This is an archive of past discussions about Gilgo Beach serial killings. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The article linked as 42 does not say the family of Shannan Gilbert are suing the Suffolk County PD, they are suing Peter Hackett. Why does it say differently? 50.170.187.72 (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Rachael
Not to mention, he fits at least part of the profile mentioned in the article and many people seem to suspect his involvement. The murders seem to have stopped, after he fled the area to Fort Myers, Florida. 24.212.155.182 (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Possible Victim, 3/17/2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Newsday and news12 are both reporting that skeletal remains have been found in Manorville. They have been there for five years and are close to where the other human remains have been found. They haven't mentioned a link to the Giglo killings, but I thought I'd mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.107.213 (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The Craigslist killer more commonly refers to Philip Markoff (at least in New England) is Phillip Markoff) and there have been a few SK's known as the Long Island Serial Killer most notable of which was Joel Rifkin. Posimosh 02:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posimosh (talk • contribs)
Long Island serial killer
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
I think the Manorville killer is far less notable than the recent killings which are receiving widespread international news coverage. So I think the Gilgo Beach killer should remain on this page, but it might be useful to create an article for the Manorville killer and add a "not to be confused with" note on top of this page. Michael5046 (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that I don't think all the Manorville bodies are linked. I live on Long Island and the Manorville bodies are almost never spoken of. The media and the police will speak about it for a week or so and than it's history. It's very odd. Cfagan1987 (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The Suffolk County DA has just confirmed that two sets of remains found along Ocean Parkway are linked with the bodies found off the LIE in Manorville in 2000 and 2003. This whole case just gets more and more confusing ...
I agree! I updated the article as best I could, but at some point the information will have to be separated into different articles. Ravenscroft32 (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Nine not confirmed as victims
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The article currently states in the lede: "Four of the victims were found in December 2010, while five more were found in March and April 2011."
I cannot find confirmation that at the present time 4/13/2011 the police or medical examiner is confirming all the remains are the result of this particular killer or even that all nine died from foul play.71.252.54.20 (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the current article clearly states "suspected serial killer", "suspected victims" and "who is believed to have murdered as many as nine people". Officials have at multiple times said at least the initial four and possibly the others are the work of a serial killer, simply because its unusual to find so many bodies in the same area. Also the other victims have not been identified, nor their cause of deaths, making it difficult to connect them anyway. I'm pretty sure all them will be linked eventually when those facts are confirmed.Michael5046 (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am slowly wondering (as its always refered to "on the beach of Long Island") if some of those remains could be remains of Flight 800 ? --GaryDee20:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
New York templates
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It's a bit difficult to understand because it's such a long sentence, but grammatically the sentence is correct. If you read on you get the whole picture: ...found on April 4 and 11, 2011, respectively. means that the remains of a (“the”) toddler was found on April 4th and the remains of his/her mother on April 11th. --Six words (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Yessss.... but this not what one calls good writing. A clearer statement of what sort of remains were found and when they were found should be made before the mention sketches and jewelry. Perhaps a table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.254 (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Pictures
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
That's a good question... and what's the source for the "10-16" victims being ascribed to the LISK at Gilgo (namely the burlap sack murders which are half that.) Posimosh 02:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Posimosh 02:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posimosh (talk • contribs)
External links modified
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Long Island serial killer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Suggest putting section about victims above section about potential identity of killer, I believe this is more respectful and socially appropriate so as not to glorify the killer, and of little significance otherwise, so there isn't reason not to do it. Annafjmorris (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Year of the Pig
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I tagged the claim the unidentified possibly Asian female may have died at the age of 29 as needing a cite. The one cite for that section doesn't seem to mention this detail and I'm somewhat confused how the conclusion was drawn. If the pendant is for the year of the pig, this would likely suggest she was born in the year of the pig. So maybe in ~2007, ~1995, ~1983, ~1971, ~1959 etc. The estimate age of the remains and the time of discovery would rule out 2007, and maybe 1995. 1983 may seem the most likely but this still doesn't reveal the age at the time of death. Is it believed she was killed in 2012? If so the 29 may make sense. But the only clue on how long the remains were there mentioned in that section is sometimes before Hurricane Sandy in late 2012. That wouldn't seem to rule to 2010 or even 2000 or heck earlier. (I'd also note that the time of burial could theoretically differ significantly from the time of death.) If police or whoever have given such a narrow timeframe for when that person died, this should be mentioned in our article. Nil Einne (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
List of persons of interest and named suspects
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Deleted James Bissett, as police said he was never a person of interest or suspect. Just because the press speculated about him when he died does not mean that he should now be listed in this article.Parkwells (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Long Island serial killer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The preferred term for what is here referred to as « prostitutes » is « sex workers ». While the criminal codes of various jurisdictions classify sex work as prostitution, using that term is not necessary or kind for understanding in the context of this crime or others. Leconseildesnombres (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Please update all mentions of sex work using the outdated term "prostitute" and "prostitution" to "sex worker" and "sex work" 86.25.146.22 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments8 people in discussion
Why is the ultra-PC term "the sex trade" used? They were prostitutes. They did not deserve to be killed but there is no need to sugar coat that they were prostitutes. Also in reference to the above question apparently some remains of a person that were first found in 1996 on Fire Island were found at the place the other bodies were found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.75.169 (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It isn't "ultra-PC", just appropriate, as it covers the entire gamut of sex-related commerce; the word "prostitute" has a lot of negative connotations which aren't relevant to the story. As your sentence regarding '"sugar coat[ing]"' demonstrated, "prostitute" is used as a derogatory term because of the traditional biases still clinging to our society. The important fact here is that they all worked in the same industry, in a small geographic area; if they had all been mailmen would you mind if it said "the postal service" instead? Yes, their career decision made them (potentially) easier targets, but unless the killer was Jack the Ripper they were probably chosen because of the ease-of-access their profession afforded him; I doubt the killer was killing these women specifically because they were sex workers. Matthias Alexander Jude Shapiro (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi I tried to fix this and David J Johnson reverted my changes stating that this has been extensively discussed, but I only see this short discussion here and it resolves in favor of using 'sex worker'. 'Prostitute' is an outdated term that is derogatory. Outdated terms aren't used on public information for the same reasons why older racial terms aren't provided without context. Please stop reverting my edits or provide sufficient evidence here.
I would love to understand why David J. Johnson and DRT1245 continue to engage in an edit war against a multitude of other editors on this page over a number of years in which editors change the term Prostitute to Sex Worker and it gets changed back. Please advise or I will report for edit warring. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. or Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Terminology used on Wikipedia is not decided by opinion columnists on inews.co.uk. The term 'sex worker' is vague and non-specific; it refers to a number of different professions. The term 'prostitute' accurately describes the victims, and is used in the cited sources. I am sorry that you find the term 'prostitute' offensive, but it is the word the accurately and precisely describes the victims. drt1245 (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
drt1245 is absolutely correct in the statement above. As I have said to you, the term "prostitute" is mentioned in all the press reports at the time of the killings and that is accurate. It is not up to individuals to change the wording in the article just because they object to a word. Wikipedia is not censored. In any case "sex worker" is non-specific, whereas "prostitute" is what the victims were at the time of their deaths. David J Johnson (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This is two people’s opinions of a job that a number of women who are dead had. Please stop reverting the changes from sex worker to prostitute or you will be reported for engaging in an edit war. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. or Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The term prostitute is derogatory and unnecessarily violent towards those working in the sex industry. Thank you in advance— SSDGMMSW
I would love to know, who gave the two of you and whoever else continues to disrespect these women by reverting the terms back to prostitutes, the authority to make these decisions and frankly, I feel as though both of you need to be looked into in terms of continuing to use violent language and perpetuate these harsh stereotypes on women who are dead and therefore cannot defend themselves. It’s cruel, violent, and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.219.160 (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
' Prostitutes' killer seen as versed in police techniques". The New York Times. Retrieved April 9, 2016.' -Article reference. Let's not lay too serious a charge at the door of what Wikipedia could only regard as the most prototypical of articles' news sources. JohndanR (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
BTW, even wikipedia uses the word prostitute in the article on prostitution. Words matter. "The majority of prostitutes are female and have male clients." I am sure the woke editor will run right over there and change it now! 2603:8081:8900:8F8C:A067:8F98:930A:CCCD (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Suggest removing Natasha Hugo from potential victims section
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Police have definitively stated that Hugo's death is unrelated to the LISK case. Her car and belongings were found the day after she disappeared. One set of footprints lead from her car into the sea and her body washed ashore three months later. Her family stated at the time that she had a history of believing she was being followed, which some internet researchers have understood to mean that she was being followed. The way her family phrased the comment, however, would tend to suggest a history of paranoid delusions. The circumstances would suggest death by drowning (either accidental or suicide). (See the news articles cited in the Wikipedia article.) Atiru (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Asian "male" victim
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
If someone is "living as a woman" it seems a lot more likely they were a trans woman... men don't "live as women". Considering they may have been killed because they were trans, it seems a little ghoulish to not even acknowledge that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.63.147.98 (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Additionally using ‘He’ throughout obviously the remains were identified as biologically male but further evidence suggests that ‘this person’ or ‘they’ could be used as a replacement without damaging the integrity of the information Sexismcorrector23 (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
The source states "Based on the victim's clothing, it is possible that the decedent may have lived as a woman". This is pure speculation, nothing to suggest that this theory is widely accepted or that there is any actual evidence of how the victim lived his life. You could also speculate that the killer could have dressed him in women's clothing, but there's no evidence of that either. The only facts that are known are that he is a deceased biological male that was found dressed in women's clothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.0.86 (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2023
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
@Denniscabrams: I don't think it's an outright policy violation that could get you in deep trouble. The article for Ohio serial killer Anthony Sowell was created literally the day he was arrested, well over a year and a half before he was convicted, and of course you're not talking about anything nearly as contentious as that. That said, I'm also not sure it's in compliance with the bullet point at the end of WP:CRIME. Right now, we the public know next to nothing about why they arrested this man. Let's say you make the redirect, then it turns out this was a complete screwup by law enforcement and he had nothing to do with this. In that scenario, there would have been a period of time where typing an innocent person's name in the search box on here would have brought up an article named "Long Island serial killer" and that shouldn't sit right with anyone.
So while I don't think a redirect would be a major controversy, I'd still be cautious with one. I think the best approach would be to have it go to Long Island serial killer#Rex Heuermann, a subsection in the "Suspects and persons of interest" that I bet is going to be created and written shortly. CityOfSilver20:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
BLP Notice
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
For consideration, and a bit of work to make the change I'm proposing.
The article as existed prior to the Heuermann arrest was a decent capture of the "case" surrounding victims found on Long Island. It's never been assumed by authorities to be a single offender, though always possible.
The Gilgo Beach 4 was a pre-existing subgroup of victims now linked to Heuermann.
I'm proposing a LISK article similar to what existed prior to the Heuermann arrest which then leads to 2 subarticles... Gilgo 4 and non-Gilgo 4. Heuermann would certainly be a potential suspect in the non-Gilgo murders, along with Bittrolff, etc.
Renaming the LISK article as Gilgo is very misleading. As although all squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares. MattBoyer Cr (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
InfoBox, # Victims 10-18?
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A few clarification questions, about the InfoBox, there's a line called Victims and it lists 10-18. (1) Shouldn't that have a reference cite citation source, or is it already sourced in the main article? I might be asking a Wikipedia in general question! (2) Did whomever edited the 10-18 text merely extrapolate that some of the unsolved nearby remains could be attributable to the assumed one Gilgo beach serial killer, or had law enforcement / investigators given this number as an estimate, lumped together? Two important tightenings needed. -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid(talk | contribs)} 17:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2023
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
There is no source backing the gender of the "Asian male" victim at the beginning of the article. References need to be included in the introduction as well, because it seems as if this statement is not backed by any source at this point in the text. The article I've linked below should also be referenced when the victim's actual gender is clarified—it includes more recent information and an accurate sketch of the victim at the time of their murder.
Did the police release this new sketch? If so I'd expect you can find more reliable source than this. Likewise this article claims matter-of-factly the person was trans. Who made that determination? You have a real reliable source issue here I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjxj (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Were these terms ever commonly used? I have no hits for them in the New York Times or Newsday. I have some low quality htis in Insider (2019) and the "Big Book of Serial Killers" (by Insider, 2018) Again, I would discount sources from the last few days as citogenesis because many are just uncritically copying the Wikipedia article's contents. Unless reliable sources commonly use these phrases, neither should we. czar10:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Searching ProQuest I get two hits for "Manorville Butcher" and none on Newspapers.com so certainly not common. For "Craigslist Ripper" I get 36 on ProQuest and 11 in Newspapers.com, mostly in 2011 for both so not entirely uncommon but not sustained. S0091 (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Naming suspect
Latest comment: 1 year ago24 comments14 people in discussion
I removed the suspect's name from an unsourced edit and revdel'd it - at that point they were named in only one source. Now many have picked it up, presumably fact-checked. While I would still rather wait until there has been an official announcement, I think there's a lot of coverage now of the arrestee. I would still advise care and devotion to sourcing - Richard Jewell is the cautionary example. Acroterion(talk)15:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
It's been years since I've seriously edited WP. Would adding the "this is the subject of a current event" template at the top of the article be called for here? Or is there some standard of notability that it doesn't yet meet? Thanks, †dismas†|(talk)15:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
BLPCRIME does not mean we can not name the accused on this article. Rex Hermann's name is being widely disseminated in reliable sources. Of course we should not be writing as though he is guilty but yes he can be named. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk21:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@Iamreallygoodatcheckers The person had been arrested and charged less than a full 24 hours before someone tried to include the name. You stated that BLPCRIME doesn't prevent him being named, but it does in a sense - he is still a non-public figure, and obviously hasn't been convicted of his crime that he is accused of.
I see no reason to include someone's name just for the sake of it being published as breaking news, since the guy very well could be innocent (which, judging by the RS that have covered this so far as well as the evidence against him, is highly unlikely). In my opinion, there isn't a reason to rush to include when waiting a bit doesn't hurt the article or the person's reputation.
This is not a mere news story. He has been indicted by a grand jury for allegedly murdering four people. Even if the man is acquitted of all crime's, the trial and him would still need to be mentioned here as it's part of the Gilgo Beach/Long Island serial killer story. Articles about serial killers are quick to include the name of every suspect even when there aren't arrests at all -- see Zodiac killer, Texas Killing Fields, etc. Furthermore, it's common place to name the accused in high-profile cases where the suspects name is being widely disseminated in reliable sources. This the common practice for nearly all mass shooting suspects for example. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk07:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Why do we not have the suspect listed in the text of the article when the suspect is listed in one of the references? Rossidor (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
^This right here? Why is exactly the right question on this one. Why do wiki edits seem to become a control issue by editors when they don't need to be? BLPNAME states "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." Rex Heuermann has been charged, he is not a minor, his name is extremely widely disseminated on every major news outlet, so why not just print the obvious fact that the man with that name has been arrested (it's in the citation!), it does not imply innocence or guilt, it's a simple fact. BLPCRIME is worded poorly as well, "...that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime...". It should simply say "that suggests the person has committed a crime", since a conviction is required in that case, but "that suggests ...is accused of having committed a crime" is invalid as it is a fact that the person has been accused, that happens regardless of any legal proceeding. Can some committee, or authorized individual re-word BLPCRIME to make logical sense in this regard? A thoughtful discussion makes sense, but in this case it seems a little absurd not to include the name. For that matter, why not remove the other suspect's name, he wasn't even arrested for this crime. Reactorred (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
His name is now in hundreds of reliable sources. Whether he is actually guilty is irrelevant to the discussion, he was arrested. Fact. Important to the story. Gjxj (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
@GjxjWhether he is actually guilty is irrelevant to the discussion, he was arrested. Correct, it is important to the story. His name being included at such an early time, however, is not. BLPCRIME is pretty clear that suggesting a named person who hasn't been convicted is something that requires a fairly wide consensus.
@IamreallygoodatcheckersEven if the man is acquitted of all crime's, the trial and him would still need to be mentioned here as it's part of the Gilgo Beach/Long Island serial killer story.
Yes, it probably would deserve mentioning - and that would be after he went through the legal process and had his day in court, which is what BLPCRIME suggests, or gave an interview/interviews and became a public figure.
Articles about serial killers are quick to include the name of every suspect even when there aren't arrests at all -- see Zodiac killer, Texas Killing Fields, etc.
I glanced over these, but from what I recall the common element is the suspects named are all either dead, or were convicted of other crimes.
Furthermore, it's common place to name the accused in high-profile cases where the suspects name is being widely disseminated in reliable sources.
My standpoint is still the same regarding this case; he is unknown, has not made any public statements or given any interviews that would change that, and the case is brand new. I don't see a reason to include so early in the investigation.
I agree with Awshort. It's too early to determine if there is enough to overcome WP:BLPCRIME and also be mindful of primary (Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them in light of WP:BLPPRIMARY (Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies). Meaning if sources are simply regurgitating what those involved say (investigators, etc.) that also leans towards not including. S0091 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Has anyone addressed the issue that BLPCRIME may need refactoring? You reference it like it's the word of God, perhaps it could use some tweaking. Laws can be and are amended often to correct mistakes, add clarity, evolve with the changing times, etc. The discussion here seems more suited to a dysfunctional Congress versus simple statement of public facts. Reactorred (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
@Awshort This doesn't jive with the names listed under suspects and persons of interest.
The business owner who killed himself is a suspect simply because he may have sold burlap. That's some incredibly thin speculation being used to justify inclusion. Meanwhile there's a mountain of evidence against Heuermann to prove guilt, yet his name should not be disclosed?
What nonsense. "a suspect was arrested, but if you want the name you'll have to google it yourself..". How is it that Kohberger is named in the Idaho case? What's the difference? Gjxj (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a lengthy section of a bunch of suspects who are named, seemingly because editors felt they were suspects, without any evidence and thin citations. Yet someone is actually arrested - and we walk on egg shells and don't even include his name? This seems really odd. The most confusing part is who is protecting him and why. Typically in these cases, you can tell. It's a political thing or a social issue people are biased for or against. Who on Wikpedia is out to protect serial killers? 47.208.138.90 (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
He absolutely should be named. If wikipedia is to be a reference of current events and history, his name should be included. Rex Heuermann is far more than a suspect, he is a defendant, arrested and charged with this crime. This article should be clear to presume his innocence and not label him guilty, but he far more than a mere suspect. Someone above compared this situation to Richard Jewel, which is way off base. Jewel was never charged, he was never a defendant. Rex Heuermann was charged and is a defendant, that is the point in which someone's name should come into an article like this, when they are formally charged and a defendant. Yes, innocent people are charged with crimes all the time and his innocence should be presumed, but as a source of historical information, his arrest and case is part of this story (even if acquitted) and should be included in the article. As written, this article reads like it was written by Rex Heuermann's defense attorney's and not an independent source of historical information about an event.Leochews (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Correcting some math (minor issues, but annoying).
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Amber Lynn Costello is described as "approximately 100 lbs (50kg)". At 2.2kg/lb, 100lbs = 45.5kg, or alternatively 50kg = 110lbs.
The same problem occurs in the description of Valerie Mack.
Other lb/kg conversions seem correct (e.g. Melissa Barthelemy 95lbs/43kg). 136.168.144.146 (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
It's a rare case of too little precision. Usually we have the opposite problem. It was being rounded to the nearest 10 kg. I have increased the precision and it now reads "100 pounds (45 kg)". GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Article title
Latest comment: 5 months ago10 comments7 people in discussion
The case is most commonly known as the "Gilgo Beach serial killings": [1][2][3]. I suspect recent sources that call it "LISK" are citogenesis, as any time the term is invoked in this article, the linked sources do not use such a term and indeed refer to Gilgo Beach. The subject of the article, per the sources and the way we cover it, is also the serial killings themselves, which may or may not be connected to an individual killer. czar06:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I think you will find that outside of the local New York area the case is (or was) more commonly known by the Long Island name. I never heard of Giglo Beach until this week. The national media is using Giglo Beach name now though. Gjxj (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
As a wiki user who grew up in New York, I've literally never heard it called "Gilgo Beach Serial Killer" until very recently. It was always the "Long Island Serial Killer" and that was through three law classes, a forensics class, and a criminal psychology class. Not sure why the media randomly decided to change it, personally I still feel it should be referred to by its original name until a time in which more information is known The Introvert Next To You (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Not from New York but I'll second this; Google is giving me 20,300,000 results for "Long Island Serial Killer" and 3,410,000 results for "Gilgo Beach Serial Killer". NorthTension (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
What other long island serial killers are there? There is no historic killers with this name. Nor is there any other confirmed killers. There is SPECULATION there might be other serial killers. There is currently no solid evidence to claim there is more than one killer, and thus we return to my main point. This case has been known as the "Long Island Serial Killer" fsr longer than it has "Gilgo Beach Serial Killer" and still vote the name ought to be changed back The Introvert Next To You (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Furthermore all the victims found in long Island are attributed to the accused on this page. So which is it, more than one killer or the accused killed them all? It can't be both. The Introvert Next To You (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
There's also Joel Rifkin so Long Island serial killer was recently turned into a dab page. As to which victims are attributed to the current suspect, right now there are four but the investigation is ongoing so we don't yet know if there will be more and I suppose we will not know until there is a conclusion. Being charged does not mean he will be convicted for any of them or may only be convicted one/some but not all (however many that ends of being). S0091 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
He is currently up to six indictments, all based on indisputable forensic evidence, though he took substantial pains, documented by his own writing, not to leave such evidence. I expect there were probably more, though I doubt any will be connected to him. Activist (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
RfC Naming the Suspect
Latest comment: 1 year ago46 comments28 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is to name the suspect. A bit of an early close but there is strong enough support to close this in a timely manner. In addition we've had Rex Heuermann redirecting to this article for nearly a week now. Most editors seem to agree that there is little to no good reason for avoiding naming them. ––FormalDude(talk)18:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
Yes, he should be named. The crux of this issue revolves around the policy of WP:BLPCRIME: For individuals who are not public figures... editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. This policy demands us to "seriously consider" or, as I see it, use our editorial discretion carefully. I believe we should for a few reasons the suspects name should be included : (1) The suspect has been arrested and indicted by a grand jury for allegedly murdering three people. This fact alone, even if he is acquitted by the trial jury, makes the suspect a significant part of the Gilgo Beach serial killer story. So inevitably this mans name should be included in this article purely based on what has happened already; (2) The suspects name has been extensively and widely reported in reliable sources. This coverage is distinct from some random person who is not a public-figure being slapped with a misdmeanor assault charge from the bar fight or a DWI, where such coverage would be expected in tabloid style or small-scale local news agencies. In my mind, those are the reputations of people who BLPCRIME is supposed to protect. To the contrary, this suspect's name is being widely reported in several credible reliable sources -- New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, etc -- alongside coverage of his alleged crimes and relatively extensive analysis of his own personal background; (3) For high-profile situations like this, it is unwritten custom on Wikipedia to include the suspects names. This is true for virtually all mass shooter and murder events. As well as situations like the 2022 University of Idaho killings; (4) It is also typical to include the names of suspects who haven't even been arrested or charged. See this very own page for example where we name all suspects except the one who has actually been charged with a crime. There are other examples such as the Zodiac killer and the Texas Killing Fields. -- Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk05:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes. If an individual's name has been widely reported in reliable sources, it is no longer "private", so BLP's privacy protections no longer apply. This individual's name has been reported in this way, so no privacy considerations are applicable. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment This is another RfC on WP:BLPCRIME and it seems that this policy is completely broken when it comes to high profile crimes that receive national media attention. In the case of the murder of Abigail Williams and Liberty German the suspect's name was widely reported by the national media, but the name wasn't included after a RfC. We've recently had a back and forth about the suspect's name in the the killing of Jordan Neely that's wasted quite a bit of editor's time. Again, if we're following Wikipedia policy this person's name should not be included. This person is not a public figure. We seriously need to amend WP:BLPCRIME for cases where a suspect's name is widely reported by reliable sources. - Nemov (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME seems to take a view on cases where an accusation has been made casually, by the media and so forth. Once a person has been formally and publicly arrested wikipedia frankly has no business playing the protector of privacy. Gjxj (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
"WP:BLPCRIME seems to take a view on cases where an accusation has been made casually, by the media and so forth." - No that isn't correct. Otherwise it wouldn't say "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." and "unless a conviction has been secured". While it doesn't explicitly mention 'charged' or 'indicted', it does mention arrests and mentions a conviction three times. Nil Einne (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I know what it says. Highly flawed reasoning. Law enforcement has publicly and officially "suggested" the person has committed the crime. That fact ( the accusation by LE ) is absolutely public knowledge and fair game to document here. Gjxj (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree that WP:BLPCRIME as it stands is broken. One of the main problems is that both interpretations given here are possible. That's one of the reasons for the ridiculous timesink that the above mentioned discussion of the inclusion of the suspect's name in the above mentioned articles is (literally hundreds of comments). The policy is simply too vague and ambiguous. In another RfC on name inclusion that is currently open the idea that exclusion of the name violates WP:NPOV seems to be getting some traction. It's a mess. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
If you know what it says, then why did you suggest it says something it doesn't? From its own wording, it clearly doesn't (only) 'take a view on cases where an accusation has been made casually, by the media and so forth. Instead it takes a view on cases where accusations are in the form of a suspect (while it doesn't clarify this means a suspect named by LE, I think the rest of the wording makes it clear this includes suspects name by LE), as well as arrests (which can't be reasonably interpreted to mean anything other than arrests by LE). If you want to argue this is flawed reason, wrong etc, that's fine, but don't suggest the policy says something it doesn't, that's just confusing. (Although I'd also suggest the right place for such an argument is WT:BLP not here.) Likewise, if you want to argue despite what BLPCRIME actually says we should include the name as others like Iamreallygoodatcheckers, again that's fine. But such arguments should be based on what BLPCRIME and other policies and guidelines say, not what we want them to say. Or at least if you're going to go against what it says, make this clear rather than saying it says something it doesn't. Note that I have no comment on whether we should include the name. Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes. If you really cant use the name then put right in the article "name withheld for whatever reason" so people don't go wasting time looking for it. Gjxj (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Many, many major, reputable news sources are reporting his arrest. These are secondary sources, not primary, which is important. And they are natiohwide, not local. There is no reason remaining to suppress the identity. Of course, the wording needs to make it clear it is merely an arrest, not a conviction ("alleged" etc). - Noleander (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
No The policy is a good policy. A lot of news articles will cover an arrest, it will blow up all over the news, and there is no follow up in the news. Real example: Two people arrested at a protest, it was all over the news, Wikipedia had their names on three different articles and... it's been a year, there is no follow up in the news. Were charges ever pressed? They were probably just arrested to control the crowd and the charges are dropped. Now I'm stuck scrubbing their names off three articles. We need to enforce this MORE. Now, I understand why people want an exception in this case - it's a huge story that, using my crystal ball, is going to continue to get coverage. But - that's something we aren't allowed to do right? WP:Crystal - "Wikipedia does not predict the future." If it goes to trial and there is trial coverage, yes, include his name. But we shouldn't include it "just because it's sourced" - that's WP:Recent thinking. "Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens". Denaar (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Why is John Bittrolff even mentioned then? He was never even arrested. In Jane Fonda's article "In 2005, Michael A. Smith, a U.S. Navy veteran, was arrested for disorderly conduct in Kansas City, Missouri, after he spat chewing tobacco in Fonda's face during a book-signing event for her autobiography", so does this guy need his name removed too? Does all of wikipedia need to be redacted to produce some poorly defined sense of privacy for people in public view? Reactorred (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
No (for now) Before the indictment I would have voted "strong no", the arrest alone would not have justified inclusion, no matter how many sources reported the name. With the indictment I am still at "no". Maybe once there is an actual trial we can revisit this. And obviously a conviction would change things. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes because I see his name in every news article that I read about the case now. I don't see what's so wrong with including the name here at this point. Corgi Stays (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes Numerous RS's are reporting the name of the suspect. Their name is now public, and as such there is no reason to withhold the name for privacy reasons. JML1148(talk | contribs)02:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes. While I respect your opinion, Denaar, I feel the need to side with Iamreallygoodatcheckers on the basis of point #1: "The suspect has been arrested and indicted by a grand jury for allegedly murdering three people. This fact alone, even if he is acquitted by the trial jury, makes the suspect a significant part of the Gilgo Beach serial killer story." I also respect your work, Denaar, of cleaning up articles. You make a very good point, which is why we so often have to handle these on a case-by-case basis. Pistongrinder (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Strong NO - I addressed several things on the discussion portion of this RFC, but wanted to add my !vote here. My biggest reason for leaning towards no is that BLP concerns seem secondary to this inclusion, with the primary reason that the person should be named is that they have been named in numerous RS. I believe associating anyone with a crime should be a primary deterrent when it is still breaking news, and until the dust settles their name should be left out. I see no reason that we can't wait, but numerous reasons why we should, aside from BLPCRIME.
Per BLP1E, The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. Which clearly we can't tell with a few days old event (the arrest). Awshort (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
It seems the BLP needs to define what is widely available public knowledge. If a law enforcement agency arrests an individual is that public knowledge? What if no media covers that event? What is official public record? GDPR considers DOB in a database to be private information, but wikipedia has tons of birth dates of living persons. I see a lot of inconsistency and personal opinion in all this, rather than looking to existing legal definitions for some form of guidance that has actually been honed over centuries by scholars and society in general. Reactorred (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes. There is a much stronger case to add the currently unnamed individual who is in custody than to keep the other named individual suspects in the article, who were not arrested and whose connection to the case relies on speculation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, if his name is being widely covered by reliable sources. It's odd that the Suspects and persons of interest section lists a bunch of names, but nothing for the guy who was actually arrested and charged in connection to the killings. Some1 (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree the BLP may need amending, how is that actually handled? I'm just curious of the process after seeing all this discussion. Reactorred (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
No - I think it's a good thing for Wikipedia to have a higher bar (conviction) for including the names of suspects than many news sources do. I largely agree with what Awshort writes below. Hatman31 (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes - same reasons as all the previous yes votes. Reactorred (talk)
Strong yes, he was indicted by a grand jury, reliable sources name him regularly and his name is in the title of several of this page's citations. There's far more evidence here than there is for Kohberger, for example. BLPCRIME is very broken and needs to be reformed so we can stop having situations like this here and on the Neely article over and over and over again. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Totally agree. Is there a point, some deadline or line in the sand, where the survey majority takes effect or is this whole survey thing just an arbitrary creation anyone can post, which matters about as much as an Elon Musk survey on Twitter? The problem with wikipedia seems to be that no one is in charge ultimately and any decision is by a committee where, in this case, the minority of NO votes effectively "wins" by filibuster. Analysis paralysis. This is the same problem in courtrooms now, labeling the prosecution and defense as winners or losers, when both are winners if justice is truly served. Same applies here, if a logical, timely decision is made that balances the documentation of facts with the protection of minors and presumed innocence, then it's a win for everyone. Reactorred (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Seems to be a 15:5 ratio of include-no include after a week so I'd argue that's probably enough to confirm consensus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes Perhaps to our credit, we've had more restraint naming the suspect that perhaps every other website. But when every reliable source has named him by now, our policies indicate that we should follow suit.LM2000 (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, of course. It's absolute nonsense to think we shouldn't. BLPCRIME isn't what controls here, but rather WP:BLPNAME. This is not some person incidental to the events being described (e.g. a distant family member or a relatively unknown witness), but the suspected perpetrator who has been arrested and for which many details have been provided in reliable sources. —Locke Cole • t • c15:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
(and IMO BLP in general is irrelevant here as the name is WP:DUE given how widely disseminated it is; even if he is somehow exonerated at trial, the fact that he was arrested and so widely reported will be something that is documented for decades to come) —Locke Cole • t • c15:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
YesWP:BLPCRIME tells us For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. (emphasis in policy). I don't think there is an argument here that the suspect was a public figure at the time of his arrest and the policy is silent about the type of crime, whether there is an indictment, the geographical scope of coverage, whether the crime is high-profile, etc. so leaves editors largely establishing their own criteria for inclusion. My criteria for inclusion is sustained in-depth coverage by multiple large media outlets that goes beyond standard law enforcement announcements and the like, with news outlets conducting their own research and analysis. It's now been over a week since the arrest and several major news outlets are still consistently covering the suspect with in-depth coverage about him and his life. Today there is coverage about him on the home pages of many major US news outlets (ex. CNN, ABC, CBS, of course The New York Times given this is in their backyard) but also The Guardian, The Independent and he has been covered in the world news sections of Hindustan Times among others. Therefore I think we can consider him at least well-known at this point. S0091 (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
I wanted to point out a few things on here instead of the survey part, to not clutter that portion.
The main argument for inclusion seems to lean towards 'it is being reported in the multiple RS, therefore we should report it since it is public now, and not a privacy issue.'
Several other arguments have been made for inclusion, while seemingly ignoring the suspects privacy concerns.
Law enforcement has publicly and officially "suggested" the person has committed the crime. That fact ( the accusation by LE ) is absolutely public knowledge and fair game to document here
Which seems to suggest we should include any person that law enforcement accuses of a crime, regardless of charges.
Once a person has been formally and publicly arrested wikipedia frankly has no business playing the protector of privacy."
This is the concerning one; people are falsely arrested ALL the time, and this comment also doesn't seem to even account for the legal due process and the presumption of innocence that everyone deserves. Wikipedia is one of the highest ranked sites online, so simply saying an arrest is all that is necessary for inclusion of a name is , in my opinion, setting the bar extremely low for inclusion.
If an individual's name has been widely reported in reliable sources, it is no longer "private", so BLP's privacy protections no longer apply.
BLPName is the policy that seemingly stops insertion based on a name being private; BLPCRIME is based on levying accusatory statements that suggest a suspect committed a crime. BLP would still apply.
The suspect has been arrested and indicted by a grand jury for allegedly murdering three people. This fact alone, even if he is acquitted by the trial jury, makes the suspect a significant part of the Gilgo Beach serial killer story. So inevitably this mans name should be included in this article purely based on what has happened already;
So his name should be included based on the fact he was arrested and charged, and kept in the article even if he is acquitted because he was arrested in connection with the crime? He is still a non public figure, and deserves due process.
(3) For high-profile situations like this, it is unwritten custom on Wikipedia to include the suspects names. This is true for virtually all mass shooter and murder events. As well as situations like the 2022 University of Idaho killings;
It really isn't. Mass shootings are completely different than a seemingly unknown person being arrested, mostly because the suspects die during their mass shooting (by their own hand, armed bystanders, or the police), and it is an extremely high profile event that leaves little to no doubt on who commited the crime. Killing of/Murder of articles also generally do not name someone right off the bat; there is usually a distinction to not include breaking-news style name drops of suspects as soon as they are released.
(4) It is also typical to include the names of suspects who haven't even been arrested or charged. See this very own page for example where we name all suspects except the one who has actually been charged with a crime. There are other examples such as the Zodiac killer and the Texas Killing
No, it is not 'typical', nor has it been. If I remember right, every suspect in the Zodiac case was dead, in which case BLP wouldn't apply. The Texas Killing Fields article has either dead suspects named, a subject of a documentary, and one who confessed to killing someone and dumping them there. As for this page, the names were added two days ago and in my opinion should have never been here, since it's not necessary to name anyone even remotely connected to a crime, and most of the reliable sources used weren't reliable. I personally think the whole section should be wiped, minus this arrest, but that's just me.
So erase Donald Trump's name from any article stating he was arrested? Basically, purge all of wiki, every article showing a name for anyone that has not been convicted of a crime and only arrested must have the name removed. I can actually write code to automate that if needed. It's done all the time in databases containing private data. Forgive me, but the argument here is bordering on the absurd when a reasonable person steps back and looks at it from above. It's like locking your front door to prevent a theft, but leaving the back door open...the guy's name is literally everywhere, not to mention in the citation in the article. Reactorred (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not done: Prostitute is a more precise term. Sex worker covers a wide variety of occupations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Done by User:Atiru. Please see the last sentence in this article's lead section and leave a message on this talk page if you have any further requests or concerns. CityOfSilver 17:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
