Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 54

< Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons
Latest comment: 8 months ago by Cnewmark in topic Craig Newmark article

Naming accused perpetrators of crimes

Latest comment: 8 months ago146 comments24 people in discussion

A curious development at 2023 Kingsessing shooting. at least two editors there are claiming that it is not appropriate, under WP:BLP concerns, to include the name of the accused perpetrator, Kimbrady Carriker, even though that name has been widely reported here: [1], [2], [3], [4] and many, many other places by reliable sources. Looking at analogous articles for other American mass shootings that have transpired this year, we see that the names of the surviving accused-but-not-yet-convicted perpetrator(s), where known and reported, are included in the article in every other case:

The accused in all 11 of these cases are non-notable people who have no public profile other than their alleged role in these shootings. One of two things are must therefore be true. Either A) BLP concerns are being erroneously applied at 2023 Kingsessing shooting. Or B) these other 10 articles are in violation of WP:BLP.

Which one do we think it is? Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Here are some others:
Another one:
  • Killing of Banko Brown: Security guard shot and killed homeless alleged shoplifter. Guard arrested, released, not charged by local DA. State DA reviewing. Courtesy ping @Combefere -- Xan747 (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@WWGB, other than Neely and Kingsessing, are their any you know of where the charged but not convicted suspect is not presently named? Xan747 (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@Xan747: Due to my editing interests, I am familiar with most "attack" articles. Other than Neely and Kingsessing, the name of the accused has been withheld in Killing of Brianna Ghey (as the accused are minors) and Killing of Nahel Merzouk, where the accused police officer is named only as Florian M. due to a court ruling. WWGB (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
For the record, the reason for withholding the police officer's name had not been discussed when this post was made. There had also been no court ruling, only an appeal from the interior ministry to the prosector's office. The discussion on fr.wp revolved around the applicability of article 223-1-1 of the French penal code (penalty: €75,000 fine + 5 years prison). The officer's name has been added to the entry since this statement using a Turkish newspaper (a dozen cites on en.wp) and a minor regional newspaper (a dozen cites on en.wp) as sources. As of today, no major newspapers have reported the officer's name. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 07:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I think perhaps WP:BLPN is a better place for escalating the discussion of a particular article, whereas this page is probably better-suited for launching a referendum on policy (which has been done recently but died on the vine just as it was getting interesting). Regardless, courtesy pinging the other involved editors: @Esb5415, @Sideswipe9th, @Orthogone. Xan747 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
BLPN would I think be a better venue for this. This issue clearly involves multiple articles, and the discussion is about the application of the policy point to those articles and not (yet) changing the policy point. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th, agree with you; however, I want to clarify that I think it's premature to elevate the Kingsessing article to BLPN at this point in time. The article's talk page discussion is still in productive territory, and it doesn't name the suspect at this point in time, so there is no rush.
This conversation has merit as a discussion for a policy change that I think is useful, but it's a perennial one and I'm dubious it will gain much traction, but would not be upset if it did. Xan747 (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
True, but at a glance it looks like the other articles, including the three that Jweiss11 mentioned on the Kingsessing article do contain the other relevant names.
I'm not saying we should bring the Kingsessing article to BLPN, we should bring the broader issue to BLPN. Think of it this way, that the other articles contain the names of suspects, potentially in a manner that contravenes BLPCRIME, is an issue that should be discussed at BLPN. That doesn't preclude other productive discussions at the Kingsessing article, and would draw attention to this broader issue that's affecting multiple articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th I pointedly have not reviewed those other articles bc I consider it a burdensome distraction from the Kingsessing case; however, I wouldn't be surprised if they are directly comparable as @Jweiss11 says. In that case, yes, those clearly could go to BLPN but I can imagine a lot of editors complaining about escalating before asking them about it on the local talk pages. I can see editors monitoring BLPN saying the same thing. And as this is only the tip of the iceberg, there would be a lot more of "what about this case, and this one ..."
I'm also undecided about what I think policy should be when it comes to mass murderers who clearly did it, especially ones making some kind of point--which it seems like the Kingsessing shooter may have intended. If it weren't for my understanding of current policy, I might very well !vote to name him same as I would have for the likes of Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Dylan Roof, etc., ad nauseam.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support your intentions and very much feel that if policy is being violated it needs to be rectified. You would have my support at BLPN based on current policy at least in terms of making some initial arguments, for whatever those would be worth. Xan747 (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Just because a name of a non-notable person is widely repeated in RSes before they have been convicted of a crime does not mean we need to repeat it. Thats the essence of WP:BLPCRIME. Masem (t) 17:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Masem, so would you say the case is B, that those 10 bulleted articles are in violation of WP:BLP. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, as well as many of those articles fail WP:NEVENTS/WP:NOT#NEWS in the first place. Masem (t) 02:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Why do editors keep repeating that there is a "violation"? BLPCRIME says that "editors must seriously consider not including material". You cannot "violate" a policy if that policy merely requires you to "consider" something. BLPCRIME is not a bright-line rule. WWGB (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
We are supposed to use a very conservative/middle-ground approach on BLP articles, and claiming that just because a person has been named/arrested as a suspect by RS doesn't mean we should name them yet. There are probably exceptional cases where the non-notable person's name is necessary to mention but in the bulk of these articles, knowing the name doesn't aid the reader because of the "trivial" nature of the crime (trivial in the sense of the long-term view an encyclopedia has). Masem (t) 03:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I completely agree with what Masem has said here. We are supposed to use a very conservative/middle-ground approach on BLP articles, and claiming that just because a person has been named/arrested as a suspect by RS doesn't mean we should name them yet is the right approach here.
Despite this, there is it seems a subset of articles where no serious consideration has been given, and the name of the suspect(s) has/have been included once it is verifiable. Taking the list of articles identified by Jweiss11 in his opening post for example, only three have had any discussion on names, in the Half Moon Bay article an admin removed the name of the suspect's uninvolved co-worker/roommate as a BLP violation, for the Dadeville shooting an editor removed the suspect's names because they were not convicted and many were minors, and for the Cleveland Texas shooting an editor queried why the article excluded the name at a time when the article looked like this. In all other cases, the name has been included without any obvious discussion as to why.
If there is serious consideration being given to determine when it is warranted to include the name, with the implication that the default is to exclude it until that consideration is made, where is this determination happening? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the determination is being made in the minds of editors who in good faith earnestly believe these edits don't fall afoul of any BLP violations when they make the edit. The rule is a pretty stupid sledge hammer approach to what seems like was probably fixing a problem about false slander of people being falsely accused or maybe to avoid political mud slinging in articles, but the rule really doesn't work as a one for all across the board for everything or ordinary reporting of information about some events. Huggums537 (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
So I was interested in seeing how BLPCRIME developed over time, because I have the suspicion that it was written at a time when newsorgs were less likely to name suspects who had been arrested and/or charged with a crime. The text was added in January 2012. While the phrasing of it has shifted over time, the thrust of it remains the same. A person is innocent until proven guilty, arrests and/or being charged with a crime are not the same as a conviction, and for non-public figures strong consideration must be given to the exclusion of material that suggests one or more suspects have committed the crime for which they have been accused.
Do we maybe need to look at updating this text, to make it more strict on when content can be included? For at least the last five or so years, newsorgs have been far more likely to mass report the names of criminal suspects pre-conviction, despite the ethical and in some jurisdictions legal implications for doing so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Sideswipe9th, to the extent that the reliable segment of the media may have ethical or legal shortcomings, I think WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies. I'm just now discovering that Daniel Penny's name is excluded from the body of the Killing of Jordan Neely article, and I see that this had been a subject of much discussion. And yet, "Daniel Penny" appears in the title of over 20 sources cited by the article. Who do we think we're fooling here with such an exclusion. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
So the Killing of Jordan Neely article is an example of BLPCRIME being applied correctly. There was an RfC held on inclusion of the name in June, that was closed with no consensus to include. There is another RfC occurring now because some editors believe the circumstances have changed enough to warrant inclusion. That is a case of strong consideration being given on two occasions for inclusion of the name. And that is I think perhaps the structural benchmark for how this content should be handled. Of course, it goes without saying that it doesn't have to be an RfC for this, as that would be tedious. Just that before the name of a non-convicted suspect, a significantly indepth discussion must be held beforehand.
On the RGW point, you are expressing I'm afraid a fundamental and sadly common misunderstanding of what that essay point means. To right great wrongs, as that essay means it, you must be adding or seeking to add content to an article that is not verifiable to reliable sources. You have to want to be correcting you perceive to be a wrong in an article or series of articles. It does not however apply to discussions on policies and guidelines, especially those that have legal, ethical, and privacy implications. BLP content in particular is content that per the Foundation's resolution we have to handle with an exceedingly high degree of care and attention, because of the negative effects mishandling of this content will have upon those to whom the policy is applicable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jweiss11, The suspects' respective names currently redirect to the Kingsessing and Neely articles, which means they show up in web searches, or on-wiki searches under those names. You might also like Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_52#Clarification_on_'material' and Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_52#BLPCRIME_is_useless where the suspect's name in URL/headlines question has been raised. Xan747 (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I remember the BLPCRIME is useless happening, though didn't comment on it at the time. I think Beccaynr's suggestion at 14:26, 7 April 2023 is a good one. The text of WP:BLPRESTORE makes it clear that content that has been removed requires an affirmative consensus before it can be included, if it is to be restored in an unmodified state. The policy itself operates under a principle of least harm where it states the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment in the third paragraph. Beccaynr's suggestion is a good one, because it explicitly states what was formerly implied through the rest of the policy text, that for this type of content the default should be exclusion until a discussed consensus forms for inclusion, or the suspect is convicted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Another good example of this being done well is the 2022 University of Idaho killings article. Inclusion/exclusion of the suspects name was discussed three times in December 2022 (first discussion, second discussion, third discussion) and again in March 2023. As with the Neely article, strong consideration was given towards inclusion versus exclusion of the name, but this time it was through normal editorial discussion and not an RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Sideswipe9th, I'm confident that it's you, not me, who is misunderstanding the spirit of RGW and interpreting it in an unduly narrow sense. While we can record the righting of great wrongs, we can't actually "ride the crest of the wave" ourselves. We are, by design, supposed to be "behind the curve". Jweiss11 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Your quoted part clearly only applies to article content, because we have to wait for content to be verifiable through reliable sources before we can include it. Project space discussions, like this one on the BLP policy, don't ordinarily involve reliable sources, because there are precious few sources, reliable or otherwise, that actually document how we handle the guidelines that govern content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I never would have read RGW as prohibition about against writing value-based policy. Xan747 (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Jumping in here to raise my old standard that wikipedia is not the news and to suggest that, especially where WP:BLPCRIME issues arise we should be erring on the side of silence. If it weren't for the fact that I'm kind of tired right now I'd be tempted to nominate every one of those bulleted articles for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Writing or interpreting value-based policy such that the content we ultimately produce has suppressed reliably reported information on perceived ethics grounds contravenes RGW. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I think being designed to be "behind the curve" could also suggest that as an encyclopedia (and not a newspaper), we do not have to "ride the crest of the wave" to include the name of a suspect. I also think BLP policy could potentially benefit from some wordsmithing to help guide article talk discussions for case-by-case consideration on the inclusion of suspect and defendant names, and I appreciate these discussions, including because they may help develop an eventual RfC. Beccaynr (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
So I've been kicking around something like this.
Until conviction is obtained, do not name a living person accused or suspected of committing a crime if:
1. they are a minor not charged as an adult (nor after conviction?)
2. name suppressed/sealed by a court in any jurisdiction
3. not named in sustained national coverage by most RS
4. was not a public figure before act, and the following are both false:
a. committed act to draw public attention to self or some cause
b. sought public attention after act
5. etc ...
I'm not wedded to these policy statements, but they seem to reflect the more cautious interpretation of blpcrime whne it comes to naming. I personally lean more toward inclusion of name based on sustained, wide reporting in RS for ... reasons. But mainly I would like to see the section tightened up with less ambiguity and self-contradiction either way it goes. Xan747 (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@Simonm223 The way BLPCRIME section is written clearly applies to including information that the person in question is suspected of having committed a crime. It doesn't say a thing about whether to use the suspect's name. By the letter of how it's written, I agree with you: these articles should not exist until a conviction is obtained.
Whether I think that should be the actual policy is a different question. In brief, I absolutely lean toward inclusion of the article because in over a decade of reading Wikipedia, I have come to depend on it as a news aggregator. When I became an editor 7 weeks ago, I was shocked to learn that policy was quite different from standard practice. Xan747 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I am a very old Wiki Ogre. My last period of dormancy was largely because of frustration with Wikipedia over-including articles about contemporary events referenced to breaking news articles. It's very distant from encyclopedic standards of source reliability. I prefer to source to academic monographs and journals whenever possible. Simonm223 (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I didn't know I was an inclusionist until I started editing--something for everyone to read, and something for everyone to write. But it must get tedious repeatedly telling clueless IPs why their favorite citation is a shit paper. Xan747 (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@Simonm223, when you have an encyclopedia that contains over 6 million entries there probably isn't much left to write about that has much "encyclopedic value" or isn't a "recent event". I think Wikipedia rules and mentality are so funny that it is actually fascinating... Huggums537 (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
an appeal to novelty is not really of any significance here. Plenty of work to improve the actual encyclopedic stuff. We don't need to endlessly expand just because Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
A third example of this being done well is Bloody Sunday (1972). The name of Soldier F is known, it has been an open secret in Northern Ireland since the 1970s, though it wasn't until July 2021 that it became officially public knowledge as it has and continues to be subject to reporting restrictions in the UK. Inclusion/exclusion of Solder F's name has been discussed many times since Eastwood used parliamentary privilege to release it, both on the article's talk page (August 2021, September 2021, October 2021, January 2023, June 2023), and at BLPN (July 2021, October 2022). Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I didn't read all of that, but what I did was good reading. The article says: On 13 July 2021 Social Democratic and Labour Party MP Colum Eastwood revealed the name of "Soldier F" using parliamentary privilege. On 17 July Village magazine published the identity of "Soldier F" and some pictures of him at the time of the massacre." Two of the three citations in that section name "Soldier F" (the one does not for "legal reasons"). This makes no sense, policy is mum on the matter so far as I know, but it's been explained to me that in articles when a suspect is not named it's ok to use sources that name them if there are few or no other options. Chalk this up as something I think that any serious policy review should address explicitly instead of, "well, go read these RfCs". Xan747 (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I believe the decision to censor Soldier F's name was in part taken because the killer is protected by an anonymity order in the UK, and there was worry that UK editors may become legally liable if the killer is named on Wikipedia. Cortador (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The exact reasons for why Soldier F's name is not included don't really matter for the purposes of this discussion. Every article is going to have its own reasons for inclusion versus exclusion after all. What matters is that those purposes were discussed, and serious consideration was given for both inclusion and exclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Right. As I think we're finding out, it's not usually discussed--the default is to name when RS do. So, a policy proposal could be: don't name until there's a strong consensus to do so. And template the talk page of every blpcrime article with that policy. Xan747 (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Here's how I see it: if you decide to go on a killing spree, you are seeking publicity, as a killing spree will be in the news. Thus, you qualify as a public person once committing such a crime, and if reliable source report on the name, it should be included. Cortador (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Cortador: This discussion is about naming accused perpetrators of crimes. It is not about naming people who have been convicted. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Someone who has gone on a killing spree by definition will not be convicted (of homicide) for some period of time, and may never be convicted at all. Take for example, Chunli Zhao in the 2023 Half Moon Bay shootings linked above: it is a widely reported verifiable fact that he killed seven people (he even admitted it), but he has not been convicted of a crime. Combefere ★ Talk 19:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
It's also a verifiable fact that the alleged killer for the Half Moon Bay shootings has plead not guilty to all charges, and that there are currently reporting restrictions put in place by to ensure that the alleged killer has access to an impartial jury for his upcoming trial. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely, he has plead not guilty to seven counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, and as such we should presume his innocence of seven counts of murder and one count of attempted murder (we already do on our article!). We need not censor the fact that he killed seven people to do so. Combefere ★ Talk 19:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
And courts can be wrong. We don't have any specific obligation to wait for court rulings here. We can stick to what reliable sources report, and if said sources report that a person has been alleged to have committed a crime, we include that information here. Cortador (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
That courts, police, and media can be wrong is precisely a reason to wait. There are some well known examples of wrongly named suspects, like Chris Jefferies, and the Central Park Five for whom the breach of privacy by the media caused lasting repercussions.
There is also a rather large element of systemic bias at play here. The US approach of widespread naming of alleged criminals is not common practice elsewhere in the world. The German, Dutch, and Swedish codes of journalistic ethics strongly urge a default practice of not identifying suspects until they are convicted. According to an article by The Conversation, this not only protects those who are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but also their family members. And in 2021 the Associated Press changed their policies so that they will no longer publish the names of those accused and/or charged with minor crimes, due to the known longlasting effects such coverage can bring should the person not be found guilty.
It is a mistake and mischaracterisation to call this censorship. We have policy reasons like WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RSBREAKING, and WP:BLP that compel us to be, as Masem has said above, conservative and cautious in our approach to this content. We lose nothing by waiting until a conviction is secured, no matter how long that takes, and gain the time and space to make sure that everything we do record is factual once the facts are known and proven. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Actually it is quite common in German news not to mention people and to blur pictures of them even after they were convicted. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
In Germany, headlines like "Former Manson family member Leslie Van Houten released from California prison" are usually illegal. I believe the idea is that you've "paid your debt to society" and that upsetting the public with reminders that you previously committed heinous crimes tends to impair re-integration into society.
There's a balance to be found, though, because you want the public to know when a particular person is in custody, both for reasons of challenging improper detention and to identify potential witnesses. A statement like "The police have arrested Indigo Innocent" can result in a witness appearing to say "They're obviously innocent, because they were with me at the time of the crime" whereas "The police have arrested a suspect" cannot produce any such additional information. I say this because people naturally tend to think that our own culture is the right one, so if you come from a culture that affords more privacy to suspects or convicts, then please consider the downsides of such a policy, and if you come from a culture that revels in every tiny detail, then you, too, should consider the downsides of such a policy (e.g., the false accusation in the Centennial Olympic Park bombing).
(Also, as a side note, I point out that "pleading not guilty of the specific crimes charged" is not the same as saying "I didn't kill anyone". John Hinckley Jr. was never "convicted", but he definitely shot people.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I think we are overlooking the obvious fact that regardless of whatever the Germans or other publications might do, the RS's that have mentioned these names have decided in their policies that it was ok to do so, and have already made the names public. Huggums537 (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello all, without overstaying my welcome or interrupting the flow too greatly, I did want to briefly note my position here. Those familiar with me will no doubt know where I am headed (and probably roll their eyes), but here we go. As a preface, I very much have thoughts here, but I am not strident about them and I don't think this is a grave threat to the encyclopedia, peace, or the universe. Happy to follow wherever consensus leads. That said my preference would be to not name suspects until there is some form of finality. For suspects who are widely reported and for whom there is little doubt about the cause-in-fact in question, I do not believe mentioning them in talk or linking to sources which include the name (even, say, in a URL) are problematic. My basic thinking is simply that we are accorded the luxury of time. We need not be a blow-by-blow source of information (though consensus seems to be trending against me on that, as well). I merely believe that putting Wikipedia's imprimatur on a fact like that is best done with context, and that context is best assessed at a later time when there is at least some resolution. That said, cheers to all, and hope everyone has a wonderful week. Dumuzid (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Individuals notable for their participation in high-profile, violent incidents should be named. This is how we have treated mass shooters, mass bombers, assassins, and other high-profile killers or shooters that are the subject of national media attention on hundreds of pages on Wikipedia. Per BLP, we do not state that they are guilty of any crime until they have been convicted; this is as far as BLP requires us to go to maintain neutrality and avoid legal concerns. We should not censor widely reported verifiable facts, such as their names, their involvement in the violent incident, and any charges against them (provided that all of these details are widely reported and verifiable facts). I agree that BLPNAME (not BLPCRIME) is the guiding policy on name inclusion. I would strongly oppose any alteration to that policy which would cause us to censor the names of hundreds of highly notable, but non criminal (or not yet criminal) killers on Wikipedia. Combefere ★ Talk 18:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
We have seen many historical incidents in which news media rushed to name suspects who were later exonerated. We should not follow that rush to state that these people "participated in high-profile, violent incidents" until enough time has passed for the incident to be settled. WP:NODEADLINE. If an incident has been resolved without a conviction, but nevertheless reliable sources name certain people as participants (maybe for instance they were not convicted because they died before going to trial) then we can state their names. If an incident is too soon to have been resolved, we should err on the side of privacy. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
David Eppstein, in the case of the Killing of Jordan Neely, there is zero doubt that Daniel Penny is the name of the man who put Neely in a choke hold immediately preceding his death. There is an outstanding legal question about whether Penny committed a crime. But there is zero doubt that Penny is the guy. And it is an unquestionable fact that he has been charged with a crime. This is also a very high-profile incident, one of the most prominent American events of 2023. And yet, in an act of wikiabsurdity, we can't put "Daniel Penny" in the body of the article. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a difference between a high profile case involving people that have previously been non-notable, and the type of crimes that this section leads off with very low profile incidents in the larger scheme of things. I would agree that in a high profile case which has the clear tail of ongoing news coverage, as in the case of Neely, and where there is very clear evidence of what happened, that naming the arrested suspect is likely not to be an issue. But that should be considered the exception and not the rule. If there's any questions to the long-term importance of a crime, the name should always be omitted until a conviction is made. Masem (t) 02:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Masem, well, the status quo is completely upside down from what you suggest it should be. Surely we have a problem.Jweiss11 (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes we do, and it is a very complicated problem, because it involved not only BLPCRIME, but premature creation of articles under NEVENT/NOT#NEWS, and the general trend that, presuming all editors are decent people but still human beings, the urge to want to point out and highlight those that disrupt society in a way that goes against how NPOV demands we write. Masem (t) 04:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
In the case of ultimately deciding to include the name of Daniel Penny in the Killing of Jordan Neely article, for me it had nothing to do with wanting to highlight an individual who had "disrupted society", and it had everything to do with wanting the article to be accurate, descriptive, and factual.
No need to omit pertinent information, such as the name of the person who very definitely was involved in the killing of Jordan Neely. It's detrimental for a resource such as Wikipedia to be intentionally omitting and obfuscating the relevant details, and it is a disservice to our readers if they need to start going to other places just to find out the most basic facts surrounding an event that should be easily covered in an encyclopedic entry. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I've always been on the side of less information when dealing with BLPs and accusations of crime. I see that most of this discussion relates to articles about the crime and naming the accused. I have to admit a lot of sympathy for Sideswipe9th's POV here. I'm sure we can't practically do a hard line on "no conviction, no name". Take the Kyle Rittenhouse case. Prior to the trial I think both of the following were true; 1. Rittenhouse didn't seek any publicity/interviews etc and 2. Rittenhouse's name and other information were widely discussed. In that case it would have been unreasonable to avoid naming Rittenhouse. I think the hard part is nailing down how much publicity is required before names can be named. I think a related issue is when the name is out there how we should handle accusations. For example if a notable person is accused of a crime do we report before all the facts are known? In the Rittenhouse case a number of accusations were made by the prosecution before trial. Those claims were not brought up at trial and were arguably made to smear Rittenhouse in the court of public opinion. Should we report on such content or hold off? I personally feel, even in a high profile case we should err on the side of excluding information like that until such time as it's relevance to the historical picture becomes clear. Springee (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Springee, I know you were much involved in the Rittenhouse case, but for benefit of others; he gave at least one on-camera interview with a media outlet prior to the shooting: In another clip from an on-camera video with Richie McGinniss, the chief video director of the Daily Caller, Rittenhouse says he was there to protect a business and "to also help people." (via CNN) The video in question was played at his trial, I don't know how soon or widely disseminated it was just after the event, but it mentioned in the Kenosha unrest shooting article.
    After the shooting his lawyers released several statements defending his actions. In the currently running Killing of Jordan Neely RfC whether to name Neely's assailant, I !voted to name the accused on the basis that, after the fact, he granted on-camera interviews explaining his actions and pleading his innocence of any criminal act, and promoted a crowd-funding campaign for his defense which earned $3 million; therefore, he met the bar for public figure. Rittenhouse might be an even stronger case for naming since he 1) voluntarily put himself in harm's way, 2) armed with deadly force, 3) apparently in part to make a societal statement, 4) didn't shy from public attention after the incident.
    Both examples are kind of gray areas, especially given my understanding of current policy. Whichever way consensus falls, I'd like there to be brighter lines than we've got if at all possible. Xan747 (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
    You'd like editors to use their best judgment less often? That's what "brighter lines" means: more rule-following, and less need to think about all the facts and circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
    More that when a discussion actually does happen, the choices are clearer. A good first step would for policy to explicitly say something like, "If a low-profile person is accused of a crime, do not use their name in the article until such time as a conviction is obtained."
    That said, I do hear your concern. My counter is that I see very little evidence of any deliberation in these kinds of articles. In 13 of the 18 articles cited above, there was zero discussion about whether to name the suspect. The vast majority of those were either named when the article was created, or within a day or two, often on the same day RS first named them.
    In the five articles where it was discussed[1], the conversations were short (four or fewer comments) and never once considered the public-figure criterion. The most common arguments were along the lines of "suspect has been arrested and charged" and/or "suspect has been widely named in multiple RS". One article of the five, 2023 Brownsville crash, wasn't really a discussion--an editor wrote in talk, I don't know if it's OK to name this person or not, but in case it is, here are some sources: and that was it.
    So if your goal is to encourage editors to use their best judgement, we might also add to policy, "Never name any person accused or convicted of a crime in an article until there is clear consensus to do so." Which would cover public figures and low-profile persons alike. Then for consistency, when a public figure is notable and already had a Wikipedia article prior to the allegations being made public, there should also be an injunction against inclusion until there's a clear consensus.
    I'm not wedded to the idea of having a public figure test as part of policy. But if it is to be so, these suggestions are where I'd start.
    [1] Killing of Ajike Owens, 2023 Brownsville crash, Shooting of Ralph Yarl, 2023 Cleveland, Texas shooting, 2023 Dadeville shooting. Xan747 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I think most editors who include the name of the accused (as in the 18 above) are guided by the inclusion of that name in multiple reliable sources. If Billy Killer's name is published in The New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian etc, then editors "consider" that in deciding to name the accused in a Wikipedia article. Some exclusionists overlook that WP:BLPCRIME only requires contributors to "consider" exclusion of a criminal charge. BLPCRIME does not "forbid" anything. A big part of that consideration is deciding whether the accusation has been widely published elsewhere. If it has, why should Wikipedia adopt a nanny position? WWGB (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I think because other aspects of BLP policy may be relevant, depending on the circumstances, such as WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE ("Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care") and WP:BLPNAME ("Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.") Also, I think the overall principle of BLP policy should be considered (we're not a tabloid, vehicle for sensationalism, etc). So according to the underlying principles of BLP policy, it appears that names of peoplenonpublic figures accused of crimes can be removed from articles as potential BLP policy violations, until inclusion is "seriously considered." Beccaynr (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC) - update comment Beccaynr (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but that language is routinely dismissed as, "well it just says we need to consider not doing it, not that we can't do it." As a result, those things are hardly ever evidently considered from what I've seen. As written, the policy is effectively toothless. Xan747 (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Again, I note the use of rubbery terms in policy like "should be treated with special care" and "caution should be applied". Nothing absolute there. Yes, "names of people accused of crimes can be removed" but they do not have to be. WWGB (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I think it could be read as shifting the burden to those seeking to include the name - if special care, serious consideration, and caution should be applied, that would seem to necessarily need to happen before inclusion happens. It may be that the technical language needs to refer back to the overarching principles of BLP policy, and clarify that the burden to exercise care, consideration, and caution is on those seeking to include the name. Beccaynr (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
One thing absolutely needs to change; blpcrime needs to explicitly say, "If a low-profile person is accused of a crime, do not use their name in the article until such time as a conviction is obtained." Because it currently does not, and that's loophole numero uno. Xan747 (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC) This was poorly worded, see my clarification at 02:27, 18 July 2023. Xan747 (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
One thing absolutely needs to change I strongly disagree, there's little reason for named individuals in high profile crimes to be protected like this. It runs counter to other policies and guidelines such as WP:NOR and WP:DUE. BLP is, of course, important, but not to the point that we're self censoring topics that are covered widely (especially if we're using language that is appropriate, i.e. "accused", "suspected", etc). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I doubt that consensus will form on a strict prohibition, and I think it is a challenge to determine who is otherwise "low-profile" and how that relates to nonpublic figures. However, as Locke Cole notes, there are cases where we have high profile crimes, where serious consideration can include the magnitude of coverage (e.g. sustained national and/or international coverage, in-depth coverage focused on the individual, secondary context and commentary, voluntary statements by the accused, etc) as noted by Aquillon below. I can think of various examples where a crime may be considered 'high profile', for example because it has been unsolved for years, and then someone otherwise low-profile and not a public figure is arrested but mentioned only briefly in the coverage. There seems to be a much stronger case for waiting to include their name until much more substantial coverage of the individual develops or a conviction is secured. Beccaynr (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not being clear. Currently blpcrime doesn't say anything about whether to include a suspect's name--it talks about whether to include information about criminal activity. So whatever the standard of name inclusion, blpcrime needs to speak to that. The language in blpname doesn't doesn't explicitly talk about criminal acts, and that is another loophole. As Combefere points out at 06:41, 19 July 2023, the real loophole is using BLPCRIME to exclude a suspect's name. Xan747 (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
For the record, I think when an otherwise low-profile individual has gotten sustained national/international press as a suspect, we absolutely should name them. But that is not how I've been arguing in actual articles because my understanding is that they need to somehow clear the public-figure hurdle if they're to be named prior to a conviction. Xan747 (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
This point sounds familiar to issues that have been raised in previous discussions about the policy and possible revisions to help clarify that language, but with a fresh perspective on an aspect that could benefit from clarification. Ultimately, I think whatever we may do with the policy can include a goal of helping facilitate constructive article Talk discussion and avoiding wikilawyering with technical language that may contravene the principles of BLP policy and our overall purpose as a tertiary source and encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I would very much like to see that happen. Xan747 (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOR forbids original research. I don't see how leaving out a name would constitute original research. WP:DUE is about neutral point of view. In a slightly different context (deadnaming) people are arguing based on WP:DUE that leaving out a name violates WP:NPOV in this RfC. But I don't get how this is a point of view. Could you elaborate why you think WP:NOR and WP:DUE apply? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
The concept of NOR and DUE applies because the names were inserted with RS's so they are DUE portions of a NPOV. Had they been inserted without RS's then they would have been OR. Huggums537 (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
The way I understand Lock Cole he is arguing that leaving the name out would violate WP:OR. Of course adding it without RS would be OR. And I still don't understand how the name falls under WP:NPOV. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
You've got it backwards. I think @Locke Cole is saying that adding the names is in line with WP:CENSORED, OR, DUE and NPOV. (Since they are widely covered.) Huggums537 (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Updated on 17:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@Random person no 362478479, @Huggums537: I honestly think I typo'd in my rush to reply and meant to link to NPOV (of which DUE is part of). The only way I could even rationalize NOR would be the "original" idea that somehow the suspect/accused was somehow nameless despite reliable sources all claiming the contrary. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah yes, I think we've all fallen into Wikipedia's alphabet soup at some point. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I would strongly oppose such a change to the policy. WP:BLPNAME (the section of BLP titled "Privacy of names") is and should continue to be the controlling policy on including names of living people in articles. The misapplication of BLPCRIME for the inclusion of names is largely responsible for the confusion in this discussion in the first place; we already have a policy for that.
This is not a "loophole." It's how the policy was intended, and it's well supported in common practice. In fact, it is the editors who cite BLPCRIME in cases where BLPNAME doesn't support their preferred outcome that are looking for a loophole. Combefere ★ Talk 06:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
@Combefere, I take it you were replying to my 01:42, 18 July 2023 comment. It was poorly written, and (hopefully) clarified at 02:27, 18 July 2023. I should probably strike the former and refer to the latter. You're correct about my use of "loophole" so I should also amend that.
As written, the clear intent of blpcrime is to protect low-profile individuals from the damage associated with being accused of a crime. I take it that there's a greater public interest to report allegations made against high-profile individuals, hence the distinction.
Now we all know this by heart: editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. In the case of Kingsessing, not including such information would effectively mean no article at all. So consider that the "preferred outcome" of not naming is that article can both exist and cohere to the spirit of blpcrime.
That logic relies on an assumption that commission of a crime isn't sufficient in and of itself to elevate a low-profile individual to public figure status. Otherwise, as @Dumuzid so very often says, why make the distinction at all. Xan747 (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
BLPNAME protects low-profile individuals from the risk or damages associated with name publication. It does so quite well as written, including for cases where individuals are charged with crimes. It protects people whose names have been intentionally concealed, or whose names are not included in non-news sources, or who are loosely involved in the event, and more. But it doesn't discourage us from naming anybody who has ever been charged with a crime, nor should it.
As for whether an article about a potentially criminal act should exist at all, WP:NCRIME is the guiding policy.
The "clear intent" of BLPCRIME is to ensure verifiability, neutral point of view and protect Wikipedia from litigation over libel. It has nothing to do with names at all. Names are not ever 'material that suggests a person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime.' BLPCRIME (and NPF and others) just discourages us from making specific legal claims or defamatory claims, regardless of whether the person affected is named in the article. It's not intended as a secondary policy to govern the privacy of names whenever BLPNAME leads us to a conclusion that an editor doesn't like. Combefere ★ Talk 22:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
NCRIME doesn't really offer much guidance beyond general notability, but it links to WP:CRIMINAL, the final paragraph of which reads:
Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.
By the letter, this is absurd because even an amateur wikilawyer like me could argue, "well it doesn't say anything about including them in an article about the event they're known for," and *poof*, the protection that paragraph is supposed to afford vanishes without a trace.
So maybe once upon a time there was a discussion that concluded, "Ok you can have your article, just don't name the suspect until they're convicted," but it was never codified. All I really know is that that sentiment exists today and is expressed by multiple editors with far more experience than me. Xan747 (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:CRIMINAL relates to creating articles about individuals who are accused of a crime (ie creating the biographical article Daniel Penny in addition to Killing of Jordan Neely).
"By the letter, this is absurd because even an amateur wikilawyer like me could argue, "well it doesn't say anything about including them in an article about the event they're known for," and *poof*, the protection that paragraph is supposed to afford vanishes without a trace."
This isn't wikilawyering, this is exactly what that policy is supposed to do. In many cases, (the one listed above for example), it is appropriate to include the name of somebody suspected of a crime even though it's not appropriate to create a separate page for that person. That's what WP:CRIMINAL (a part of our notability policy governing when we create articles) is for. WP:CRIMINAL is also not intended to govern the privacy of names.
BLP is the policy that determines what information we can include about living people and how we can write it. There's a whole section of the policy called Privacy of names which provides guidelines on when we include names on Wikipedia and when we don't. The fact that it doesn't do what some editors want it to do is not an indication that some other policy somewhere is secretly "intended" to deal with the privacy of names. There are in fact other aspects of writing the encyclopedia that those policies do govern; not everything in PAG is about the privacy of names. If you want to change how we deal with the privacy of names, then you want to change BLPNAME. Combefere ★ Talk 01:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
So, Comberfere, just so I make sure I am following the argument, your contention is that WP:BLPCRIME would have no application at all to the name of the accused in the killing of Jordan Neely? Dumuzid (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Correct. Combefere ★ Talk 03:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
If I may argue against myself for the moment, I think the easiest way to square this circle is simply to say that "seriously consider" is actually a lower bar than those on my side of the debate would have it. That is, it is a caution, not a barrier. But I confess I still think WP:BLPCRIME applies (which is of course not dispositive as to any particular question). If, taking the example from the Neely page, we say that a person committed act X and later was indicted for crime Y as a result of act X, how is that not material . . . that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime? Dumuzid (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I will politely decline the bait that this is about the phrase "seriously consider." BLPCRIME could say "we must absolutely never suggest that a person has committed or is accused of a crime," and we would still be able to include the names of Daniel Penny, Elliot Rodger and hundreds of other notable killers in articles on Wikipedia, because their names are not criminal accusations.
"we say that a person... was indicted for crime Y... how is that not material . . . that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime?"
That certainly is material that suggests the person is accused of a crime, and that sentence is certainly controlled (but not bright-line precluded) by BLPCRIME. But that sentence is not his name and has nothing to do with his name. BLPCRIME would also discourage us from saying "the ex-marine was indicted."
And that's why this is wikilawyering. Nobody even wants to remove things like a criminal indictment, but they'll cite BLPCRIME which suggests we remove the criminal indictment and pretend that it suggests we remove the name. It doesn't. The part of BLP that controls the privacy of names is the part very clearly titled "Privacy of names." Combefere ★ Talk 04:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay, with that I would agree. If we don't include an indictment, or the like, then I am 100% with you that there is no problem including the name. And that's the first time I have been accused of baiting someone while saying "here's why I think you win." But variety is the spice of life! Dumuzid (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
BLP policy generally puts the burden on those seeking to include contentious content. Particularly for nonpublic figures, there is no rush to include allegations of criminal conduct and names of people known for a single event, and this content can be excluded (because BLP policy indicates care and caution should be exercised, and serious consideration should occur) until there is consensus for inclusion. Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to ask another hypothetical case to try to get an idea where the line should be. What about Richard Jewell and the Centennial Olympic Park bombing? Initially Jewell was lauded as a hero for saving lives but later it was leaked that the FBI suspected he might have placed the bomb himself specifically to be a hero. For a time (I don't recall how long) Jewell was considered a suspect but was ultimately never charged and later the actual bomber was caught. So how would we cover Jewell in context of the article on the bombing if Wikipedia had been around at the time? We likely would have mentioned Jewell's name when he was viewed as a hero. Would we have avoided mentioning him when be was considered a suspect? I guess that would depend on if we felt he was truly a low profile person or not. With perfect hindsight it might have been good to delay reporting the suspicion of Jewell since in the end it was wrong and Jewell really did save lives. I also think it would be helpful if we had some guidance as to what counts as public profile. If John Doe is accused of a high profile crime are they automatically high profile? Do they have to answer public questions to be a public person? Is it just one question or lots of questions? What about coverage including Mr Doe's name? What counts as sustained coverage? Certainly a week's worth of coverage by major media outlets counts as initially high profile but if Vice or some other lower profile source is the only one still talking about things a week later is that sustained coverage? Conversely do I need more than a week's worth of coverage out of a major news source (AP News etc)? I don't know the answers but I figure the more we can answer the better off we are. Springee (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't know the answers but I figure the more we can answer the better off we are. - but isn't this what leads to the micro managing of instruction creep to begin with? Huggums537 (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I mean that is a buttload of questions to answer, and it only scrapes the tip of the iceberg. Can't we just trust editors to make judgement calls on all these questions, and further trust them to sort it out if there hiccups down the road? Huggums537 (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the problem with that is that people obviously have completely different interpretations of the rules. That will result in the same discussions to be had over and over again. And we also risk complete inconsistency where things are not guided by policy, but by the opinions and preferences of the people that happen to show up for the discussion. And given the many "include, it is mentioned in lots of reliable sources" votes in RfCs related to this issue, many seem not to take the policies into account at all. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
So, you think micro managing with more instruction creep will somehow prevent all that rather than exacerbate it by multiplying the issue with even more stuff to discuss over and over due to even more different interpretations? Huggums537 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we need more instructions. I think we need better instructions. When two people read the same instructions and interpret them in diametrically opposite ways that suggests that the rules are not fit for purpose. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I can actually see modifying policy to be a) more clear and b) more compact. Especially the latter if some of the ... nuance ... that few seem to consider is dropped. Xan747 (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm on board with that. Better policies that are less open to multiple interpretations with less of that nuanced nuisance. Huggums537 (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
It's just that Springee does bring up a lot of really good questions, and I can't imagine policy being able to address all those plus all the ones that haven't even been asked yet about all the other policies that are just as complicated as those. That's why I said it's only the tip of the iceberg. We really need to start thinking about strategic ways to implement policy that reduces the amount of interpretation, but still encourages editors to deliberate on things on a case basis. I think the avoidance of deliberation is a big part of the problem because these editors over here want policy to make it easier for them to argue to have articles their way, while those editors over there want policy to make it easier for them to argue to have articles their way, and a straightforward neutral interpretation that forces them to deliberate the matter gets drowned out by cries about how it's going to cause debate, or what they will say is "conflict". Heaven forbid we have any debate because that would be "conflict". Huggums537 (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Individual small steps is the only hope. Otherwise it will turn out like 100 people who try to agree on the toppings for 30 identical pizzas, and end up ordering breadsticks.
Per the topic of this thread, I'd propose something like:
Should we add the following text WP:BLPNAME?
For private individuals suspected or accused of committing a crime, do not include their name in any article until there exists a strong consensus of multiple editors to do so.
And then if yes, create a template to be used on talkpages which says something like:
This article mentions by name a living person suspected or accused of committing a crime without having first obtained a strong consensus by multiple editors to do so. Therefore, per WP:BLPNAME I have replaced all mentions of their name in the article with generic descriptions.
Not too radical a change that is entirely compatible with "editors should seriously consider not including" clauses that already exist, and the strong presumption in favor of privacy. Xan747 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
We absolutely do not want to go down the path of seeking page-by-page consensus to include the name of the accused. That is the current situation with regard to naming victims killed in an attack. It just creates repetition and inconsistency; the outcome hangs on which editors turn out to vote on that particular page. As shown in the 18+ cases above, most accused are currently named without individual time-wasting consensus. The outcome of Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Name Inclusion, reopened indicates editors are moving to publish the name of an accused. WWGB (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
For the record, I !voted for naming Penny because his actions after he was indicted qualified him as a public figure, to wit: granting on-camera interviews and starting an online fundraiser to cover legal expenses which netted 3 million USD. In discussion I argued that not naming him might diminish his returns.
I !voted against naming the Kingsessing shooter because he did no such thing after his arrest. Consensus ended up being 5-2 to name, with widespread media coverage being the main justification. Of the editors !voting to name, public figure was considered by four: one outright rejected it as inapplicable, and three editors more or less said the act of a mass shooting is attention-seeking, rendering Carriker a public figure.
I can easily see that requiring consensus to name might simply turn into a rubber-stamp exercise with little utility. OTOH, publishing a suspect's name within hours (or less) of it first appearing in print is awfully rash for an encyclopedia. Xan747 (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe Springee was right and we need to answer these questions. I guess I was just thrown off by the sheer volume of how many questions there are, and the case by case method isn't working out either. Huggums537 (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I think that accused who have received significant coverage using their name are usually in the gray area where we can include their name but are not required to; but I also think it would be hard to set a hard-and-fast rule. Assuming the perpetrator is not notable for anything except the crime, their name has little encyclopedic value initially; but if significant and WP:SUSTAINED coverage uses that name, then it is likely to be something people are going to search for, which creates at least some reason to use it once, if nothing else. Additionally, heavy coverage using the name can turn it into a "handle" that allows readers to connect this to other things they heard - "oh, that person, this is that case!" So I'd say that including the name is generally optional, with a bias towards excluding when coverage is sparse or brief, and including at least a single brief mention when coverage is sustained and discusses the accused in-depth using their name as opposed to just passing mentions. --Aquillion (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Aquillion, BLP makes a distinction between notable and public figure that is subtle and difficult for me to fully grok. I'm quite sure I'm not the only one, because I very often see the argument that if the event is notable enough, the alleged perp becomes notable and therefore nameable. I see you started a new conversation below this one, I will say more there. Xan747 (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  • My main takeaway reading some comments above is that the letter of BLPCRIME has lagged behind its application on most articles, which in turn is allowing one particular topic area (one that reliably produces some of our worst BLP violations) to exempt itself from the expectations applied everywhere else. Policy is supposed to document consensus, so it seems we should update BLPCRIME to say 1) that non-public figures accused (but not convicted) of crimes should only be named in exceptional cases with clear consensus, and 2) that accusations against public figures should only be mentioned on their biographies if there is reliable source coverage that goes beyond merely repeating the allegations. Those two changes, I think, would reflect how BLPCRIME is applied on most articles. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    Tamzin, I don't want to go back and read the whole discussion again, but I could have sworn another editor asked for some actual examples showing that anything other than what has been presented here "...would reflect how BLPCRIME is applied on most articles", and no evidence to that was ever provided. Huggums537 (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Huggums537, see WWGB (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2023 wherein he gave two examples: Killing of Brianna Ghey, and Killing of Nahel Merzouk.
    It occurred to me last night that some *notable* crime articles don't ever see the light of day due to blpcrime issues, in which case the perception that blpcrime is rarely considered might qualify as a form of Survivorship bias. A search of the AfD archives returns 620 hits for the string "BLPCRIME". I'll go spelunking for a bit and report back. Xan747 (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    Good luck sifting through 620 discussions to see which mentions of "BLPCRIME" were arguments to keep, and which ones were arguments to delete, and then more good luck determining how much that phrase was actually related to the deletion. For example, I'm sure at least one of them got deleted for totally different reasons while at least one person who voted keep mentioned "BLPCRIME" in their vote for whatever reason. Huggums537 (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    Most of the hits are to the main AfD page, not the specific discussion page. But yeah, no way in hell I'm doing all of them. In three hours I've done four. Think I'll do one more, then go take a look at BLPN. Xan747 (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    This RfC including BLPCRIME arguments was just closed with inclusion of the name. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    So 15-5 to name. Most of !votes to name relied solely on name being widely reported in multiple RS. The few that considered a public figure test said things along the lines of the high profile nature of the crime and/or the broad coverage made them a public figure. One editor simply discarded the public figure test and said their personal threshold was wide coverage. Four arguments included a threshold of indicted for inclusion, one argued that being arrested was sufficient. Xan747 (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    "Policy is supposed to document consensus, so it seems we should update BLPCRIME"
    I think you may have jumped from A to C here. I missed the part where there's a well documented community consensus that "non-public figures accused (but not convicted) of crimes should only be named in exceptional cases." Based on the 19 articles linked above, I am quite skeptical that such a community consensus exists. Combefere ★ Talk 04:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    Looking at articles about recent sensational crimes to get the sense of community application of BLPCRIME is like looking at a supervised injection site to get the sense of community norms regarding drug use. However, on BLPs themselves—the place where most BLP-related discussions occur—in my experience the community is largely on board with the idea that private figures should rarely if ever be mentioned in connection with a crime (sometimes not even if they've been convicted), and that public figures often should not either. I couldn't point to one single discussion that encapsulates that, but it's my impression of how the community tends to see things, outside of one corner where BLP frequently seems to be seen as a nuisance rather than a core policy. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    In my experience people at WP:BLPN (myself included) usually take the strict interpretation of policy you outlined. In RfCs or other discussions occurring on article talk pages, on the other hand, we see a significant amount of "include, it is mentioned in lots of reliable sources" votes. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for that. Like I did above for AfD, a search of BLPN for "BLPCRIME" returns 162 results. (It was 620 hits at AfD.) This could keep me out of trouble for a bit. Xan747 (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    On the contrary, if you're looking for a community consensus on how to deal with people who have been charged with crimes, you should look at articles that involve people who have been charged with crimes. Consider that it is actually the talk page on BLP which represents a small corner of the community where editors dissatisfied with BLP self-select and congregate. Combefere ★ Talk 15:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    Consider that talk pages of sensational crime articles represent a small corner of the community where editors with a poor grasp of policy and best practices self-select and congregate. Constant efforts to use low-quality sources, weird obsessions with body counts and methodologies that have directly contributed to at least three mass shootings, horrifically bad prose, even a local consensus to exempt the topic area from MOS:GEOCOMMA in titles simply because the regulars disagree with it—and yes, constant disregard for both the written content of WP:BLP and community best practices regarding writing about living people. I cannot think of a topic area less representative of the community in terms of competence at writing Wikipedia articles. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    I would agree with this assessment. In particular I've found that the poor grasp of policy and guidelines lead to some very idiosyncratic interpretations that are unique to that content area. Woe forbid anyone raise WP:NCEVENTS in a move request, because apparently every article meets the limited exception stated in WP:NOYEAR, particularly in the hours and days following the event in question. I would strongly argue that the editors who contribute to both this talk page and BLPN are far more representative of how the BLP policy is applied across enwiki, in no small part because those editors tend to edit a great many BLPs, than whatever local consensus interpretation is found in the sensational crime topic area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    I'm very much enjoying reading veiled personal attacks. Please, continue. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    OK, you're "on thin ice". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    Back on topic, though, here's my take. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    If the tendency on these pages is to "ignore" policy, then why is there a need to change the policy?
    I'm just pointing out the completely backwards logic of saying that policy should document community consensus, followed immediately by the claim that the community consensus is incorrect and the policy needs to be changed to redirect the community. Combefere ★ Talk 23:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of soliciting broader community opinion on this issue, I have posted the following message on the talkpages of each of the nineteen examples where non-convicted suspects have been named even though a conviction has not been obtained:

There is an ongoing policy discussion at WP:BLP entitled Naming accused perpetrators of crimes debating the question of whether articles about high-profile criminal cases should name any known suspect(s) prior to conviction, especially when they are only known for their involvement with the event in question. This article is featured as one example of twenty [sic] fitting these criteria which named the suspect(s) after being published by reliable sources. I will be copying this message to the other articles so that interested editors have an opportunity participate in the debate.

I posted a similar message in each of the four examples where the suspects are either not named, or weren't named until there was explicit consensus to do so. Xan747 (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Treating articles on people and articles about incidents different makes sense here. Take something like Killing of Jordan Neely. It is not disputed that Daniel Penny was the person involved. If he wasn't charged with a crime, then including his name would be fine (no implication that he committed a crime). If he is exonerated, then including his name would be fine (he still would be the person involved in the incident, after all). And if he is convicted, including his name would be fine. Local consensus eventually came around to this view, and now he is named in the article. Same goes for many of these other cases: when what's in dispute is whether certain actions are criminal or not, rather than whether a person committed them, then strictly applying BLPCRIME leads to illogical results, because whether the person ends up getting convicted doesn't actually change their role in the incident.
Many of these cases, though, are pretty clearly about crimes (instead of things which may or may not be crimes). In that situation, we should follow what sources do, while using a good deal of caution. BLPCRIME doesn't say we can't name people who are charged, but not convicted, just that we must seriously consider not doing so. When most reliable sources are naming someone, then it's pretty clear that naming them would not do any harm.
On the other hand, it's very reasonable to not, say, exclude an arrest (where the person is not yet convicted) for something like a DUI or a domestic dispute in an article about a celebrity, politician, etc, at least unless that arrest gets a significant amount of media coverage. That's more in line with what BLPCRIME is actually supposed to protect against. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
It is not disputed that Daniel Penny was the person involved. It wasn't disputed that Christopher Jefferies was involved when police arrested him on suspicion of murder at the end of December 2010, the UK media had widely published his name, and largely operated under an assumption that he had done it. Yet three months later the charges were dropped, and by July 2011 Jefferies had successfully sued multiple UK newspapers for libel. The same would apply also to the case of Richard Jewell as mentioned by Springee above.
In that situation, we should follow what sources do, while using a good deal of caution. If the Jefferies incident had happened today, and we had followed the sources, then it's entirely possible that a UK court could have found for libel charges against Wikipedia had Jefferies brought a case against the Foundation. Similar situations have already happened with the German and French courts. As those cases show, a fact being verifiable to a reliable source is not enough to protect us when those sources get it very wrong. Respectfully, a "good deal of caution" should have us only naming individuals who are convicted in connection with a crime.
BLPCRIME doesn't say we can't name people who are charged, but not convicted, just that we must seriously consider not doing so. True, but in many of the articles linked above, that serious consideration isn't even happening. As soon as a name is verifiable through a few reliable sources, someone is adding it to the article. That is a big problem, especially with regards to WP:RSBREAKING.
When most reliable sources are naming someone, then it's pretty clear that naming them would not do any harm. See Christopher Jefferies again.
That's more in line with what BLPCRIME is actually supposed to protect against. Certainly BLPCRIME would and should cover cases such as this. But the current text of it makes no distinction at all on the severity or impactfulness of a crime. As it is currently written, it has to apply to all suspects of all crimes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
To add to this, we have to be aware that the mainstream news media, even the better sources like NYTimes and WaPost, give an excessive coverage of crime that falls within NOTNEWS/NEVENTS/RSBREAKING as stuff that we would not cover - we are to write from the 10-year view, not the current one. To that end, we have to be aware that many of these articles like those id'd at the start of this thread are not appropriate for WP under NEVENT, even if the incident has a burst of broad coverage that includes the name of the person behind the crime before they have been found guilty. The whole problem around article creation and NOTNEWS is beyond the scope of this discussion, but we really need to emphasize that crimes that typically involve domestic violence matters with no indications of terrorism or hate-driven ones probably shouldn't be documented on WP, even with international coverage. BLPCRIME is an extension of that thought that if you are going to document such an event, it is far far better to err on the side of caution to not include non-notable names until it is otherwise necessary (in most cases, once a person has been found guilty of the crime). Masem (t) 04:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
To that end, we have to be aware that many of these articles like those id'd at the start of this thread are not appropriate for WP under NEVENT I agree. I had a look briefly a few days ago, and many of them fail WP:NSUSTAINED and/or WP:PERSISTENCE. I've been mulling whether or not to AFD those under those criteria, but I think I've decided to hold off at least as long as we're discussing the policy point, as they make useful examples either way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Agree that plenty of these cases should not have articles at all. Though it's not that easy to see which ones do and don't have lasting significance at the time. After these discussions wrap up, going back through articles from the 2010s and 2020/2021 and AfDing those without lasting significance would be a good idea. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Other countries having absurd libel laws is not something we should base our policies and guidelines around. If we want to have separate policies for articles regarding the US and other countries, that's fine by me.
But also, regarding your example: no, it was pretty clearly disputed whether Jefferies was the person who committed the murder. In a case like the Killing of Jordan Neely, it is not at all disputed, by anyone, that Daniel Penny was the person who did the killing. The dispute is over whether that constitutes a crime. I agree we should not include a name just as soon as it is verifiable, but that does not mean we cannot necessarily include a name until after trial.
As it is currently written, it has to apply to all suspects of all crimes. It can be interpreted in such a manner (but again, it does not require exclusion), and that's what should be clarified. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
no, it was pretty clearly disputed whether Jefferies was the person who committed the murder. It was disputed by Jefferies, but not by the media. The lack of dispute by the media was mentioned in significant detail in the Leveson Inquiry, see pages 558-564 for the section on Jefferies, but his name appears throughout the 4 volumes of the report. The first real dispute in the media was when Vincent Tabak, who was later convicted of the killing, was charged nearly a month later on 22 January. For a comparison, this is the state of the article's content on Jefferies immediately prior to Tabak's arrest becoming known on 20 January, where Jefferies is still named as a suspect. this is the state at the end of 20 January, after Tabak's arrest was known and before police had officially named the suspect. And this is the state at the end of 22 January when Tabak had finally been named and charged by police. With the benefit of hindsight, that article is kinda a masterclass on how not to do any sort of responsible criminal reporting.
It can be interpreted in such a manner (but again, it does not require exclusion), and that's what should be clarified Without a qualifier on which crimes it applies to, by default it applies to all crimes regardless of circumstance. There is no other plausible way to read it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Jefferies involvement in the event was certainly disputed at the time. This isn't to say that RSs treated him fairly, but neither RSs, nor the Wikipedia article explicitly state as a matter of fact that he killed Yeates. This is not at all comparable to the Neely situation, nor most of the pages linked at the top of this discussion.
FWIW, the entire section of the WP article titled "arrest and release" is already clearly discouraged by BLPCRIME as written today, and I would argue to exclude that kind of information from similar articles today on the basis of BLPCRIME. But that kind of information is not what we're talking about in this discussion.
Largely, I think the name of this topic has already poisoned the well of conversation. We're not really talking about "accused perpetrators of crimes." We're talking about individuals notable for their verifiable and undisputable participation in high-profile, violent incidents, who in some cases happen to be charged with associated crimes. Treating those individuals as merely accused perpetrators of crimes is disingenuous. Treating the certainty around Jordan Neely's death as if it has the same degree of uncertainty as Joanna Yeates' death requires a level of skepticism so absurd it approaches solipsism. Combefere ★ Talk 08:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this is exactly my point. Regardless of what the criminal proceedings determine, Daniel Penny was the person involved. He's not disputing that. Nor has any media source disputed that, or any court document, or anything at all. The criminal case is only tangential to the topic of the article. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Combefere said:
> Treating the certainty around Jordan Neely's death as if it has the same degree of uncertainty as Joanna Yeates' death requires a level of skepticism so absurd it approaches solipsism.
BLPCRIME is quite clear that persons suspected of committing a crime are presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Full stop. No further evaluation of evidence is required to trigger that clause, or implied by invoking it.
When person A kills person B, the question of whether that act was criminal is always asked, and that should also be sufficient to trigger BLPCRIME, with editors giving strong consideration to not naming. In the case of Penny, he wasn't named by us until May 5 (reminder the incident was on the 1st), the same day his name was published in multiple RS. At that point he'd been questioned by police and released without charge, which circumstance had touched off protests, some of which resulted in bodily harm to a police officer and property damage. In such a climate, the necessary protections afforded by privacy should be bleeding obvious. Yet also at this point in time, Vazquez's video of the event which he'd posted to Facebook was linked to in our article--in which Penny's likeness is clearly identifiable. It was irresponsible of Vazquez to publish it in raw form, to say nothing of us repeating his indiscretion.
The certainty that a person committed a violent action is not justification in and of itself to identify them as having done so, particularly if they weren't a public figure prior to the act in question. Policy should be changed to unambiguously say so if it isn't clear enough already. Xan747 (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
"BLPCRIME is quite clear that persons suspected of committing a crime are presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Full stop. No further evaluation of evidence is required to trigger that clause, or implied by invoking it."
I certainly agree as I have made abundantly clear at this point. I have to point out again how much the well of this conversation seems to have been poisoned, that my position has been so misrepresented. Penny's innocence and the innocence of all people notable for their verifiable and undisputable participation in high-profile, violent incidents is not in dispute. The presumption of their innocence of any crimes is not threatened by including the material facts of their actions.
"The certainty that a person committed a violent action is not justification in and of itself to identify them as having done so, particularly if they weren't a public figure prior to the act in question."
Correct. The violent action must pass WP:GNG to necessitate the creation of an article, and then the person's involvement in the violent act must also be notable to be included. If those conditions are met, then the person involved must be included. And their notable involvement in the incident cannot be erased from the article simply because it precipitated a criminal charge.
"Policy should be changed to unambiguously say so if it isn't clear enough already."
On what basis, exactly? It's very clear that this is not what the policy already says. It's also very clear that this is not how the policy is practiced on Wikipedia, indicating a strong community consensus on naming individuals who are indisputably involved in high-profile violent incidents. Editors arguing to edit the policy here have yet to provide sufficient reason beyond just asserting "it needs to be changed." Why? Personally, I find the idea of expunging the names of hundreds of extremely notable and famous (but non-criminal) killers, shooters, bombers, terrorists, and the like decidedly unencyclopedic, and it's clear that the community is against such a practice. Combefere ★ Talk 21:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
> The presumption of their innocence of any crimes is not threatened by including the material facts of their actions.
Except that it is, which is why I am returning to the point. The nuance that killing and homicide are terms which are legally neutral does not make them so in the minds of the general public, and it's the tendency for high-profile suspects to be tried, convicted and found worthy of execution in the public mind that suppressing their identity is intended to protect against. Whether it actually does when every rag in the world has named a suspect and published their photograph along with them clearly doing the act is a good question. Where principles end and practice begins is very much at the heart of this debate.
There's a separate argument based on GNG about whether some of the articles listed above should not exist. For purposes of naming a suspect in an article, I assume that the event has cleared the notability hurdle. We can and have written articles about such events where the subject is known but not named. One does not demand the other.
Your argument about widespread community practice to name has been made by others, and it doesn't impress me. Practice shouldn't dictate policy; considered debate by a representative sample of editors should--and it's to that end that I went to the talk pages of our sample articles to notify those editors of this conversation. Xan747 (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
"Personally, I find the idea of expunging the names of hundreds of extremely notable and famous (but non-criminal) killers, shooters, bombers, terrorists, and the like decidedly unencyclopedic, and it's clear that the community is against such a practice."
Very much in agreement with Combefere's sentiment on these points, above.
"The nuance that killing and homicide are terms which are legally neutral does not make them so in the minds of the general public ..."
Apologies, Xan747, this is irrelevant. We are an encyclopedia. Following WP:NPOV and basing content on WP:RS should be enough, and it can't be helped how some people may or may not interpret what is written here, as that is ultimately beyond our control anyway. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
No apologies necessary, but thank you all the same. BLP takes precedence over RS, NPOV, etc., not the other way around. Since this is a policy discussion, it's fair for you to disagree; when writing articles I hope you follow current policy.
No we can't help how people interpret information, no matter how carefully presented. But by not publishing identifying information such as name and likeness we can potentially limit the ability of readers to do them actual harm. That said, many have argued (including myself) that when a suspect's name and face are plastered across the Internet by everyone but Wikipedia, the damage is done and it makes no sense to not follow the crowd--especially when the sources we're using contain the perp's name in the headline, which are clearly visible in the references section.
As for Combefere's hundreds of extremely notable and famous (but non-criminal) comment, let me clarify that I don't think we should never name otherwise low-profile suspects until they're convicted. See my 19:47, 23 July 2023 comment in the "Clarifying WP:PUBLICFIGURE" thread containing *specific* examples. Xan747 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
BLP takes precedence over RS, NPOV, etc., not the other way around. You are mistaken. WP:NPOV clearly states this at the top: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus (emphasis in source). When it comes to deviating significantly from our reliable sources in a manner that violates WP:DUE (which is part of WP:NPOV), it is BLP that has lesser "precedence". I do want to emphasize that for BLP topics it must be reliable sources, not simply tabloids or other similar reporting. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction. I had read that text before, but didn't recall that it was in NPOV. BLP certainly reads like it intended to take precedence over usual practice. The sourcing example you give is one instance.
But the most pertinent example to this debate is BLPCRIME itself. Do you contend that *not* including reliably-sourced criminal accusations is *always* a violation of NPOV? If no, could you provide an example of when it doesn't? Why would *not* naming a suspect violate NPOV so long as the article fairly represents RS-reported allegations against that individual? Xan747 (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
At best I would view BLP as complementary/explanatory to DUE/NPOV. But at the end of the day, if we have reliable sources (note the plural) naming a subject, it's not a BLP concern to name them. Do you contend that *not* including reliably-sourced criminal accusations is *always* a violation of NPOV? I personally believe care should be taken as advised at BLP, but if numerous RS name them and the event itself otherwise meets notability requirements, then naming them is the appropriate thing to do. If we're relying on only primary sources, social media, etc. alone for such claims, that's when we should omit and wait for RS's to pick up on it (if they even do). Why would *not* naming a suspect violate NPOV [...] Because we're supplanting what numerous RS are reporting with our own view/interpretations? I thought that was fairly obvious. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
No it isn't immediately obvious to me. As long as it remains clear to which individual we're referring, I argue it's the information other than their name that is the main NPOV concern. At Neely, when we were not naming Penny, there was significant debate about how to refer to him in an NPOV manner, so I don't completely discount your point. I just think it's a lesser concern than trying to protect people accused of crimes from mob justice--to the extent that Wikipedia not naming a widely-known suspect actually does so, of course.
My apologies: when I asked you, Do you contend that *not* including reliably-sourced criminal accusations is *always* a violation of NPOV?, I wasn't talking about naming. I meant the scenario when a low-profile person already named in a Wikipedia article for whatever other notable reason is widely reported by multiple RS to have been accused of a crime. Because by the letter of NPOV being a non-negotiable policy which cannot be superseded, I'm having difficulty imagining a case where invoking BLPCRIME wouldn't usurp NPOV's primacy. Xan747 (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I mentioned NPOV in my comment below [5] because from my view, BLP and NPOV are complementary; for example, WP:DUE states, Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. [...] How much detail is required depends on the subject. When the subject is a living (or recently deceased) person, BLP policy applies, and helps us determine when a name or allegation of criminal conduct is due to include - which appears to usually be based on high-quality secondary sources, not just multiple RS, because most people are not public figures. Beccaynr (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: Thanks for raising this issue. The meaning and intent of BLPCRIME has long puzzled me. However, coming late to this discussion, I wonder what harm this guidance is trying to guard against. The guidance starts off by saying: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." I would go further and say that person also has the right to a fair trial. These legal principles date back to the year 1215 and come from the Magna Carta, so are widely accepted in legal jurisdictions derive from or influenced by English law, including aspects of International law. What BLPCRIME asks is that: "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." This is not a directive to avoid naming an accused person, but a requirement for editors to make a clear and rational decision about naming, or not naming, based on the facts of individual case at hand. While the preference favours not naming, sometimes there may be a very good reason to either name, or not name. Editors need to consider what harm could arise from naming.
  • Is the person's name suppressed by the court or applicable law in the jurisdiction concerned? (i.e. Will Wikipedia editors in the jurisdiction concerned be at risk of contempt of court proceedings if they were to edit the article?)
  • Have the police or prosecuting authorities chosen not to name the accused person for any reasons? (i.e. Will naming the person harm others connected to the case, such as victims?)
  • Will naming result in a trial being aborted or discontinued due to the publicity? (i.e. Trial by media.)
  • Will it jeopardise the right to a fair trial, or the presumption of innocence?
  • Are the facts of the case already well known, or not? And is the accused person's role already well known in connection with these facts?
  • What crime is the person accused of, and how strong is the case against them? And does the accused person admit guilt or do they have a reasonable defense for their acts?
  • What reporting and freedom of expression protections are in place for news media, and others, reporting on matters before the courts in the jurisdiction concerned, or in other jurisdictions?
For events in the United States, reporting the name of a person charged with a crime is probably protected by the First Amendment, but the same might not be true in other countries. I think when deciding to name, or not name, as the case may be, editors also need to look at the reliable sources closest to the legal jurisdiction concerned, including what the police and prosecutors are doing and saying, and follow their lead, as this will generally comply with the applicable law. If they do not name the suspected person then Wikipedia also should not name the suspected person. Wikipedia editors should also respect decisions of the court, so if a court, or applicable local law decides a person's name ought to be suppressed, then Wikipedia also should not name that person, even though the person might be named by media reporting from outside the jurisdiction concerned, as this impacts on Wikipedia editors within the jurisdiction being held in contempt of court for editing a locally relevant Wikipedia article. Deciding if a person accused of a crime should be named, or not, is therefore a complex decision and needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis, so should be the subject of discussion at the article concerned, as one size clearly does not fit all cases. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Craig Newmark article

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Folks, I'm looking for an extra set of eyes on a request on the Craig Newmark talk page. A while back, JeffUK suggested that the Philanthropy section of the article be reorganized and consolidated. I've proposed a draft addressing their points. Spintendo reviewed the draft and suggested that for a change of this size, I could look elsewhere instead of using the edit request queue. I thought editors here might be interested in weighing in. Much thanks! Cnewmark (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

In general (and this goes for the immediately preceding section as well) this kind of request for attention to an individual article belongs on WP:BLPN. This talk page is more for discussion of changes to guidelines and policies that affect BLPs than for the application of our BLP policy to individual BLPs. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I have posted my request

elsewhere per your suggestion. Cnewmark (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_54&oldid=1178190453"