From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shalviya.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

-icide suffixes[edit]

There are many different -icide and -cide suffixes based on who is being killed. For example, the -cide page at Wiktionary has quite a comprehensive list. Should we really add every one on this page? Perhaps just adding ones that have their own distinct articles on Wikipedia. To further this, I've added Tyrannicide.

--Tpk5010 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"-cide" seems to be latein for "murder". "Hom" is probably from "homo" = human. Pest-i-cide murderer of bugs, spray can and so on. (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


I just created a new page on Familicide but it quickly became a candidate for speedy deletion due to its limited, dictionary-definition content. It is my wish that the psychology and crime scholars among you help me expand the article's content so that it will no longer be considered beneath Wikipedia standards. Thank you. J.A.McCoy 00:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


It seems that at least two people keep replacing this article with one about a pro wrestler, even though we already have an article about him, a disambig page, and a note at the top of the current article. I reverted the page and noted this in the edit summary. WindAndConfusion 06:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Check and double-checkMneumisi 14:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Text removed from the article:

nor is the legal justification of necessity a defense.

IIRC correctly, that is a serious misunderstanding, and the reality is that lack of a reasonable belief that the killing was necessary is the reason that the defense is seldom successful. I've no reference one way or the other, so i've left the article noncommital.

BTW, there's not a special burden of proof on the defendant for any of these defenses, is there? Jerzy(t) 22:22, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

-- it was my understanding that the 'justifiable homicide' school of reasoning was essentialy "genre-relevant"-- otherwise, in what instances is it really reasonable to rationalize murder? supposing that the term is an accurate one-- then it is necessary to consider specifically what is meant by this rationalization-- it is rather explicit in practice. it is one thing to suppose, as for instance, in some 'war games' scenarios-- that actions warrant the considerations as being justifiable-- in part, it is possible to think so because of the limitations that are imposed 'by genre', but does the same sort of reasoning apply in other situations? --01010101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:333E:1F0:1919:BC3D:DCC6:FD43 (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


I don't see how an author can claim that militaries don't view homicides as such: they define being killed by "hostile" and "non-hostile" action differently. Moreover, it's common usage to define the Holocaust as a genocide. -- John Wallace Rich 14:34, 16 June 2006 (GMT)

Culpable homicide[edit]

There's something in Indian law called "culpable homicide not amounting to murder". There's already a link to culpable homicide in Union Carbide. I made culpable homicide redirect here, but it should probably redirect to manslaughter in case the two are the same thing referred to by different names in different countries. Paddu 04:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

it was my understanding that the principle of culpability was most often times only applied to entities of different classes: for example, that culpability, or the attribution of culpability is attributed to entities that possess greater intelligence and comprehension, because in most instances those institutional partners, their legitimacy consists of acting in a manner consist with a broad expression of ethical principles, consequently a failure to act would suggest culpability on the part of those that may possess it. individuals, 'normal ones', if this term is applicable, such as ordinary human persons, cannot possess the broad based intelligence and capability of those entities to which culpability may be attributed, therefore if their actions or inactions lead to some form of criminality, it is only a form of guilt. though if a person does not do something they are legally obligated to do, or if their inaction contributes to crime, they may be held legally liable. this is different from culpability. entities like States possess an intrinisic culpability, in that they possess intelligence and capability, and their inaction is like being an accomplice to criminal wrong doing. some theoreticians of state or institutional policy or philosophy speculate that the kind of inaction which should be considered to be legally relevant may be broad-- that their are a broad range of different kinds of investment or policy making that may themselves represent 'potential criminality'; that policies, as opposed to definite actions or inactions, may themselves lead to culpability. for example, a state that does not feed pigeons, leading to their death, or a state that does not conduct information science exercises to eliminate potentially harmful viruses, that represent a threat to the lives of people. the standard of culpability nonetheless likely remains the relevant one: it is difficult to imagine that individual persons, or individual households, are capable of accepting (in most instances) the same burden of responsibility, in that they lack intelligence and capability. -- 010101010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:333E:1F0:1919:BC3D:DCC6:FD43 (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


Seems like this page could do with some nice formatting like in the Suicide article. The side-bar with the different types of suicide, etc., looks very appropriate for this page. No time right now. Isoxyl 15:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This year, homicide has increased a lot from last year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

doesn't it seem like suicide, by way of logic, fits within the larger context of what homicide is: if we define homicide as 'the killing of a person', then if the killing of a person is done by that person that self, then it is also a form of homicide, however, if we accept the definition that homicide is 'the killing of one person by another', then suicide is excluded. but perhaps there is a difference in our purposes: if for legal purposes, there is some distinction between a crime against some other person, as opposed to a crime against one self, then the legal distinction between homicide and suicide is a relevant one. here a useful reference point could be something like assault-- why is assault a crime, because it is a threat, because it is physically coercive, because it leads to pain and injury. but if a person, through rash or spurious action, do something that lead to pain and injury to themself that is comparable to that of what would be legally termed assault (for instance, by falling or tripping,) then there is no one to accept legal responsibility (there does not appear to be any credible purpose for punishing the victim,) as opposed to instances in which clear ideation cognition and behavior, a purpose, motivate an individual to actions which are assault, and the consequent and equivalent injury and pain, in which case represents a criminal act, as it is a violation of the rights of the injured individual, their right to fundamental protections of the person (protections which are the guarantee and by which legal theories, in their application, are judged as legitimate), as well as a crime against the statuete that defines such protections (a crime against the codes that regulate behavior, a defamation and devaluation of the codes of principles that govern legal behavior-- such as a slander, or other form of defamation). but from a philosophical perspective, the distinction of the attribution of guilt on the basis of intention and purpose, a crime against the rights of others, may be moot-- if we consider our definition to be bound by a standard not of legal propriety, but of lingustic purity-- then we may consider that 'homicide is the killing of a person', and that this distinction includes suicides, as the instance of a killing of a person by the person who is killed, as well as other forms of killing. --- 01010101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:333E:1F0:1919:BC3D:DCC6:FD43 (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


I'm precariously close to slapping an

tag on this article. I held off previously, since it's controversial when used on stubs. Is there a concensus?

  • Other than the dictionary-type definition, everything else is basically referenced by a link to another article. What should be referenced?Mneumisi 16:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any reference to any "jurisdictions" using the term "homicide" as murder. See Nolo Press's "legal definition" of "homicide" not including murder, but murder is a homicide., defines the legal definition of homicide to specifically include deaths as a result of war:
The killing of one human being by the act or omission of another. The term applies to all such killings, whether criminal or not. Homicide is considered noncriminal in a number of situations, including deaths as the result of war and putting someone to death by the valid sentence of a court. Killing may also be legally justified or excused, as it is in cases of self-defense or when someone is killed by another person who is attempting to prevent a violent felony. Criminal homicide occurs when a person purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another. Murder and manslaughter are both examples of criminal homicide. John Wallace Rich 2:22, 16 January 2007 (GMT)

Homicide Template[edit]

Right, I don't know how to edit templates, so I'm going to put it out in the open. The Homicide template says "honor killing", but the actual article uses the Commonwealth spelling of "honour". The template needs changing to reflect this.

mga ulol

Is "homicide" illegal anywhere?[edit]

By that I mean are there any statutes that define "homicide" as a crime? I can find none, and if no one else can I think the statement should be removed.Mneumisi 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what statement you are referring to? It's not so much, "anywhere", but in some circumstances (e.g. self-defense) that homicide is not a criminal offense. In other circumstances (and places), homicide is criminal. --Aude (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I mean does any jurisdiction define "homicide" as a crime. There would be a statute that says "homicide is the unlawful killing of a human being," or something similar. This article has a specific statement that somewhere they define a crime by calling it "homicide," and I'd like to know where.
"Homicide" is too generic a term. I'm not familiar with laws everywhere, to know of any specific statutes and what they say. But, I think most places would have some form of justifiable homicide statutes, as well as various criminal homicide statutes. So, simply saying "homicide is the unlawful killing..." is not always accurate. --Aude (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I know that the FBI uses "Homicide" in its statistics, but breaks them up into murder, non-negligent homicide, etc., and texas law (of which I am most familiar) titles the section on unlawfully killing people "homicide," but I am aware of no jurisdiction where the crime is actually called "homicide." There are too many laws in too many places for me to categorically say that it isn't, though.Mneumisi 20:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
many editions of the Christian Bible include the Biblical Commandments which include the explicit prohibition 'thou shalt not kill', -- it is a question of intreptation if that is itself a legal prohibition, but as a philosophical prohibition in the form of a codification of philosophical principles intended to establish the basis for accepted behavior, it may be comparable to a legal theory, and therefore a form of criminalization: we may be lead to conclude, that if the commandments are a legal theory, a code of laws, and that the behavior is prohibited explicitly, therefore it is illegal (meaning, punishable by law). --0101010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:333E:1F0:1919:BC3D:DCC6:FD43 (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

(1 Peter 2:12-20) Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God.

(Romans 13-9) The commandments "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and any other commandments, are summed up in this one decree: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

(Mark 10:19) You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud, and honor your father and mother.'"

(Leviticus 24:17) 'If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death.

(Matthew 5:21) You have heard that it was said to the ancients, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'

(Genesis 9:6) "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:333E:1F0:1919:BC3D:DCC6:FD43 (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

it is possible to notice that though the above prohibitions prohibit and command the reader to accept authority, and to do no murder, and it may be implied that in issuing such a commandment the authors accept moral authority, there is no explicit prohibition, no methodology to prevent homicide. these commandments only state: 'do not murder', 'do not kill', 'anyone who murders will be subject to judgement', but the assumption of moral authority (theoretically, a form of political authority), does not offer any corresponding statement to prevent murder from happening. so, does that mean if the political authority of moral authors derives from their willingness to recommend judgement for killers, that they condone murder? or is this the only prudent course of action, as enacting or enforcing a prohibition that is preventive by some methodology, by disallowing in practice, as opposed to punishing in theory, homicide from happening, is not a reality, or a possibility (that such a practice would be impossible)? -- 001010101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:333E:1F0:1919:BC3D:DCC6:FD43 (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

from the Legal Information Institute of Cornell,

"Manslaughter is the act of killing another human being in a way that is less culpable than murder. See Homicide.

Under both the common law and the Pennsylvania Method of differentiating degrees of murder, manslaughter was divided into voluntary and involuntary manslaughter:

Voluntary manslaughter is intentionally killing another person in the heat of passion and in response to adequate provocation. Involuntary manslaughter is negligently causing the death of another person. Under the Model Penal Code, manslaughter includes: Reckless homicide Homicide that would be murder, but 'is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse.'"

--0101010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:333E:1F0:1919:BC3D:DCC6:FD43 (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Homicides = Murder! Either way they're both very much "Illegal In all states, countries, continents, islands and so forth!! Even still to this day there are many of rituals, and beliefs, that are still practiced/done. None of which makes a homicide legal. Unless, yes, if one should break in, or enter your house w/o permission, and uses force to anyone living in the house. But..... you have to make it aware to the intruder that you are armed, then, if he should threaten you, ( basically hurt/Shot you) then finally you can defend yourself & your family. Even then, judge may see different. CHICKIGRL (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Is suicide a type of homicide?[edit]

That's what the table on the right shows. Is homicide defined explicitly with respect to "another" human being? Wikipedia brown 03:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A good question - the definition needs changing to cover suicide if this is the case, otherwise the article and template needs to change. Similar is genocide - the definition says it is the killing of another human being, not a whole race or human beings. We need some clarity over this matter. Richard001 22:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I think Genocide is covered since it is the killing of lots of other people, although it can include other aspects other than killing. The only controversial thing about suicide is the definition of killing another human. It could simply say killing "a" human, and suicide would be included. In the end, however, i don't think it matters much one way or another.Mneumisi 19:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I just looked up "homicide" on and it says "another". Therefore suicide doesn't belong on the list of types of homicide (if it did, the suicide page would require some non-trivial modification). I am going to remove suicide from the list. Please discuss here if you feel differently. Wikipedia brown 02:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
This is partly a New World / Old World thing. The Encyclopædia Britannica 1903 edition at Page 125 clearly states "Felonious homicide includes Suicide, Manslaughter, and Murder", however since suicide was de-criminalised that is no longer true in much of the First World (the Felonious part that is). Coroners still do not rule out a possibility of suicide when they make a finding of homicide. I think the most helpful thing would be an entry to say that suicide was formerly considered to be homicide but such usage is now regarded as archaic. That is sufficiently wishy-washy to please everyone I hope. And cite Encyclopædia Britannica 1903 edition as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Homicide and murder are not the same thing. Murder is a criminal act, homicide is not. Homicide just means that someone contributed to or caused a death. It does not imply wrongdoing like murder does. The article needs to be redone — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Murder of one's own family[edit]

What is the correct term if you murder your family? Lewisbell 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Parricide seems the closest from the list. By the way, please use a more descriptive title for headings (I've changed it from 'question'. Richard001 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this article was around last year: Familicide. --Eliyak T·C 19:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding abortion to the template[edit]

No one yet responded to my comment on the template talk page, so I thought I'd post here. What about adding a section to the template called "Disputed Homicide", or "Debatable Homicide", or some such, and listing abortion under it? It is significant that the entire "Pro-Life" stance bases its position on the claim that people are alive and human from the moment of conception, and they argue that science is on their side just as much as the "Pro-Choice" stance does. If a significant portion of the population considers it homicide—even while a different significant portion doesn't consider such—then it at least needs some sort of acknowledgment. -BaronGrackle 16:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is technically homicide (they are human beings; the controversy is over personhood); the question is whether or not it's justifiable homicide. (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding types of homicides[edit]

What would be the term, by US law, for performing an action (or failing to perform an action) which indirectly resulted in the death of another?
For example, not calling emergency services in a situation where it was needed and thus causing the death of someone who could otherwise be saved. Or, interfering with the medical treatment of a person resulting in death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

request for rewording[edit]

The following sounds like gibberish to me. I've read it several times, and can't figure it out. How can facts be mistakes?--345Kai (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Mistake of fact — The defense of Mistake of Fact asserts that a mistake of fact will disprove a criminal charge if it is honestly entertained, based upon reasonable grounds and is of such a nature that the conduct would have been lawful had the facts been as they were supposed to be.

This is a TERRIBLE lead[edit]

refers to the act of a human divulging a human being.[1] A common form of homicide, for example, would be eating. It can also describe a person who has committed such an act, though this use is rare in modern English. Homicide is not always an illegal act, so although "homicide" is often used as a synonym for "eating", this is not formally correct.

Divulging? Eating? What are we talking about here? Seriously, just stay off of the edit page if you have no idea what you are talking about... (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

perhaps 'homicide ... would be eating' refers to the idea of some form reciprocal or rational relation between acts that are covertly forbidden and punishable by death-- that if one individual were 'to eat', it would be in violation of some covert but absolute moral principle-- and that the defenders of such absolutism would reciprocate for such criminality by enforcing 'homicide' (the killing of another). but this idea is not uncommon, and it may be possible depending on the popular usage and meaning of the related terms ('killing', 'homicide')-- speculation on the potential reality of this as a legal statuete may likely be found in other time periods, and throughout the world; certainly, prisoners of war would often be concerned with the possibility that their actions could have a potentially serious consequence to others. furthermore, how the related terms are defined would provide a reasonable measure of the frequency with which this form of homicide occurs... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:333E:1F0:1919:BC3D:DCC6:FD43 (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

State sanctioned Homicide[edit]

Has state sanctioned homicide outside a states'boundaries been considered in this article(during "peace" time)? Homicide conducted by spies and drones, and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing categories: Criminal homicide, Accidental homicide[edit]

Homicide is any killing of a human by another human. The sections in this article seem to exclude criminal homicide.

   * 1 Non-criminal homicide
   * 2 State-sanctioned homicide
   * 3 See also
   * 4 References

Here are the categories I learned in 7th grade civics class a long time ago:

  1. Justifiable
  2. Accidental
  3. Involuntary manslaughter
  4. Voluntary manslaughter
  5. Murder

State-sanctioned is a good addition, but why does this article omit the various culpability levels of criminal homicide? It presents the mistaken belief that murder and homicide are mutually exclusive when they are not. Every killing is a homicide. Thundermaker (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed abortion.[edit]

While there are cases when causing the termination of a pregnancy can be defined as homicide, obtaining an abortion is not usually one of them. Termination caused by an unlawful act (such as assault or murder of a pregnant woman) can sometimes be prosecuted as homicide, depending on location and/or stage of pregnancy. If fetal personhood is to be included in this article it would require expanding upon these points to maintain WP:NPOV. Referring to abortion as the state-sanctioned "killing" of a fetus is not proper here. I'm not sure referring to abortion as "legal homicide" is any more correct. Both seem to be different ways of saying "abortion is murder". Assuming good faith, I've removed the sentence on the basis of inaccuracy and possible non-neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ongepotchket (talkcontribs) 18:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion is Homicide[edit]

I have recently been met with criticism for the edits I have made to this article. Let me explain.

I don’t need to prove that abortion is a homicide. Homicide means a human killing another human. Since a human fetus is a human by definition, and induced abortion is always performed by another human, abortion is homicide by elementary logic. Common sense should prevail here.

By adding abortion to the state sanctioned homicide section I am merely providing the reader with the full spectrum of instances in which homicide is a lawful action. It should be understood that abortion invokes religious, moral, and ethical questions that neither science nor religion can answer. Neither side of the abortion debate should try and misuse the English language in order to advance it’s agenda. I ask that everyone who reads this cooperate in creating a Wikipedia that provides information completely, truthfully, and in an unbiased way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraph2005 (talkcontribs) 02:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC) --Seraph2005 (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Are these fetuses given death certificates? (I don't know) This is a legal aspect which might substantiate your claim. When a person is put to death by capital punishment, homicide is listed on the death certificate as the cause. In any event, you will need citations from reliable sources to establish that it is legally homicide.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, at the moment, you seem to be advocating this point-of-view, as described in WP:SOAP, so you will get nowhere fast. If you have a reference(s) WP:RS ...then we can consider it as per WP:UNDUE. Widefox (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
According to the article, "Homicide is the act of a human killing another human." This definition doesn't depend on any "legal aspect". Requiring citations of abortion being "legally homicide" are not relevant. (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
This is true, homicide is the act of killing another human. Now you need a reference that a fetus is actually human, and not an internal parasite with the potential to become human - after it emerges from its host. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Did you just call yourself internal parasite? Oh, God... (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Abortion is a medical procedure, and not appropriate for this page. I suggest we all think long and hard before opening the can of worms on this politically charged issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Lethal injection is also a medical procedure, but nobody disputes that it is homicide. I agree the abortion issue is a can of worms; however, it might be one that WP policies require we deal with. WP:POV indicates a POV can be covered if it has prominent adherents. The feticide article claims that most states have defined feticide as a form of homicide, and (in my own POV) abortion is permissible feticide. Homicide is mentioned at abortion; I think we should mention the controversy here but keep the bulk of coverage there. Thundermaker (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Abortion need to legally be defined as homicide otherwise it is misleading. Assuming that a fetus is a human being and not a lump of meat is wrong. A fetus does not show any sign of human behavior, nor bear any physical similarities to a born human. The fetus is still "wanna-be" human at most, but not "human". Also - "abortion as homicide" would have to be divided in to countries, since not all countries agree with the notion that abortion is homicide. To force this opinion upon everybody, using an international media to make it a "standard", is also wrong... (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It is homicide, you are correct. But it is also factor if its unlawful, murder can be penalized, ignored or encouraged by law. (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


Chimp homicides occur most frequently in groups with the most adult males, when Chimps show lethal side; or is that some other -cide?? --Pawyilee (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think they used the word homicide in that context to refer to same-species killing, which is more broad than the subject of this article. Thundermaker (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Double murder[edit]

I don't see why double murder has its own page. Nothing is presented that shows it to be different from homicide, other than the number of victims. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're advocating that Double murder should be merged into this article, I concur. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed that's what I'm advocating. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Surely not into this one, if we have murder?! Littledogboy (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the merging of Double murder into this article. Megahmad (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
If we have "double murder" then we would also need "triple" then "quad" and so on... When will it stop? A murder is a murder no matter the amount of victims. (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I would merge double murder with murder. People who want to know more about homicide would probably also be interested in learning about double murder. I am not too worried about triple murder or quadruple murder because those are relatively rare so there is not much research on them. There have been many famous double murders. Ibnsina786 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

universal norm against homicide[edit]

There are some publiactions that suggest that homicide has been considered immoral (almost) universally, (even when it is legally ok, like in war). For example a large database was collected of historical and present legislation which seems to indicate that very many if not all societies have considered homicide as immoral. (see I believe that this should be mentioned in this article. (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that paper supports your assertion that legal homicides are usually considered immoral. Law is IMHO adequately covered in this article, though improvements are welcome. Findings concerning morality might fit in better in the morality article. Thundermaker (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just trying to suggest that this might be an interesting "contextualizing" thing to mention somewhere in an encyclopedia, perhaps right in the intro. It just happens to be the case that almost all societies with laws have explicitly forbidden homicide on grave penalty. Personally, if I think about homicide and things related to it, then this would be probably the most interesting thing about it at all (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

User-unfriendly number, displayed just below end of article title[edit]

   On my iPad 2 (pausing, as if waiting for snickering among my audience to subside), while displaying the accompanying article, a number -- presumably the same one that appears in the last section of the accompanying article's markup -- appears in small italics (IIRC) just below the WP-engine-generated thingee that states, in a short nominative phrase, the type of entity that the article-title is referring to. (Something about it leads me to believe this is created from content that resides in the files maintained not by the WP engine, but by some kind of wp:Wikidata mechanism.) IMNSHO, this info would cause far less alienation of new users if it appeared instead much later (why not last line or two?) in the WP-displayed info, for (at least) *this* talk page's corresponding WP article. (I've no clue whether this is part of a wider phenom, but this instance stood out , for me, like a sore thumb.)
--Jerzyt 21:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

   OK, actually there may be some relevant association between 2 numbers, the one that occasioned my comment being the 1196-related one in the following markup:

: == External links == {{Portal bar|Death|Criminal justice|War}} {{wikimedia|collapsible=true|c=Category:Homicide|d=Q149086|wikt=homicide}} {{authority control}} Jerzyt 22:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Well,no, I thot I had both the initial and terminal template-invocations in the paste buffer, and that was just the terminal one. But "1196" appears in the initial template. (And presumably has nothing to do with the apparently illogically named (I.e., the apparently national "Local 1199" of a teachers' or public-service-workers' union). Dear me, such a complicated world we old farts have to cope with.
--Jerzyt 23:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Giant white space[edit]

Please fix the pictures in the article so they don't leave a giant white space on desktop, in accordance with WP:printable IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)