Jump to content

Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC: Suspect's name

[edit]
CLOSED
No consensus to include for now. Valereee (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.



Should the suspect's name be included in this article? 18:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Survey

[edit]
  • Include The name has been reported by various reliable sources. As long as this article doesn't include details that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, then naming the suspect should be fine. Simply naming a person who was arrested in connection to a crime isn't suggestion of guilt and not a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Reviewing this again this more of a question of how do deal with this as the suspect wasn't a public figure. Given how much coverage this has received I don't see a need to exercise caution. The name isn't being pulled via court records. It's been widely reported and the arrest coverage is a notable invent for this article to discuss. Nemov (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This may sound like a pointed question, but I promise it's not: how do you interpret "accused of having committed a crime" so as not to include naming a person as the suspect? I'd just like to understand. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the question and yes, I'm reading this wrong so I'm striking my original point. Nemov (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the article the suspect was arrested and charged with two crimes. I see no way of reading that as not suggesting "the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime". Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude Apologies for repeating myself from above, but here we go. I am not a stickler on this, and certainly see the argument for inclusion--the name is out there and is no secret. But I believe in erring on the side of caution with BLP concerns, and naming this suspect adds nothing at all to our article. They are utterly non-notable and, to my mind, the very sort of subject about whom WP:BLPCRIME was written. There is nowhere on Wikipedia we could direct a reader for more information; we would simply have to say "go look at the sources." As far as I am concerned, we can do that with regard to the name as well. So while I see a small downside to including the name, I see no upside at all, and therefore think it shouldn't be included. Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is where I currently fall. It is not clear to me yet how adding the name of a non-notable person who we know next to nothing about or why they are accused provides anything additional to the article. In light of WP:BLPCRIME the default is not naming, even when other sources do, unless there is a compelling argument otherwise and so far I have not seen it but I am open so holding off. S0091 (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be best to register a formal !vote if you'd like to have a say in the outcome of the RFC. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude This is clearly a case where WP:BLPCRIME dictates not naming the person unless and until they are convicted. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. Wikipedia is not news clippings. Adding current suspect's identity adds zero value to the article while potentially violating an innocent person's rights (everybody is innocent until convicted). For precisely the same reason we don't add suspects' photographs, even if run by the media in some countries. — kashmīrī TALK 21:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - to quote myself from the Talk discussion above, The privacy considerations in BLP policy are significant, and the seriousness with which BLP policy encourages us to not include the name of someone charged with a crime who is not a public figure seems to imply that a serious encyclopedic need for inclusion should be demonstrated. As noted in the source review and analysis in the discussion section below, it appears the suspect is not a public figure based on a preponderance of reliable source headlines, and we have reliable sources available to develop encyclopedic content without including the name of the suspect in the article; without a serious encyclopedic need for inclusion, the name of this suspect should be excluded. Beccaynr (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still thinking about it, but right now I'm thinking the article could still include significant aspects (per RS) of the defendant's identity, without including the defendant's name (eg, young/old man/woman known/unknown to the victims, with/without prior criminal record, etc.), and unless there is a reason to include the name, we should exclude it (even if the name is a significant aspect per RS). Levivich (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude on the principle of least harm - will the article be hurt by not including the name? No. If this person is found innocent, would this cause harm? Yes. If this person is found guilty, include the name once convicted. Red Fiona (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. Is the inclusion required to improve the encyclopedia? no. Are there non-news high-quality sources mentioning the name? no. If the subject turns out to be innocent would the naming be harmful? yes. Is the subject notable in anyway other than the event? no. Wikipedia is not news, there is no reason not to wait until a judgement has been decided to name the subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You asked "Are there non-news high-quality sources mentioning the name?" The answer is YES. Court documents are non-news high-quality sources. Every court filing in this case has the defendant's name prominently mentioned in the heading. Also, the defendant's press release includes his name in the first sentence. You're welcome! MiamiManny (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPPRIMARY Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. and a press release is not a high quality source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the press release doesn't qualify as a high quality source, WP:DOB does say that information related to the name and DOB may be included as being verified by the person in question as being accurate and allowable. That isn't 'wikilawyering', it is simply stating that the person releasing the information doesn't mind the information they put out there being in the public eye and has self-verified it. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, namely WP:ABOUTSELF, some information may be used as long as it is within reason, and not self serving. I don't see a name and date of birth as being self serving.
Since you had mentioned it 'not being mentioned in non-news high quality sources',
[1] * Time magazine covered him.
[2] * Rolling Stone magazine covered him..[3]twice
[4][5][6][7] * People Magazine covered him multiple times.
[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] * Court TV has covered him countless times.
[21] [22] * Newsweek Magazine covered him.
I have to disagree that he hasn't been covered by non-news high quality sources.
Awshort (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, all of those are news sources, are they not? Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how you personally qualify news sources. I qualify them as local news stations and newspapers, and magazines would count as non-related in my eyes when it comes to crime stories or court cases. Obviously he would be mentioned in newspapers and local news, but expecting him to be mentioned in something like a medical journal etc as a 'non news high quality source' is absurd. I would count a nationally published magazine as non-news, as well as high quality, since it establishes notability as well as more than a 'passing mention' in the news.
Awshort (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These would all be news sources, by my lights. Non-news sources would be books, or scholarly works, that sort of thing. Obviously that's going to be difficult to come by before conviction, but that's sort of the reason for the caution in the first place. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not WP:DOB issue, not a WP:ABOUTSELF issue, it's a WP:BLPCRIME issue. And mixing and matching unrelated guidelines and policies to overcome a different policy is the definitive meaning of Wikilawyering. This is the last wall of text comment I'll be replying to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested You claimed that that there were no "non-news high-quality sources mentioning the name." I simply corrected your misstatement. A lack of non-news high-quality sources mentioning the name is NOT the problem here because there are plenty of those sources available. Court documents and government records ARE non-news high-quality sources. In fact, they are high-quality primary sources as are press releases. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about press releases: "A press release is an official statement delivered to members of the news media for the purpose of providing information, creating an official statement, or making an announcement directed for public release. Press releases are also considered a primary source, meaning they are original informants for information." Neither your non-stop wikilawyering nor Wikipedia's controversial rules about how primary sources can be used in its articles on criminal defendants negates the high quality of primary sources. MiamiManny (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh I see what you did there, but I'm not Wikilawyering and I'm concerned you that you don't understand Wikipedia's stance on primary documents. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, @MiamiManny, you're not interpreting that policy correctly. We strongly prefer not to use primary sources, and using court documents and government records is original research, which we absolutely do not do. These are not high-quality non-news sources. High-quality non-news sources are things like books published by reputable academic publishers. Valereee (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. WP:BLPCRIME says "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." As far as I can tell, this person is not a public figure and has not been convicted (please correct me if I'm wrong), and I don't see any compelling arguments for including the name in this case – we can give the readers a good understanding of the article's subject without including this name. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include
Two reasons - First and most importantly, the suspects attorney released a statement on their behalf
One key quote from it is "On Rick’s behalf, we argued to have the PCA unsealed.
Rick has nothing to hide. As importantly, we were hoping that we would receive tips that would assist us in proving up his innocence. Not surprisingly, we have been inundated with tips from a variety of sources, all of which will be vetted by our team."
Secondly, regarding the "not a public figure".
According to [23], Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.
Also, going along the list from the link, they qualify as High-Profile in every category.
  • Media Attention - High-Profile: Need not be a "household name", simply self-promotional.
  • Promotional Activities - High-Profile: Has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities.
  • Appearances and performances
    • High-Profile: May have produced publications or events that at least in part are designed to self promote and to attract favorable public attention.
  • Behavior pattern and activity level
    • High-Profile: As of the writing of the article (or as to the article subject's death) is (or was) engaged in high-profile activity, as described above, with or without a lifelong history of such activities.
Under all of the above criteria, this establishes the individual as a public figure, and no longer qualifies them as 'low-profile'. Keeping in line with NPOV, I think the most neutral thing is to add the name, with their plea of innocent. I am not sure about the other info from the press release that makes way into secondary sources.
Also, under WP:DOB - "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public.
Awshort (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Awshort:
  1. The press release you link to can't be opened, and from your quote it doesn't contain the full name.
  2. Essays are not policies. Anyone can write a Wikipedia essay.
  3. Anyway, the person has not actively sought media attention. He was thrown into the spotlight involuntarily.
  4. DOB relates strictly to biographies of living persons, which this article is definitely not.
Hope this clarifies. — kashmīrī TALK 01:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri
1) Link fixed, I forgot my space in markup at the end of the url. Thank you for pointing it out, I forgot to double check the urls after posting. It was unnecessary to include the full name in the quote, since it wasn't part of the section quoted. Not to mention that including it in it's entirety before a decision was met here regarding it's inclusion, could be seen as poking the bear. Nevertheless, the first sentence of the press release is
"As Richard (Rick) *****’s attorneys, we have received multiple requests from local and national media for interviews and comment since the unsealing of the probable cause affidavit. It would be virtually impossible to comply with these requests and continue to focus on the merits of Rick’s defense." (Removed the last name for reasons previously mentioned)
2) The essay was what was linked to under what a low profile individual is, as well as under the public figure section, which was why it was included.
3) I disagree. The original arrest, obviously he had no control over. However, a press release stating they are hoping for tips, while naming the guy, cannot be seen as an individual who isn't seeking media attention or trying to maintain a low-profile.
4) This article, discussing if we should name someone allegedly involved in a crime..under the BLP section since they are obviously alive.. doesn't deal with BLP? You lost me there. DOB (as well as name), and if it should be included, is very much a part of adding any info in and what is and is not allowed. It was noted in my original post because, as stated, that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public by releasing the information themselves or through sources linked to them, which I think his attorneys clearly qualify as being linked to him.
I appreciate you attempting to clear up stuff, though, and wanted to give you a quick reply back.
Awshort (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyering doesn't win arguments, you need to show how this article would be improved by inclusion of the subjects name. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include — Should the suspect's name be included in this article? — it already is, via the references, which is how I found out his name. ⅓ of the sources used in the article include his name (11 references). If WP:BLPCRIME is such an overwhelming concern, that we want to prevent readers from seeing his name, then those references should be removed, otherwise, his name should be included. Inline citations are used for a purpose, so readers can easily verify the contents of an article, so if they are seeing his name in the references, then they are accessing the suspect's name via a link included in this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include per Isaidnoway. Grahaml35 (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude- Wikipedia is not a news media. Adding the name of the suspect will not add value to the article. And if the suspect is innocent, it will hurt him to disclose his name.HE YUNONG (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include
  • First, every other suspect in this case has been named here for the past six years, beginning with DN. Wiki rules (e.g., WP:BLPCRIME) haven't changed. The current suspect/defendant should be treated the same way as the other suspects have been treated in this case.
  • Second, his name has appeared in hundreds of reliable print and TV media news stories, making him a public figure. The fact that he became a public figure through his high-profile arrest doesn't change reality.
  • Third, failing to name him is not in his best interest and does not help his defense. For instance, his attorneys issued a lengthy press release with his name to explain his defense to the general public. His attorneys have also sought public sympathy regarding his prison conditions and deteriorating mental health.
  • Fourth, his name is already incorporated in the article through the citations. Some of the citations even have his name in the title. Attempting to sanitize the article by removing his name from the article body is pointless and silly.
  • Finally, the inclusion of his name improves and adds value to this article. The identification of RA as the suspect/defendant is a matter of public record through verifiable government documents. Wikipedia should be a complete repository of reliable public information on this case and the go-to encyclopedic source for wiki users. Censoring the defendant's name in this high-profile case will only lead to the proliferation of misinformation in other forums and further diminish the credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia of neutral and reliable information.
MiamiManny (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
every other suspect in this case has been named here for the past six years Haven't seen that. Care to share diffs?
his name has appeared in hundreds of reliable print and TV media news stories, making him a public figure Having name printed or posted online isn't sufficient to make the person a public figure; besides, going by Wikipedia reading, this particular suspect will be a low-profile individual, i.e., a non-public figure.
failing to name him... does not help his defense Why should Wikipedia strive to help someone's defence? And who are you to determine that person's best interest?
his name is already incorporated in the article through the citations No, it's not "incorporated". Really, it isn't.
Wikipedia should be a complete repository of reliable public information on this case You expect Wikipedia to be a mirror of all public data on this case? Well, WP:INDISCRIMINATE was a policy last time I checked. — kashmīrī TALK 22:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I last checked on this article in October 2022, there were seven suspects/POIs mentioned by name, including the arrestee/defendant. Of course, that was before the article was mutilated by thoughtful_editors cyberbullies. You can see an archived copy of the Murders_of_Abigail_Williams_and_Liberty_German page showing all those POIs HERE.
  • Common sense should tell you that the arrestee/defendant is a public figure and a high-profile person regardless of the latest fake Wikipedia definitions for those terms. The same naming standard should apply to this arrestee/defendant that was applied to Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial in the Kenosha_unrest_shooting article. Rittenhouse was named in that article from day one, and none of the censorship advocates here ever called for Rittenhouse to be unnamed.
  • A number of editors here, including you, have suggested that identifying the arrestee/defendant would be harmful to him because he may ultimately be found innocent. I merely provided counter-arguments to show those editors that they are wrong. There are sometimes benefits for an arrestee/defendant to have his name and story publicized. Through his attorneys, the arrestee/defendant has actually fought for more transparency in his case.
  • "His name is already incorporated in the article through the citations." Umm... that's a fact.
  • You asked, "You expect Wikipedia to be a mirror of all public data on this case?" Absolutely not. I expect this article to be a complete summary of accepted knowledge in this case, which is a standard consistent with a digital encyclopedia. The arrestee/defendant's name is reliable, accepted knowledge.
  • I do not agree that the arrestee/defendant's name is indiscriminate information as described in WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Not sure why you think it is.
MiamiManny (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude The strongest argument in favour of inclusion appears to hinge on the status of this individual as some a public figure with some amount of broad notoriety. However, after reviewing the various articles presented, it doesn't appear there is much notoriety or interest in regards to the individual outside of a relatively brief window and within mostly localized circles. This to me indicates that the only argument with any solid constitution remains subject to the aforementioned restrictions in regards to WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. There are many criminal acts which have occurred that have not risen to the level of notoriety that those mentioned in other examples within this discussion have, and all of those would still be bound the aforementioned guidelines. As of this point in time, the name of an individual in custody does not add any useful information to this particular article. Lostsandwich (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include The person was charged in PUBLIC COURT as reported in this article. That makes his name public record. To report that a person has been indicted and charged yet keep that person anonymous is ridiculous. And other suspects HAVE been named here. I think that makes some gun-shy. Open court, public records. As to "notoriety," if the crime is worth an article, CHARGED suspects names certainly belong in that article. No reason to pretend otherwise based on some "principle" that can't even be agreed upon!Jororo05 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me a policy that says that anyone whose name appeared on court records can be freely linked to a crime in an encyclopaedia. Besides, it's not a court or judiciary that brings up charges; it's the police. One needs to be mad to trust the police. — kashmīrī TALK 21:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. I think the best argument for inclusion comes from User:Isaidnoway, who points out that the suspect's name is already mentioned on a significant portion of the references that are included. There's a pragmatism to that approach that I can appreciate. At the same time, I don't think that such inclusion entirely moots the debate. I'd imagine that there is a significant portion of the users who come across this page who won't dive into the references, and those who are interested enough to dive into the references are pretty likely to come across the names anyway.
    Part of the reason WP:BLPCRIME exists is because it can sometimes be a fine line between merely identifying a suspect, including information about that suspect's connection to the crime, and suggesting guilt. (To be clear: I'm not suggesting that doing so would always amount to defamation, even in the case of an innocent suspect, but WP's BLP policies are partially designed to provide more protection than defamation law—that is, to give defamation law a wide berth.) And it's worth remembering that these are always, ultimately, transitory issues: the likelihood that it takes more than a year or two for the case to be resolved is relatively small. So, unless there's a not-guilty verdict or the charges are dropped, this is only a matter of when we include the names of the accused, not if.
    In sum, I read WP:BLPCRIME as making pre-conviction nonidentification the default and, further, suggesting that pre-conviction identification should only be done with good reason. Does that good reason exist here? Well, how much is lost by not rushing to include the name? Given that the suspect is not otherwise notable, it seems to me that identification in the article would be a mere factoid—a piece of trivia—that fails to add any context to the page. In a different case—where the accused was notable or where the relationship between the accused and the victim was highly relevant (say, a parent), a different calculus might be warranted. But, for now, I think we should exclude the names. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Previous BLPN discussions:
Beccaynr (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first one was just me asking for additional eyes right after the arrest and no discussion occurred at BLPN. S0091 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may help to review the sources in the article, including whether the headlines identify the suspect by name, to help determine a) whether the suspect can be considered a public figure per BLP policy (because presumably if the suspect is a well-known public figure, their name would routinely be included in headlines), and b) whether there is an encyclopedic need to include the name in the article, even if the suspect is a nonpublic figure entitled to special care per BLP policy (because no alternative sources exist to develop content without naming the suspect in a citation via the headline, as discussed in the previous BLPN on this issue).
None of these sources, including the national coverage, name the suspect in the headline. Other coverage I found includes: Delphi murder suspect appears in court as judge rules trial will remain in county, gag order continues (ABC News, Jan. 13, 2023). The WP:NYPOST names the suspect in a headline, but it is noted as a tabloid in its entry at WP:RSP. Overall, the suspect does not appear to be considered a public figure by a preponderance of sources, and it appears we have sources available to develop encyclopedic content without naming the suspect in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of seems like he's a public figure now based on all this reporting. When ABC/CNN/AP publish your name and photo publically doesn't that kind of make you a public figure? Nemov (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, if the suspect was a public figure in a way that supported naming them before a conviction, they would be routinely named in the headlines of reliable sources because these sources would find it newsworthy that a well-known person was charged. Instead, reliable national news coverage appears more focused on the court proceedings, charges, and investigation, etc., which seems to be information that could help develop encyclopedic content without naming the suspect. Beccaynr (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When ABC/CNN/AP publish your name and photo publically [sic!] doesn't that kind of make you a public figure?
I don't think so. Neither you automatically become a public figure when having an article and a photo on Wikipedia or when shown or even featured on TV. In my view, it takes much more than an ephemeral appearance on a few TV channels or in an evening tabloid months ago. — kashmīrī TALK 01:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The suspect is mentioned over and over by multiple reliable sources. How can that be characterized as a few channels and an eventing tabloid? I get erring on the side of caution for privacy concerns, but the idea that this person's name needs protecting when it's published by multiple third party sources is puzzling. Nemov (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE includes, Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. My read on this is that news coverage does not always transform someone into a public figure, and we should look at how the news covers them, which is why I reviewed the headlines and how the existence of a suspect is presented as newsworthy, but their name is not. Beccaynr (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. Being mentioned in the press or on the TV doesn't automatically make a person a public figure. For instance, I've been interviewed on the TV in a few countries, and also quoted in national and international press on multiple occasions as an expert in a niche topic. But I can assure you that I'm definitely, positively not a public figure. There are millions of people like me who sometimes get to say something publicly (mind you there're 30,000+ TV channels in the world showing human faces round the clock), yet they must be afforded the same privacy protections as any other private person. — kashmīrī TALK 18:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using Google News, I searched "Delphi murders", "Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German" and the accused's name. I only come up with three national news articles that mention his name in the headline: CBS dated Oct. 31, Independent dated Nov 2 and Court TV dated Nov 22. There were a couple from The Sun but its deprecated. I also found this summary page (via regular Google) from the Independent which has few articles with his name in the headline, the majority dated in the late October/early November time frame when he was initially arrested. S0091 (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr I wanted to add a few to the list. The majority of the ones I included have the suspects name in the headline, and I also included a few articles from non-news sources that discuss him. I tried to steer away from local news the best I could. I had around 10 other links to include, related to secondary sources, but they are on my desktop and I am currently on my mobile.
Awshort (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
struck comment
  • Some key policies and guidelines worth noting that are related (I tried to shrink this down as much as possible, while noting the relevant points to the discussion in bold, and removing anything that wasn't needed from that guideline or policy. It unfortunately still turned out to be a fairly significant text in terms of size.)
    • Is the information already widely known? (has it appeared in mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time)
    • Is the information definitive and factual? (In circumstances where a person has been charged with a crime, it is acceptable for Wikipedia to give details of the ongoing investigation and/or trial, but speculation must be avoided.)
    • Is the information given due weight in relation to the subject's notability? (In cases where a person is only notable for their participation in a single event or phenomenon (such as the Bus uncle), it may be inappropriate to write a biography on them at all, as this may develop into a pseudo-biography or "coatrack" article. Instead, such content may be merged into a main article on the event.)

If all of these apply, then it is reasonable for the information to be included. If none of them apply, then it should be removed.

    • - Inclusion of names and biographical details

It is not possible to develop a definite rule for such cases. In general, if such an individual – the victim of a crime, for instance – has received substantial independent coverage in the media, and their name is well-known, then it is appropriate to include an article on them. Examples of this are Damilola Taylor and Madeleine McCann. Likewise, if the subject of an Internet phenomenon has received detailed and significant coverage in the news media, it may be appropriate to include their name; such as The Bus Uncle and John Smeaton.

    • - Neutral point of view

The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources).

In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.

Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.

  • WP:BLP1E, avoid having an article on someone if :
    • - If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
    • - If they will remain a low-profile individual. A biography would give undue weight to the event and conflict with NPOV. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
    • - If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Awshort (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Awshort: May I ask you to use correct discussion formatting? WP:TALKREPLY will help you. — kashmīrī TALK 12:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Awshort, long incorrectly formatted posts with bolding and underlining just makes your argument hard to read, and if it's hard to read, no one is expected to wade through it. Like, literally people can just ignore it. Valereee (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, you're essentially posting walls of text, here and in preceding sections, being the only editor who is unable accept the WP:CONSENSUS. The best thing for you now will be to drop the stick and carry on with your life. Certainly, I've have wasted enough of my time on discussing this obvious matter with you, so it's a definitive EOT for me. — kashmīrī TALK 12:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri There is no WP:Consensus on this topic. I am another editor who agrees with Awshort. I am similarly convinced that including the defendant's name improves the article and omitting the defendant's name deletes value from the article. MiamiManny (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with you that there's no consensus, but in this case, that means omission of the contested material per WP:ONUS, especially with BLP concerns. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WHY is there so much effort to suppress the name of someone ARRESTED AND CHARGED in this crime? How can it be irrelevant, or non-encyclopedic or ANY of the excuses I'm seeing here. Lee Harvey Oswald did not live to stand trial. Should we strike his name from the JFK assassination page? HE was "just a suspect." IT IS SIMPLY JUVENILE TO EVEN PRETEND NOT INCLUDING THAT NAME MAKES SENSE! Jororo05 (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another new editor who didn't bother to read the project's policies. Eh... — kashmīrī TALK 22:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jororo05: WP:BLPCRIME has your answer. The issue emerges from the suspect being both (1) alive and (2) not convicted. So, as you can probably infer, Lee Oswald isn't an issue—seeing as he is not "(1) alive". Based on your !vote and comment here, it seems that you're suggesting that anyone who is publicly charged with an offense should have their name mentioned in an article. But BLPCRIME explicitly cautions otherwise, saying that editors should "seriously consider not" identifying those who stand accused of crimes. Now, obviously, as the words of the policy itself show, non identification is not a hard and fast rule, hence the debate above.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your !vote and comment here, it seems that you're suggesting that anyone who is publicly charged with an offense should have their name mentioned in an article. This is a bit of a hyperbole response. The exclude argument using WP:BLPCRIME requires a dogmatic view of the guideline that essentially excludes all arrests regardless of how high profile the case. Which isn't really in the nature of protecting privacy. The person arrested here has been covered my multiple sources nationally. Having the name mentioned here doesn't hurt the accused person it only makes finding information the reader would want more difficult. That's a failure of the article and the guideline. Plus, the rational being used to exclude is pretty much anti-common sense. Nemov (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! Didn't meant to be hyperbolic—I was basing that interpretation mostly on this comment: The person was charged in PUBLIC COURT as reported in this article. That makes his name public record. Re-reading I see the restrictions are (1) charged, (2) reported in media, though I do think crime-beat reporters can report a lot of names. I think part of the reason BLPCRIME exists is because it can sometimes be a fine line between merely identifying a suspect, including information about that suspect's connection to the crime, and suggesting guilt. (To be clear: I'm not suggesting that doing so would always amount to defamation, even in the case of an innocent suspect, but WP's BLP policies are partially designed to provide more protection than defamation law—that is, to give defamation law a wide berth.) And, as I indicated in my vote above, I don't think there's much lost by excluding the name of a non-notable person prior to a conviction.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Oswald example and the questions in my comment, although many of the "other stuff exists" arguments would be similar.
Is the inclusion required to improve the encyclopedia? Yes. Are there non-news high-quality sources mentioning the name? Yes. If the subject turns out to be innocent would the naming be harmful? No. Is the subject notable in anyway other than the event? No.
So based on that Oswald should be named, even though he was never convicted of any crime.
It's seems a lot of people think many of the exclude votes are about excluding all such names, but that's simply not the case. I just don't see that anyone has given a good reason to include it beyond that it is know. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the good reason to exclude the name, that's not based on a dogmatic interpretation of the guideline? This is a story that has received significant coverage. The name is well sourced. What exactly is the point to exclude the name? How is excluding the name in this instance an improvement? Nemov (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will you feel more fulfilled after you learn the suspect's name from Wikipedia? — kashmīrī TALK 16:39, 22 April 2023 (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.

Reversions based on RfC closing text

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yes, nothing has changed. There is no reason to "reexamine" anything. Lostsandwich (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
We wouldn't be casting aspersions would we? Perhaps you should address the reply's contents. Lostsandwich (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

break

[edit]

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)[reply]

Reliability of sources

[edit]

@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),[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I already commented on the topic, please don't waste my time by pinging me. Lostsandwich (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
I'll delete for now. @Awshort, please do read policy around WP:BLP. Valereee (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, I specified "with regards to BLP" for a reason. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Suspect (if convicted) early life

[edit]

If he was the one being convicted, I've gathered a little definition on his lifespan long before the murders. Born September 9, 1972,[1] 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.[2] 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).[3] 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)[reply]

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

Convicted

[edit]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://interactive.wthr.com/pdfs/08C01-2210-MR-000001.pdf
  2. ^ https://fox59.com/indiana-news/who-is-richard-allen-what-we-know-about-delphi-suspect/
  3. ^ https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2024/10/29/delphi-murders-trial-latest-live-updates-richard-allen-tuesday/75810332007/
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murders_of_Abigail_Williams_and_Liberty_German&oldid=1256833725"