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

Archive 1

Picture of suspect

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

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

Video and audio of suspect

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Kevin Sellers" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Incorrect Charges

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

Error or oversight

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

Officer Vincent Kowalski. Source: [1]. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Will add. wizzito | say hello! 03:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Cause of death?

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

See WP:NOTAFORUM. Some1 (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Name of suspect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

An RfC was started; findings and arguments should be presented in the RfC to keep the future participants informed, and to prevent a split discussion. References to arguments made here can be made in the RfC, and comments may be quoted, as needed, so there is no use in letting this section possibly attract more participation. Thanks everyone for taking part in this lead-up to the process which may finally show what the consensus is.—Alalch E. 21:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

---

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

Aren't criminal suspects normally named? e.g. the shooter in the 2022 Buffalo shooting hasn't been convicted but he is still named wizzito | say hello! 00:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It depends on the crime along with the depth of coverage about the suspect, especially if the coverage is ongoing in national media outlets. A mass murder like 2022 Buffalo shooting is not a fair comparison. In this instance, there has not been any in-depth coverage about the suspect so I agree they should not be named. S0091 (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that he has been covered enough that he's worth mentioning. However, if this is not consensus, I won't lose sleep over it. BOTTO _(T•C) 18:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I too think there has been significant coverage to warrant mentioning his name. This case may not be a mass shooting but has been covered extensively via podcasts, tv, etc. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Let me remind everyone that the reason we have BLPCRIME is precisely for such cases – when media report a suspect's name and some editors may be tempted to include it. Actually, the degree of media coverage does not override our policies, which stem from legal considerations rather than from WP:V. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kashmiri, Ok however this is the first time I believe I have ever seen this followed. Nikolas Cruz, the Stoneman Douglas shooter, his name was added the day of the shooting. I am not going to fight this though. Just another inconsistent decision on Wiki. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

This is why WP:BLPCRIME is not a hard and fast rule. Stoneman Douglas was a very high profile event and there was never any doubt who the shooter is (he confessed immediately). This is much lower profile. I could well be that the accused in this case is actually innocent, so we should be more careful about naming the suspect. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty BLPCRIME never states anything about the "high or low profile" of the case. Here are two more cases that are more low profile than Stoneman Douglas where the accused's name was immediately added on the day of creation (and they didn't confess at all or immediately): Killing of Walter Scott & Charleston church shooting. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

No it doesn't, but it is one factor to consider when deciding whether to name a suspect.

"For individuals who are not public figures ... editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

A high-profile crime where the perpetrator has immediately confessed is a no-brainer. In a lower profile case where there are still only allegations against a low-profile person, we should usually avoid naming the suspect unless there is a compelling reason to name. I see no compelling reason in this case. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not want to go back and forth on this. If there is no consensus I am fine with leaving it out. I believe this case in more high profile than the Killing of Walter Scott, but I digress. By the way he is not a suspect anymore as he has been arrested he is the accused. Grahaml35 (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The case's profile doesn't matter. In many legislations, publicly associating individuals with a crime that they have not been convicted for is illegal and can be a ground for a lawsuit. Wikipedia understands and respects that. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Not quite. Saying or implying that someone is guilty of a crime they have not been convicted of could have legal consequences. The names of people who have been charged with crimes are usually in the public domain (as is the case here). What WP:BLPCRIME addresses is whether Wikipedia should name suspects (and someone remains a suspect even when charged). Each case is different, and what we are discussing here is whether adding the name is appropriate in this case. It may well be, but the starting point (based on the presumption of innocence) should be not to add it unless there are compelling reasons to. Remember, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS so there is no requirement for us to include everything WP:RS report. Indeed, they operate under different parameters. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Food for thought: [2] [3] [4] [5]

Re. this case, we should just follow the policy IMO. The rationale is in the above links. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the suspect should be named. From what I have seen, it seems to be rather common to state when a suspect is arrested, their name, and the pending charges against them well before the end of their trial.

There are several examples that I can think of where a suspect was named before being convicted or pleading guilty, including Pike County shootings which listed the family suspected of the killings years before they were officially convicted, or even arrested for that matter.

Death of Victoria Martens is another that is an ongoing case, with no conviction which also lists the suspects names. The same goes for Killing of Cannon Hinnant, with a suspect named and no conviction. Murder of Marrisa Shen has a suspect named who is still awaiting trial.

With this case, I can understand wanting to avoid sensationalism or anything similar, and avoiding wrongfully accusing someone. Respectfully, I think that stating that a suspect has been arrested and charged is a completely different thing than saying 'John Doe was a person of interest because he had a blue jacket', and grasping at straws to tie things into this case and potentially damaging a person's reputation. Stating that there was an arrest and someone is being charged with murder isn't implying guilt on their part. And for an ongoing case, with nationwide coverage, I think this would fall under a 'high-profile crime', with her recording the person suspected of murdering her. And in this exact instance, with the suspect in question that keeps having his name removed, I would like to also add the fact that in the recently released document, by his own admission he placed himself at the scene of the crime in an almost identical outfit as the person captured on video [6]https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23321462-allen-affidavit

I think this is a compelling reason to include his name. Awshort (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Court documents are not WP:RS. Also WP:OTHERSTUFF. There need to be compelling reasons why he should be named in this case. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The main reason BLP exists is to prevent the defamation of a person that could be innocent. In terms of this case, stating someone was arrested and charged is not a defamatory statement. To qualify as a defamatory statement in the United States, which is what we are using as the guideline to judge this by since it's for the english wikipedia, it would have to meet the following guidelines:

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.. [7]https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

The suspect was arrested, and formally charged. That is fact, and is not a false statement. If you look at something like Richard Jewell, he was accused of the media of being a criminal, without charges ever being brought against him by a law enforcement agency or even being arrested.

The counter argument that has been made against naming was

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

— kashmīrī

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

I agree with this quote -

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

— Lard Almighty, Special:MobileDiff/965831945

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

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

to the following

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

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

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

This is correct. Per WP policy, the name should be included. --216.24.45.9 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The suspect has been identified in Rolling Stone, People Magazine, and other widely-distributed media, with a bullet from his gun found in between the bodies of the two girls. I think if the police as well as major magazines have no problem revealing the suspect’s name and putting him on trial at this point, it will not tarnish Wikipedia to follow suit. LovelyLillith (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:BLPCRIME. We need to err on the side of caution when it comes to naming people who are not in the public eye who have been accused of a crime, no matter that they are named in RS. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

We need to reach consensus here before adding the name. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

BLPCrime doesn't state he cannot be named, but to use caution. Wikipedia does not censor, unless it is a defamatory statement. At this point, there haven't been any counter arguments about why the name cannot be added, with several reasons being given for it's inclusion. Is that not consensus? Awshort (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

And the reason we need to be cautious here is because it involves paedophilia. There have been countless examples of innocent people with the same name as a suspect being attacked and even murdered when they are misidentified as paedophiles because they share the same name as a suspect in a case. This suspect has a relatively common name (there are almost 100 listed in the white pages in Indiana alone). Exercising caution here means not putting these people at potential risk. Wikipedia is the most read website in the world, so people are far more likely to read the name here than anywhere else if we include it.

I would also point out that the last few reverts of the name prior to today were by other editors, which indicates that there is no consensus to include. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, it doesn't involve paedophilia at all, it involves murder.

Nothing that has came from Wikipedia:RS has stated there were any sexual elements to the murders, and other than a prior person of interest (who I would like like to point out is currently not named on the page) trying to solicit inappropriate images of one of the victims through social media the night prior to their murder, there has not been any mention of anything of a sexual nature in this case to date. Also, Wikipedia does not censor. While I can partially understand wanting to protect someone with a similar name, the suspect has been arrested and in custody since October, including being moved for his own protection, so the chances of someone with a similar name being attacked for something that hasn't been mentioned in a single reliable source are slim to none.

Regarding the prior reverts, they have all pointed to the talk page as directed to by your hat note, until a consensus can be reached, including an edit by me within the last week for exactly that reason when the suspect was named. However, no one has presented a counter argument on why the name cannot be here other than to look at Wikipedia:BLPCRIME. Awshort (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It involves the murder of children (likely with a sexual motive) which is also highly emotive. These are precisely the types of case where we need to take the suggestion in BLPCRIME about being cautious seriously. Not including the name does not detract from the article, while including it could prove problematic. When non-inclusion does not detract from the article, it is best to err on the side of caution in cases involving child victims. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how long a person has been in pre-trial detention. Until and unless they are declared guilty by a court, they are innocent, plain and simple. In many jurisdictions, it's illegal to identify such people – their faces on any photo are pixelated or blurred while names are substituted with initials. The US with all its media reporting is rather lax with respect to the rights of people accused of a crime, but Wikipedia strives to follow more stringent standards. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty

I disagree. We, as editors, should stay neutral and give whatever information is available, especially on a high profile murder case, as long as it doesn't imply that said person is guilty. Following along with the core content policy on remaining neutral

Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view. It means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.

As you stated previously - "Not including something that is in the public domain in RS does our readers no service." I don't see how including the name would cause problems or be anything other than neutral.

@Kashmiri

While I understand what you are saying regarding other jurisdictions, on the English Wikipedia the guidelines page states the following - This policy page specifies the community standards related to the organization, life cycle, maintenance of, and adherence to policies, guidelines, and related pages of the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia goes by the laws of the US when it comes to the legality of including material. No one is stating the suspect is innocent or guilty, but as stated, Blpcrime exists in order to prevent defamatory statements being made about someone who could potentially be innocent, and prevent legal problems that go along with such statements by the media according to US defamation laws. Different countries and different cultures have their own laws in respect to privacy and rights, so it's an apples to oranges comparison. BLPCrime does not say that a suspect cannot be named at all, but does state that caution should be used if the name is to be included before a conviction has been secured.

Awshort (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

BLPCRIME exists to protect innocent people, not just those who are suspected or even charged with crimes. We need to consider the impact the naming of a suspect my have just not on that individual's life but also on the lives of others. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point, it is literally almost impossible to put current references into the article without the arrested suspect’s name being mentioned in the titles, as well as the fact that there is international attention on this case (The Sun and Independent.co.uk are two examples) using his name. We are not stating he is guilty, but what we ARE doing at this point is going to extremes in contorting ourselves to omit other pertinent information in order to hide his name, which makes (as stated by another) one of the most highly-read sites in the world look ridiculous now. LovelyLillith (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's leave it at this, as it's pretty obvious that there's no consensus on adding the current suspect's name to the article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Reopened

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

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

Discussion related to WP:EVENT was not about page creation, but specifically discussed content, e.g. how local and/or sensationalized coverage does not appear to support inclusion of the name of a suspect who is not a public figure per WP:BLPCRIME (e.g. [8], [9] at BLPN). There also does not appear to be a demonstration of how exclusion of the name detracts or otherwise impedes efforts to build the article. The privacy considerations in BLP policy are significant, and the seriousness with which BLP policy encourages us to not include the name of someone charged with a crime who is not a public figure seems to imply that a serious encyclopedic need for inclusion should be demonstrated. Beccaynr (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Sensationalized coverage should not be relied upon, but non-sensationalized coverage was noted.

As a personal opinion, not derived from prior discussion, someone arrested for a high-profile crime ipso facto becomes a high-profile person. I believe the proper spirit of WP:BLPCRIME is to prevent coatracking where neither the crime nor the person is independently noteworthy. Sennalen (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm with Beccanyr here, as might be easily deduced. I think the chance of harm from inclusion of the suspect's name is very small, but the improvement to the article to be had by naming him is nonexistent. Yes, the name exists out there and is easily found. Without the name, people would be forced to go find it in the sources. With the name, people would be forced to go to the sources to learn anything about the suspect. As such, at this stage, it strikes me better to err on the side of caution. Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sennalen scrolling through, I only see one source pertaining to this article that was presented, back on December 2nd by @Awshort. However, that was an affidavit which is primary so not useful. Let me know if I missed any others though. (Side note: Ashort I encourage you be more concise with your statements, please.) S0091 (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@S0091, I'm currently away from the house and writing from my phone, but could you elaborate on the statements comment, please?

I've made a lot of statements as of late, and if I have an example I have a starting point to work from :)

Awshort (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You have added over a third of the text here out of 20 participants. Not horrible or anything, just something to consider (see WP:WALLOFTEXT). S0091 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

At least 12 national or international news sources were noted at BLP/N. Sennalen (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This one: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive346#Suspect's_name_in_the_URL_of_sources/references? First, I did look at discussions that occurred elsewhere, only here. Also, I am not sure if it should be considered because the discussion was largely about the name being in URLs rather than about having the name in the prose. S0091 (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Beccaynr and nothing Ive seen argued overcomes BLPCRIME. Also specifically charged of a high profile crime ipso facto becomes high-profile person is just an argument to scrap BLPCRIME. The more serious the crime, the more high profile it is, the more that BLPCRIME should apply to an oversize non-notable subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest someone sets up a proper RFC so this can be done with one way or the other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Since the topic of the suspect's name keeps coming up, an RfC is a good idea. I'll get one started. Some1 (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German#RfC:_Suspect's_name Some1 (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not find a policy-based reason to withhold the name? The way I see it, it's not the closer's role to find reasons for one of the proposed actions. The closer's role is to check whether there exists a policy-based WP:CONSENSUS among the participating editors; to evaluate all the key arguments of both sides vis-a-vis policies; and to close the discussion either as a consensus or as a no consensus. Yours, instead, was a WP:SUPERVOTE. Glad that you have decided to reopen this. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notability edit

Per Template:Notability#Removing this tag

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

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

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

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

This is an WP:EVENT article, which has specific guidelines to help per WP:N to avoid exclusion per WP:NOTNEWS. A notability tag can help call attention to a need to further research and develop the article with WP:INDEPTH sources that demonstrate an WP:EFFECT. This article currently relies on what appears to be a non-RS podcast for substantial content, but it also appears that there are a variety of sources that may be able to help replace this source. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. Here are some more sources (copy and pasted from my comment at WP:BLPN):

- New York Times

• 2017 2017 2019 2022

- CNN

• 2019 2021 2022

- Time

• 2017 2022 "case that has captivated national attention for nearly six years."

- People

• 2021 2022

- ABC News

• A bunch [11]

- Rolling Stones

• 2022 2022

- Washington Post

• 2017 2017 2017 2022 2022 2023

- USA Today

• 2019 2022

- Associated Press

• 2017 2019 2021 2022 2022

- The Independent (a UK site)

• See: [12]

- New Zealand Herald

• 2017 2017 2017 2018 2019 2020

Some1 (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Persons of interest

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

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

[13]

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

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

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

It is worth mentioning. I have re-added it with far less detail and omitting the suspect's name. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Even with edits per the references, WP:NPOV policy, and MOS:SAID, this still appears to be WP:SENSATIONAL content that should be removed. The way this was presented in the first two attempts seems contrary to the sources that say the individual was not a person of interest, and the undue reliance on a family member quote seemed to obscure that. This is in addition to the WP:BLPCRIME problem of including this sensationalized content at all. They are also not a public figure, which has a different standard than 'low profile'. Beccaynr (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I think a brief mention is fine, given that he had contact with one of the victims in the hours prior to her disappearance, and so naturally was on the police's radar in relation to the murders. As long as we don't name him, I don't think there is anything WP:UNDUE and certainly no violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The addition that you've initially added[14] was way too WP:UNDUE, especially when the guy isn't a suspect in the case. But Lard Almighty's re-addition and revision of it are fine. Some1 (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be sensationalism based on what someone (later arrested for other crimes) told the police. Including the later arrest appears to be a BLP problem, and per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, an interview and tabloid-style reporting does not appear sufficient to support this claim. Beccaynr (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. It was only because he was arrested that the police spoke to him, and indeed it is related because he admitted to using the fake profile to talk to German. This led police to look at his possible involvement in her murder and dismiss it. But he was, in fact, investigated in the context of the murders. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It is because it is based on his statement (a primary source) that there appears to be a WP:V problem - and the use of the word 'admitted' in this discussion and attempts to add it to the article seem to emphasize another aspect - it would be an 'admission against interest'. The fact of investigation further raises BLP issues because it suggests a possibility of committing serious crimes, in addition to the other crimes also suggested by mentioning the arrest. Beccaynr (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Lard Almighty, I'm looking through the sources in the 'fake social media account' section and I don't see any calling him a 'Witness'. I think the Witness header should be removed and the section should be in "Persons of interest" section in general, but the "Persons of interest" header could be renamed to something else. What do you think? Some1 (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

'Witness' is the generic designation I selected because the individual was not named as a 'person of interest'. It is legal jargon, so perhaps in need of a revision (although I think the section should be removed entirely). Beccaynr (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking that it should be removed entirely too now... I feel like the whole "Persons of interest"/"Witness" sections could be removed in general since it's WP:NOTNEWS. They were once "persons of interests" for a brief moment, but nothing really came of it. And if the fake social media account was really central to the case, then during the trial, there'll be more news connecting the person and account to the murders, which can be added later. But I agree that it comes off a bit like sensationalism. Some1 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS doesn't cover this at all. People who interpret it as saying we shouldn't include things that were important at the time in the context of a wider event are reading it wrong. We are about giving as complete a picture of a subject as possible in an encyclopedic way. That includes, for subjects like this, giving details about the progress of the investigation. I would entirely agree that it shouldn't be included if it had nothing to do with the investigation into the murders. But it does. The suspect admitted contact with German, literally in the hours before her disappearance. That led police to take a closer look. It was part of the investigation into the murders, even if it ultimately led nowhere. In the interests of completeness, it's worth a brief mention. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTNEWS, I think a secondary source that demonstrates the enduring significance of this aspect of the investigation would help support inclusion, because most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style, and WP:V and WP:BLP issues also weigh against inclusion. This type of article can be very challenging to write, so I am glad we are talking about this and the various related policies. Beccaynr (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style is precisely what I mean about misreading WP:NOTNEWS. That quote is about whether an event is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry in the first place. The policy also addresses haste in adding every little thing as it happens. That is not the case here. We are looking back and deciding what in the (albeit ongoing) investigation merits inclusion. In any event, here is a recent article that shows that this person was at one point as suspect in the murders (police searched his house in connection with the murders). I really don't see how a brief mention of this aspect into the investigation of the murders fails any Wikipedia policy, especially when we don't name the man. Lard Almighty (talk)@ Lard Almighty (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

If it's part of general investigation, then I think the content should be combined with Investigation with the headers removed. Giving POI and this social media account seperate headers is giving them undue weight in the article IMO. I've made the change: [15] Some1 (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That works. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

One thing I wanted to point out with this article is that the subject is a public figure, which has been seemingly overlooked when I mentioned it in the original post.

According to [16], Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.

Also going along the list from the link, they qualify as High-Profile in every category.

Media Attention - High-Profile: Need not be a "household name", simply self-promotional.

Promotional Activities - High-Profile: Has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities.

Appearances and performances - High-Profile: May have produced publications or events that at least in part are designed to self promote and to attract favorable public attention.

Behavior pattern and activity level - High-Profile: As of the writing of the article (or as to the article subject's death) is (or was) engaged in high-profile activity, as described above, with or without a lifelong history of such activities.

[17] and [18] were both pre-arrest accounts that were made in order to promote the individual as a musician, as well as producing music under their own name that seemingly is listened to with several listeners. [19] By their own actions they tried to establish themselves as a public figure, and no longer qualify as 'low-profile'.

Also, under WP:DOB - "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public.

In [20] this edit, the individual gives his full name and date of birth.

While I don't think they need their own Wiki page by any means, they do qualify for inclusion for the reasons listed above by @Lard Almighty as well as my original reasons in the main post. With that being said, as a public figure, WP:BLPCrime would not be a suitable reason to remove by naming them.

One thing I do want to point out, however. I should have read the original text better when I reinserted it. I believe it was in October, a editor (not one of the people currently on the talk pages) had removed almost all of the POI section as well as removing all names and quotes under a giant BLP purge, while I can only assume overlooking the sources tagged for each. Most of them were removed as 'not being persons of interest', when the sources clearly identified them as such. Regardless, I added several of them back since citing BLP exemptions for deceased individuals isn't what it is there for, and ignoring stated sources is never a good idea. I should have paid better attention to what was said, since I added the quote from the sister. That wasn't meant to be to imply guilt, rather it was her mentioning her thoughts on them naming someone in the case. I see how it came off, though, so I will definitely keep an eye out for that in the future.

Awshort (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Naming the Accused

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

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

Please provide a reliable source that confirms he admitted to the crimes and therefore has pleaded guilty (we can't use what prosecutors/others say). S0091 (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

His own attorneys have stated, as part of the public record in open court, that the accused has made incriminating statements.

Charged with murder, they stipulate he has incriminated himself.

Don't be daft.

Rex Heuermann is named as the accused on the Gilgo Killings page, and he both has not confessed, nor has pleaded guilty. 174.251.128.194 (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

If the information is out there, find a source that says as much and include it. Otherwise, follow WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. Snowman304|talk 21:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I cannot find a perp name in the Gilgo Killings page. If it is there and unsourced, it should probably go too. QwertyForest (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@QwertyForest there was an RfC for that one, that was found in favor of naming.

Awshort (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@S0091: this is not meant as sarcasm, but confirms he admitted to the crimes and therefore has pleaded guilty (we can't use what prosecutors/others say) would be impossible for an individual under a gag order without relying on someone else to relay the message for them, wouldn't it? I was unsure if you were asking for an admission of guilt which wouldn't need a court and could be to anyone, or a pleading of guilt, which would.

Awshort (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Awshort I meant pleading guilty. I haven't followed the case closely but have checked on occasion, mainly to see when the trial starts/will conclude so I don't revert someone adding his name if it is actually appropriate and have come across sources where prosecutors (or someone?) have stated he confessed. I was trying to make it clear we can't use those sources. He would need to actually plead guilty. Let me know if that makes sense. S0091 (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@S0091 Eh...no, honestly that confused me more lol. If the subject had admitted to the murder and it was widely reported, it would be WP:DUE to cover the admissions but still refer to them as alleged admissions of guilt per WP:BLPCRIME. Obviously we can't say "Well he confessed, see this primary document?! GUILTY!" (which I believe was your point above if I'm not mistaken? We cannot say in wikivoice "Well he did it!" until he's actually convicted.) L

If I'm wrong, please let me know. I didn't sleep much so I'm probably wrong.

Awshort (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

We would not use a primary document per WP:BLPPRIMARY but a secondary source, such as a news report about him pleading guilty. Either way, that has not occurred so irrelevant. S0091 (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

https://fox59.com/news/detective-testifies-richard-allen-confessed-more-than-60-times-to-delphi-murders/

https://www.wthr.com/article/news/crime/delphi-girls-murdered/jury-can-hear-richard-allens-alleged-confessions-to-delphi-murders-abby-williams-libby-german-frances-gull-court-trial-carroll-county/531-cfd15032-cb36-431c-894a-09352c31e257

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/delphi-murders-richard-allen-confessed-killing-girls-sharp-object-used-court-documents/

https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/richard-allen-reported-made-confessions-to-inmates-guards-attorneys-say-he-was-in-state-of-psychosis/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/delphi-indiana-murder-richard-allen-b2534078.html

https://www.wishtv.com/news/i-team-8/defense-team-tries-to-suppress-richard-allen-confessions-in-delphi-murders-case/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/delphi-murders-hearing-richard-allen-odinist-cult-b2590328.html

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/richard-allen-guilty-delphi-murders-b2360144.html

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/richard-allen-delphi-documents_n_649cb07fe4b092a7871e4e8a

It hasn't?

Awshort (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

He has pleaded not guilty, thus the trial that is now underway. S0091 (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@S0091 I think we are disputing different things? I am not saying he pled guilty; I was pointing out that he had made alleged confessions and the media had reported on them a while back. Your earlier comments made it seem (at least to me) like none of the references I listed could be used in the article or alleged confessions could be mentioned at all. I think there is a huge difference between saying someone was alleged to have said something versus saying they outright confessed.

Awshort (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I think so. Per the section title, this discussion is about naming him and that is what I was addressing in my response to the IP a month ago. No sources were provided at that time to consider one way or the other. If what you are inquiring about is adding content stating he allegedly confessed, that's a different issue. I don't see a problem with doing so as long as it is done carefully of course. I am sure it will covered in the trial as well. S0091 (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@S0091 Thank you for the explanation, that cleared it up a lot. You were going by the section title, I was going by your comment to the IP about sources for his confessions (with zero input one way or other on naming, just on sourcing). Again, much appreciated!

Awshort (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. :) There was no input for me to give at that time as far as naming him without appropriate sources backing up what the IP was claiming. They provided none even after a second request by another editor so nothing else to say and the discussion died out. S0091 (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

My two cents

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

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

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

”It is easy to overlook the obvious.”

—-Aesop’s Fables

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

Wikipedia has rules and guidelines. Those, along with the preceding RFC demonstrate the reasons why it should not "therefore be included in the article". Lostsandwich (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lostsandwich That is partly true, but rules are not meant to be followed in an overly strict manner on the letter of policy and not the spirit per WP:NOTBURO , which has been the ongoing complaint with the discussion and how policies have been applied.

Key examples being WP:BLPCRIME doesn't mention names at all, that is on WP:BLPNAME, but it is continually being used in a different context than it was meant for while ignoring the fact that BLPNAME's criteria for naming has been met.

And lastly, an RfC that ended with no consensus is not the same as the consensus being to exclude.

Awshort (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The requirement for inclusion has not been met. Please review the pages on WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME, and the preceding RfC. Lostsandwich (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lostsandwich that is essentially what you said before that I replied to. BLPCRIME suggests to seriously consider and is not an outright prohibition, and BLPNAME requires a name to be widely printed in secondary sources to qualify for inclusipn. Regardless, my statement about WP:NOTBURO still stands.

Awshort (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)