Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German

Reversions based on RfC closing text

I've noticed this a lot over the last year and wanted to start a discussion regarding it.

The prior RfC was closed as no consensus to include the name, which meant the material could be left off at the time, as per the standard practice of WP:NOCON. Editors are misrepresenting that as consensus was found to exclude the material and using it as justification to revert edits involving the name of the suspect from new users/IPs.

Stating that the material can possibly be added later after the conclusion of the trial seems to completely ignore the fact that consensus can change (if one was in place), puts BLPCRIME as needing a conviction as a requirement when it is suggested and not required to 'seriously consider' before inserting material, as well as removing WP:EDITCON as a means of trying to achieve consensus. Further, it is not being suggested to new users to WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS which is effectively stonewalling new users from the consensus process that should be available to them.

Looking over a few of the reversions which have included pointing to a non existent consensus, 'rfc result says not to include for now' a full year after the closure of the RfC, it seems like editors (especially new editors or anons, since with the trial starting today for this crime there will obviously be an increase in edits regarding the suspect name) should encourage trying to achieve an actual consensus and stop reverting based on an old rfc that ended with no consensus. Several of the editors from said rfc have retired or been indeffed since the ending of the RfC. Pinging @Some1:, since your revert was the most recent one and to encourage discussion.

Awshort (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The RfC consensus (Talk:Murders_of_Abigail_Williams_and_Liberty_German#RfC:_Suspect's_name) says "No consensus to include for now". A year has a gone by and nothing has really changed, except now, the trial is actually happening. It doesn't hurt to wait until after the trial concludes to revisit this naming discussion. There is no need to rush, especially when there are concerns revolving around WP:BLPCRIME. I do understand your frustration though with regards to the name not being included (I didn't participate in the RfC as I was on the fence about it). I presume the trial will end before December; if the trial ends in a mistrial (or even a not guilty verdict), you could start another RfC regarding the inclusion of the name. Some1 (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, nothing has changed. There is no reason to "reexamine" anything. Lostsandwich (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Some1 Thank you for the reply. I disagree about waiting to name for multiple reasons, the main one being the subjects attorneys wanted his name published since the last rfc was still ongoing in hopes it would bring them tips that could help him/them. At the very least, what a subject wants should be vital to a discussion regarding them. I also have to disagree that not much has changed since the rfc, however; the subject had a GoFundMe to pay for experts as well as having portions of his case heard by the Supreme Court of Indiana. The interesting thing about the Supreme Court thing was that it was more or less about if a person has a right to pick their own attorneys and not about the murder charges, but was notable in the sense that it was the only case in the US where a judge dismissed attorneys for being 'grossly negligent'. While I understand what you are saying about BLPCRIME, it doesn't explictly mention or prohibit naming. This is worth a read if you have the time for Jimmy's thought's on blpcrime from way back in the day. BLPNAME would still be the relevant policy for either naming or not naming in my opinion.

Is there a solid policy based reason we should not take into account what the actual person accused of a crime seems to want?

Awshort (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

An appeal by some legal counsel for "publishing his name" probably couldn't have any less bearing on wikipedia.

I think my aunt had a gofundme once. Does that merit her inclusion? Lostsandwich (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lostsandwich Being WP:UNCIVIL is still part of policy, last I checked. You don't want the name in the article - fantastic. But if you have nothing to contribute to the discussion aside from sarcasm, I would suggest moving on.

Awshort (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

We wouldn't be casting aspersions would we? Perhaps you should address the reply's contents. Lostsandwich (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lostsandwich If you want to go with the previous comment about your aunt not being meant as sarcasm, I'd suggest striking it since it did come off as uncivil. That isn't me 'casting aspersions'. If you intend to have a productive conservation to work towards a consensus based on policies, I'm all for it.

The BLP policy in general is meant to respect subjects privacy and rights and try to remain neutral in presenting information about them. We usually allow article subjects to suggest changes to their articles using talk, or in some cases submit tickets for changes to certain material (without allowing them free reign over deleting negative information that is widely sourced in reliable sources) by contacting the VRT. We are also advised, per the same policy, to be wary of harm to article subjects when inserting information and using editoral judgment. So if a subject accused of a crime makes a request, either through themselves or their attorneys for getting their name in the public in hopes it will assist them, it should at least be discussed. We cannot reasonably claim BLP protections for an article subject while ignoring their input and the overall blp policy and essentially cherry picking which portion of policy to strictly follow while ignoring the rest. The spirit of the policy matters more than the actual wording per policy, and the spirit of BLPCRIME has always been to use caution while seeing if the arrest and charges for a person will have a lasting effect on their life before rushing to include information about them, and to see if it is a casual run of the mill crime that will not have continued coverage after the initial arrest and keep the person a low-profile individual. I don't believe that is the case on this one due to the continued widespread coverage, and the self promotional activities made on the subjects behalf.

For better or worse, Richard Allen is very much a public figure in Indiana due to the highly publicized nature of this crime and the attempts by his attorneys to curry favor for him over the last two years.

Awshort (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I intend to have a productive conversation with people who reply to things instead of refusing to engage and using "sarcasm" as an excuse.

Address the replies if you wish to have a productive conversation. Lostsandwich (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lostsandwich I did reply about the attorneys making a plea for him and why I felt it mattered. I also stated that they had tried to curry public favor on his behalf but didn't explicitly say through the fundraiser. Aside from that, I am not replying specifically about your aunt comment more than I already have because it has nothing to do with this conversation. Please keep this discussion limited to content related to this article.

Awshort (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Some1. There's been no significant changes since the RfC and now that the trial is underway, best to wait. This also came up at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German. As one editor stated, if another RfC is held it would take a month and by that time the trial will be close to conclusion anyway. S0091 (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@S0091 I have to disagree, somewhat. There have been a lot of changes in the case itself, but the majority of them have not made their way into the article. I think a lot of editors who worked on the article in the past either retired (BeccaYNR, Jerome Frank Disciple, Random Person with some numbers on their name) or didn't like being reverted, and moved on. I know at one time there was an editor who wanted all instances of the name in URLs removed under BLPCRIME, which severely limited what citations could be used since the name was in almost every url. That was the main reason I stopped editing the article, since spending 20 minutes trying to find the same material from one news article that contained the name in the url amongst three articles that were from less reliable sources or had bits and pieces of the original article was annoying and seemed like a massive pain in the ass.

Awshort (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

IMO there's definitely room for an RfC on various issues. Based on your comment, it seems to me it's well worth discussing if it's necessary to suppress every mention of the name; especially if it only arises in the context of a source where the name is used in the URL or title. I thought we'd discussed this before and the consensus was it's not necessary to forbid URLs or source titles with the name, although other editors could themselves voluntarily replace them; and any editor who seems to be intentionally trying to use sources which mention the name would be guilty of a WP:POINT violation as always with that sort of thing. But I guess I'm remembering wrong. Either way though, such an RfC could be discussed on WT:BLP and started when it's ready. While this case could be used as an example, it's not likely to affect what we do in this case before any verdict, but that seems fine. Nil Einne (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I have posted about this at WP:AN. I recommend that the name of the suspect be removed and suppressed until there is consensus to include such name. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Suppressing the suspect's name from the revision history is a bit overkill, especially when all of the reliable sources covering the trial are using his name. Some1 (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You used a source that included his name in the article's title just yesterday in the infobox. In this instance it was easy to find one that didn't use his name (several actually) with one which also happened to be already cited in the article, so I've replaced it. Scrolling through Google News going back to February, most titles do no not use his name. They use generally use "Delphi murders", "Delphi case", "Delphi murder suspect" or similar. Between this and using MOS:LAW to include his name here and here I think you are skewing into WP:POINT. S0091 (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@S0091 As I explained on the AN discussion regarding the MOS:LAW thing, that was a misunderstanding. You explained that it was for legal articles, and I learned something new. That wasn't me listing him under Accused, or trying to sneak the name into the normal article or similar - I was listing a trial name which I figured was allowed since it's the ongoing trial, and the infobox is supposed to help the casual reader with relevant info. The only reason I included a citation for that was due to a removal some time ago by an editor that stated Felony murder was not a thing and to stick to the source, since the original charges were murder then later also felony murder.

Respectfully, there was never a consensus on excluding the name from URLs on the noticeboard, so how exactly was I supposed to know that we can't even use the name in URLs at this point? Serious question.

You are an editor I get along with and always have, so to be accused of the point thing is disappointing to say the least. My intent wasn't malicious or 'pointy', and has always been to try to provide as good of an understanding to the everyday reader as possible based on what reliable sources say. As an example, I had hoped to update the article based on the extensive coverage that proceeded it since it is considered one of the most high profile cases in Indiana history and that seemed to be mainly from the pre-trial legal stuff. I mainly use Indystar for my sourcing, since I pay for the subscription and they tend to provide well put together articles.

If there is a solid consensus on excluding the name from titles and URLs that is one thing, but my statement still stands that editors shouldn't have to look for a seperate article that doesn't include the name (in title? in URL? That hasn't even been agreed upon) if their source they are using is valid for the statement being made. That isn't policy and never has been. I would prefer to use CNN,BBC,The Independant, AP News over most other sources and my first thought isn't "I should use AOL News since it doesn't include the name in the title instead of The Associated Press" - it's that I trust that news organization or paper more than AOL News / MSN News, etc. If the original consensus on the last RfC was to exclude all mentions of the name, I would completely understand and support looking for other sources. But the consensus wasn't "Consensus was found to exclude the name", the closing statement was don't include it now.

WP:AGF and realize that even with 700 whatever edits, I still screw up, and try not to accuse me for something that was an honest mistake since I feel I've always approached you fairly in our past interactions.

Awshort (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

break

I said you are skewing into WP:POINT. Almost every edit you made yesterday included his name in some form or another and it's clear by the discussions here you have an issue with the result of the RfC so I don't think it is a stretch for one to think WP:POINT might be at play. If I am wrong, I'm wrong and there is no issue. Time will tell.

I made no mention of his name in URLs; only the title and only because there were several other suitable sources to support the charges against him which is basic uncontroversial information so WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:DUE are not an issue (replaced your CNN source with CBS but a local source would be fine too). I see no issue with URLs and just converted a bare url to a formatted citation where his name is in the URL but not the title.

If there are no suitable sources for DUE content that do not use his name in title, then nothing we can about that. If it's DUE; it's DUE but I honestly don't think that is much of an issue based on my scan of several pages of Google News results. Either way, I am not going to revert editors who use a source with his name in the title, just like I did not revert you. My assumption with the trial underway is we will get many IPs and new editors making updates. Some will be fine, some not. If a source is used with his name in the title, I will likely try to find a suitable alternative. S0091 (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

@Lostsandwich: Your edit summary said "Small town newspaper is not a RS (with regards to BLP" for the catfishing removal.

Would you please point to that part in the policy? Because the reliability of a source is based on their fact checking abilities, amongst other things, so I had trouble figuring out how WTHR is a 'small town newspaper'.

Appreciate the help in finding this part in policy that I seem to be overlooking. I do agree that some of it could have been trimmed down, especially the portion about the accusations against the father of Kegan.

Awshort (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC) ; renamed title of topic; if the sources covering the current trial are all local papers and they aren't considered 'reliable', I figured this was more neutral of a title to draw attention to sources since it affects the whole article and not just the removed text. 08:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC),

I'm not well-acquainted with the article and at a glance the section removed when making that summary doesn't need to exist... but none of the sources I could see fit the description in the edit summary. WTHR in particular is not a newspaper (it's a television station and a lot of its website articles IIRC tend to say similar things to the broadcast versions of the same/similar stories), is not in a small town (its city of license and its studio/offices are based in Indianapolis, and even its transmitter is Indianapolis-ish (well, closer to Carmel, but)), and (in my experience) has a reputation for fact checking its news coverage that I would associate with a reliable source. (I am not as familiar with WXIN's editorial standards (though it's also neither small town nor newspaper), and everything else is stuff with a well-established consensus in regards to its reliability (NBC News, People, Independent) or else appears to be a police press release.) - Purplewowies (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

For some background, the content was included before, discussed at here with most editors agreeing it was WP:UNDUE as is, especially naming him given he was never a suspect, and was ultimately removed here by an admin who thought it was a WP:BLP violation. S0091 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@S0091 I would disagree about 'most editors agreeing it was undue as is', since a quick glance at that conversation had Some1 stating he felt it undue with the quote from the sister originally added and Becca agreeing with him since the person was not listed publicly as a person of interest at that time. Lard had agreed that it was DUE since he was widely covered in connection with the case, and Some1 removed the Persons of Interest section. The admin removal at the time was based on him not being involved in the investigation. Since the individual also did pre-sentencing interviews, as well as interviews after being sentenced which all mentioned how he helped the investigation, it seemed due to note him as being involved in the investigation since he himself acknowledged he was involved in said investigation (as well as it now being acknowledged by detectives that they devoted significant resources to investigating him before arresting the person on trial currently). As stated previously, I admit it could have been better written and shouldn't have had it's own section. That doesn't mean that none of the information should have been included, which other editors originally agreed with.

Either way, this section was made to see if there was an issue with any of the sources covering the trial being considered unreliable per the original post, since it is being covered by local sources who are relaying information to other media at least one of the reporters allowed in the courtroom daily is appointed as a pool reporter. Outside the Courthouse between sessions, the handwritten notes of the daily pool reporter are electronically shared with media representatives . I appreciate the analysis of sources by @Purplewowies:; thank you.

Awshort (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

What I mean by "as is" is that based on the previous discussion in January 2023 @Lard Almighty trimmed it and readded it without the name here after Beccynr had removed it entirely (not pinging since they are retired). This is the version that appears to have had consensus (at least regarding the catfisher). After you readded the name here in March 2023, @valereee removed the content as a WP:BLP vio and @Dumuzid agreed. Also pinging @Some1 since you mention them as well.

To those I pinged, this discussion is regrading this edit made by Awshort which was reverted by @Lostsandwich who has not yet commented. S0091 (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I already commented on the topic, please don't waste my time by pinging me. Lostsandwich (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@S0091 See WP:VOTESTACKING. It was entirely unnecessary to ping users from a previous discussion from over a year ago due to a removal now, considering the original discussion was prior to that individual being convicted. I admitted it was undue in my original post after the section removal and tried to focus on what the issue was with sourcing, and you still found it necessary to ping all users of that discussion for what reason? I am completely at a loss for how you would think that was a good idea or needed.

Awshort (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

In the the same guideline, see WP:APPNOTE which includes Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). I pinged them for a few reasons: you mentioned specific editors by name involved in the previous discussion, we disagree(ish) about what occurred so pinging the participants of said discussion is appropriate, and to get additional input from those familiar with the topic given only one editor expressed an opinion in three days. As required, I notified editors regardless of the opinions they expressed. That is not WP:VOTESTACKING. In addition, I am not the editor who removed the content (either time) and at the time I pinged I had not expressed an opinion. On top of that even after I did, I suggested a compromise to include the catfisher content which you agree was at least in part UNDUE and I agreed local sources are generally not a issue which is what I think you are also arguing for though other considerations apply; so I am not sure what you believe I am trying to sway. If this is about the redirect, all I did is ask a question. S0091 (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

(nod) I had guessed from a skim of the talk page that there was consensus to include it, and I am familiar with the case itself and its ongoing coverage on WTHR specifically, so I do know he's not a suspect (hence why my at-a-glance opinion was to agree that the section didn't need to exist). I just wanted to preface with that caveat (in case it meant I missed some established piece of knowledge) before getting into what OP's wider question seemed to be with the mention of "draw[ing] attention to sources since it affects the whole article and not just the removed text"--that is, whether or not the "small town newspapers" as Lostsandwich's edit summary describes them (sic, none of the sources are small town newspapers) are actually reliable, since they provide other coverage that may be useful to cite and therefore knowing their reliability may be useful.

I think WTHR (news department at Indianapolis based television station) is likely reliable; I'm not familiar enough with WXIN (news department at Indianapolis based television station) to say for them. Moving on to the ones that very clearly aren't what the edit summary describes: at WP:RSP NBC News (national US news outlet) is listed as reliable, People (nationally distributed US magazine) is considered reliable with caveat of needing stronger sourcing provided for contentious claims (the removed section I think counts but also contains stronger sources), and Independent (UK online newspaper) is usually reliable. I don't know enough about how to vet something like a police press release as reliable or not.

I know Lostsandwich said just above this comment that they prefer not to be pinged, so I'll not be doing that, but it might clear some things up--for me at least--if there was clarification on which source "small town newspaper is not a RS" was meant to apply to, because I can't figure it out. I want to reiterate again that I don't think the section needs to exist (it's undue weight, at best), and my focus is entirely on whether the sources removed with the claim they were unreliable were actually unreliable or no. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. It's not that a small town newspaper is unreliable, it's that naming a living person who is not a public figure in a trial where he has not been convicted of the crime is a BLP violation. The name provides zero extra information for the average reader, but having it appear in Wikipedia can cause real harm to the living person. Valereee (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee Awshort also created a redirect here for the person. As it stands now, the person is not included in the article. Should it be deleted? Or wait to see if there is consensus? S0091 (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll delete for now. @Awshort, please do read policy around WP:BLP. Valereee (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks valereee. Awshort, I don't think a sub-section and all the details you included are WP:DUE but I think if you use Lard Almight's trimmed version, updated to state he was later convicted of child exploitation and child solicitation, and that he is listed as a witness for the defense per this source you used without naming him might be acceptable. Will see what others have to say though. S0091 (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

If we're discussing this edit by Awshort, I agree that the section is excessive and UNDUE—there’s too much detail about this catfishing situation involving someone who may not have a significant impact on the case—and I’m fine with removing it. I can see the value in adding a couple of sentences about him in the "Trial" section once the trial concludes ("A 27-year-old man from Peru, Indiana, who was previously investigated by Indiana State Police in connection to the case, testified on behalf of the Defense. He stated that during..."), but only if reliable sources cover his testimony. Some1 (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I think a lot of the downthread discussion is talking about the addition by Awshort, but AFAICT Awshort was originally (at least post-title-change on this section) discussing the reversion's (Lostsandwich's) edit summary specifically--they brought up issue with the revert itself but the title change and added annotation ("I figured this was more neutral of a title to draw attention to sources since it affects the whole article and not just the removed text.") seemed to be them trying to get at a larger question regarding reliability of the sources considering how the removal's edit summary (incorrectly?) characterizes them. (Nobody else but me seems to be focusing on that facet/trying to clarify whether WTHR and WXIN are reliable, but they're the closest thing to a "small town newspaper" among the sources in that section (without clarification as to which source was meant from that user), though only in the sense they're local news (they're large-city TV stations).) - Purplewowies (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Purplewowies, in general small town media is not considered unreliable, absent evidence that a particular one is not RS. We don't use those sources to support a claim to notability, but it's not because they're not considered reliable. Valereee (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I definitely didn't think "small town" meant unreliable myself; I'm just confused because none of the sources that were in that section meet the descriptor Lostsandwich used for them; I think this is why I'm so laser focused on the reliability of every source in the removed section in regards to broader use, because it's unclear which one(s) Lostsandwich took issue with. - Purplewowies (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Lostsandwich did qualify their statement by "with regards to BLP" but unfortunately they are unwilling to participate. The majority of sources currently used in the article are local sources (meaning not national) so clearly using them generally is not an issue but may not be sufficient for controversial material, especially WP:BLPs. In addition, context matters as does WP:NPOV among other policies and guidelines. At the of the day, the question is not only reliability; it's also if the source(s) is sufficient to support the specific content being included. S0091 (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That's true; I probably haven't considered whether all the sources together (the local ones and the national ones) might be sufficient for the section, though that's in part because I tend to agree the section doesn't need to exist (feels undue at best) which meant some part of my analyze-sources brain considered the sources as connected with the section itself (as opposed to their overall reliability since some are used elsewhere in the article) a moot point. - Purplewowies (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

In the discussion above this one Awshort states I would prefer to use CNN,BBC,The Independant, AP News over most other sources... so I am assuming they used the WP:BESTSOURCES available to support the content. S0091 (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I specified "with regards to BLP" for a reason. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee I'm aware of the policy. WP:BLP1E is why the redirect was created in regards to the name, since it's the one event he is notable for and he doesn't warrant his own biography otherwise. WP:BLPCRIME was met when he was convicted of the crimes he was accused of, and him doing multiple interviews stating his connection with this particular investigation didn't really classify him as being someone shying away from their name being connected to it. As the original person who removed the content in 2023 under what seemed more a personal opinion on the content rather than an admin action, I feel this should have been brought to WP:RfD and left to an WP:UNINVOLVED group of editors to decide what to do with the redirect, though.

Awshort (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't need an RfD to delete a redirect that violates BLP, which I believe this one does. The burden of persuading other editors this material should be included in the article is on those who want to include it. Ditto the redirect. Especially because this is a BLP issue. Valereee (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee That is not what was originally listed as the reason for the removal by LS, so please don't suggest they removed it on BLPCRIME grounds when they were (somewhat) specific about their reasons. I'm unsure if that is what you meant by your response but that is how it came across to me at least, and if I am wrong then I apologize. The issue, and question, I originally asked LS was regarding what part of BLP says that newspapers are somehow inferior as a source and which one in particular was the issue.

Regarding the 'blp violation', no one accused him of committing this crime or suggested he committed it. He was known in connection with this event, would probably stay a low profile figure after other than him seeking out interviews, and didn't need his own biography per WP:BLP1E, and the charges he was originally accused of he was convicted of per WP:BLPCRIME. Unless you are stating the portion that mentioned his father, which would make sense and I could understand possibly being an issue. But stating someone cannot be mentioned anywhere in an article about a murder since it will somehow violate blpcrime when they were widely covered in reliable sources as a result of talking to one of the victims the day before her murder seems like a stretch due to the one event they are notable for is being connected to this crime.

Awshort (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact he did some interviews doesn't make him notable, and we don't really care if he was convicted of other crimes if those crimes didn't make him notable. We don't really care that he was for a time discussed in regard to this crime. He's at best tangential here, and there's no good reason to include him at all. IMO it's a BLP violation. "Widely covered" is a relative term. I think you were using the local papers as sources? That's not "widely covered".

The only reason I can possibly think of for even mentioning this type of information is that it somehow helps the reader understand the article subject better. In order to include it, you'd have to convince other editors here that it's important for the reader to understand. Even more so when we're discussing including the name of a living person: what possible userfulness could a person's name be for helping a reader understand? On the other side of that argument is that a person's name will show up on search engines linked to the Wikipedia article about a murder. IMO the one far, far outweighs the other. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Suspect (if convicted) early life

If he was the one being convicted, I've gathered a little definition on his lifespan long before the murders. Born September 9, 1972, Richard is a lifelong Indiana resident as well as an employee for both Walmart and CVS Pharmacy who lived in several towns over the years. It was unknown if he was born in Mexico, but did graduate nearby from North Miami Middle/High School in Denver, where he played football and track and field. He also attended Ivy Tech Community College afterward, where he studied accounting. He also joined the Army and the National Guard.

Allen left Delphi in December 2006 for neighboring Mexico. During his interview, he had a history of depression, anxiety, high blood pressure and cholesterol problems after suffering a heart attack in 2010. Allen spent 10 years working as a manager at a Walmart store (in Logansport or Wabash). He moved to CVS in 2013, starting at the South Broadway Avenue location in Peru, Indiana, and did receive his pharmacy technician license in February 2018. There are complaints or sanctions against him appear on file with the Indiana’s state pharmacy board.

There's not a lot of records, but the only ones that made it to the public are traffic violations, with the most recent being a speeding ticket in Jasper County in 2013. He was also ticketed for speeding in Fulton County in 2005, and his earliest ticket was for driving without a seatbelt in 2003. 2600:1702:5225:C010:C038:7798:BEAF:562E (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What encyclopedic value does "this guy got some traffic tickets 20 years ago" provide? Lostsandwich (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think they're just sharing all the info they found whether it's useful or not. 209.6.200.92 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Convicted

Richard Allen has been found guilty on all counts. Aside from updating this on general principle, we can ease up on withholding his name. BOTTO _(T•C) 20:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Birth date

His birth date is 9-9-72. I have seen it in multiple documents. Why can't we list it here? 32.209.69.24 (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says: Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. His full DOB can be added when it's supported by secondary WP:Reliable sources. Some1 (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

So we can say he was born "September 1972" ... but we can't say "September 9, 1972" ... ? How much more "extreme caution" do we need? God forbid his date is listed 3 or 4 days off. Seems like missing the forest for the trees. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

We can say that he was (born 1971/1972) since the two sources cited say he was 52 as of 2024. Some1 (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You missed my point. I will repeat it. So we can say he was born "September 1972" ... but we can't say "September 9, 1972" ... ? How much more "extreme caution" do we need? God forbid his date is listed 3 or 4 days off. Seems like missing the forest for the trees. Also, listing "he was born 1971/1972" is worse -- not better -- than saying "September 1972". 32.209.69.24 (talk) 07:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)