Jump to content

Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Picture of suspect

How about adding the composite sketch of the suspect to this article? Vital Forces 2015 (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

How about the police releasing a still of the man in which he's actually visible? It's on record[where?] that they have a considerable amount of footage and audio from the incident, but have only released two distant, grainy stills and a muffled, one-second audio clip, because they don't want to "compromise" the case. It's a weird one. But yeah, adding the composite drawing would be an improvement. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:C32:5F1:297C:D897 (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Video and audio of suspect

A free video with audio can be found here Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  • This is not a free video, do not upload it to Commons. Its caption is "Investigators have released an updated voice recording and video of the suspect not previously released that was extracted from slain 14-year-old Liberty German's cell phone," so the copyright is probably owned by Liberty German's family. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The video is from the FBI. It’s on the FBI’s website. Why can’t it be used? Paige Matheson (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Image use policy. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Aren't FBI files in public domain? Azuresky Voight (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Content produced solely by the FBI or some other federal employee in the course of their duties. As said above, this appears to have been primarily created by Liberty German. The FBI's enhancements and other modifications will be in the public domain but their work is still a derivative work of an original video not made by them. Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

"Kevin Sellers" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kevin Sellers and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 11#Kevin Sellers until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Charges

The charges for this article include "sex toy" and "falsifying public records". I'm not sure of any evidence for the latter and the former is nonsensical so I believe this should be changed. Trex467 (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Error or oversight

The article says: Kline set up the fake social media accounts, in which he used photos of an unknown male model, to catfish potential underage victims. He is not "unknown". They (RS's) have identified him (by name) as a police officer, from Alaska (or California?). He even gave a few interviews, stating that he was horrified to learn of his connection to the murder case. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Officer Vincent Kowalski. Source: [1]. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Will add. wizzito | say hello! 03:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Cause of death?

Why is a cause of death still being kept secret five years after the murders? Yodabyte (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAFORUM. Some1 (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
You'd have to ask the police / authorities. I assume that they would say -- or, indeed, have said -- that they want to preserve the integrity of the investigation. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Name of suspect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
An RfC was started; findings and arguments should be presented in the RfC to keep the future participants informed, and to prevent a split discussion. References to arguments made here can be made in the RfC, and comments may be quoted, as needed, so there is no use in letting this section possibly attract more participation. Thanks everyone for taking part in this lead-up to the process which may finally show what the consensus is.—Alalch E. 21:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add the name of the recently arrested suspect to the article or talk page. See WP:BLPCRIME and the BLP Noticeboard. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Aren't criminal suspects normally named? e.g. the shooter in the 2022 Buffalo shooting hasn't been convicted but he is still named wizzito | say hello! 00:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
It depends on the crime along with the depth of coverage about the suspect, especially if the coverage is ongoing in national media outlets. A mass murder like 2022 Buffalo shooting is not a fair comparison. In this instance, there has not been any in-depth coverage about the suspect so I agree they should not be named. S0091 (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that he has been covered enough that he's worth mentioning. However, if this is not consensus, I won't lose sleep over it. BOTTO (T•C) 18:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I too think there has been significant coverage to warrant mentioning his name. This case may not be a mass shooting but has been covered extensively via podcasts, tv, etc. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Let me remind everyone that the reason we have BLPCRIME is precisely for such cases – when media report a suspect's name and some editors may be tempted to include it. Actually, the degree of media coverage does not override our policies, which stem from legal considerations rather than from WP:V. — kashmīrī TALK 15:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
@Kashmiri, Ok however this is the first time I believe I have ever seen this followed. Nikolas Cruz, the Stoneman Douglas shooter, his name was added the day of the shooting. I am not going to fight this though. Just another inconsistent decision on Wiki. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
This is why WP:BLPCRIME is not a hard and fast rule. Stoneman Douglas was a very high profile event and there was never any doubt who the shooter is (he confessed immediately). This is much lower profile. I could well be that the accused in this case is actually innocent, so we should be more careful about naming the suspect. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
@Lard Almighty BLPCRIME never states anything about the "high or low profile" of the case. Here are two more cases that are more low profile than Stoneman Douglas where the accused's name was immediately added on the day of creation (and they didn't confess at all or immediately): Killing of Walter Scott & Charleston church shooting. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
No it doesn't, but it is one factor to consider when deciding whether to name a suspect.
"For individuals who are not 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."
A high-profile crime where the perpetrator has immediately confessed is a no-brainer. In a lower profile case where there are still only allegations against a low-profile person, we should usually avoid naming the suspect unless there is a compelling reason to name. I see no compelling reason in this case. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I do not want to go back and forth on this. If there is no consensus I am fine with leaving it out. I believe this case in more high profile than the Killing of Walter Scott, but I digress. By the way he is not a suspect anymore as he has been arrested he is the accused. Grahaml35 (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The case's profile doesn't matter. In many legislations, publicly associating individuals with a crime that they have not been convicted for is illegal and can be a ground for a lawsuit. Wikipedia understands and respects that. — kashmīrī TALK 08:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Not quite. Saying or implying that someone is guilty of a crime they have not been convicted of could have legal consequences. The names of people who have been charged with crimes are usually in the public domain (as is the case here). What WP:BLPCRIME addresses is whether Wikipedia should name suspects (and someone remains a suspect even when charged). Each case is different, and what we are discussing here is whether adding the name is appropriate in this case. It may well be, but the starting point (based on the presumption of innocence) should be not to add it unless there are compelling reasons to. Remember, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS so there is no requirement for us to include everything WP:RS report. Indeed, they operate under different parameters. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Food for thought: [2] [3] [4] [5]
Re. this case, we should just follow the policy IMO. The rationale is in the above links. — kashmīrī TALK 10:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the suspect should be named. From what I have seen, it seems to be rather common to state when a suspect is arrested, their name, and the pending charges against them well before the end of their trial.
There are several examples that I can think of where a suspect was named before being convicted or pleading guilty, including Pike County shootings which listed the family suspected of the killings years before they were officially convicted, or even arrested for that matter.
Death of Victoria Martens is another that is an ongoing case, with no conviction which also lists the suspects names. The same goes for Killing of Cannon Hinnant, with a suspect named and no conviction. Murder of Marrisa Shen has a suspect named who is still awaiting trial.
With this case, I can understand wanting to avoid sensationalism or anything similar, and avoiding wrongfully accusing someone. Respectfully, I think that stating that a suspect has been arrested and charged is a completely different thing than saying 'John Doe was a person of interest because he had a blue jacket', and grasping at straws to tie things into this case and potentially damaging a person's reputation. Stating that there was an arrest and someone is being charged with murder isn't implying guilt on their part. And for an ongoing case, with nationwide coverage, I think this would fall under a 'high-profile crime', with her recording the person suspected of murdering her. And in this exact instance, with the suspect in question that keeps having his name removed, I would like to also add the fact that in the recently released document, by his own admission he placed himself at the scene of the crime in an almost identical outfit as the person captured on video [6]https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23321462-allen-affidavit
I think this is a compelling reason to include his name. Awshort (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Court documents are not WP:RS. Also WP:OTHERSTUFF. There need to be compelling reasons why he should be named in this case. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The main reason BLP exists is to prevent the defamation of a person that could be innocent. In terms of this case, stating someone was arrested and charged is not a defamatory statement. To qualify as a defamatory statement in the United States, which is what we are using as the guideline to judge this by since it's for the english wikipedia, it would have to meet the following guidelines:
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.. [7]https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
The suspect was arrested, and formally charged. That is fact, and is not a false statement. If you look at something like Richard Jewell, he was accused of the media of being a criminal, without charges ever being brought against him by a law enforcement agency or even being arrested.
The counter argument that has been made against naming was

"The case's profile doesn't matter. In many legislations, publicly associating individuals with a crime that they have not been convicted for is illegal and can be a ground for a lawsuit. Wikipedia understands and respects that."

— kashmīrī
While this argument holds weight in some countries, in the US, simply stating someone was arrested and charged is generally not meant in a malicious manner. It isn't illegal to state that someone was arrested for something and charged in connection with it, nor is it grounds for a lawsuit for the reasons listed above. However, with something like Kyle Rittenhouse, the defamatory statements that caused him to look into legal actions against the media was the fact that people called him a murderer and a white supremacist, even after he was acquitted.
I agree with this quote -

"We are an encyclopedia. We need provide as complete as possible a summary of events. That includes stating that people have been declared persons of interest. As long as we don't state that anyone who hasn't been convicted is actually guilty of a crime there is no BLP violation. Not including something that is in the public domain in RS does our readers no service."

— Lard Almighty, Special:MobileDiff/965831945
I think stating the following would be a way to meet in the middle, since it does not imply guilt and allows for the suspects claim of innocence. I suggest we change what is currently the last line

On October 31, 2022, Indiana State Police announced that the suspect had been charged with two counts of murder in the case. His trial is scheduled to begin in March 2023

to the following

On October 31, 2022, Indiana State Police announced that the suspect, suspect name, had been charged with two counts of murder in the case. He has pleaded not guilty, with the start date of his trial scheduled to begin in March 2023.

Awshort (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Quote from your AP link above that you suggest we follow policy on: "This policy of not identifying suspects by name applies to minor crime briefs. We will continue to identify suspects by name in stories on significant crimes, such as murder, that would merit ongoing news coverage. In these cases, naming a suspect may be important for public safety reasons. These guidelines also do not include stories about active searches for fugitives." Awshort (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This is correct. Per WP policy, the name should be included. --216.24.45.9 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The suspect has been identified in Rolling Stone, People Magazine, and other widely-distributed media, with a bullet from his gun found in between the bodies of the two girls. I think if the police as well as major magazines have no problem revealing the suspect’s name and putting him on trial at this point, it will not tarnish Wikipedia to follow suit. LovelyLillith (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Read WP:BLPCRIME. We need to err on the side of caution when it comes to naming people who are not in the public eye who have been accused of a crime, no matter that they are named in RS. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
We need to reach consensus here before adding the name. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
BLPCrime doesn't state he cannot be named, but to use caution. Wikipedia does not censor, unless it is a defamatory statement. At this point, there haven't been any counter arguments about why the name cannot be added, with several reasons being given for it's inclusion. Is that not consensus? Awshort (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
And the reason we need to be cautious here is because it involves paedophilia. There have been countless examples of innocent people with the same name as a suspect being attacked and even murdered when they are misidentified as paedophiles because they share the same name as a suspect in a case. This suspect has a relatively common name (there are almost 100 listed in the white pages in Indiana alone). Exercising caution here means not putting these people at potential risk. Wikipedia is the most read website in the world, so people are far more likely to read the name here than anywhere else if we include it.
I would also point out that the last few reverts of the name prior to today were by other editors, which indicates that there is no consensus to include. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Respectfully, it doesn't involve paedophilia at all, it involves murder.
Nothing that has came from Wikipedia:RS has stated there were any sexual elements to the murders, and other than a prior person of interest (who I would like like to point out is currently not named on the page) trying to solicit inappropriate images of one of the victims through social media the night prior to their murder, there has not been any mention of anything of a sexual nature in this case to date. Also, Wikipedia does not censor. While I can partially understand wanting to protect someone with a similar name, the suspect has been arrested and in custody since October, including being moved for his own protection, so the chances of someone with a similar name being attacked for something that hasn't been mentioned in a single reliable source are slim to none.
Regarding the prior reverts, they have all pointed to the talk page as directed to by your hat note, until a consensus can be reached, including an edit by me within the last week for exactly that reason when the suspect was named. However, no one has presented a counter argument on why the name cannot be here other than to look at Wikipedia:BLPCRIME. Awshort (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
It involves the murder of children (likely with a sexual motive) which is also highly emotive. These are precisely the types of case where we need to take the suggestion in BLPCRIME about being cautious seriously. Not including the name does not detract from the article, while including it could prove problematic. When non-inclusion does not detract from the article, it is best to err on the side of caution in cases involving child victims. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how long a person has been in pre-trial detention. Until and unless they are declared guilty by a court, they are innocent, plain and simple. In many jurisdictions, it's illegal to identify such people – their faces on any photo are pixelated or blurred while names are substituted with initials. The US with all its media reporting is rather lax with respect to the rights of people accused of a crime, but Wikipedia strives to follow more stringent standards. — kashmīrī TALK 09:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@Lard Almighty
I disagree. We, as editors, should stay neutral and give whatever information is available, especially on a high profile murder case, as long as it doesn't imply that said person is guilty. Following along with the core content policy on remaining neutral
Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view. It means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.
As you stated previously - "Not including something that is in the public domain in RS does our readers no service." I don't see how including the name would cause problems or be anything other than neutral.
@Kashmiri
While I understand what you are saying regarding other jurisdictions, on the English Wikipedia the guidelines page states the following - This policy page specifies the community standards related to the organization, life cycle, maintenance of, and adherence to policies, guidelines, and related pages of the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia goes by the laws of the US when it comes to the legality of including material. No one is stating the suspect is innocent or guilty, but as stated, Blpcrime exists in order to prevent defamatory statements being made about someone who could potentially be innocent, and prevent legal problems that go along with such statements by the media according to US defamation laws. Different countries and different cultures have their own laws in respect to privacy and rights, so it's an apples to oranges comparison. BLPCrime does not say that a suspect cannot be named at all, but does state that caution should be used if the name is to be included before a conviction has been secured.
Awshort (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
BLPCRIME exists to protect innocent people, not just those who are suspected or even charged with crimes. We need to consider the impact the naming of a suspect my have just not on that individual's life but also on the lives of others. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
At this point, it is literally almost impossible to put current references into the article without the arrested suspect’s name being mentioned in the titles, as well as the fact that there is international attention on this case (The Sun and Independent.co.uk are two examples) using his name. We are not stating he is guilty, but what we ARE doing at this point is going to extremes in contorting ourselves to omit other pertinent information in order to hide his name, which makes (as stated by another) one of the most highly-read sites in the world look ridiculous now. LovelyLillith (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Let's leave it at this, as it's pretty obvious that there's no consensus on adding the current suspect's name to the article. — kashmīrī TALK 19:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive346#Suspect's_name_in_the_URL_of_sources/references Some1 (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive343#Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Reopened

I previously closed this discussion as a consensus for naming the suspect. Based on the arguments presented here and at noticeboards, I did not find a policy-based reason to withhold the name. Simply naming WP:BLPCRIME as a policy was WP:DISCARDed, since the policy is not an absolute prohibition on naming suspects. Arguments based on WP:N or WP:EVENT were also inapplicable, since those are policies about page creation rather than content. Several editors noted widespread reporting of the arrest that was reliable, sustained, and geographically broad. Some editors believed that withholding the name detracted from the article and impeded efforts to build it. The potential for harm related to BLP issues, particularly WP:AVOIDVICTIM was discussed, but it was not proposed that such a situation exists in this case. It was affirmed that Wikipedia should not use the arrest to imply guilt or impute a motive to the suspect, but that is irrelevant to whether or not they are named.

Given several editors' dissatisfaction with the close, the BLP nature of the issue, and a rough consensus at the administrator noticeboard, I have withdrawn my closure. This will give interested parties time to revise and reinforce policy-based arguments. There have been suggestions to hold an RfC, which I would endorse doing. Sennalen (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion related to WP:EVENT was not about page creation, but specifically discussed content, e.g. how local and/or sensationalized coverage does not appear to support inclusion of the name of a suspect who is not a public figure per WP:BLPCRIME (e.g. [8], [9] at BLPN). There also does not appear to be a demonstration of how exclusion of the name detracts or otherwise impedes efforts to build the article. 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. Beccaynr (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Sensationalized coverage should not be relied upon, but non-sensationalized coverage was noted.
As a personal opinion, not derived from prior discussion, someone arrested for a high-profile crime ipso facto becomes a high-profile person. I believe the proper spirit of WP:BLPCRIME is to prevent coatracking where neither the crime nor the person is independently noteworthy. Sennalen (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm with Beccanyr here, as might be easily deduced. I think the chance of harm from inclusion of the suspect's name is very small, but the improvement to the article to be had by naming him is nonexistent. Yes, the name exists out there and is easily found. Without the name, people would be forced to go find it in the sources. With the name, people would be forced to go to the sources to learn anything about the suspect. As such, at this stage, it strikes me better to err on the side of caution. Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
@Sennalen scrolling through, I only see one source pertaining to this article that was presented, back on December 2nd by @Awshort. However, that was an affidavit which is primary so not useful. Let me know if I missed any others though. (Side note: Ashort I encourage you be more concise with your statements, please.) S0091 (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
@S0091, I'm currently away from the house and writing from my phone, but could you elaborate on the statements comment, please?
I've made a lot of statements as of late, and if I have an example I have a starting point to work from :)
Awshort (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
You have added over a third of the text here out of 20 participants. Not horrible or anything, just something to consider (see WP:WALLOFTEXT). S0091 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
At least 12 national or international news sources were noted at BLP/N. Sennalen (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
This one: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive346#Suspect's_name_in_the_URL_of_sources/references? First, I did look at discussions that occurred elsewhere, only here. Also, I am not sure if it should be considered because the discussion was largely about the name being in URLs rather than about having the name in the prose. S0091 (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Beccaynr and nothing Ive seen argued overcomes BLPCRIME. Also specifically charged of a high profile crime ipso facto becomes high-profile person is just an argument to scrap BLPCRIME. The more serious the crime, the more high profile it is, the more that BLPCRIME should apply to an oversize non-notable subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I suggest someone sets up a proper RFC so this can be done with one way or the other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Since the topic of the suspect's name keeps coming up, an RfC is a good idea. I'll get one started. Some1 (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
RfC: Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German#RfC:_Suspect's_name Some1 (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I did not find a policy-based reason to withhold the name? The way I see it, it's not the closer's role to find reasons for one of the proposed actions. The closer's role is to check whether there exists a policy-based WP:CONSENSUS among the participating editors; to evaluate all the key arguments of both sides vis-a-vis policies; and to close the discussion either as a consensus or as a no consensus. Yours, instead, was a WP:SUPERVOTE. Glad that you have decided to reopen this. — kashmīrī TALK 20:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
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.

Notability edit

Per Template:Notability#Removing this tag

The template must not be re-added. Please do not edit war over it.

Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention.

People.com and Time.com both qualify as reliable secondary sources, as well as being independent of the topic. People also did a documentary examining the murder [10]


Awshort (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This is an WP:EVENT article, which has specific guidelines to help per WP:N to avoid exclusion per WP:NOTNEWS. A notability tag can help call attention to a need to further research and develop the article with WP:INDEPTH sources that demonstrate an WP:EFFECT. This article currently relies on what appears to be a non-RS podcast for substantial content, but it also appears that there are a variety of sources that may be able to help replace this source. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for starting this discussion. Here are some more sources (copy and pasted from my comment at WP:BLPN):
- New York Times
- CNN
- Time
  • 2017 2022 "case that has captivated national attention for nearly six years."
- People
- ABC News
- Rolling Stones
- Washington Post
- USA Today
- Associated Press
- The Independent (a UK site)
- New Zealand Herald
Some1 (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Persons of interest

Looking for opinions related to the removal of the Snapchat catfish person I recently posted about, but that was removed shortly after under rm per WP:BLPCRIME, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and ref: "not been named a person of interest in the Delphi murders

I disagree about BLPCrime and NotPublicFigure being applicable, and was curious what other opinions were. The person in question has benefited since their arrest, both financially by soliciting money for interviews on podcasts, as well as using their newfound 'fame' to their advantage to get interviews in jail. "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable."

[13]

Regarding the reference thing - the quote from the page is "Investigators in the double-homicide case stressed," however, the male depicted in photos as “anthony_shots” is “not a person of interest in the investigation. Detectives are seeking information about the person who created the account, police said this week."

Considering they were one of the last people that talked to the victims before they were murdered, and were expected to meet with them the day of their disappearance, I feel it is worth mentioning in the article.

Awshort (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning. I have re-added it with far less detail and omitting the suspect's name. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Even with edits per the references, WP:NPOV policy, and MOS:SAID, this still appears to be WP:SENSATIONAL content that should be removed. The way this was presented in the first two attempts seems contrary to the sources that say the individual was not a person of interest, and the undue reliance on a family member quote seemed to obscure that. This is in addition to the WP:BLPCRIME problem of including this sensationalized content at all. They are also not a public figure, which has a different standard than 'low profile'. Beccaynr (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I think a brief mention is fine, given that he had contact with one of the victims in the hours prior to her disappearance, and so naturally was on the police's radar in relation to the murders. As long as we don't name him, I don't think there is anything WP:UNDUE and certainly no violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The addition that you've initially added[14] was way too WP:UNDUE, especially when the guy isn't a suspect in the case. But Lard Almighty's re-addition and revision of it are fine. Some1 (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
This appears to be sensationalism based on what someone (later arrested for other crimes) told the police. Including the later arrest appears to be a BLP problem, and per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, an interview and tabloid-style reporting does not appear sufficient to support this claim. Beccaynr (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think so. It was only because he was arrested that the police spoke to him, and indeed it is related because he admitted to using the fake profile to talk to German. This led police to look at his possible involvement in her murder and dismiss it. But he was, in fact, investigated in the context of the murders. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
It is because it is based on his statement (a primary source) that there appears to be a WP:V problem - and the use of the word 'admitted' in this discussion and attempts to add it to the article seem to emphasize another aspect - it would be an 'admission against interest'. The fact of investigation further raises BLP issues because it suggests a possibility of committing serious crimes, in addition to the other crimes also suggested by mentioning the arrest. Beccaynr (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Lard Almighty, I'm looking through the sources in the 'fake social media account' section and I don't see any calling him a 'Witness'. I think the Witness header should be removed and the section should be in "Persons of interest" section in general, but the "Persons of interest" header could be renamed to something else. What do you think? Some1 (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
'Witness' is the generic designation I selected because the individual was not named as a 'person of interest'. It is legal jargon, so perhaps in need of a revision (although I think the section should be removed entirely). Beccaynr (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm thinking that it should be removed entirely too now... I feel like the whole "Persons of interest"/"Witness" sections could be removed in general since it's WP:NOTNEWS. They were once "persons of interests" for a brief moment, but nothing really came of it. And if the fake social media account was really central to the case, then during the trial, there'll be more news connecting the person and account to the murders, which can be added later. But I agree that it comes off a bit like sensationalism. Some1 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS doesn't cover this at all. People who interpret it as saying we shouldn't include things that were important at the time in the context of a wider event are reading it wrong. We are about giving as complete a picture of a subject as possible in an encyclopedic way. That includes, for subjects like this, giving details about the progress of the investigation. I would entirely agree that it shouldn't be included if it had nothing to do with the investigation into the murders. But it does. The suspect admitted contact with German, literally in the hours before her disappearance. That led police to take a closer look. It was part of the investigation into the murders, even if it ultimately led nowhere. In the interests of completeness, it's worth a brief mention. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTNEWS, I think a secondary source that demonstrates the enduring significance of this aspect of the investigation would help support inclusion, because most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style, and WP:V and WP:BLP issues also weigh against inclusion. This type of article can be very challenging to write, so I am glad we are talking about this and the various related policies. Beccaynr (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style is precisely what I mean about misreading WP:NOTNEWS. That quote is about whether an event is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry in the first place. The policy also addresses haste in adding every little thing as it happens. That is not the case here. We are looking back and deciding what in the (albeit ongoing) investigation merits inclusion. In any event, here is a recent article that shows that this person was at one point as suspect in the murders (police searched his house in connection with the murders). I really don't see how a brief mention of this aspect into the investigation of the murders fails any Wikipedia policy, especially when we don't name the man. Lard Almighty (talk)@ Lard Almighty (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
If it's part of general investigation, then I think the content should be combined with Investigation with the headers removed. Giving POI and this social media account seperate headers is giving them undue weight in the article IMO. I've made the change: [15] Some1 (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
That works. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
One thing I wanted to point out with this article is that the subject is a public figure, which has been seemingly overlooked when I mentioned it in the original post.
According to [16], 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.
[17] and [18] were both pre-arrest accounts that were made in order to promote the individual as a musician, as well as producing music under their own name that seemingly is listened to with several listeners. [19] By their own actions they tried to establish themselves as a public figure, and no longer qualify as 'low-profile'.
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.
In [20] this edit, the individual gives his full name and date of birth.
While I don't think they need their own Wiki page by any means, they do qualify for inclusion for the reasons listed above by @Lard Almighty as well as my original reasons in the main post. With that being said, as a public figure, WP:BLPCrime would not be a suitable reason to remove by naming them.
One thing I do want to point out, however. I should have read the original text better when I reinserted it. I believe it was in October, a editor (not one of the people currently on the talk pages) had removed almost all of the POI section as well as removing all names and quotes under a giant BLP purge, while I can only assume overlooking the sources tagged for each. Most of them were removed as 'not being persons of interest', when the sources clearly identified them as such. Regardless, I added several of them back since citing BLP exemptions for deceased individuals isn't what it is there for, and ignoring stated sources is never a good idea. I should have paid better attention to what was said, since I added the quote from the sister. That wasn't meant to be to imply guilt, rather it was her mentioning her thoughts on them naming someone in the case. I see how it came off, though, so I will definitely keep an eye out for that in the future.
Awshort (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed as a clear BLP vio content about a living person, including his name, who was charged with a different crime and was apparently contacted w/re but not ultimately a person of interest in this one. Awshort pointed out to me at my talk that this had been discussed. I think if there is still a feeling it needs to be included, this needs to be discussed at WP:BLPN. Valereee (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Quite agree. No reason to link that person to this crime. We don't need to follow every twist and turn in the investigation, especially where doing so might promote incorrect theories. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Naming the Accused

The Accused has now freely admitted to the murder of two children, and his name and mugshot should be included.

The general public should be well aware of how this man behaves. 174.251.128.194 (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that confirms he admitted to the crimes and therefore has pleaded guilty (we can't use what prosecutors/others say). S0091 (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
His own attorneys have stated, as part of the public record in open court, that the accused has made incriminating statements.
Charged with murder, they stipulate he has incriminated himself.
Don't be daft.
Rex Heuermann is named as the accused on the Gilgo Killings page, and he both has not confessed, nor has pleaded guilty. 174.251.128.194 (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
If the information is out there, find a source that says as much and include it. Otherwise, follow WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. Snowman304|talk 21:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
I cannot find a perp name in the Gilgo Killings page. If it is there and unsourced, it should probably go too. QwertyForest (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
@QwertyForest there was an RfC for that one, that was found in favor of naming.
Awshort (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
@S0091: this is not meant as sarcasm, but confirms he admitted to the crimes and therefore has pleaded guilty (we can't use what prosecutors/others say) would be impossible for an individual under a gag order without relying on someone else to relay the message for them, wouldn't it? I was unsure if you were asking for an admission of guilt which wouldn't need a court and could be to anyone, or a pleading of guilt, which would.
Awshort (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
@Awshort I meant pleading guilty. I haven't followed the case closely but have checked on occasion, mainly to see when the trial starts/will conclude so I don't revert someone adding his name if it is actually appropriate and have come across sources where prosecutors (or someone?) have stated he confessed. I was trying to make it clear we can't use those sources. He would need to actually plead guilty. Let me know if that makes sense. S0091 (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
@S0091 Eh...no, honestly that confused me more lol. If the subject had admitted to the murder and it was widely reported, it would be WP:DUE to cover the admissions but still refer to them as alleged admissions of guilt per WP:BLPCRIME. Obviously we can't say "Well he confessed, see this primary document?! GUILTY!" (which I believe was your point above if I'm not mistaken? We cannot say in wikivoice "Well he did it!" until he's actually convicted.) L
If I'm wrong, please let me know. I didn't sleep much so I'm probably wrong.
Awshort (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
We would not use a primary document per WP:BLPPRIMARY but a secondary source, such as a news report about him pleading guilty. Either way, that has not occurred so irrelevant. S0091 (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
https://fox59.com/news/detective-testifies-richard-allen-confessed-more-than-60-times-to-delphi-murders/
https://www.wthr.com/article/news/crime/delphi-girls-murdered/jury-can-hear-richard-allens-alleged-confessions-to-delphi-murders-abby-williams-libby-german-frances-gull-court-trial-carroll-county/531-cfd15032-cb36-431c-894a-09352c31e257
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/delphi-murders-richard-allen-confessed-killing-girls-sharp-object-used-court-documents/
https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/richard-allen-reported-made-confessions-to-inmates-guards-attorneys-say-he-was-in-state-of-psychosis/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/delphi-indiana-murder-richard-allen-b2534078.html
https://www.wishtv.com/news/i-team-8/defense-team-tries-to-suppress-richard-allen-confessions-in-delphi-murders-case/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/delphi-murders-hearing-richard-allen-odinist-cult-b2590328.html
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/richard-allen-guilty-delphi-murders-b2360144.html
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/richard-allen-delphi-documents_n_649cb07fe4b092a7871e4e8a
It hasn't?
Awshort (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
He has pleaded not guilty, thus the trial that is now underway. S0091 (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
@S0091 I think we are disputing different things? I am not saying he pled guilty; I was pointing out that he had made alleged confessions and the media had reported on them a while back. Your earlier comments made it seem (at least to me) like none of the references I listed could be used in the article or alleged confessions could be mentioned at all. I think there is a huge difference between saying someone was alleged to have said something versus saying they outright confessed.
Awshort (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I think so. Per the section title, this discussion is about naming him and that is what I was addressing in my response to the IP a month ago. No sources were provided at that time to consider one way or the other. If what you are inquiring about is adding content stating he allegedly confessed, that's a different issue. I don't see a problem with doing so as long as it is done carefully of course. I am sure it will covered in the trial as well. S0091 (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
@S0091 Thank you for the explanation, that cleared it up a lot. You were going by the section title, I was going by your comment to the IP about sources for his confessions (with zero input one way or other on naming, just on sourcing). Again, much appreciated!
Awshort (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. :) There was no input for me to give at that time as far as naming him without appropriate sources backing up what the IP was claiming. They provided none even after a second request by another editor so nothing else to say and the discussion died out. S0091 (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

My two cents

Sometimes, if you try to be as rational as possible, you end up reaching the most irrational conclusions as possible. It happens. I’ve done it too. But that’s what is happening on this page.

The suspect’s name is widely known public information. It should therefore be included in the article. We should say what his name is.

The arguments against including his name are the results of overthinking and missing the point. Like Hamlet would do.

”It is easy to overlook the obvious.”

—-Aesop’s Fables

Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules and guidelines. Those, along with the preceding RFC demonstrate the reasons why it should not "therefore be included in the article". Lostsandwich (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Lostsandwich That is partly true, but rules are not meant to be followed in an overly strict manner on the letter of policy and not the spirit per WP:NOTBURO , which has been the ongoing complaint with the discussion and how policies have been applied.
Key examples being WP:BLPCRIME doesn't mention names at all, that is on WP:BLPNAME, but it is continually being used in a different context than it was meant for while ignoring the fact that BLPNAME's criteria for naming has been met.
And lastly, an RfC that ended with no consensus is not the same as the consensus being to exclude.
Awshort (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The requirement for inclusion has not been met. Please review the pages on WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME, and the preceding RfC. Lostsandwich (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Lostsandwich that is essentially what you said before that I replied to. BLPCRIME suggests to seriously consider and is not an outright prohibition, and BLPNAME requires a name to be widely printed in secondary sources to qualify for inclusipn. Regardless, my statement about WP:NOTBURO still stands.
Awshort (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Suspect's name

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

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

  • 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)
    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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    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)
    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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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',
[21] * Time magazine covered him.
[22] * Rolling Stone magazine covered him..[23]twice
[24][25][26][27] * People Magazine covered him multiple times.
[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] * Court TV has covered him countless times.
[41] [42] * 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)
With all due respect, all of those are news sources, are they not? Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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 [43], 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)
@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)
@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)
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)
  • 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)
  • Include per Isaidnoway. Grahaml35 (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    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)
  • 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)

Discussion

  • Previous BLPN discussions:
Beccaynr (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)

@Awshort: May I ask you to use correct discussion formatting? WP:TALKREPLY will help you. — kashmīrī TALK 12:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
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)

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)

Another new editor who didn't bother to read the project's policies. Eh... — kashmīrī TALK 22:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Will you feel more fulfilled after you learn the suspect's name from Wikipedia? — kashmīrī TALK 16:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murders_of_Abigail_Williams_and_Liberty_German/Archive_1&oldid=1264703419"