Talk:Murder of Brianna Ghey/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

PMQ joke

In Prime Minister's Questions on 7 February Rishi Sunak made a scripted joke about Keir Starmer's "definition of a woman", This was described by the BBC as a "trans jibe": [1]. This took place while Esther Ghey, Brianna's mother, was in the Commons public gallery, having been specially invited by Starmer. They was a subsequent row about this and Sunak was invited to apologise to Ghey. He did not so, but instead paid tribute to Ghey's compassion. Should any of this be added to the article? 86.170.222.118 (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Three MPs also managed to mispronounced Esther and Brianna's surname as "Grey".

I'm not sure the "scripted joke" stuff is something we should add at this time. WP:NOTNEWS would apply here. It is something that we should keep an eye on over the next few days however, to see how sourcing develops on it. It might be a "flash in the pan" moment, or it might lead to more widespread criticism of Sunak or Starmer, depending primarily on the point-of-view of whichever news organisations cover it.

As for the mispronunciation of the surname, I very much doubt that'll ever be of encyclopaedic relevance. Politicians do that sort of thing all the time, and 99.9% of the time it's forgotten about within a few days. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It's now a lead item on BBC TV evening News. Esther Ghey's appearance as an observer in the Commons, for a debate on mindfulness, might be notable on its own account. Bizarely, Sunak's tribute might also be notable. Kemi Badenoch has also now spoken out about it, as has Jeremy Hunt. I quite agree that the mispronouncing of the name is trivial, even if somewhat surprising. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I included the comment as an entry in 2024 in United Kingdom politics and government because of the reaction, but didn't think it would be appropriate here. I suppose that could change. This is Paul (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Sideswipe that the joke should not be mentioned in this article, per WP:NOTNEWS. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Still rumbling on: Rishi Sunak faces calls to apologise over trans jibe to Starmer at PMQs. Just very bad timing/ unfortunate coincidence, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"PM joke" is a misdescription. It was part of a targeted attack on Labour policies that the PM has described before as "U turns". Whether they are or not has little if any relevance to Ghey. Ghey's mother was not in the public gallery at the time of the original uttering, but was for his declaration of admiration at the end. Jaymailsays (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as jokes go, it wasn't very funny. It was meant to be the punchline, but the unexpected circumstances meant it went down like a lead balloon. But not to be left with egg on his rather sheepish-looking face, Rishi rounded off the day nicely with a lovely warm-hearted tribute to the unexpected special guest. So much for mindfulness. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Should politics be part of this specific article? Not in my opinion.

Parliament/Government can be rightly criticised on many levels but when two evil killers, plot and execute the murder of an innocent victim, politics isn't directly relevant to any of it. The PMQ incident was a theatrical encounter and as so often happens, a trap was laid and the PM either misread the lure, or more likely miscalculated that his prepared (scripted) answer would win the day. Jaymailsays (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "politics" is not really relevant to this article, but the backlash of criticism that Sunak has faced, together with the additional commentary from other MPs, suggests that the debate about transgender issues has been brought back into focus. The whole theatrical encounter occurred principally because Esther Ghey was there? It's a great shame that it wholly overshadowed the debate on mindfulness, which is a part of the legacy of the murder and ought to be mentioned in its own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems I was wrong about the notability of this incident. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the amount of the material which has been added to this article about the exchange at PMQs. This article is about the murder of Brianna Ghey, it is not about Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer, or British politics. My view is that the whole of the section should be deleted. At the very most, this only rates a sentence. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I support replacing the section with a few sentences. The amount of quotes we have for this is excessive. — nullh1ve (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Jaymailsays that politics should not be part of this article. It also seems from the sources that Brianna's mother wasn't actually in the chamber for the exchange either. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, she arrived later, to hear Sunak's fulsome non-apology. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

In addition when interviewed the Mother said she did not want to be drawn into the political spat. Presumably the Mother was invited to the public gallery to hear the tribute to her child by Starmer and she missed out on it completely. Jaymailsays (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No, she was there to listen to the debate on Mindfulness in Schools, which she has been campaigning for. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there agreement that this section should be reduced to a few sentences?

If so, what wording do editors suggest? Sweet6970 (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I managed to cut it all down to about a paragraph, we could also potentially remove the heading and move it above the other headings. — nullh1ve (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sweet6970, I'd rather see it removed entirely.

If we do keep a sentence or two on it though, then we should avoid including the political posturing that is always present when each side ritually criticises the other over whatever they say. We should also make it clear that Brianna's mother was not in the house during the exchange, but that she was there for the praise and admiration Sunak gave her later, and that she later said that she did not want to be drawn into any political row. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I would also prefer to delete all the material related to this, but I think that the current (reduced) wording is a considerable improvement. Do you have any proposals for changing the current reduced wording? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: I think it can be reduced further. For example, I think the Starmer quote, which another editor added back in, should be removed since IMO it comes close to violating NPOV. It probably also does not need its own separate subheading.

However, I'm against removing it completely. A significant aspect of this murder is how the media, government and the public responded to the transgender identity of the victim. The criticism the Prime Minister faced was over his handling of transgender issues in light of Ghey's murder, and not including at least a mention of it would be remiss. — nullh1ve (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If you’re suggesting removing On 7 February 2024, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak made a remark in which he criticised Labour Party leader Keir Starmer for being unable to "define a woman"., then I am opposed to this, because without this sentence, the paragraph as a whole would not make sense. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: No, I meant removing, Starmer responded, "Of all the days to say that, when Brianna's mother is in the chamber. Shame." — nullh1ve (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification – I was being a bit dense there. I would support the removal of that sentence. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sweet6970, as it looks like most here think we need something on it, then we need to carefully craft a neutral summary using an impartial tone. Here's a proposal:

At PMQs on 7 February, responding to an accusation of promise-breaking from Keir Starmer, Rishi Sunak responded by listing the u-turns that he said Starmer had recently made, including on Starmer's definition of a woman. Starmer reacted saying "Of all the weeks to say that, when Brianna's mother is in this chamber" (a reference to his belief that Esther Ghey was in the chamber at the time, although she hadn't actually arrived by then).

Peter Spooner (Brianna's father) called for an apology from the PM for the "degrading" and "dehumanising" comment. Sunak defended his position saying of Starmer's response, that to link his comments to the murder was "the worst of politics".

Esther Ghey would not be drawn into the dispute, instead saying that she did not "wish to comment on reports of wording or comments recently made" and that she wanted to concentrate on "creating a lasting legacy" for her daughter.

Both Sunak and Starmer were criticised by by other MPs. With Labour MP, Nadia Whittome, saying on X "Absolutely sickening for Rishi Sunak to make a transphobic joke at PMQs while Brianna Ghey’s mother is watching in the chamber", and the minister for women and equalities, Kemi Badenoch saying "Starmer’s behaviour today shows Labour are happy to weaponise this issue when it suits them".

Thoughts? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: My objection to the original wording of this section was that it was too long, and that it was about British politics, rather than Brianna Ghey. The current wording in the article is much shorter, and would be even shorter if the sentence Starmer responded, "Of all the days to say that, when Brianna's mother is in the chamber. Shame." is deleted. Your proposed version is longer than what we currently have in the article, and is more about British politics. So I prefer what is currently in the article. I would also like to see the ‘Starmer responded…’ sentence deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sweet6970, the problem with the current wording is that it is not neutral and not in an impartial tone. It characterises Sunak's response to Starmer's question (it was PMQs don't forget) as an impromptu comment as it lacks the actual question, it also lacks the essential context of the list of u-turns that the reply was put into (it wasn't just the definition of a woman one). It implied Brianna's mother was present for the exchange which she apparently was not. It says Sunak's remark was fiercely criticised which is both subjective and biased as Starmer's remark was criticised in equal measure. It gives Brianna's father's response, but not her mother's.

We must do better than that if we are to keep it, and if we keep it political. As I've already said, I favour total removal, but if we keep it, we must stick to Wiki's WP:NPOV and WP:V policies, at least. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure Starmer's remark was criticised in equal measure. But I agree it's somewhat subjective. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I've made some edits to the section that try to take into account your concerns. Although it's definitely not perfect, I think it's a step towards a neutral POV. I think it is entirely doable to satisfy NPOV while not exceeding a paragraph in length. — nullh1ve (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nullh1ve, I've tweaked your tweaks a bit more. Context is important for NPOV, as is impartial language and balance. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Although I feel it now leans a little too much into politics, I am happy with these changes in terms of neutrality and conciseness. — nullh1ve (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Errmmm, she happened to be "there for the praise and admiration Sunak gave her later". That's not what she was actually there for, which was to listen to the debate on Mindfulness in Schools, which she has been campaigning for. The "praise and admiration" from Sunak came as a belated face-saving exercise to cover his acute embarrassment? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but why do we need this section? It's basically the two main Westminster political parties, taking potshots at each other, over something that is currently a culture war topic within the UK. At best it's indirectly related to the topic of this article (ie the murder, trial, and direct reactions to the killing), but that is only because Esther Ghey was present in Westminster on the day in question. Sunak and Starmer could have easily had this spat without Esther being present, or even mentioning Brianna and the trial. If we're looking at this from a ten year perspective, is this truly something that's going to be relevant to the murder and its aftermath? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Pasting a relevant part from my reply above: I'm against removing it completely. A significant aspect of this murder is how the media, government and the public responded to the transgender identity of the victim. The criticism the Prime Minister faced was over his handling of transgender issues in light of Ghey's murder, and not including at least a mention of it would be remiss.

Yes, the exchange might still have happened regardless of Esther Ghey's presence. But the fact of the matter is that many sources have linked Sunak's statement to Ghey's murder. The father of the victim went as far as to request an apology from the Prime Minister for the remarks.

Ghey's case is one of the most notable murders of a transgender person in recent history, and has sparked a lot of controversy and debate over how transgender people are treated by the legal system and the government, something this article covers extensively. Not mentioning how the current head of government was criticised in relation to the murder is negligent. — nullh1ve (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

As I’ve said before, I am in favour of deleting this whole section. The subject of this article is the murder of Brianna Ghey, not the handling of transgender issues by British politicians. And this incident is not, in fact, an instance of handling of transgender issues – it was a spat between politicians at PMQs. I doubt whether it will be considered significant in 10 months’ time, let alone 10 years. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Aaah OK, I think your final paragraph has helped connect the missing dots. I'm now in favour of this in principle, though maybe not in implementation. I'll have a look at the sources in closer detail and have a think about this further. At a glance there might be a little bit more to trim, but that depends on the sourcing. I certainly would not advocate expanding it substantially further though, except insofar as balancing NPOV requires. Eg, does the statement from Kemi Badenoch have a counterpart from her Labour Party counterpart Anneliese Dodds? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Birth name (again)

Is "B**** ******* the new WikiWordle? Should Brianna's birth name be given or not? I'm assuming that this was the only mention, by the judge, in the entire trial. This looks like a very awkward compromise. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I have applied the obvious solution. And you might want to change the title of this section? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

We can't pretend the name isn't in the public domain. So I see no reason why it can't be used here. But I have changed the title of the section for clarity and added a link to the diff that triggered my question. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME. Helper201 (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that says "Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail the changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent." I'd say the discussion here was pertinent. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. It's not pertinent here.

1. The article has already thoroughly established that Ghey was transgender, and how that affected the case.
2. The sentence "who explained to the jury in open court..." does not fit in with the rest of the information in that section. It almost reads like a non-sequitur.
3. Elsewhere we have reached consensus that the inclusion of Brianna's deadname adds nothing of value to the article.

I am in favour of removing this sentence (of course, retaining that Justice Yip presided over the case). — nullh1ve (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when I say "here", I mean on this Talk page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Ohhh. Completely missed that. My apologies. — nullh1ve (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

As a compromise, does anyone have any thoughts on replacing the sentence with:

The case was heard by Mrs Justice Amanda Yip, who briefed 14 potential jurors on Ghey's transgender identity and other facts of the murder ahead of the trial.

I think this uses the sources to add to the article, rather than retreading old ground. — nullh1ve (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

No objection. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

That works well. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that works for me as it neatly summarises the scope of that pre-trial hearing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

vouch NAADAAN (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Quotes need to actually deliver new information. This one does not. I'm not sure why we would pick that one part of the judge's remarks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

My position on inclusion of Ghey's deadname hasn't really changed. There's simply no need for us to include it, as it doesn't add any information pertinent to understanding the killing. Yes the judge mentioned it during a pre-trial hearing, and yes both The Times and Daily Express went out of their way to add it to their initial reporting of the killing, but in both of those cases we don't actually need to repeat it here to report that it was said, nor in the case of The Times and Express report on the fallout from their publishing of it. And amusingly both The Times and Daily Express published the wrong name anyway.

We already mention that Ghey was trans, and that one of her killers was at least partially motivated by transphobia (even though to my knowledge Ratcliffe never actually used or possibly even knew of Ghey's former name). That's enough in my mind to establish understanding of this point. Ghey's former name doesn't really any encyclopaedic relevance in and of its own right, all of the reliable sources published about her and the killing use the name Brianna Ghey in their coverage. There's also the question of due weight here. As far as I can tell, the only sources that mention Ghey's former name are The Independent (formerly cited in the article), and the Daily Mail. No other reliable sources have included it in their coverage. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I strongly agree, and I don't think this needs to be rehashed much further. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jaymailsays: Care to comment on how the consensus we've reached is a "censorship attempt", as per your edit summary? I find it pretty strange considering your preferred version contains a censored name. — nullh1ve (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The judges exact quote is fact, airbrushing out what the judge said to the jurors when relevant to the article is censorship. Jaymailsays (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jaymailsays: Firstly, you are currently engaged in an edit war and have violated the WP:3RR rule.

For which I have blocked them for 48 hours due to the article and edits coming under GENSEX. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Secondly, paraphrasing a source is standard practice for summary style. We have reached consensus that this accurately summarises what the judge said to the jurors. We have also reached consensus that inclusion of Ghey's deadname adds nothing to the article. Yes, wikipedia is not censored, but we also aren't an indiscriminate collection of information.

Thirdly, you yourself have not used the judge's exact quote. What is this weird asterisk stuff? — nullh1ve (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Simply because the judge said something in court, does not automatically make that of encyclopaedic relevance. As I said above there is a significant question of due weight here. The only sources that mention Ghey's former name are The Independent and the Daily Mail. If only one reliable source included that quotation (note the Daily Mail is not a reliable source, please see WP:DAILYMAIL), why should that counteract the weight of all of the other sources covering the trial that did not? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If the name had been in some way linked to the murder, there might well be a good case to include it, and the judge would have made this point in the trial. But it's pretty obvious it was irrelevant. I don't think it adds to our "understanding" of Brianna as a person. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. A trans person changing their name is something that's pretty routine, in no small part because names are typically gendered. While the MOS:GENDERID guideline requires us to use a person's most recent name, pronouns, and gendered terms, it does not require us to include non-noteworthy former names. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Reading the "Do we need to name those convicted?" talkpage section above, it seems that some editors are using arguments here that they argued against up there. Shouldn't Wiki policies and guidelines be applied consistently to all three names? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems consistent to me when I look at it from the perspective of editors trying to figure out, when a subject has more than one name, which name is more relevant. In the victim's case, we've decided that Brianna Ghey is more apt than her deadname. For the murderers, most editors who weighed in seem to agree that Scarlett Jenkinson and Eddie Ratcliffe are more apt than Girl X and Boy Y.

In any case, I don't think many people are interested in a rehash of this argument, and I doubt consensus has changed. — nullh1ve (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: This is just purely for my amusement, but assuming that enough editors were to agree to remove the names, would I see a diff from you that literally finds and replaces every single occurrence of the perpetrators' names with Girl X and Boy Y? — nullh1ve (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nullh1ve, ideally we would do it in a more subtle way than that - just the girl/the boy, perhaps. Was that sufficiently amusing for you? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps even more than I expected. — nullh1ve (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Because the perpetrators were agents in the murder while the younger Brianna, who then had a different name, was not. Is this not glaringly obvious to all??Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nullh1ve, @Martinevans123, the arguments up there simply on the fact that the names had appeared in the sources and that the judge had announced them. That's the same here. If we decide to omit the name here shouldn't we reconsider omitting the names there? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You think "B**** *******" was a murderer, yes? Am quite speechless. Incredible. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, that seems an extraordinarily perverse interpretation of what I wrote. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You think the same argument, "the names had appeared in the sources and that the judge had announced them", applies equally to the pre-trans birthname of Brianna and to both defendants? That's what you seem to be saying. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, again, you are putting words in my mouth. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Please go ahead and explain how you think the pre-trans birthname of Brianna and the names of the two convicted murderers are in any way comparable. But please count me out of any further discussion of this topic. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

At the time Brianna was killed, she had not been using her former name and was not known by it by either of the killers. While transphobia was a secondary motive for Ratcliffe, it was (to my knowledge) not brought up during the trial that Ratcliffe used or even knew of Brianna's former name. When the circumstances of the killing to our readers, Brianna's former name is neither relevant nor necessary for understanding. When understanding the transphobic motive, it is enough to say that she was trans. As a result there is no reason for us to include her former name.

For Jenkinson and Ratcliffe however, they were as Martinevans123 said "agents in the murder". Now you are correct that we could use the Girl X and Boy Y monikers used by the press, prior to the lifting of reporting restrictions. However, we would only do so if that were required to comply with WP:BLPNAME. With respect to the names of Jenkinson and Ratcliffe, while they were originally intentionally concealed resulting in BLPNAME uncontroversially applying, they have since been extremely widely disseminated since reporting restrictions were lifted. I doubt you will find any reliable sources published after the sentencing hearing on 2 February that continued use Girl X and Boy Y. BLPNAME no longer applies to them, though it does still apply to their family members (ie parents, siblings, etc).

Conversely, for Brianna's former name, there is only one reliable source; an article in the Independent, that was published shortly after a pre-trial jury selection hearing on 27 November 2023. I have been able to find no other reliable sources either published about that pre-trial hearing or containing any other subsequent information about the trial and aftermath that contain or mention her former name. In WP:BLPNAME terms, this name has not been widely disseminated. However, BLPNAME is not the governing guideline here, that's MOS:GENDERID. Under the current version of GENDERID, for a living or recently deceased trans person's former name to be included, they have to have been known by that name at the point they became notable. Brianna's former name was not known at the time her killing became notable, it wasn't even confirmed (both The Times and Daily Express published incorrect information) until the pre-trial hearing in November 2023. Per that guideline, there is no reason for us to include her former name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, that sounds like a robust policy-based rationale for excluding Brianna's previous name, yes. But I'm not sure we've seen such a rationale for including the names of the "agents in the murder". -- DeFacto (talk). 20:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give a robust policy-based rationale for excluding Jenkinson's and Ratcliffe's names? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, double standards are never a good thing, but surely we should go for fail-safe by excluding unless there is a robust and compelling policy-based rationale for including. Without "new evidence", I'm out now on this one. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you try coming up with a robust and compelling policy-based rationale for excluding anyway, so we can put this to rest? It could help us understand where you're coming from better, because right now all I'm seeing is WP:IDNHT. — nullh1ve (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

DeFacto, please put down the stick. You have tried to raise this issue again and again without success, and as nullh1ve says, you are now very persistently 'not hearing' the clear and decisive arguments against your position. Moreover, your entire position is irrelevant to the discussion here that you have inserted them into. Please stop. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think Jenkinson and Ratcliffe may have been to blame here. Just a wild guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, relevance? Based on which Wiki policy? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

In the lead sentence, should the names of the perpetrators be bolded?

I know this sounds uncontroversial enough for me to be bold, but I'm pretty sure I'm missing an obscure MOS thing. Should their names be written as Scarlett Jenkinson and Eddie Ratcliffe or Scarlett Jenkinson and Eddie Ratcliffe? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. Both names are redirects. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

So it is an obscure MOS thing. Got it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the comment to the source. Hopefully this will put an end to people unbolding the names. — nullh1ve (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Birth Name

The first paragraph of the 'background' section should begin "Brianna Ghey (born (Redacted), 7 November 2006) was a 16-year-old transgender girl and...

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/warrington-transgender-manchester-crown-court-cheshire-justice-b2454180.html

It is standard Wikipedia practice to include the birth name of someone who changes their surname. From the style manual: "If a subject changed their surname (last name) for whatever reason... then their surname at birth should generally also be given in the lead."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#:~:text=If%20a%20subject,country%20music%20singer%C2%A0... 195.188.14.222 (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

No. Ghey was not notable under her deadname. MOS:GENDERID is the more specific rule here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be a majority support for a change to that rule, and the MOS:GENDERID section you link to has been apparently 'filibustered' by a minority of editors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Names_of_deceased_trans_people 195.188.14.222 (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

If the rule changes, we can change the application here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

To my annoyance that RfC has yet to be closed, and even if it is closed as successful I would still argue that for this article extenuating circumstances apply surrounding Ghey's former name and that it should not be included. As the Criticism of media section states, there was a great deal of controversy surrounding The Times including what was then believed to be her former name (from memory what the Times added was wrong) and adding it ourselves would be a non-neutral act that would open Wikipedia to the same sort of criticism.

As it stands right now however, that RfC has not been closed and the consensus (or lack thereof) from it has not yet been determined. In the absence of that, and because we're still in the period where BLP applies after death, the current provisions in GENDERID about a non-notable former name applies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

On the criticism of The Times article - just because PinkNews and other publications were critical of The Times for publishing Ghey's former name does not mean that this criticism was valid or that we should take heed of it. Ours is not to question the validity and morality of secondary sources like The Times which are widely considered reliable.

I do not believe extenuating circumstances would apply here as I see no grounds for their application.

I fundamentally believe that if there is a piece of well-sourced information that would not only be of interest to readers, but would be a piece of information they are actively looking for, that information should be provided on the Wikipedia page on that topic or person. One's moral judgement of those looking for this information and their reasoning behind doing so is immaterial. This I take as a fundamental principle, and therefore I argue that any Wikipedia rule that guide away from adherence to it should be itself thrown out. 195.188.14.222 (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BDP probably still applies; it has been a year since her death, but this sort of situation (where coverage in the immediate wake of her death is protracted and has serious implications for her reputation) is exactly the sort of situation BDP exists for. So regardless we wouldn't be able to include it. I don't think that it's significant or relevant at all, and certainly not leadworthy; the vast majority of sources do not mention it at all, which you'd expect them to do if it were in fact vital to understanding the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

For clarification, the criticism of the UK media's initial coverage was particularly widespread, both nationally and internationally. It's erroneous to say that it was just PinkNews and a handful of other publications.

I fundamentally believe that if there is a piece of well-sourced information that would not only be of interest to readers, but would be a piece of information they are actively looking for, that information should be provided on the Wikipedia page on that topic or person. So we have a rather long list of policy points for what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia articles do not include every piece of information about a topic. Just because a piece of information is verifiable to reliable sources, that does not mean it must be included in an article. We aren't an indiscriminate collection of information, information that we include in our articles must be of encyclopaedic relevance.

Ghey's former name doesn't really tell us anything about her that we don't already include, nor does it tell us why or how she was killed. It serves no purpose in an article about her killing, in no small part because every reliable source about the murder uses the name Brianna Ghey in their coverage. We don't need to include it to state that transphobia was a motive for one of the killers, nor to state that the needless inclusion of her former name by the press was subject to widespread criticism. It's important to remember that on the whole, this isn't a biography about Ghey, though we do include some relevant biographical information. As a person, she doesn't pass our general notability guideline or any relevant subject-specific notability guideline. What is notable is the events surrounding her death and the subsequent trial and conviction of the two killers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The birth-name ought to be included for context. Jaymailsays (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It's contrary to Wikipedia policy. But what do you see as the benefit, in terms of "context"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Does there have to be a benefit? The victim was born male, with their given name and lived for a time until their tragic death as a woman, with an adopted name. The court recognised that and ignoring the facts is anti-encyclopeodic Jaymailsays (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

No one is "ignoring the fact" that Ghey was born as a male. That's the very reason that Wikipedia policy prohibits use of the former name. We don't need to know the exact name as some kind of "proof" of male birth. And yes, there ought to a benefit to the reader of adding anything to an article. It seems that in this case there is none. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

All content on Wikipedia must have encyclopaedic relevance before it can be included. Simply because a piece of information is verifiable does not guarantee its inclusion. What encyclopaedic relevance does Ghey's non-notable former name bring to this article? What information does it convey that we don't already convey through other words? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)