Talk:Murder of Brianna Ghey/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Child on child murder definition

Please change “Child on child murder” to “Child on adult” murder. Brianna Ghey was 16, 16 is the age of adulthood in the jurisdiction Brianna lived in, when she was killed by real children who were under 16. Changing such is important as LGBT adults 16+ are often targeted very violently by none LGBT people due to the false belief that they are somehow allegedly dangerous to children just because of who they are. Particularly trans people. Nothing is ever said or mentioned in the media about the deadly attacks by straight children on lgbt adults that is fuelled by false insinuations by others of transgender people allegedly being harmful to children, a false stereotype that may have actually been partly why her child murderers targeted Brianna in the first place. Changing it to a child on adult murder would highlight the suffering of lgbt people in this area. 2.99.81.33 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources are as follows: https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/brianna-ghey-trans-teenager-children-found-guilty-murder/

The article makes the distinction between the child murderers being children and Brianna being a teenager or young adult.

In England, where the murder took place the age of adulthood for most issues is 16. Her killers were 15 year old children when she was killed at 16. Brianna’s mother had made the error of stating that her daughters killers “Were not children” and were adults like her daughter well they were children although her daughter was an adult. This was not a “child on child killing” but a child on adult killing. 2.99.81.33 (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that labeling the murder as child-on-child sounds odd for the reasons you mentioned, I also heard the judge remarking that the defendants, while technically children, displayed adult-like behaviour. However, for sentencing purposes, both the victim and the offenders are considered children. Therefore, I believe we should simply refer to it as murder. What do you think? —Kanayoko (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I would settle just for it to read murder however, their is a problem with trans adults being regarded by kids as automatic dangers unjustly just for the fact the person is transgender. But yes just murder I would settle for that.2.99.81.33 (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The age of majority in England is 18 (source) EvergreenFir (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes that is true. The law in England in this area is confused. At 10, a child can be arrested like an adult. At 16, they can procreate like an adult but not marry like any other adult and at 18 they can vote like an adult while at 21 finally stand for the public office they voted on like any other adult. I suppose it rests on the legal and moral philosophical question “When does a person become an adult ?” When they can reproduce like an adult mammal or when they can vote like any other citizen ? What defines adulthood ? The UN seem to leave the question open for member states to set at anywhere between 16-18 as an acceptable age range as is the case in some US states. Either way, her killers were classed as children anywhere in the civilized world as they were below the lowest definition of an adult of 16 for any civilized society. They were 15. So, there was indeed a clear difference between her killers and her, comparative to the the UN range. It’s really up to the editor I suppose, I just think that a lot of stigma may have been attributed to Brianna for who she was by her child killers falsely believing Brianna was a danger to them and society for being older and trans in amongst them. Maybe classing it as an adult on child murder or simply a murder as has been suggested may help highlight the dangers of false suspicion and the effects they have especially on trans people by none trans people.

As I stated it’s the editors call. 2.99.81.33 (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Done. I've updated the displayed text to simply “murder” with the link pointing to child murder. Kanayoko (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"Autistic spectrum personality disorder"

According to the article, "Ratcliffe has a mild form of autistic spectrum personality disorder". However, I cannot find any reference to this in the given cite, nor can I find any mention of such a thing as "autistic spectrum personality disorder" on the web. Yes, there are people with autistic spectrum disorders who also have personality disorders, and lots of research on this, but as far as I am aware, there is no such clinical entity as "autistic spectrum personality disorder". Now, the lack of cite validation may be because it's a link to a live updated page, but that's irrelevant to its usefulness here; I have struck this whole part of the sentence as uncited. — The Anome (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It's likely to be irrelevant to the overall story. I'd favour ditching any discussion of the culprits' medical diagnoses unless there's a clear and strong reason to include them. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Refs in lead

Currently there are 14 refs in the lead. As none seem to be needed to support anything that is contentious or controversial, I'd suggest that, in line with WP:LEADCITE, they should they all (apart from the one for surname pronunciation) be moved, if required, into the article main body. However, her date of birth seems to be currently unsourced. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd support such an initiative. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you know of any source that supports her date of birth? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Go for it.

On the birthday, it looks like it was added in this edit, with the edit summary pointing to this PinkNews article. While it doesn't explicitly state 7 November 2008, it does state her birthday was 7 November, and I guess someone just did the math from there. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Source support the data and that her 17th birthday would have been in 2023. The year is 2006, not 2008. Just added the citation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Curse you 6 and 8 looking very similar(!) I'd say I need to get my glasses checked, but I had laser eye surgery a little over a year ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a couple of other sources that mention 7 November as being her birthday; Liverpool Echo, Attitude, and Warrington Guardian. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for the birthday sources. I have now trimmed the other refs out of the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Conflicting stories re bullying history

We have the text with footnotes 16..19 saying that she was bullied at the school, and then an immediately following claim by the head teacher footnoted 20 saying that she wasn't. If two diametrically opposed narratives are going to be read into the encyclopaedic record, shouldn't there be an attempt to explain why there's no reason to prefer one over the other? Guyal of Sfere (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It’s not a narrative, it’s different things said by different sources. This is how you write in NPOV Snokalok (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Removing Ghey's TikTok handle

Is there any reason to include Ghey's TikTok username in the article? Her original account has since been deleted and it seems that it has since been replaced by a new account. It doesn't give readers any meaningful understanding of the subject and also risks directing users to an account that does not belong to Ghey nor represent her views. Nullh1ve (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Expanding "Murder" section

I'm wondering if anybody has plans on expanding the "Murder" section to include details leading up to Ghey's murder? I wanted to copyedit the lead to include some extra and relevant details, such as Ghey being lured by Jenkinson, which would likely be a good addition to this section. Thanks. B3251 (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a useful addition to the "Murder" section. Esther Ghey made it clear that it was unusual for Brianna to board a bus unaccompanied and she had only done so after being lured, by telephone, by Jenkinson, whom she regarded as a friend. She had no idea that Ratcliffe, whom she had never met, would also be waiting to tag along, with a knife. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I just expanded the lead a little bit, the citation I attached is necessary at the moment but can be moved down if somebody would like to add the details leading up to her murder in that section, I might be able to do it if I'm available sometime soon too. B3251 (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The lead section is meant to serve as a summary of the entire article. There should be nothing in the lead that's not fully covered, with sources, in the main body. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It's relevant information, the only thing that needs to be done to fix this is the addition of details leading up to her murder in the "Murder" section. I can't do it right now, but if nobody does it I'll do it next time I'm available. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@B3251: What Martinevans123 has said is that information in an article's lead must always appear in its body, before it can be added to the lead. See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY for a fuller explainer of this. Next time that you wish to add information to an article, please make sure to add it to the article body first. That way a proper determination can be made to see if the information is or is not leadworthy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I'll attempt to add details leading up to Ghey's murder in the section in a moment, so that the source can be moved down and it correctly follows the body. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Reflist (Murder section)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2024

Add the following information about Ghey's vulnerability, as revealed in her mother's victim impact statement, to the "Brianna Ghey" subsection under "Background";

"As a teenager, Ghey was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism, which her mother said impaired her ability to identify dangerous situations." 2A00:23C6:8809:A301:5066:4FE8:F338:D7BE (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Added, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Scepticism of Jenkinson's confession

Lead prosecutor Heer said that following the conviction, Jenkinson had admitted to a psychiatrist that she had stabbed Ghey. Hear reported that Jenkinson had "snatched the knife" from Ratcliffe's hands and repeatedly stabbed Ghey, after Ratcliffe "panicked and said he did not want to kill her". Justice Yip said that she suspected that Jenkinson wished to "paint herself in as bad a light as possible" after her conviction, but that there was "so much evidence of untruths" in Jenkinson's case that it was "impossible to believe anything she says."

I was about to add the above text to the Verdict and sentencing subsection of the article, but wanted a second opinion on it, as it may also have an impact on how we add additional content now that the sentences have been handed down, and the final reporting restrictions have been lifted. How cautious should we be, if Justice Yip is correct in her suspicion that Jenkinson is trying to "paint herself in as bad a light as possible", in adding content about Jenkinson's motivations? Multiple reliable sources have remarked on the post-conviction confession from Jenkinson (The Guardian, The Telegraph, BBC News), though all have kept it in the realm of direct quotations. Should we include this confession by Jenkinson? And if so, how should we treat it? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Since the judge expressed scepticism, I think we should not include this material in our article. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that "Justice Yip said that she suspected that Jenkinson wished to "paint herself in as bad a light as possible" after her conviction, but that there was "so much evidence of untruths" in Jenkinson's case that it was "impossible to believe anything she says" is quite worthy of inclusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This text conveys no definite information, and I don’t see the point of adding it. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The Judge thought Jenkinson was a complete liar. But that's of no consequence? I'm surprised. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Jenkinson pleaded ‘not guilty’ and was convicted by the jury – so they didn’t believe her story, either. This will always be the case where the jury convicts someone who pleads ‘not guilty’. I fail to see any significance in the fact that the judge didn’t believe what she said, either. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Reflist

References

NBC & Vogue – previous discussion

In the latest previous discussion, in December 2023, on the material which I removed, and which Sideswipe9th partially reinstated, Sideswipe’s suggested wording: An article by NBC News on the killing commented that "the climate in the U.K. has grown increasingly hostile for trans people over the last few years", noting that advocates within the LGBTQ community have often criticized the UK media in the last few years over publishing articles embracing anti-transgender sentiments. was accepted, and the reference to the comments in Vogue was removed. This is better than what is now in the article. (Talk:Murder of Brianna Ghey/Archive 2 - Wikipedia Heading Inappropriate sections? ) Sweet6970 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: The content that is currently in the article is identical to the version that was proposed and accepted in the December 2023 discussion, right down to the American-English spelling of criticized instead of criticised. The December 2023 version cannot be better than what is now in the article, because it is the exact same content. I called this a partial reversion because your edit completely removed the entire sentence about the NBC report, and not just the small portion on Rowling, and I was partially restoring the non-BLP applicable content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

No – look at the version at the end of December 2023 – the bit about Vogue was deleted, by agreement. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, now I see what you mean! That damn Vogue piece is like some sort of zombie, that must be what, the third time we've discussed removing it? Now that it's clear what issue you were raising, I've removed the sentence cited to British Vogue, as well as a duplicate sentence repeating what was already said in the NBC News report. Hopefully the Vogue part stays out this time! Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest edit. The history of this part of the article has been very confusing – I had remembered that Vogue had been deleted, but had forgotten that NBC had been kept. Let’s hope this stays stable now. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Chronology of article

Maybe there is no right way to do this, but I noticed the section "Trial" includes the sentencing, where the motives were stated by the judge, and then in the section "Reactions#Trial aftermath", we jump back in time: we have a detective doubting the relevance of gender identity, and then a representative of the CPS explaining the legal principles applying to every case in England.

There probably is a relevance to including the detective's opinion because the judge disagreed with it. There probably are secondary sources criticising the detective for saying this. As for the prosecutor's statement, I had actually added the exact same information into the trial section after the verdict, because I thought the readers deserved to know that the jury hadn't decided or disavowed any potential motivation. Now, I don't see how it's relevant at all to explain what we can plainly see; the jury reached a verdict and the judge decided on a motive. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2024

Change name under the photograph of Scarlett Jenkinson, it currently incorrectly states it as Eddie Ratcliffe. MarineMarianne (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Fixed, thanks. — nullh1ve (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Death certificate/’misgendering’

@Snokalok: – there needs to be a source to say that she has been officially misgendered. Do you have a source saying what is on her death certificate? If you don’t, then you should self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Such as the current sources that say that under British law her death certificate records her as a boy, and that people asked the British government to not do that, and the British government said “no, fuck off”.

That’s, flat misgendering. If you want I can dig up sources that say the word misgendering. And it’s being done by official sources. Thus, it’s misgendering by official sources, or official misgendering. Even if no one uses the direct term “official misgendering”, plenty have still used the term “misgendering”, and thus “official misgendering” is a completely reasonable title. Snokalok (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Snokalok: You still haven’t provided a source saying that she has been misgendered. Your change to the heading is still unsupported. In England, your legal name is the name you are known by. This principle predates the Gender Recognition Act, and is independent of it. I don’t know what is on the death certificate. Do you? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/02/16/brianna-ghey-trans-girl-gender-recognition/

Under the current policy, she will be “misgendered in death”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/13/16-year-old-brianna-ghey-posted-tiktok-hours-stabbed-death/

Under the current policy, “her sex will be recorded as male”

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/03/16/uk-government-rejects-brianna-ghey-death-campaign/

UK govt: “We have no plans to change it”

It is completely reasonable to say, based of the current policy and the statement given by the UK govt regarding how that policy will be applied in this case, that her death certificate records her as male. That’s misgendering, very simply. Snokalok (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think this is reasonable and far removed from any risk of falling into Original Research. It is not necessary for the sources to use the specific word "misgendered" so long as they say words that unambiguously mean the same thing. Also, it is important to note that misgendering can take at least two separate forms on official forms. Using a deadname or putting an incorrect gender marker in a box would each count as acts of misgendering. It is not necessary for both to be present. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

DanielRigal – It looks like you have missed my point. The current heading of the section is Misgendering by official sources. But there is no source saying that she has actually been misgendered, because there is no source saying what is on the death certificate. So we have a heading which breaches Wikipedia policy, in that it is not supported by text which has a citation. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

DanielRigal – please don’t change a post after I have replied to it – it is confusing. And you still haven’t answered my point. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

This is Wikilawyering. The sources demonstrate that it is policy to misgender in this situation, that a request was made for an exception and that it was denied. There is no improper synthesis here. There is no ambiguity here. To speculate that the death certificate might have been issued contrary to policy and that that has been kept secret is, at best, WP:CRYSTAL.

BTW, I was editing the comment while you were replying and hit an edit conflict. I forgot to tag it as such. I have done so now. I was only adding to the comment so it doesn't change the part you were replying to. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation for my confusion around your amendment to your post.

No, it is not Wikilawyering. That essay says Using the rules in a manner to achieve a goal other than compliance with the rule (for example, to "win" an editing dispute) is frowned upon by the Wikipedia community. I am not ‘using the rules’ to ‘achieve a goal other than compliance with the rule’. Please stick to the point, which is the lack of a source.

I would have no objection to the current heading if there was a source saying that the death certificate describes her as male. I have not been able to find any source which says what is actually on her death certificate. You say The sources demonstrate that it is policy to misgender in this situation. But you will also see that the paragraph in our article includes: In April, the Trans Safety Network reported that, contrary popular belief, "in an ongoing case concerning a trans person’s death, the coroner has agreed that a Gender Recognition Certificate is unnecessary in order to record the correct name and gender of a trans person on their death certificate. In the absence of a source saying what is on the death certificate, we don’t know whether this was applied in Ms Ghey’s case.

The rule is that everything said on Wikipedia should be verifiable - this is absolutely basic. Do you have some objection to the basic rule operating in this instance?

Sweet6970 (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The Trans Safety Network, while helpful in some situations regarding the topic of trans rights, is not a particularly strong source. Certainly not strong enough to fundamentally change the title of the section in such a manner Snokalok (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The inquest reported in the Trans Safety Network article is the inquest into Brianna's death. However, I'd agree it's insufficient to fundamentally change the heading at this stage. See below. – Kanayoko (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kanayoko: This reference [1] you have just added has (a) nothing to do with Brianna Ghey and (b) nothing to do with death certificates. Why have you added it? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Since the inquest was put on hold pending the criminal proceedings,[2] the final death certificate may not be complete. The final death certificate apparently comes after the inquest is finalized.[3] As the article indicates, a gender recognition certificate may not be necessary for the death certificate to recognize Ghey's expressed gender, but does not mean it will.[4] as far as I can see there are RS's documenting a misgendering debate, but at this point I don't find a reliable source stating the final death certificate has misgendered her. Indeed it may not according to the sources. Ward20 (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Her death certificate has not been issued. In general, the coroner must adopt the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The prosecution has proved not only to the civil standard of the balance of probability but to the certainty that Brianna Ghey was the girl that X & Y murdered. I don't think she will be misgendered. These developments deserve a new section. – Kanayoko (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I happen to be a local member of the legal profession. We use the term "officialdom" without any negative connotation. It has even become somewhat of a jargon, particularly in the context of equality laws and gender recognition, and our former President of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, has also used this term. It's the most precise word one can find on the supermarket shelves.

I changed it to officialdom because it steers clear of the uncertainty we're discussing in this thread. – Kanayoko (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I have changed the heading to “Posthumous gender recognition” as it's now clear the coroner has adopted the position.—Kanayoko (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kanayoko: Thank you for the information you have added to the article about the Max Sumner case. However, I feel this is not strictly relevant to this article, which is about the murder of Brianna Ghey: I think that, as it is inf of general interest, it would be more appropriate to add it to the article on Transgender rights in the United Kingdom.

Do you have any information on the position on the death certificate for Brianna Ghey?

Sweet6970 (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It's the under the :#Reactions section and it's good enough for now. The next coroner hearing has not been scheduled yet, and we don't know whether the offenders will appeal. WP:NOTFORUM, but see my commentary above. –Kanayoko (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ward20: I'm not sure how a post-inquest case summary produced by the solicitor retained by the 40-year-old charity can be considered original research and unreliable. Could you please explain? –Kanayoko (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The material that I removed [5] is original research for a number of reasons. 1) It states there were "several active inquests" that are not mentioned in the citation. 2) The source does not mention Ghey or her death. The material attempts to connect Ghey's death in proximate time and circumstances. This implies "a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source", which is original research. 3) It is also original research because the citation is not a reliable source. The cited case summary is an anonymously authored and self published E-commerce page. This source can not be considered a reliable source using Wikipedia policy standards. Please self revert your revision. Ward20 (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

In particular, the relevant policy here is WP:SYN - even if the sources were all reliable, combining them in this way is an original synthesis, drawing a conclusion that is not contained in any of them. In any case, we should just wait and see what the inquest actually says. The current section is bordering on undue emphasis. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

"detained at His Majesty's pleasure"

Regarding this recent revert (the third) by new user User:The Macbook Air User, I'd suggest that this phrase can't be just in the lead section, even with a source. The main body of the article and the lead should be consistent and the phrase might need to be explained. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The appropriate link would be to At His Majesty's pleasure. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: user now indef blocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The source offered by the now-banned user was this one. I have no objection to addition of the phrase "At His Majesty's pleasure", as those were the words used by Mrs Justice Yip in the official sentencing, but I am unable to find that in any of the existing sources, in the "Verdict and sentencing" section. Any views?

I'm pro-removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Well it's gone now. But should it go back? Those were the words used by the judge, which may be seen very plainly at the end of the BBC documentary Killed in the Park. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I happened to watch the sentencing live and the judge definitely used the term, "His Majesty's pleasure" for both killers. Why was it removed? Jaymailsays (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

'Hate crime' in introduction

Today, Sweet6970 has twice removed the description of the murder as a hate crime from the first paragraph of the article, describing this change in the first edit summary blandly as a 'correction'. Hatred for the victim based on her identity was clearly cited by the judge in her judgment, so this doesn't strike me as a non-contentious change, and I don't accept that reversing it is POV-pushing. A discussion here (which I am now starting) would have been a better approach. Sweet6970 has an extensive history of editing on topics related to trans people and especially to so-called gender-critical feminism, which is perhaps relevant here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

1) When I last edited the article on 4 February, the lead said: On 11 February 2023, Brianna Ghey (/dʒaɪ/ JY;[2] 7 November 2006 – 11 February 2023[3]), a 16-year-old British transgender girl from Birchwood in Warrington, was murdered in premeditated attack, when she was fatally stabbed in Culcheth Linear Park in Culcheth. /para/Scarlett Jenkinson and Eddie Ratcliffe, both aged 15 at the time, were arrested the next day and eventually charged and convicted of murder. They were convicted on 20 December 2023 at Manchester Crown Court and were both sentenced on 2 February 2024 to life imprisonment, with a minimum of 22 years for Jenkinson and 20 years for Ratcliffe before being eligible for parole. The court decided the offence was primarily motivated by sadistic tendencies, with hate against transgender people as a secondary motive. The murder involved a significant degree of brutality and planning.

This is correct. When I came back to the article today, I discovered that the lead had been changed to On 11 February 2023, Brianna Ghey /dʒaɪ/ JY;[1] (born 7 November 2006[2]), a 16-year-old British transgender girl was murdered in a premeditated anti-transgender hate crime. She was fatally stabbed in Culcheth Linear Park in Culcheth. /para/ Scarlett Jenkinson and Eddie Ratcliffe, both aged 15 at the time, were arrested the next day and eventually charged and convicted of murder. They were convicted on 20 December 2023 at Manchester Crown Court and were both sentenced on 2 February 2024 to life imprisonment, with a minimum of 22 years for Jenkinson and 20 years for Ratcliffe before being eligible for parole. The court decided the offence was motivated by sadistic tendencies and hate against transgender people. The murder involved a significant degree of brutality and planning.

The first sentence had been falsified by saying that the crime was an anti-transgender hate crime, whereas the judge said that only one defendant, Ratcliffe, was secondarily motivated by hate against transgender people. This version would deny that Jenkinson, who actually received the longer minimum term, was involved in the crime at all.

Since the change conflicts with the information in the article, I regard the change made as borderline vandalism.

2) The comment by GenevieveDEon Sweet6970 has an extensive history of editing on topics related to trans people and especially to so-called gender-critical feminism, which is perhaps relevant here. is bizarre. Editing in gensex is not an offence.

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

"Borderline vandalism" is a frankly ridiculous charge to lay here.

Many commentators, including some involved with the case, have described Ghey's murder as a transphobic hate crime; this in no way den[ies] that Jenkinson, who actually received the longer minimum term, was involved in the crime at all — just because the judge said that Jenkinson was not motivated by transphobia does not mean the crime itself was not, even if the judge's opinion were objectively correct. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 21:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion: I do not know either editor, but any alleged bias by any editor is a matter for WP:AE and only when accompanied by very, very, very strong evidence of bias, or there will be a WP:BOOMERANG. This talk page, or user talk pages, are not the place for that discussion. On the topic of the article, it is true that the judge reached the conclusion that only Ratcliffe had a transphobic motive; this conclusion is shared by Ghey's mother: "...carried out not because Brianna had done anything wrong but just because one hated trans people and the other thought it would be fun". [6] Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Then I misjudged the situation. I'm content to leave this as it is. My apologies. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Ghey"

There are many videos available on YouTube, of news bulletins and interviews, which include use of the surname "Ghey". One might reasonably expect national UK news channels, such as ITV and BBC, to have fact-checked the pronunciation. The pronunciation is /dʒaɪ/ JY. Furthermore there are also numerous videos on YouTube which specifically offer information on how to pronounce the surname. In addition, there are also reports and videos on X and TikTok with advice on the pronunciation. So what would constitute an "appropriate" source for use in this article? Alternatively, how many different WP:RS sources are required to establish reliability? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You need just one reliable source that not merely uses the name, but that is explicit in saying how the name is pronounced in the context of Brianna, the victim in the topic of this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I think one is very unlikely to find such a source. News channels tend just to use the pronunciation recommended by their in-house pronunciation units. Why can't ITV and BBC be trusted to get this right, i.e. to be wholly reliable? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

p.s. all of the sources I have listed are "in the context of Brianna". I think you might struggle to find any others.

Would others be ok with a footnote on first use of the name that includes something like "Multiple sources use the pronunciation ..."? A bundle of citations of videos could follow. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

No objections but, as I've said above, I don't see why ITV, BBC, SkyNews, etc., in interviews with Esther Ghey herself can't simply be trusted to be reliable on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. The ongoing debates about pronunciation and OR are not my cup of tea. I do think videos with pronunciation while interviewing Esther would be stronger sources to cite. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I quite agree. I don't see why they would be problematic. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Ghey surname

Could the article say something about the origins of the surname Ghey, which is very unusual? 86.170.222.118 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The surname of Brianna's mum is Ghey, so I assume it came from her. As for the etymology of the surname in general, we don't have an article on that topic and I can't quickly find any reliable sources on it. Without sources on the origins of the surname, there's no way to add content to this or any other article about it I'm afraid. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Apparently the name is a derivative of the Irish Gaelic Mac Eachaidh, and there are other derivative surnames (such as McGaughey and McCahey), but there's no reliable sources to make creating an article feasible. A disambiguation page would also be impossible as this is currently the only page relating to the surname. This is Paul (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Mmm, I think I know what site you found that information on (House of Names?) and I'm not entirely convinced it's reliable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I should have preceded that post with "According to House of Names". This is Paul (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Why has the pronunciation been taken away? That was really useful because it's such an unusual name. A lot of people think she was called "Brianna Gay". 86.170.222.118 (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It was right at the start of the lead, suggesting it was one of the most important points about the event - which it is not. If you think it is even relevant to the article, then please provide a reliable source relating it to the subject of this article and perhaps add it in the body of the article somewhere. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes it was next to her name. The most useful place to have it. 86.170.222.118 (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

DeFacto, please stop cutting material from this article without discussion. I have restored Ghey's birthdate and the pronunciation of her surname in a non-IPA format (leaving the IPA one in) along with their respective sources. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

We need a source that discusses the spelling and confirms how she would have pronounced it, not just an example of how one specific news reporter happens to say it. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with DeFacto on the date move and pronuncation removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Also agreeing with DeFacto. The way it may be pronounced by news reporters may have nothing to do with how it is pronounced. I was going to raise Greta Thunberg as another example of a surname you never hear pronounced right - but I see that our page actually does have it right! But in any case, if we are going to make a deal of it, it needs to be sourced to something other than a reporter pronouncing or mispronouncing it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of media

@DeFacto: firstly, could you please self-revert this edit per WP:BRD? I've already undone it once and you really should get a consensus for your changes. Secondly, could you please explain why you think that the summary version of the text you reverted is unencyclopaedic and fails NPOV? Wikipedia articles are generally written in summary style, and the criticism of the UK media's initial reporting on the killing was widely criticised both nationally and internationally. The shortcomings on their reporting is factual and non-controversial. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned this above, but I tend to agree that that isn't an improvement - per WP:QUOTEFARM, paraphrases are generally preferred over quotes when possible, since they tend towards more encyclopedic language. As the policy says, quotations shouldn't replace plain, concise text. --Aquillion (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, I did self revert, as a gesture of goodwill towards your good-faith creation of this new section. However, I stand by my reverted edits, and hope we can make progress towards agreeing to reinstate most of their changes.

What you call the "summary version of the text" is unencyclopaedic and fails NPOV because it was wholly inaccurate, biased, and misleading. Let me explain each of the five edits you reverted in that one indiscriminate revert, and why it's not, per your edit summary, "fine summarising the reporting on the deadnaming and misgendering" in that way.

Edit 1: "expand to more precisely detail the who and the what of the criticism"

• Replaced the extremely vague and weasely "Some UK media outlets" with specifics from the cited sources
• Replaced the non-specific "were criticised for their reporting of Ghey's death" with the specifics from the cited sources

Edit 2: "combined both sentences on what The Mary Sue said"

• Combined the 2 sentences supported by the same source "The Mary Sue said "the transphobic U.K. press couldn’t wait to deadname her and go out of their way to imply that her murder couldn’t have been a hate crime." with the later "The website The Mary Sue condemned what it described as the transphobic atmosphere of the British press and widespread transphobic reporting on the killing of Ghey." into one sentence: "The Mary Sue said "the transphobic U.K. press couldn’t wait to deadname her and go out of their way to imply that her murder couldn’t have been a hate crime" and also condemned what it described as the transphobic atmosphere of the British press and widespread transphobic reporting on the killing of Ghey."

Edit 3: [saved prematurely before adding edit summary, see next edit summary]

• Replaced the subjective commentary "faced strong criticism" with the impartial "was criticised"

Edit 4: "previous edit summary = avoid subjective language (dummy edit)"

Edit 5: "is what they say notable?"

• Wiki linked "Senthorun Raj" as is normal with notable commentators

Summary style does not mean sensationalising relatively mundane observations to make them sound quite scandalous. It says:

• Many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section).
• Others need a moderate amount of information on the topic's more important points (a set of multiparagraph sections).
• Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles).

The content that was omitted should be included per the second bullet-point in one of the section's paragraphs, or if very detailed, in a new sub-article. There is no excuse for losing it entirely. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I agree completely with Aquillion that this series of edits introduces significant quote farm issues into the content. In addition, it adds needless attribution for content that is adequately summarised in a non-sensationalistic manner. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarise the key points of any given topic, we are not here to cover every minute detail as that is the role of the sources we cite.

The biggest issues with edit 1 are that it introduced quote farming and repetition of content. Quote farming is largely self-explanatory. For the repetition of content, when you added the text Dazed said that many media outlets didn't say that Ghey "was trans" and that others, including the Daily Express and The Times, originally included her deadname., you were repeating content that appeared just a few sentences later where we said The Times faced strong criticism after amending their original story by removing the word "girl" and including Ghey's deadname. The first sentence of the subsection that you say Replaced the extremely vague and weasely was actually a concise summary of the rest of the content in the paragraph. It was a cited introduction to what follows.

Edit 2 had two major changes. You moved the Mary Sue's condemnation up to the first paragraph, and then removed the separator between the first and second paragraphs. In my mind, that was not an improvement. The first paragraph of that section was covering specific criticisms in relation to the early media coverage of Ghey's killing. The second paragraph covered the more general comments made, in response to the killing, about the hostile environment within the UK to trans and non-binary people. In terms of narrative, the two paragraphs flowed into each other, and complemented each other.

The content replaced in edit 3 was not subjective. It was a summary of the content and supported by the citations used against it. It's important to remember that while we rely on reliable sources for assertions of fact and opinion, we write our articles our own words. Saying that The Times faced strong criticism for adding Ghey's former name is directly supported by both sources, even if they use other words to state as much.

Skipping over edit 4 to edit 5, adding a redlink to an article is not a way assess or establish the notability of someone whose comments appear in an article. There are many reasons why an article on a person may or may not exist. Pretty much the only reason to add a redlink to an article is if you are planning on writing an article about that topic and don't want it to be an orphaned article at the point of creation, or you're adding it as a prompt to others to get them to create an article. You appeared to be doing neither of those things however according to your edit summary, which read is what they say notable?

At this time, with the exception of the redlink if you are planning on creating that article, I don't see any particularly good reason to reinstate those changes in whole or in part. Clearly we have very different understandings how the relevant policies and guidelines are interpreted. Now that you have justified them more clearly however, I am interested to hear what other editors think. As I said above, consensus does not require unanimity and maybe with this justification others might agree or disagree with you. Maybe you're right on the PAGs and I'm wrong, or maybe you're wrong and I'm right. Maybe someone else will come up with a different solution entirely. Who knows? Let's let that process occur and see what happens. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Inquest

The article says "A pre-inquest hearing was scheduled for 17 August 2023." But nothing after that. Does the conclusion to the inquest need to be reported? Is it still ongoing? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This source and all the others I could find say that the inquest was suspended until the conclusion of the trial. As the trial concluded relatively recently, it could be that the inquest has not resumed yet? Nullh1ve (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I now see that the "Guide to coroner services" available here says this:

"When the criminal trial or public inquiry is over, the coroner will decide whether to continue their investigation or inquest. If, for example, all the facts about the death have come out at the trial or inquiry, it is not usually necessary to continue the investigation or inquest."

So I guess no more may be reported about that. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Weasel

Pinging involved editors @Martinevans123 and DeFacto. DF, we can use vague terms when attributing to a source that also uses them. This is explicit in MOS:WEASEL: "Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source." We can also create summary intro lines, as long as specifics are later provided. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The sentence "The Trans Safety Network said that some UK media outlets were "publicly disrespecting" Ghey in their coverage of her death." has now been tagged. Are editors expected to name these outlets? What if TSN has chosen not to name them? I had previously removed the tag (together with a second similar one) with the edit summary "we don't need to do their job for them, that would be WP:OR? we just report what they say; quotes could be added if available". But the tag has now been replaced, wirh the edit summary "per WP:WEASEL." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that 'which' tag is the most straightforward case. The cited source says "Trans Safety Network said some sections of the media are “publicly disrespecting” Ghey in the wake of her death." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what anyone is expected to add to that. Or is the expectation to remove it altogether, as it's in some way "too vague"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

If the source leaves it at that without further qualifying it later, then restore it with that in the edit summary, otherwise further qualify it if possible from the source. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, fair enough if the source uses those precise words rather than just us summarising it that way. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

So would you care to remove your tag? I imagine you will have fully read the two sources. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

After improving the attribution and removing the weasel wording I removed those two tags. At the same time I modified both sentences to only reflect what was actually supported by the cited sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This edit is not an improvement. The addition of the {{who}} tag in this edit was inappropriate to that sentence, as the source we're citing is that generalised in its commentary. We had previously discussed whether it was more appropriate to quote or summarise back in February 2023, and the exact wording was discussed in in December 2023. The prior wording had a pretty strong consensus per the December discussion, and editors in that discussion felt as though it supported the content. I would suggest that you self-revert this change back to the prior consensus version. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, in your first case I replaced:

An article by NBC News on the killing commented that... noting that advocates within the LGBTQ community have often criticised the UK media in the last few years over publishing articles embracing anti-transgender sentiments.

With:

An article by NBC News on the killing commented that... adding that "trans activists" had also accused UK media of inflaming anti-transgender sentiments in recent years.

With the edit summary:

... closer to what the source says and provided the answer to the "who?" tag I had added, so removed it

Clarification:

The phrase noting that advocates within the LGBTQ community contravenes both WP:SAID and WP:WEASEL.

WP:SAID characterises "noted" as a "loaded term" and says "to write that someone... noted ... can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable".

Hence I replaced "noted" with the more impartial term "added" (to what they had already "commented").

WP:WEASEL says "a common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis".

Hence I replaced the unsupported and vague "advocates within the LGBTQ community" with '"trans activists"' - a direct quote from the cited source.

The phrase embracing anti-transgender sentiments contravenes WP:V.

WP:V says "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source" and the source says "stoking anti-trans sentiments".

Hence, as I believe that "inflaming" is a more accurate paraphrasing of "stoking" than "embracing" is, I made the replacement to improve verifiability.

As for your second case, I think we've already resolved the use of that {{which}} (not {{who}}) tag above.

I hope that helps you to understand why I disagree with your characterisation of my edit and believe that I improved the policy/guideline compliance of the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

On WP:SAID, SAID isn't a hard and fast rule, as there are plenty of occasions where what it considers a loaded term is contextually appropriate. For example, if someone claimed something that was demonstrably false, and reliable sources had demonstrated that it was a false claim, it would be a neutrality violation to state that that person simply said the false statement. Stating that a news report by a reliable source noted something is in my opinion a reasonable exception to that guidance.

On WP:WEASEL, as I said before, we discussed the exact wording of that sentence in December and February 2023. As Aquillion states below, summarising what a reliable source has reported helps us avoid issues surrounding overuse of quotations. As I said in a comment in February 2023, the NBC News report that we're citing for that content was written primarily for an American audience, not a UK audience, and that has a pretty significant impact on the terminology they use. Within a UK context, the term trans activists is not particularly neutral, as it is primarily used by elements of the UK media establishment that are trans-hostile. However that isn't really the case for an American publication like NBC News, because that term has a different contextual use in that country. Summarising it as "advocates within the LGBTQ community" seems fine to me, as it has a similar enough meaning. We could however tweak that to "advocates within the trans community", as that also avoids the issues surrounding the term trans activists.

The bigger issue with this however is MOS:SCAREQUOTES and WP:QUOTEFARM. While your intention might have been to quote the NBC report's use of the term trans activists, most of our readers aren't going to have the context for why that piece of content is written in that way. I know I certainly didn't when I reverted the edit. Because of that lack of context, most readers would interpret it as a use of scare quotes. Now even if they had the context, perhaps from reading the talk page, this change still introduces a QUOTEFARM issue. When looking at that section as a whole, it already makes heavy use of quotations for statements from specific notable individuals. We don't need to add more quotations to it for content that we can easily summarise.

On embracing/stoking/inflaming. I kinda see the three as roughly synonymous in this context, and I don't really think there's a verifiability problem there. If you had made that change on its own though, I likely wouldn't have reverted it as it's largely a stylistic choice for how we're summarising that particular piece of information. The real problem for me was the other changes in that edit. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, "added" is impartial, "noted" can be seen as loaded so why wouldn't we prefer the impartial form?

MOS:QUOTEPOV insists that attribution and quotations are necessary when describing such emotive opinions, and we should not silently reinterpret what sources say, any reinterpretation should only be undertaken if it is supported by reliable secondary sources.

If we can't agree on the best way to paraphrase "stoking", then we should use "stoking" in our text to retain verifiability. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Noted can be seen as loaded, but only in certain contexts, and this is not one of those contexts. News organisations that we consider reliable note things all the time, as that is their role. Their reputation for fact checking is something that we directly consider when assessing their reliability. This is quite different from saying that a person noted something, because that can imply something about that person's attention to detail. This is why SAID is not a hard and fast rule. Context matters.

QUOTEPOV quite clearly states Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms can imply something doubtful regarding the material being quoted. When you added quotation marks around trans activists, you are implying that piece of content in the NBC article is doubtful. It is also not an overly emotive statement to say that the UK media is hostile against trans people. There is a great deal of peer-reviewed research studies on this issue, with a large focus on the output of the Daily Telegraph, Times, and Daily Mail. However, with all of that said, the content that advocates within the LGBTQ community have often criticised the UK media in the last few years over publishing articles embracing anti-transgender sentiments was already directly attributed to NBC News, at the start of the sentence. There is no attribution issue there whatsoever, and that content was fine as it was.

If we can't agree on the best way to paraphrase "stoking", then we should use "stoking" in our text to retain verifiability I quite literally just said that if you had changed embracing to inflaming, in isolation to the other changes you made in [7] this edit, that would likely have been fine. I don't think it was a particularly necessary change, but I'm not going to kick up a fuss over that change on its own. The issue was with all of the other changes made in the edit. The change from embracing to inflaming was simply caught in the crossfire so to speak. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, we'll have to agree to differ on "noted". I prefer non-loaded terms where they are available. Perhaps we could compromise and use another word - "said", "wrote", "commented"?

Your QUOTEPOV quote is only for "simple descriptive terms". We aren't talking about one of those here though. You said above within a UK context, the term trans activists is not particularly neutral, as it is primarily used by elements of the UK media establishment that are trans-hostile. Hence it comes under QUOTEPOV's quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice... statement. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Perhaps we could compromise and use another word I don't see any compelling reason to change that. Maybe others will agree with you, maybe not. Remember consensus does not require unanimity. Let's let others speak and see what they think.

Hence it comes under QUOTEPOV's... Except where doing so causes an expression of doubt that the underlying source did not make. The NBC News report does not express scepticism about the claim, and it is perfectly valid for us to summarise that in neutral and equivalent language. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

As for this edit, firstly the {{which}} tag that was added in this edit was inappropriate. As with the NBC example, the source is that general in its original statement. Secondly, the attribution that was added casts some scepticism on the TSN reporting, this change is pretty much a textbook example of MOS:QUOTEPOV. It's also quite redundant. Why do we need to state that PinkNews reported that TSN reported that some media outlets had disrespected Ghey in their coverage of her death? Overall, this does not strike me as an appropriate use of intext attribution, and again I would suggest that you self-revert this change back to the version prior to your addition of the tags. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that we needed in-line attribution for PinkNews in the first place here (common sense is needed; the fact that Trans Safety Network made this statement, which is all that would be attributed, is uncontested and uncontroversial), but in any case, since it's a quote it was easy to find another secondary source that mentioned it, which I've added. --Aquillion (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, the attribution was added simply because it was they who reported that opinion on what TSN were saying. That shouldn't have appeared in Wiki's voice (per WP:VOICE) in that form as it was apparently asserting the opinion of one source in Wiki's voice. You are misunderstanding MOS:QUOTEPOV, it doesn't argue against attributing such opinions, in fact it says they should be attributed. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Prior to Aquillion adding an additional source, we cited both PinkNews and the original comment by the TSN. Not only was the TSN statement directly verifiable per both citations, it wasn't necessary to state that PinkNews reported [that the] Trans Safety Network.... When we're citing and summarising a statement by an organisation or person via a secondary source, we don't state that the publication reported that the person/organisation made that statement, as it's completely redundant to do so. As for the specifics of what the TSN stated, that was already an attributed opinion to them, it was not in Wikivoice. A Wikivoice version of that content would be something like Some UK media outlets, including <list of publication names here>, disrespected Ghey in their coverage of her death. followed by citations. That version would be considered to be in Wikivoice because it's asserting that information as fact. Conversely the prior version The Trans Safety Network said that some UK media outlets were "publicly disrespecting" Ghey in their coverage of her death. is already quite clearly an attributed opinion of the TSN. It doesn't need further attribution to PinkNews' repetition of it.

To give another example from the article, in the Brianna Ghey section, we have the text Her parents described her as "a larger-than-life character who would leave a lasting impression on all that met her", and not TeenVogue reported that her parents described her as a "larger-than-life character...". We simply state that Ghey's parents made this attributed comment. We're not factually stating that Brianna was a larger-than-life character, because whether or not someone is larger-than-life is ultimately an opinion, but we are stating that her parents said that.

On QUOTEPOV, you're right in that it was the wrong guideline to link to. However even per that guideline point, the content was already attributed to the TSN. It didn't need further attribution to PinkNews, or now that an additional source has been added both PinkNews and the Miami Herald. The difference here is that what the TSN stated is their opinion, but that they made that statement is factual. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. As for what link that should have been, I'm honestly struggling to remember what was going through my mind last night when I used that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, per WP:BIASED, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. This means that we cannot assume that the opinions of any reliable source are neutral, and so we must always fully attribute them. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution.

We cannot assume that PinkNews's opinion of what TSN said is neutral, so we need to attribute it to them and not use Wiki's voice for it, but sure assertions of incontrovertible fact don't need attribution. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: We cannot assume that PinkNews's opinion of what TSN said is neutral It is not PinkNews' opinion that TSN made a statement, it is a fact that the TSN made a statement after Ghey's death. The original statement by the TSN states verbatim that We have seen how even in her death, the press have chosen to compound this harm by publicly disrespecting Brianna's identity. We do not need to attribute the fact that the TSN made a statement. We only need to attribute the opinion of the TSN to the TSN. That is what the original content did. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, what PinkNews wrote may be their interpretation of what TSN said rather than a verbatim quote, and in fact, looking at the tweet you linked to, it is. That is why we needed to attribute it - per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I'm sorry, what? Can you confirm if the TSN statement contains the text We have seen how even in her death, the press have chosen to compound this harm by publicly disrespecting Brianna's identity? If so, could you explain how that is substantively different from the article content, which states The Trans Safety Network said that some UK media outlets were "publicly disrespecting" Ghey in their coverage of her death? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, which part of "We have seen how even in her death, the press have chosen to compound this harm by publicly disrespecting Brianna's identity" says or irrefutably implies "in their coverage of her death". -- DeFacto (talk). 20:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Pretty much exactly what you've quoted. There were no articles about Ghey published prior to 12 February 2023, as her name was not released until that evening. I know this because, I created this article based on the first sources that were available. The TSN statement was released at 3pm on 13 February 2023. Given the timeline of when the first sources were published, and when the TSN released their statement the following afternoon, how could the press publicly disrespect Ghey, if not in their coverage of her death? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, that sounds like WP:SYNTH to me. Why not just drop the unsupported editorialisation/sensationalisation? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: How is that SYNTH? What two sources are we improperly combining to assert a conclusion stated by neither source? I've quoted twice now the TSN statement, and it says that the press publicly disrespected Ghey. The simple question is, how could the press have done this if not in their coverage of her death? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, you combined what sources said with your personal opinion about how they might have meant it happened. If that doesn't strictly mean SYNTH, then it is just plain WP:OR. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Again, I'm confused. What exactly is your objection here? Are you saying that the TSN did not say that the press had publicly disrespected Ghey? Or is this over the quantifier "some"? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, following your admission that you based part of the statement in the article on your personal opinion, the discussion has moved from whether the opinion in the statement was from the cited source (in which case it should have been attributed to the source per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) to whether it is your editorialisation/sensationalisation based on WP:OR. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: following your admission that you based part of the statement in the article on your personal opinion Where did I make this admission? Because that's news to me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, isn't that what you said in your post above timestamped 20:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)? If I misunderstood that post I apologise. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said in that comment. You asked what part of the quotation from the TSN says or irrefutably implies "in their coverage of her death". To answer that question, I explained the timeline of how the initial sources on this killing were published, leading up to the publishing of the TSN statement the following afternoon. Then I asked the question how could the press publicly disrespect Ghey, if not in their coverage of her death? This is an important question that you haven't answered, because prior to Ghey's death, there were no reliable sources published about her or her life. The only published coverage of Ghey, at the time the TSN made their statement, was the initial reporting of her killing. Just so that we're on the same page, are we in agreement that the TSN statement contains the text We have seen how even in her death, the press have chosen to compound this harm by publicly disrespecting Brianna's identity as quoted in this question? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, fair enough on your explanation of the comment. As for your "important question" about how they might have done it, that's not for us to speculate, all we can do is stick to what the reliable sources tell us. I'm not sure why you need an answer to that last question as that has not been challenged. My point stands that we cannot use Wiki's voice for an opinion about what TSN said that came only from the source's 'mouth', and not from the original TSN statement. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you need an answer to that last question as that has not been challenged. I'm making sure we're on the same page, so that there's no further understandings as we proceed.

Great, we are in agreement that the TSN said that statement. So, to avoid and minimise WP:QUOTEFARM issues, how would you summarise that statement while otherwise keeping it attributed to the TSN? As the examples at INTEXT show, we are allowed to summarise opinions instead of simply quoting them, so long as we keep the correct attribution. Is the article text The Trans Safety Network said that some UK media outlets were "publicly disrespecting" Ghey in their coverage of her death. a fair and reasonable summary of what the TSN said in their statement? Does that summary conform with INTEXT? If not, why not? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, we don't know from TSN's statement in what way they thought the press were "publicly disrespecting" her, so how can we defend stating in Wiki's voice speculation as to how they might have thought it was done? The best we can say in Wiki's voice is "The Trans Safety Network said that some UK media outlets were "publicly disrespecting" Ghey". If a secondary source opines as to how TSN thought it was done, then we can put that in the socondary source's voice - ie. attribute the opinion to the holder of it. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, you're misunderstanding what Wikivoice is. Wikivoice is when we're asserting facts without attribution, however this is not an assertion of fact. This is a summarised attributed statement of opinion. The Wikivoice version of this statement would be Some UK media outlets publicly disrespected Ghey in the coverage of her death. That simple change of omitting the first 6 words removes the attribution, and turns it into a statement of fact.

However that's not what our content states. Our content states The Trans Safety Network said that.... Everything that follows from those words is a summarised and properly attributed opinion of the TSN. We are not stating, factually, that some UK media outlets disrespected Ghey, instead we are stating that the TSN said that some UK media outlets disrespected Ghey. It is, and remains, the TSN's opinion, and not something that is Wikipedia's opinion.

Remember, INTEXT does not require us to directly quote every opinion. We are allowed to use indirect speech when summarising content in our own words, something that is necessary to avoid copyright issues and quote farming. The only requirement when doing this is that we make sure that we keep the attribution of the opinion to the opinion holder, and that we cite it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, Wikivoice says we must avoid stating opinions as fact, and that is exactly what we are contravening when we include the opinion that "The Trans Safety Network said ... in their coverage of her death". That unsourced opinion there that I've underlined should, per WP:WIKIVOICE, be attributed in the text to particular sources". And following the link there to WP:INTEXT, we see that means "attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, in addition to an inline citation after the sentence. The prose needs to tell readers whose opinion it is that what the TSN meant, but didn't say was, that the press publicly disrespect her "in their coverage of her death". -- DeFacto (talk). 10:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikivoice says we must avoid stating opinions as fact Yes, I agree that Wikivoice says that. that is exactly what we are contravening when we include the opinion that... No, we are not. We are not stating an opinion as fact. We are stating that the TSN hold an opinion, and are summarising what that opinion is That unsourced opinion It is not unsourced, there are two citations at the end of the sentence for it.

per WP:WIKIVOICE, be attributed in the text to particular sources No, neither WIKIVOICE nor INTEXT say that an opinion must be attributed to the sources we cite. They say that an opinion must be attributed to the opinion holder. Source on enwiki is one of those words that has multiple meanings. Where WIKIVOICE and INTEXT are talking about the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, they're using definition 2, where source means the entity who expressed the opinion. We are compliant with that when we say The Trans Safety Network said that..., everything that follows those words in the sentence is clearly attributed to the TSN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, the flaw in your argument is saying that "everything that follows those words in the sentence is clearly attributed to the TSN", because TSN never say of the UK press that they do that "in their coverage of her death". It is that, as I've kept saying, that needs in-sentence attribution. We seem to be going round in circles here.

From the prose being discussed here, can you tell me who says "in their coverage of her death", and which source supports that they say that? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

can you tell me who says "in their coverage of her death" That is a summary of what the TSN said, in our own words. A summary does not and should not need to contain the exact phraseology of the original. It only needs to contain the same meaning. In my opinion, the sentence in our article, and the original statement by the TSN have the same meaning.

and which source supports that they say that Both the original TSN statement, and the PinkNews article support that the TSN said that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

As others have said, it's not weasel-wording to report broad statements from the source. In fact, it's one of the main cases where we use that sort of wording - sometimes it is necessary to say eg. "most scholars on this subject agree", and we can do so without specifying specific ones by citing a source that supports that broad statement. And a lot of the other proposed changes have shifted towards including a bunch of quotes, which I don't think is an improvement per WP:QUOTEFARM; this that can be paraphrased shouldn't be quoted unnecessarily. --Aquillion (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Anniversary commemorations

DeFacto, thank you for prompting a search for more general widespread sources to support these events. There seem to be many of these easily available online, especially as today is the anniversary of the murder. Can I just ask you, before you made this edit, with the edi summary "per WP:UNDUE as not widely covered by reliable sources", did you look at all? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, I looked and found no other sources reporting the concert, so concluded this was undue, yes. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If you think the concert in Manchester is not notable, there's really no need to also remove the vigil? I've now added four more sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

My removal of the vigil was a mistake, yes. Are you going to undo your mistake of restoring the concert, and adding 7 extra references to it that did not mention it? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I've now removed the old sources for the vigil and added more sources for the concert. I don't regard the concert as "a mistake". I anticipate that it will get further coverage, probably from national press, in the coming week, as it's still a week away. I would have thought that the Manchester Evening News would have been a good enough source on its own. But happy to see the views of other editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say the concert was a mistake. The mistake was your restoring the mention of it, and your addition of 7 new sources that didn't even mention it. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see my restoring the mention of the concert was a mistake. Other editors seem to agree with that. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the addition of a niche magazine web work source and 2 local news web webwork sources as providing due weight. If it was notable, it would surely be in multiple national news web works, at least. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The event now has four sources, all of which I would consider to be WP:RS. As I said before, I'd would anticipate more appearing in the coming week. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

We have a single sentence, about a forthcoming concert, held in Ghey's memory, cited to four reliable sources, two of which are national (PinkNews and Attitude) and two of which are local (Bury News and Manchester Evening News), and all of which mention Ghey's memory being the reason for the concert. Four citations for a single sentence is not only overkill, it's a clear demonstration that this is due in this minimal sense.

I'm not going to remove the tag at this time, though I have made the link in it point directly to this discussion. But I don't see how this tag is warranted at this time, for a single sentence, based on the sourcing available. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd imagine the concert will get some media coverage, particularly given the case's notability. A sentence or two mentioning it doesn't do any harm. This is Paul (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Kill list"

The report in The Independent newspaper titled "‘The satanist and Tesco John Wick’: The young killers from normal lives who murdered Brianna Ghey" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brianna-ghey-murder-scarlett-jenkinson-eddie-ratcliffe-parents-b2489293.html says that "Jenkinson and Ratcliffe drew up a "kill list" of five children they deemed worthy of murder over insignificant or minor dislikes." This seems quite relevant to the planning of the murder? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Backgrounds of the perpetrators

@DeFacto: Firstly, we've already reached consensus that the perpetrators should be named, in a talk thread above. Secondly, why are you scrubbing the backgrounds of the perpetrators from the article entirely, in addition to reverting my edits expanding on their backgrounds? This is an article about Ghey's murder, not Ghey herself (who is not notable). The backgrounds of the perpetrators are as relevant as the background of the victim. It seems inconsistent to remove the perpetrators' backgrounds while leaving the victim's background intact.

Lastly, how does WP:BLP1E apply here, exactly? I'm not creating a wholly new article about her perpetrators. You've also seemed to acknowledge in one of your edit messages that this is not a bio article. Nullh1ve (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree. I think the small amount of background on the perpetrators is wholly WP:DUE. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nullh1ve, naming (which I cannot see any reason reason for) is one thing, writing about them is another. This is an article about a murder and not about the murderers. See WP:CONTENT for guidance on what an article should contain. WP:CONTENT describes how off-topic content, as in the detail we are discussing here, should be split into child articles, WP:BLP1E suggests that neither of these two are notable enough for articles of there own. It saves me trying to explain all that in my edit summary. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The strong consensus here is to name the perpetrators. Your repeated objections are really not helpful. No one else is suggesting that individual articles are needed for them. The amount of background detail on them seems to be wholly appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: The backgrounds I have written contain information about how the murderers knew and selected their victim, as well as the circumstances surrounding what lead to them committing the murder. This is information any reader interested in knowing more about the murder would want to know, it is not "off-topic" by any means. Nullh1ve (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nullh1ve, that doesn't need dedicated sections named after them each though, just a couple of sentences under the "background" heading. We are giving them WP:UNDUE coverage otherwise. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess all I can say is that I disagree. Will wait for other editors to weigh in on this. Nullh1ve (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to make it clear. I also propose removing the two sub-headings ("Brianna Ghey" and "Scarlett Jenkinson and Eddie Ratcliffe") that were in the "Background" section before the addition of the subsections we are discussing here. This section should not be used as an excuse to write individual bios of people involved in this event, it should be used for info that is relevant just to the background of the event. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I disagree with the deletions of material that does matter in an article about a murder; the background of the victim, background of the perpetrators and any significant legacy of the events. I have reviewed the policies used to explain the deletions, and I don't believe they properly apply to the specific material of the deletions. The deletions sould be reverted. Ward20 (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ward20, please give diffs and your specific challenge for each of the deletions you refer to. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No one is looking for "excuses to write individual bios of people involved in this event." I think they are honestly trying to improve the article in good faith. Your comment is somewhat discourteous. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I have restored a slightly edited version of the expanded backgrounds, trying to remove as many irrelevant details as possible. However, I do believe the how the perpetrators knew each other and their victim is vital in conveying that this was a premeditated crime. Likewise with Jenkinson's obsession with both Brianna and serial killers. This information is vital in understanding why the perpetrators chose to commit the crime as well as their choice of victim, hence why it belongs in the "Background" section. Nullh1ve (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with what Martinevans123 said. The content removed in this edit, this edit, and this edit is wholly DUE, based on the plethora of sources available about both the killers and Ghey, and their respective histories leading up to the killing. It is also clear to me that BLP1E doesn't apply here, as that is about creating stand-alone articles. Furthermore it requires that all three of the following criteria are met:

1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.

For argument's sake, I will go through how each of the criteria apply to this article. Now it is true that criteria 1 applies, as the coverage on Jenkinson and Ratcliffe is only in the context of the killing. There is no coverage of them by name prior to the reporting restrictions being lifted. However neither criteria 2 nor 3 apply. Because of the killing, I don't think it can continue to be argued that the killers are low-profile individuals. Their names, photos, and quite a lot of biographical information have been widely covered by the press once the reporting restrictions were lifted. In my opinion, that rules out criteria 2, though reasonable minds may differ in that assessment. Criteria 3 on the other hand can never apply here. Not only was the killing significant, the roles of both Jenkinson and Ratcliffe were both substantial and well documented. Through the trial and the secondary coverage of it, we know the sequence of events that lead up to Ghey's killing and the specific roles each killer played in that.

Of course, the above is purely academic. As I said in the second sentence, BLP1E doesn't apply here as we're not creating a stand-alone article about either Jenkinson or Ratcliffe. Neither by the way does WP:BIO1E apply here, as that is a notability criteria, and notability criteria do not apply to article content. Nor does WP:BLPNAME, as their names have been widely disseminated by the press after reporting restrictions were lifted. And nor does WP:BLPCRIME, because both Jenkinson and Ratcliffe have been convicted and sentenced for the crime. Pretty much the only BLP presumption of privacy point that could apply is an argument based on whether or not the killers are public figures or non-public figures, but even then it's not clear cut and reasonable minds will likely differ on this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, thanks for your detailed analysis of WP:BLP1E. I guess then, that if we follow bullet 3 in the WP:DETAIL section of WP:SUMMARY, we should really be creating a new article for each of the murderers. So why not? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

we should really be creating a new article for each of the murderers. So why not? Simple answer, because then BIO1E would apply whenever we were making the notability assessment on each of the killers per WP:NPEOPLE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, why do you think they wouldn't pass those tests for an article each then? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

BIO1E doesn't really have tests per say, it's more of an individual judgement call. Note BIO1E is wholly separate from BLP1E, but because we're discussing living individuals both points have the potential to apply.

In my mind, articles about the killers would fail BIO1E because there's nothing really to write about each killer in isolation from each other, and from the killing and subsequent trial. What we do know about the killers is all through the context of Ghey's killing. Based on the sourcing available at this time they're kinda inseparable. Any articles we could create on them would be little more than stubs, at most a few paragraphs, with a large amount of repetition from this article and from each other's articles.

You're misapplying DETAIL here. DETAIL only starts applying when an article is so long that a size split is warranted. Presently our article only has 3360 words, which is far below the point where any size split is justifiable. That's not to say that we shouldn't write in summary style of course, article concision is important in its own right. However looking at the article content right now, I think we're easily on the right side of things for the length of the background biographical content. We currently have three paragraphs on Ghey and Jenkinson, and one on Ratcliffe. If anything, we should probably see if there's more content we can add on Ratcliffe, though I do recall that a lot of attention in the news was focused on Jenkinson so that may not be possible. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, no, we are not currently worried about article length, but that doesn't mean that we therefore need to pad out every section with detail that is irrelevant to the topic until the limit is reached. The background isn't a place for a separate biography sub-section for each of the actors in the event. What value does it add to the topic to know the opinions of the murderers' schoolmates, or what they had been accused of doing at other schools? Or what apps they used. Wiki is not a tabloid newspaper, and should not be dirt-digging or repeating the tittle-tattle that is the lifeblood of such publications. We need to cover only the details that are integral to this event. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I regard the material currently included as useful background, wholly relevant to the article subject. Your characterisation of it as "padding", "dirt-digging" and "tittle-tattle" is quite unfair and inappropriate. There seems to be a firm consensus that this material should remain. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the current text in our article is appropriate, as it gives useful background information about the murder. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Martinevans123. We aren't "dirt-digging", as we're citing content from multiple high quality news sources. I would not classify The Independent (cite 17 and 22), BBC News (cite 18), the Manchester Evening News (cite 19 and 21), or The Times (cite 20) as purveyors of tabloid journalism, even if some of them are published in tabloid format. While it is true that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, that means we do not have original reporting and have to consider the enduring notability of persons and events when creating our articles. We do however include contextually relevant information sourced from newspapers in our articles.

The information that we've included on the killers is relevant to the killing. That Jenkinson displayed a fascination with serial killers, and accessed the dark web is something that came up during the trial. That she was expelled from another school is something that came up in relation to the trial and her background, once reporting restrictions were lifted. That Ratcliffe was socially awkward and a bit of a loner came up during the trial (from memory). It is all relevant information to the background of this case. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, if the detail about the "CBD-infused edibles" is relevant to the murder, shouldn't we also explain in what way it is relevant? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe this edit should suffice. It corrects an error in our content, as per the sources Jenkinson wasn't actually expelled, she was allowed to transfer schools as an alternative to expulsion, and then explains how after the transfer she befriended Ghey. Jenkinson giving CBD gummies to another student was causative for why she was transferred to Ghey's school, and it was after the transfer at Birchwood where she met Ghey and befriended. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, that doesn't explain why the "CBD-infused edibles" story is relevant. We could simply say: she "had originally attended another school with Ratcliffe, and later transferred to Birchwood where she met and formed a friendship with Ghey". And I'm not even sure that it is necessary to name the school that she attended with Ghey. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem with this suggested wording is that it doesn't explain the circumstances behind why Jenkinson transferred schools. The CBD gummies part is relevant because it's the context behind the school transfer. If Jenkinson had not given those to another student, she wouldn't have been transferred to Ghey's school, and they very likely would not have met.

And I'm not even sure that it is necessary to name the school that she attended with Ghey We already mention earlier in the article that Ghey attended Birchwood. It is more concise to say that a decision was made to allow Jenkinson to transfer to Birchwood than a decision was made to allow Jenkinson to transfer to Ghey's school. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th Why should we care why she changed schools? Why do we need to mention Birchwood earlier? It all sounds like redundant padding to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Why should we care why she changed schools? Because Jenkinson only met Ghey after transferring schools. And it was through forming a friendship with Ghey that Jenkinson became obsessed over her. If Jenkinson had not transferred schools, she likely would not have met Ghey. Remember, Ratcliffe was at Jenkinson's former school and did not know Ghey prior to the planning of her murder.

Why do we need to mention Birchwood earlier? Because in the section where it's mentioned, we're giving a basic biographical summary of Ghey's life. Giving a basic biographical summary of the involved parties is standard practice in articles about killings and murders, especially when the involved parties are not in and of themselves notable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I can see we'll be going round in circles again here. Surely the most we need to know is that they went to the same school. What the school is called, or how either of them happened to end up going there adds no apparent value to the topic. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, I wholly agree with you, on both counts. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you can tell us then why we need to know more than that they went to the same school, and what the school name adds to the understanding. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If anyone has any doubts about how the backgrounds of Jenkinson and Ratcliffe, and especially the interaction between them, is relevant to the murder, I'd urge them to listen to the documentary "A Plan to Kill - The Murder of Brianna Ghey", a special edition of BBC Radio 4's File on 4, which was broadcast again today: [8]. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, does that explain the relevance of the "CBD-infused edibles" tale? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you listen? What do you think? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't imagine why it's anymore relevant to the actual topic of the article than what phase the moon was in at the time. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

That explains a lot. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it explains why we need to either add the appropriate context to help readers understand the significance, or remove it as without any apparent relevance. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I had thought it was just a (rather worrying) lack of imagination on your part. By all means, do go ahead and add what you consider to be "the appropriate context". Although some editors might think that would be "spoon-feeding" the reader? The reader is always able to go and read the actual supporting sources for more detail? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: The CBD-infused edibles are relevant because the incident was recorded as a spiking by police. This mirrors Jenkinson's later attempt to murder Ghey by poisoning her with ibuprofen. Jenkinson faced expulsion for the very same behaviour that led to her eventually committing murder.

If a perpetrator has a history of a trying to poison people, and also attempted to murder the victim by poisoning them, that history is something relevant to include in an article about a murder. Nullh1ve (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nullh1ve, currently there is no hint of the alleged significance in the article though. How are readers expected be know about this tenuous link though if the article does not say it? Do you think it can be removed until the appropriate context is added? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: You are completely correct, much thanks for bringing my attention to this. I was so close to removing this information until I noticed an article from the BBC actually does link the CBD spiking incident and the ibuprofen poisoning. I've added a sentence that clarifies this link, thanks! Nullh1ve (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:QUOTEFARM

I think this article could be improved by paraphrasing the sources instead of direct quotes. I've started by paraphrasing some of the quotes in the Background section. The biggest offender seems to be the Reactions section, followed by Trial. If there are no objections, I'll continue to paraphrase the less important quotes in these sections... and also remove that giant quoteblock attributed to Sunak, that seems excessive. — nullh1ve (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Atubofsilverware for your input since you've made significant contributions to the Reactions section. — nullh1ve (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll shorten quotes there. Atubofsilverware (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Shortened some bits that seemed glaring, including the Sunak quote. I don't really want to overstep, so I'll leave the rest up to others. Atubofsilverware (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe consider putting the family's statements on Brianna's life in one section (aftermath)? They seem spread out all over the place. Idk. Atubofsilverware (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've gone ahead and just removed the one I found in the Background section, because I don't think it really said anything about Brianna's character. If I find more, I'll move them to Aftermath. — nullh1ve (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you also think you could edit this part of the early life section? I'm quite busy with another page right now: "She also faced years of transphobic harassment and bullying, including at school, a part of which was being repeatedly "gang beaten". However, in a statement approved by Ghey's mother, Birchwood's headteacher reported that Ghey had not faced any bullying at Birchwood." This raises a few questions about what actually happened. What sources say she was bullied? If they're reliable sources, it's worth getting into the teacher's statement, and noting if she was lying, misinformed, or just showing her incomplete perspective. Atubofsilverware (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I'll take a look at the sources and see if they are reliable. However, I don't think that it's within the scope of the article to make a judgement on "if she was lying, misinformed, or just showing her incomplete perspective". We should only report what was said by both parties. — nullh1ve (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

So I've looked at the sources. The accusations of bullying come from Brianna's online friends and fellow students. There doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt them, but I'm adding a "reportedly" since these allegations don't come from Ghey or her family directly. — nullh1ve (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I only meant to just clarify it a bit. Atubofsilverware (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)