur, that Casey Anthony was the perp, and that the jury was wrong to find otherwise. Considering there's no definitive conclusion as to what really transpired in such a tragic event, "death of" would be a suitable compromise title. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above and WP:Deaths. Changing the title to "Death of" as opposed to "Killing of" is misleading and would be confusing to a reader who is uninformed about the case. This was a homicide. Gabby Petito's page is a notable example of a homicide that garnered nationwide attention but was not necessarily proven in court (though confirmed by a multitude of sources). — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 01:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. This should have been moved straight back in the first place, and such should be the outcome if there's no consensus, as the May move was not discussed and has proven controversial.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - One defendant being acquitted does not rule out that other defendants may be charged and convicted in the future.

Kire1975 (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]