Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Good morning. Due to the urgency, I am posting this link on this site, as posting sources and URLs at 2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio containing the name of the suspect, who has never been famous nor convicted, seems to defeat the purpose of WP:BLPN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The suspects name is now in the wiki-code in two places, both being urls of sources used in the article. Readers who do not look at the source wikicode will not see the name. I think WP:BLPNAME has been met, as the suspects name has been "widely disseminated". I think continuing to exclude the name from the article is wise, but am not overly concerned about the urls. If someone wants to replace the sources with equally reliable or better ones that do not have the name in the url, go for it! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Agree with FFF, given that a simple google turns up the name instantly we don't need to be policing URLs. BLPNAME here is satisfied by keeping the name out of the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

We have higher standards than the media here, since search engines will.pick up on WP info better than from media sources. Just because a name may be widely disseminated by some sources, we have to take steps to avoid things like names of non notable minors particularly around BLPCRIME aspects. There are ways to hide names in URL (like via link shortener or using sources that give the same information without including the name in the URL). Masem (t) 20:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Do we have to take such steps? I don't think we do... For example we wouldn't not use an article as a source because it had the subject's name in the title, that would be absurd and wikipedia is not censored. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

We can "[redacted]" a name in an article title should that be necessary. Masem (t) 21:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Has it ever been necessary? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I haven't seen "[redacted]", but I have certainly changed "[name of person] was also charged with [crime]" to "A third man was also charged with [crime]". Herostratus (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also this is not censoring. We strictly avoid mentioning non-notable, non public figures BLPs particularly when crimes are involved. Masem (t) 21:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Wikipedia is not censored" is a mere slogan, like "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit!" This is censorship; we censor BLPs and other things all the time, for legal and ethical reasons. We censor things that go against the best interest of Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

BLPCRIME uses the language "editors must seriously consider not including", so we do have some leeway to use common sense. If a suspect has already been named by just about every reliable source covering the topic, I don't think that we're pushing them further into the spotlight or implying guilt by incidentally mentioning their name in a linked URL. –dlthewave ☎ 13:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

• I don't think BLPCRIME is the sole issue nor a barrier at this point. I'd only ask if the suspect's name make the victim easier to identify? And if so, is there harm to the victim that would be a reason to keep it out of an article that will exist for the rest of her life? Slywriter (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Yes, I think it does make it easier to identify her. According to the tabloids the suspect is the live-in boyfriend of the victim's mother; I see no reason to suspect they don't have that fact straight. I don't know how we can prevent the name appearing completely, though. Even putting [redacted] into an article title just draws more attention to it. I dislike the idea of disingenuously rendering titles so the change won't be as visible. And once there's a conviction, is it even possible to keep the name out? Valereee (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I think it's ultimately a losing battle, but I struggle with the fact that a 10 year old has an article that will follow them around forever when they did not seek attention. For them, this article is WP:BLP1E, but others have made it a noteworthy topic. For that and WP:DONOHARM, I'd lean toward never including the suspect's name in the article prose(even after conviction), but policing sources may be a bridge too far. Slywriter (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Yeah. Also, arguments such as "simple google turns up the name instantly" and "If a suspect has already been named by just about every reliable source covering the topic, I don't think that we're pushing them further into the spotlight" and so on are bad, and of the order of "The other kids were beating that homeless beggar to death anyway, so what difference does it make if I joined in?". We can't control what other people do, only what we do. Introducing this kind of thinking into discussions is inimical to what we're trying to do here. Herostratus (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have to agree. It's simply a matter of basic human decency. It's a 10 year old child! Just because the newspapers don't show any compassion doesn't mean we have to blindly follow their lead like a bunch of mindless automatons. Newspapers are foremost out to sell their product and make money, and if that means trampling over a small child then that's what they'll do, as disgusting as it is. We're not motivated by a system that puts financial gain over the well being of the victims, and especially children. As an encyclopedia, we're supposed to be better than the news outlets, not the same or worse. Zaereth (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

All this is basically the same logic we used on Star Wars Kid until the person themselves opted to state in a very public statement he was SWK as part of his reason to start an anti-bullying group. Prior to that, there were a fair number of sources that gave his name but we kept it out of the article despite the "ease" that it could be found. Masem (t) 13:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah and it's people like the Star Wars Kid and Brian Peppers etc. where BLP is most important. "We are not here to make people feel sad" was one of the guiding reasons we have BLP. A BLP violation on the articles on Barack Obama or Kim Jong-un or Jeff Bezos etc etc is bad ofc, but really we can't harm those people on that level. We're not going to hurt their feelings or damage their reputation or invade their privacy. Bill Gates doesn't care if we slant a sentence against him without an AAA-level ref. Private marginally notable persons, where we usually form their public face to a degree? It's punching down, punching way down, to give them anything but bending-over-backwards extreme consideration for them as people. We are a very big, much read, much linked to, much quoted, and therefore powerful, publication. Marginally notable private persons are helpless against us. I hate punching down. You all should too. Herostratus (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

According to the tabloids the suspect is the live-in boyfriend of the victim's mother we don't mention this in the article? Anyone who's read the sources to the point that they've ascertained that fact, also has probably seen the person's name by that point. All that digging has to be done offwiki though.

I don't see how the suspect's name can tell you anything about the victim, based on the info in the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

We don't mention it because it's the tabloids, and even if it weren't the tabloids I'd argue against mentioning it for privacy reasons.

The problem isn't that people across the country avidly reading the tabloids will know the name of the accused and connect it to the kid. It's that in her neighborhood, at her school, in her church, everyone will know because the name of the accused has been made public and in every one of those groups, someone knows that person is a close associate of the family, which means they can guess who the victim is. And likely some will judge her for having the abortion, even if at this tender age she really wasn't even sure what an abortion is, and even if they don't judge her many will whisper about her. School life will be unbearable. Valereee (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Don't use the source because it's a junk source -- local news -- so we don't need to use it. I wouldn't say always exclude a source that has a problematic name in the URL, but if the source adds nothing of value to the article, which is the case here IMO, then there is no good reason to use it, and the inclusion of the name in the URL is a good reason not to use it. That they put the name in the URL demonstrates IMO the low quality of their newsroom editorial staff: it's in the URL because they put the name in the headline. Poor journalism ethics there. As far as a general rule about names in URLs go, I would say we should determine that on a case-by-case basis, but this is yet another example of why not to use local news as sources (as a general rule). Levivich (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I love local news for filling in early life details! The subject was a 2006 graduate of Perry High School, where they participated in 4 years of wrestling and musical theater. :D Valereee (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  local news is not a junk source... Buffs (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Seconded. Curbon7 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Well...it can be pretty junky. If we can find better sources for anything that isn't noncontroversial, it's better if we do. As I said above, it's great for a source for the fact the subject graduated in X year from Y high school and was a standout at Z activity. But in this case we're using a local source for information that can be easily found from a much better source who likely won't be putting the suspect's name into the headline and therefore URL. Valereee (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Anything notable is very going to likely have a local news source first. It is an opinion, not policy (and certainly not agreed upon by society at large) that local news sources are somehow inferior despite the fact that they follow the same journalistic standards as national publications. Either a source is reliable or it is not. Such editorial decisions (are we really being so picky as to be debating the choice of a URL?) have nothing to do with any of our pillars for inclusion.

  Now, I think including the victim's name is absurd and completely unnecessary (especially in the case of a minor), but it is widespread and in media worldwide. It is not a secret and is not something we can possibly exclude nor should we. It's best to give a neutral presentation of the facts. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  What news reports include the victim's name? I see plenty that include the doctor's name, but not the victim's. Lobster from Maine (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Let's just start with EVERY mass shooting... Buffs (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @Lobster from Maine, I think Bluffs simply misspoke; as far as I know no news reports are including the victim's name. Valereee (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @Valereee:, respectfully, please let me make my own points rather than assume my intent. My point is not whether names are included or not, but rather what reliable sources state. If they state the name of the victim, we should do so as well. Conversely, if they do not, we should not. It is truly that simple. The same should apply to URLs. While I feel for the girl in question, the responsibility lies with those who broadcast her name, not those who say "_____ broadcasted their name." Buffs (talk) 08:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  @Buffs, oh, my mistake, I'd made an assumption based on what was likely the policy-based opinion of an experienced editor who was saying something both incorrect and contrary to policy.

  Incorrect: AFAIK the media is not mentioning her name, which is why I figured you must have misspoken when you said I think including the victim's name is absurd and completely unnecessary (especially in the case of a minor), but it is widespread and in media worldwide. It is not a secret and is not something we can possibly exclude nor should we. It's best to give a neutral presentation of the facts.

  Contrary to policy: But even if it were appearing in RS, I would never in a million years think we should mention by name a 10-year-old rape victim. Our BLP policies would tell us to be extremely cautious with naming any non-notable living victim of any crime, much less a sex crime, much less a minor, much less one of tender years, much less one who has had an abortion as a result of that crime. I really am very surprised that an experienced editor like yourself would ever believe that was appropriate. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  If widespread articles are using either the name of the victim or the alleged perpetrator, it's very hard to see how either name is "non-notable". I stand by my statement. If either's name is NOT widespread in the media, then they should not be included. It's best to give a neutral presentation of the facts. Buffs (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  No RS I know of is using the name of the victim. Even if they were, I would argue against repeating it here onwiki until I was blue in the face unless she herself came out in ten years. WTF are you even thinking here? This is a CHILD. Valereee (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• I've never seen us take extreme measures like link shortening to avoid a name in URL. In past cases I've seen avoidance of the name in article text, but it remaining in URLs, and sometimes the title of sources if applicable too. I think this adheres to the rule, as it's not overtly displaying the person's name. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Shortening a URL is weird. Readers don't go looking through urls in wikipedia articles so that they might find a secret encoded name in them. Why is this an issue? Lobster from Maine (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @Lobster from Maine, the issue is that the suspect's name is in some headlines and therefore in some URLs, and it is likely people who know the girl will recognize the suspect as someone who lives with the family and therefore can identify the girl as the victim. Which could make her life pretty unbearable. Valereee (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Just noting that I've trimmed detail and swapped sources so that the suspect's name does not appear in the article wikitext. I wouldn't say this was necessary, but I get this itchy feeling all over whenever I disagree with Valereee. Those that care should probably keep a close eye as the trial starts (scheduled for next week, but may be delayed). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  hahaha Valereee (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Another open question on this article entails whether the alleged rape is "alleged" or not alleged at all. It seems that editors are claiming that they can objectively say in wikivoice that the child was raped even without benefit of a trial or conviction. This seems to be WP:OR, and WP:POV. It seems we should extend "innocent until proven guilty" as the law of justice in these United States, to any incident, no matter how heinous or how "obvious" a crime may be. Elizium23 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

We're not stating that the suspect is guilty. We're following the sources, all of which label it a rape. 9 year olds can not legally consent to sex, so any such relationship is rape. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Until proven out by a court of law, we cannot make that assumption, per BLPCRIME. There's likely little wiggle room for anything but a rape charge, but until the court finds on this, we have to assume innocence. Masem (t) 03:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Any sex with someone under 13 in Ohio is rape, so regardless of someone being found guilty, she was raped. If a politician was shot in the head in front of a crowd we wouldn't say "the alleged assassination." The suspect is alleged to have done something, but the rape itself is a fact. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Until the court makes the determination (which is very likely to be that way), we have to assume that events are only assumed to have happened, not that they have happened. Absolutely we can say that this woudl be assumed rape (we're not questioning the girl's age and thus how it falls under Ohio state law) but there's still validity in court that needs to be worked out. Masem (t) 03:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, in order to call someone a rapist there needs to be a court finding. In order to say someone was raped we do not. Just as we can say someone was murdered without a court finding. Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered, yet no one was ever convicted. Does that make it not a murder? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

For Heavens' sake. Sex with a nine-year-old is not "alleged" rape. It is rape. Hell, I think it borders on a WP:CHILDPROTECT violation to suggest otherwise. In some states one could maybe get pedantic and say it's not, as a matter of law, automatically rape, because of one exemption or another, but it appears that the only exemption that applies in Ohio would be marriage, and there are no sources indicating that the victim was married to the alleged perpetrator or anyone else. BLPCRIME does not prevent us from calling a rape a rape, because BLPCRIME is only about how we describe people, not acts. How we describe acts is determined by WP:V and WP:NPOV. Are there any reliable sources that dispute that this was a rape? Any at all? The only original research happening here is the outrageous attempt to stick weasel words in front of what everyone on Earth, except a handful of Wikipedia editors apparently, agrees was a rape (whether it was perpetrated by the accused or someone else). This has to be the worst hill I've ever seen anyone choose to die on. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is alleged rape as what the actual events are yet to be confirmed by trial. it doesn't matter what RSes claim, we are following legal principles here to not make statements of facts that have yet to be determined by the court of law. Masem (t) 04:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Masem: What legal principle says that you can only call something a rape if it has resulted in a conviction? Could you please cite a textbook or journal article that explains this principle? I'm no lawyer, but in years of following legal matters and writing articles on the law, I've never heard of it. If such a principle does exist, my next question would be what Wikipedia policy or guideline says that we should defer to that legal principle? It's nowhere in BLPCRIME, which is about how we describe the accused. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

BLPCRIME says "Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." which is the base principle here. Maybe it is about the accused, but like in this case, if we state in wikivoice it was rape, you've already accused the suspect of your guilt here. And from the law/media standpoint, this is what is known as "prejudging" which is something that is seen as unethical and can result in libel suits. Masem (t) 05:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Us saying she was raped is not the same as us saying that the accused raped her. Like, obviously. The only way we would be libeling him is if there were some way to have sex with a nine-year-old without it being rape, which there isn't. It's not the same thing as, say, calling a homicide a murder, where there's any number of reasons it might not be ruled that. Since you've acknowledged that BLPCRIME is about the accused, not the crime, I'll return to my earlier question: Do any reliable sources dispute that this was a rape? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

She could have undergone artificial insemination, in or out of a clinical setting. It's telling that you are here assuming she had sex when you should know that is not necessary to become pregnant. So you're making several leaps of logic and you're assuming events you aren't privy to.

Now it's unfortunate that the evidence of the crime has been destroyed and left in another state. I hope law enforcement held on to some DNA samples; moreover, I hope her child's baby's remains get a dignified burial and some human respect. (BLP violation removed) Elizium23 (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Elizium23: I... You're joking, right? You're coming to BLPN, to a thread about BLPCRIME, to accuse a different living person (or people) of a crime? That's so outrageous that it almost makes me forget you started this comment by suggesting that a fucking nine-year-old underwent artificial insemination. Given your blatant political advocacy in this comment, and, again, outright BLP violation against one or more people involved, I think you may need to accept that you are not able to participate constructively on this topic. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

What a truly bizarre argument, but oh well:

BLPCRIME keeps us from calling the accused a rapist until there's a conviction.

COMMONNAME is how we refer to the crime itself, absent consensus for something else. I don't believe I've seen any RS calling this anything but rape. So -- again absent consensus to call it something else -- we call it what RS call it: rape. Valereee (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I very much agree. The act leading to impregnation was a rape, and there is no source that suggests otherwise. BD2412 T 14:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

(EC) Especially with the trial due to start soon according to comments below, I feel there's no point trying to get this changed this but I'd note there have been plenty of times when we ignore RS calling something a murder etc until a conviction has been secured when the alleged preparator is still alive and IMO there is a good reason it's something we nearly always do no matter how damning the facts of the case may seem. We've long debates about this e.g. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive318#Stoneman Douglas High School shooting but also the RfC Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 58#RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder? which resulted in this supplement Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). Assassination given as an example is a fairly different case since it's not something that generally carrier a clear legal meaning. Indeed in the case of Talk:Assassination of Shinzo Abe/Archive 1#Requested move 8 July 2022 there seemed to be a clear albeit brief consensus that murder was not appropriate but assassination was fine. There are also cases where many sources may continue to call something a murder even though a conviction of the sole perpetrator has been secured for a lesser crime e.g. Killing of Rachel Nickell and Killing of Natalie Connolly (warning details may be distressing) and we have IMO correctly ignored these sources. While it may be true that the limited consideration of a perpetrator's state of mind means there's a difference between how rapes and murders are decided based on the facts of the case, IMO there's still enough doubt that we should take the same care. And actually I have vague memory we've done the same for rapes too where the facts seem fairly damning e.g. the victim suffered brutal injuries or it was recorded on camera although interesting enough with the case of Killing of Ee Lee we only dealt with the murder aspect and still simply say rape. I don't think Elizium23 is helping matters my giving unnecessarily complex scenarios although I'd note that it seems clear Elizium23 recognises artificial insemination of a 9 year old would almost definitely be at a minimum a form of sexual assault. The fact that a 9 year old cannot consent doesn't mean that any sexual intercourse is rape, for example for IMO good reason in many countries a 11 year old cannot be charged with rape. While the pregnancy makes this unlikely in this case, it's one of the reasons why we do not make assumptions based on flawed understandings of how the law operates and why. In many jurisdictions, again IMO for good reason, someone with a significant intellectual disability also cannot convicted of rape, even if physically they are capable of impregnating the victim. And I'd note that besides the weird artificial insemination scenario, it's possible even if very unlikely for pregnancy to result from sexual assault that doesn't fall into the definitions of rape that apply in jurisdictions a specific crime occurred in. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

exactly, and as we cannot use our own expertise ("all situations under Ohio law would call this rape"), we can't state it as fact until the court agrees that the factual basis of a conviction. That's why it is important that until the court passes this decision, we have to assert that the rape is alledged. Masem (t) 16:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

But we can use our own expertise to assert that the rape is alleged? Why would we ever be allowed to do that sort of WP:OR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

+1 Valereee (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Writing at a middle-ground/conservative stance (something was alleged to have happened) is absolutely should be our basis when including contentious or controversial information, as per WP:YESPOV. There's no OR involved in that, that's the writing style that a neutral encyclopedia must take, even if all the major sources - who are not legal experts here - claim must be true. Its the reason MEDRS (and to an extent, SCIRS) exist, to point out that there are only certain soruces that can make authorative claims. Of course, if the media was reporting on the findings that were given out of appropriate labs, and reiterating their statements, that would be different. Masem (t) 20:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Yes, ma'am, I understand you are saying you've been raped. We can't call it rape until someone has been convicted of rape. Oh, that 'rape kit'? Uh..." Valereee (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

By the way, if anyone wanted evidence that the judicial system indeed uses the word "rape" to describe incidents that did not result in a conviction, a lawyer friend pointed me to Wright v. City of Ozark, 715 F.2d 1513 (11th Cir. 1983) (plaintiff "was raped by an unknown assailant"), as an arbitrary example. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Was it uncontested by the city that she was raped? Maine 🦞 06:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Masem, can you explain to me the factual circumstances by which it would be inappropriate or false to say the child at issue had been raped? Dumuzid (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

What about "rape" violates WP:NPOV? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

WTAF are you arguing Elizium23 ... ?!?! Nonconsensual insemination of a child is still rape! Children cannot enter contracts or consent. Parents can consent on behalf of children when it is in their best interest. (unnecessary and dangerous medical procedures???? not!!) Any sexual conduct (see: insertion without privilege) with a minor less than age 13 in Ohio is rape. Not even the doctor in that disgusting hypothetical has medical privilege of insertion!!!! 2600:387:15:1C11:0:0:0:B (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is it contested, whatsoever, that some sort of sexual act by the specific person being tried for it actually occurred? Of course any sort of sexual relationship between a pedophile and a child is rape. Maine 🦞 05:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Adult and child. Not just pedos. 2600:387:15:1C11:0:0:0:B (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree with those editors above who are saying that, per WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, we call it "rape" and not "alleged rape" because the WP:RSes call it "rape" and not "alleged rape". For example:

• NYT a 10-year-old Ohio girl who was raped not "allegedly raped"
• WaPo a pregnant 10-year-old Ohio rape victim and a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio not "alleged rape victim"
• WaPo2 a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio not "alleged rape victim" and a man would be arraigned that morning for the rape of a 10-year-old not "for the alleged rape"
• NPR A rape, an abortion, and a one-source story not "an alleged rape" and A raped 10-year-old Ohio girl's abortion not "an allegedly raped 10-year-old".

Aside from Wikipedia policy, this also comports with common sense: if a child is pregnant it's because she was raped, because she cannot consent and thus any pregnancy would be the result of statutory rape. The fact that a rape occurred is indisputable because a child is pregnant. It's just like if someone is stabbed many times, we (the world, the RSes, and thus Wikipedia) all call it a "murder" even if no one is ever convicted for the "murder", as has been pointed out above.

The bottom line is this: sometimes, a crime has occurred, and RS state that a crime has occurred, even if no one is convicted of that crime. In such cases, we can also state that a crime has occurred (although of course we cannot state that a particular person committed it). We do not have to state that a crime has allegedly occurred just because no one has been convicted of that crime. That's not what our policies, or common sense, require. Levivich (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

That statement "that comports with common sense" is a legal analysis beyond the abilities of WP Editors to make, and thus not a valid step. And we have to stay away from saying things that maybe all RSes claim is true but do not have the authority to do so - here we need the legal evaluation from the court decision, the only agency that can make the evaluation. Even in the case of a person that appears to have died from multiple stab wounds, we cannot call that murder under a court of law makes that statement (that's why there's a specific set of rules of how we name "Killing of..."-type articles. Masem (t) 16:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

We say JFK was assassinated even though no one was convicted of the assassination. And WP:DEATHS says that you follow the common name even if there is no conviction, which is why we say JFK was assassinated and Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered, even though there were no convictions. So no, saying that a rape occurred is not legal analysis any moreso than saying that a murder or assassination occurred... those may be crimes, but they're not legal concepts, they're words that describe actions, they're not legal terms-of-art. And our policies do not say that we can't call something <crime> unless there's been a conviction. This has been explained multiple times above, but you're still repeating the same talking points. Levivich (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Those specific rules are for when there both

1. Is no commonname
2. Is no consensus for something else

In this case we have a commonname:rape is what RS are calling it. And we don't have consensus for calling it anything else, including "alleged rape". If you really believe you can get consensus for calling this an "alleged rape", start an RfC. Valereee (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Masem, you are dead wrong here, and youre missing the obvious. We cannot say an individual is guilty of a crime until that is adjudicated. We absolutely can, and should, say that a crime occured when sources report that as a fact. WP:BLPCRIME is about calling some LP something that has not been established. Ie a rapist. It is not about the existence of a crime itself. You are taking the naming on killing vs murder to extreme lengths here, and you are wrong in how you are doing so. We can say a robbery occurred. We can say a rape occurred. We can say all sorts of things because they arent labeling a living person as guilty of that crime. There is no requirement that somebody be found guilty of a crime to say that said crime even occurred. The requirement is that they be found guilty before we say they themselves committed said crime. There is an alleged rapist, not an alleged rape. nableezy - 17:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nope, this is a critical factor. The media themselves are not legal experts in any capacity so we can't their own conclusions as whether a specific crime occurred or not as fact. Further, let's take a less orenous example: Mrs. Smith is found dead from a stab wound; obviously we can state she was killed. The police likely will assume she was murdered after a preliminary investigation, and they may take in Mr. Smith as a suspect despite his pleas he didn't. In that scenario, even if the press asserted "Mrs. Smith was murdered" (prior to a conclusion from the courts) and "Mr. Smith is a suspect", that is implicitly says Mr Smith murdered her. It is why in those cases, the media actually very carefully says "Mr. Smith is a suspect in the alleged murder of Mrs. Smith", which is valid, and for us, why her page would remain at "Killing of Mrs. Smith" (if that iwas how it was to be handled) until the conviction happened. What if the real case was that Mrs. Smith committed suicide after all was said and done? That's why we need the careful language.

Same thing applies to other crimes - they all may be the named crimes, but they aren't actually those crimes until a conviction is secures against those that do it. It significantly affects any person that is tied as a possible suspect to the crime, and thus must be treated in an "innocent until proven guilty" manner. There are other things that are factual - "the victim was stabbed multiple times", "the store was overturned and the safe looted of all funds" that suggest a crime, but there are slim outside changes that there are other things going on that we should not take any absolutes of judicial truth until the actual courts make the assessment. Masem (t) 18:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Masem has apparently never heard of the concept of "unsolved crimes". In Masem's world, a crime without a conviction isn't a crime at all. In the preferred approach of overstretched police forces all over the world, the way to reduce the crime rate is then to make it difficult for people to report crimes.

In the real world, fortunately, we can simply rely on reliable sources to know (and report) what has happened in this instance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

This isn't WP:MEDRS, and you are seriously misinterpreting the difference between calling a person a rapist and calling a crime a rape. Someone ping me if there's an RfC. Until then, I do not think we have consensus for adding "alleged rape" to the article. Valereee (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

In Ohio, state statute for 1st degree rape has strict liability for "sexual conduct" (defined here) with anyone "less than thirteen years of age". The girl is a victim of rape in the eyes of Ohio law. There does not need to be a trial and finding of guilty of a perpetrator for a victim to be victim of a crime. For example, the Uniform Crime Report (now NIBRS) does not even require an arrest for a crime to be labeled as such. Unlike homicide, we do not need a medicolegal ruling to determine that a pregnant 10-year-old had "sexual conduct" (WP:BLUE). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thats nonsense pure and simple. Theres a reason not to say murder over killing, because that is an issue of intent and you can kill somebody without having murdered them. That simply does not exist here or in most other crimes. And beyond that, the real reason we need such a guideline is that because Wikipedians as a body are incapable of exercising discretion and understanding nuance, and it leads to some very fucked up anomalies. Like, in a topic I edit in, an Israeli soldier is almost never going to be found guilty of murder, regardless of the circumstances. So an unarmed autistic man shot in the back of the head is killed and not murdered, because the local jurisdiction will never charge much less find the perpetrators guilty of murder. But fine, we as a body need bolded lines to deal with edge cases, so we end up making this convoluted flow diagram specifically for when to use the word murder. But that simply does not apply here. And, as per WP:WEIGHT, the balance of reliable sources are emphatic that a rape occurred. We couch our wording for the living person accused of a crime. A crime occurs even if nobody is ever charged, even if nobody is ever convicted. And it does not require a court of law to say that some specific person is guilty of a crime to say that a crime even occurred. nableezy - 18:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Having a real hard time following your argument here Masem... It looks like you jumped the shark a long time ago and are now defending an undefendable position against overwhelming odds. You're wrong in both spirit and letter, drop the stick. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is just...a bad argument. A really dumb, bad argument. The fact that you can't understand how claiming a rape didn't occur until someone is found guilty for it is the most ridiculous BS reasoning ever is just...bizarre. And a real WP:COMPETENCE concern for this topic area. Silverseren^C 20:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Now now, Masem is undoubtedly giving his view in good faith, and I dont think dropping a competence link is appropriate. I do think he is taking WP:DEATHS to extreme, and absurd, lengths here, and there is literally nothing BLP related in saying a crime occurred absent a conviction. There is in saying somebody committed a crime prior to a conviction, but thats not whats at issue here. nableezy - 20:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

eh, not sure competence is an absurd question. This isn't a one-off, there's been doubling down. It's actually pretty puzzling. Valereee (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I meant the BLPCRIME claim is absurd, not the competence link. Though I do think it is misguided. Some people have very myopic views when the letters BLP come even on the fringes of the picture. I obviously disagree with Masem on this thread, but Ive also agreed with him plenty of othee times, so cmon lets accept that reasonable can disagree on what our articles should say without lacking the competence to edit. nableezy - 02:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Masem I don't think it's appropriate to apply the logic behind the WP:DEATHS guidance to a clear-cut case of statutory rape. When it comes to the killing of a person or persons there are considerations; was it a lawful or unlawful killing? Was it manslaughter or murder? Was it premeditated or a crime of passion? The answers to those questions have implications, not only on the potential sentencing of the perpetrator(s), but also how we describe both the perpetrator(s) and the victim(s). To use your Mr/Mrs Smith example, while in all cases Mrs Smith is dead, how we describe her death and anyone accused of it is variant on the circumstances that caused it.

However in the case of statutory rape, such as the one that lead to this discussion, we have only a single way to describe the victim; that they were raped. Whether or not there is a known perpetrator, and whether or not that perpetrator receives a conviction, it does not change the fact that this child was raped. However that only applies to the victim. When it comes to a known perpetrator, BLPCRIME would naturally apply to that person, such that we (and the media) would describe them as an "alleged rapist", "suspect", or other similar terms. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

In America, this is not statutory rape. It's rape. U.S. Code Title 10 § 920b Ohio Revised Code Section 2907.02 2600:387:15:1C18:0:0:0:B (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• @Masem: to the contrary. A rape occured. Whether or not this person is found guilty or not of the alleged crime, it happened. If someone was shot down in a hail of indiscriminate gunfire, we would say the people killed were "murdered" regardless of whether a person is found guilty or not. Buffs (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• I'll say this. The fact that we even have an article about this is just sick. Sick. That we would take the trauma of a 10 year-old child and use it to forward some political agenda is absolutely disgusting. Zaereth (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • Reply -

  1. This is an encyclopedia.
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022.

  --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely fucking disgusting. Zaereth (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Reply - @Zaereth:, why don't you renominate it for deletion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

disgusting or not, it happened. I see nothing furthering a political agenda here...it's a matter of how it should be described Buffs (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh please. Have you read the article? The rape is disgusting, yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. The only thing more disgusting than raping a child is using it for political gain. Now don't get me worng, because I am 100% pro-choice, and think the supreme court ruling is utter garbage. But this? This is a horrible way to go about trying to make that point. Typical mob-mentality, where an entire group of people suddenly begin to behave as a single sociopath. "The news agencies did it, so why shouldn't we." Hey, tell yourself whatever helps you sleep at night. Zaereth (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Reply - "Why don't you renominate it for deletion"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is where my issue is. I am sure, buried within the sources, is confirmation from an appropriate police official or medical official with authority on this case that they are going to call it rape. That's fine if that source exists (and I'm sure it does) but the bulk of editors above are saying, instead, "all these RSes call it rape, so should we." We would never do that if someone made a claim of a cure for cancer without an authoratative source (MEDRS), or cold fusion (SCIRS), as this is 100% in the world of legal elements, which newspapers and other major media sources are not. Implicitly, there exists an equivalent "LAWRS" - that in terms of matters of legal aspects, there are only some bodies of authoritative nature (like police and courts) that would allow us to say "X is convicted of Y" or the like. Even in a case like this, where we know under OH law that young girls cannot consent and thus any sexual activity likely would be deemed rape, there are potential mitigating circumstances that may change that, and we should be working solely on what the police/medical examiner have determined, and not this non-authorative voice of the masses. (I don't believe there's anything else this specific case can be called, though, but it would be far better not to flat out say the girl was raped, but instead "According to officials for X, the girl was raped." or similar language)

Which goes back to Zaereth's point, is that this is another example of the media using accountability journalism to create empathic works that are designed to draw in readers and rile them up against abortion laws, rather than simply reporting what happened. Abortion laws like Ohio's are bad, but we have to write neutrally and dispassionately, regardless of how much attention that thet media may give this story, and my take (having written a considerable part of the Dobbs case article) is that the situation around this girl is something that is far more comprehensive within the context of the Ohio abortion law (to understand its timing and implications better) than as a separate article. But because editors want to create articles about every little news event which the media covers, we get situations like this. And that's why we have so much nonsense around BLP, because of the mob mentality "the RSes say this, it must be right!" We're an encyclopedia, we required to summarize RSes to build up articles, but we are not bound to mirror them exactly, particularly when other core content policies are at state. Masem (t) 13:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Masem, in general I would agree with you about coverage of news events, but I would respectfully suggest that whether there should be an article at all is something of a separate discussion. You say there are potential mitigating circumstances that may change a finding of rape. What are those? Dumuzid (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

On "may be potential mitigating circumstances", i do not know the full extent if Ohio law or how it is prosecuted, so there may be, however exceptional and near impossible it may be, there may be a chance that an underage girl got pregnant may not be called a rape. I don't claim to be the expert here and thus I would expect to be told the answer by the police and other officials investigating the case, those that have the expertise and authority to.make that call. Definitely not the mass media in.isolation.

And it should be recognized that having the separate article is. As Zarathustra points out, harmful to the unnamed girl. Clearly the story around her cannot be avoided within the context of the OH state law, but the creation of a separate article while she is still an unnamed minor can be seen as degrading. Maybe once she reached adult age she will pound the ground as a pro choice activist and make sure her name is well known, ar which point we don't have to worry about her privacy. But until then the more we cover about the story, the more problematic this can become, and BLP's essence is to do no harm, hence why the separate article is a problem. Masem (t) 14:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Again, with due respect, your "potential mitigating circumstances" boil down to an argument from ignorance. As David Hume pointed out long ago, we could apply the same sort of skepticism to the proposition that the sun will rise tomorrow. What we are left with, by my lights, is a situation in which the reporting in reliable sources agrees with a seemingly conclusive logical predicate, and you are asking us to be cautious based on the fact that you can imagine an unarticulated chance that things may not be as they seem. I hope you can understand why that is unpersuasive. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well I suppose a mitigating circumstance could be that the accused was an unwilling participant in the rape, for example that he was forced to rape the girl at gunpoint. But mitigating doesn't mean absolving, and in the very, very unlikely event (it has not been mentioned in any RS as a possibility) that this was the case, it doesn't change the fact that under Ohio law a rape occurred (because any penetrative sexual act by an adult on a 10-year-old is rape in Ohio). But since we are not saying that the accused in this case is the guilty party in the rape that undoubtedly occurred, there are no WP:BLP violations - which after all is the point of this board. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is a major difference between saying "all the RSes are reporting that the police have identified it as rape" and "all the RSes call it rape". Again, I would assume that in the early sourcing of this story in the Juke-ish time frame, we have reports from RSes that state the police or similar body of authority are treating this as rape, which is what should be used. If we only had the speculation of newspapers, even with the e Tremblay slim possibility of the situation being anything other than rape, we are still dealing with alegal and possible BLP situation if we jumped to the same conclusion that the media made. This slavish following of mass media in areas they are not authoritative is where problems can arise for BLP and other areas. Here, there's likely no other scenario possible, but it creates a slippery slope to other situations. We need to be more cautionary here. Masem (t) 15:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I will just say in closing that this strikes me as stretching the principle to an inapposite degree, but reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The RS are reporting what the police and prosecuting authorities are saying, which is that a girl who was 9 at time got pregnant. Under Ohio law, that can only happen as a result of rape, because any penetrative sexual act by an adult on a minor under 13 is classified as rape in that State. Unless you are claiming immaculate conception, a rape occurred. It really is as simple as that. Who is responsible for that rape has not been determined, so we would call anyone charged "the alleged rapist" until there is a conviction (to satisfy WP:BLP); but it's not an alleged rape, because of the age of the victim. It really is that simple and you need to stop flogging this dead horse. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

If Ohio state law says pregnancy can only happen as a result of penetrative sex that's against medical science since as I mentioned above it's possible even if incredibly unlikely for it to happen without. I don't think a flawed law, even a flawed law where the actions happened is particularly germane to anything especially since I'm not even sure why Ohio defines rape without considering perpetrator/s. Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

A 9-y-o cannot consent to sex, ergo the victim in this case - described in multiple reliable sources as a rape case - was raped. WP:SKYISBLUE and WP:COMMONNAME.Elizium23's comments above are reprehensible. And this would not be the first time that Masem has got completely the wrong end of the stick about a legal case, yet has continued commenting. (Assuming somebody was being charged with being 'Soldier F' rather than grasping that Soldier F is undergoing trial for their actions). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Comment on the content, not the contributor. I asked a few questions and still didn't a full crystal clear answer for that Soldier F but still worked what I thought was how BLP should best be applied there. Masem (t) 13:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for clarifying (on your Talk page) that your questions were answered. I dispute that the situation was/is in any way complicated. Indeed, every other person who commented in the RFC was well able to grasp that Soldier F is being charged with murder; it was only you who persisted in stating that the upcoming trial is to determine if "Dave" is "Soldier F", as if there is a crime of being "Soldier F" that one can be charged with. I would respectfully suggest, given that issue and also your comments above, that you give consideration to staying out of discussions around legal areas. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is not an "alleged rape", it is a rape by definition, so we should not mislead our readers that it is not a rape. Here, we most certainly do have a rape, but also an "alleged suspect" (not "alleged rape") to that rape. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's not an "alleged suspect". There are not mere allegations that a particular person is a suspect. There is a person who is suspected of raping the girl. Maine 🦞 17:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The girl was raped. There is a suspect. The suspect is alleged to have committed the rape. Any use of "alleged" should be restricted to describing the charge against the suspect, not the fact of the rape itself. BD2412 T 18:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Maine 🦞 19:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, to answer your prior comment, that's what I said, the person is alleged to have committed the rape, thus, in short, an alleged suspect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Someone at WP:CR has refused to close this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Generally we don't need a formal close unless a lengthy period has elapsed and the participants in the discussion can't agree what consensus is. For me it looks like there's consensus not to use the term "alleged rape". Very few participants in this discussion are arguing it should be called an alleged rape. It also looks to me like there is no consensus to include the name of the suspect, and no consensus against removing URLs/headlines that contain the suspect's name. Anyone disagree? Valereee (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'd say there's weak consensus to keep the suspect's name out of URLs/headlines for now. I didn't get a chance to say it earlier, but use of url shorteners is a no go; they're blacklisted. As long as it's possible to sub in sources that do not use the name in those spots, or trim info and refs that are unneeded, I'm happy to keep juggling. It might get harder as the trial begins, and more eyes on the article would be nice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

FFF, so in addition to 'no consensus to include' you think we can go with 'weak consensus to exclude'?

Oh, itneresting on URL shorteners. I didn't know that, but obviously it makes sense. Valereee (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Obviously I'm not wearing my "uninvolved consensus assessor" hat, and I'm heavily weighing the "very sensitive BLP" arguments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's okay, we don't have to be completely uninvolved to close a discussion. We just have to do our best and not have anyone challenge the close. :D If someone believes a close has been affected by involvement of the closer, they'll challenge it. But if we try to be very fair, we may not need a formal uninvolved closer. Valereee (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

WP:LPNAME & WP:CHILDPROTECT. To protect victim we should not include the suspect name. He can be used to identify victim. 2600:387:15:1C17:0:0:0:C (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree with that. We should use the best source possible, even if that source contains the name of the alleged rapist. Maine 🦞 19:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

As I said earlier, "equally reliable or better". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Maine Lobster, when you find a better source that contains the name of the suspect in the headline/url, just bring it up, and we can discuss. Valereee (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

(redacted until discussion closes)

But is there any information in either of those that isn't included in sources that don't use the suspect's name in the URL? Valereee (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Maine 🦞 19:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can you specify what information is included in those that isn't included in other sources? Valereee (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

(redacted until discussion closes)

It doesn't look like confusion about the suspect's name is included in the article, though? Is this literally not covered anywhere else, in the nearly three months since? Valereee (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't claim to have perfect knowledge, but I don't see it anywhere else. Local reporters are often more detailed on local issues than national ones, such as here. Maine 🦞 19:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Maine Lobster, and if there's something here that should be included in the WP article, that's an argument for including that source. But if literally no one else is even mentioning it, maybe it's just trivia, or never panned out. If the only information in this source that isn't included in other sources also isn't in the WP article, why would we use this source when it provides information that could identify the victim within her local community and possibly put her at risk? Valereee (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The hypothetical concern that the community does not somehow know and cannot find the name of the alleged rapist, despite the name being reported by CNN and by a major newspaper in the state, is odd. It probably should not be included in the article because of the lack of a conviction, but I don't see why we should ban it from being discussed on talk pages or linking to sources that mention it. Those sources are no less reliable than sources that don't include (redacted) full name. Maine 🦞 03:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

For the record; I declined to close this discussion (singular!) Noticeboard#2022_pregnancy_of_a_10-year-old_in_Ohio where the topic is about removing the URLs containing the subjects name and had concluded naturally. Quite honestly, I didn't realise that this entirely separate conversation was part of the same discussion you wanted closing. This new section about whether or not to use 'Alleged',in my opinion, should be happening on the article talk page, not here. But here it is, and it's ongoing so not appropriate to close anyway JeffUK 19:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

If the goal is to remove the name of the suspect from Wikipedia, why is it listed on the discussion above at "19:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've redacted. Up to an admin to go further. But it was added by a new editor. Slywriter (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've undid your edit to my edit. I don't think there's anything like a consensus to ban mentioning the name of (redact) in internal discussions, even if we have good reasons not to include it in the article. Maine 🦞 03:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Because in order to have legitimate discussions about the use of sources and content we have to provide and discuss sources. We're past the point where providing a link to a source containing the name in a url should be forbidden. It's commonly discussed in sources, and project discussions and talk page discussions have different thresholds for BLP than articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Reply - @ScottishFinnishRadish:, then why is "(redact)" now in that statement above? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  @Jax 0677 Because Slywriter edited my comment without my permission. Maine 🦞 03:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think BLP applies no matter where you are. From WP:BLP: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." 2600:387:15:1C1B:0:0:0:9 (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

BLP does not require that a suspect not be named, it requires serious consideration be given to not naming a suspect prior to a convention. That serious consideration is what is happening. And enforcing a blanket ban short-circuits that. nableezy - 03:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Name serves no purpose to discussion and I will redact again per BLP Policy. Anyone taking issue can head to ANI as the name is now being willfully and intentionally repeated. This is a high profile page. Anyone can provide the source if editors need it to assess. That does not mean the name needs to be on wiki until consensus is reached. Slywriter (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:TALKO is also policy, and you know that. An amdin (@ScottishFinnishRadish) and others have said that this is not required. Please stop editing my comments for the sake of Censorship. Maine 🦞 03:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Slywriter, why did you delete my comment that WP:TALKO is a policy? How is that comment possibly a "BLP violation"? Maine 🦞 04:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Was wrong edit reverted. I have reinstated redact as the name is a BLP violation and this a 10 year old girls life that we are discussing, so let consensus decide if the name should be on wiki. Slywriter (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

You are deleting the name of an alleged rapist from a talk page discussing whether or not we should have that name in an article. Stop editing my comments in violation of policy. Maine 🦞 04:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Maine Lobster But you acknowledge that Slywriter can redact or, if necessary, remove outright your comments if the violate WP:BLP? This includes, but is not limited to, mentioning the name of the alleged rapist. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The alleged rapist has been mentioned in major newspapers in connection with the assault. To choose to not include the name in the article itself is fine, but to censor it from discussion pages is absurd. To paraphrase Ian Hislop "If that's a BLP vio, then I'm a banana". Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, edits that violate the BLP policy can be redacted. But these edits don't, and multiple people (including an admin) have said this. Just because an editor claims something violates the BLP policy does not make it so, and there is nowhere near a consensus that the comments do. Maine 🦞 04:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

No I will not. It's a BLP violation of the privacy of a 10 yo girl. If the community decides otherwise it can be written on-wiki but until then it serves no purpose in the discussion. As I've said in edit summary, any admin can directly and unequivocally tell me it is not a BLP violation. Slywriter (talk)

You need to read WP:BLPTALK. It's not a blank check to remove anything negative about anyone you want whenever you please. It's very narrowly-defined, stating that Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Note that your removal here fails on almost every clause. First, the suspect's identity is not contentious, nor is it unsourced or poorly-sourced; it is widely-referenced and treated as uncontroversial in high-quality sources, eg. (redacted a whole big list of perfectly good sources - BK); likewise, discussing the name is clearly related to content choices (it is difficult to mention or search for sources without mentioning it.) The threshold for removing things from talk is higher than it is for removing them from articles, otherwise we wouldn't be able to meaningfully discuss whether to include things like this. --Aquillion (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ding. It is not potentially libelous to say that some named person has been charged with rape and is facing a trial for the rape of a minor. That is verifiable fact. And the argument that you are protecting the child by not naming her accused rapist is one that still does not register for me. Especially given how widely reported that name is already. nableezy - 16:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

When did WP stop going by the sources? Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

If I was citing WP:BLPCRIME, your argument would be correct. I am not. I am operating under WP:DONOHARM and WP: BLPPRIVACY for the 10 year old victim who did not choose to be a public figure, who would fail WP:BLP1E, and the only reason she is stuck with an article about a deeply private matter is the poor choices of adult politicians, activists, and doctors to make her a political football in the US abortion debate.

The fact the issue does not register with you makes clear that a larger community discussion needs to occur about the privacy of minors especially victims as it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia to risk harm to a minor because editors feels well the newspapers and politicians are already doing harm so we can join in. Slywriter (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I completely agree with Slywriter on this point. Naming the suspect in the article or in discussions basically draws a map to the ten-year-old victim, and is of de minimus benefit to our mission as an encyclopedia. BD2412 T 16:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree, too, of course, we can have a meaningful discussion: "name of suspect" and the like, is just as meaningful for our purposes. And BLPTALK says to be circumspect in what you write outside the article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I cannot seriously believe that it is harmful to the victim to name the person who is publicly charged with the crime. The idea that we are risking harm to the child and basically drawing a map to them is asinine. Otherwise all the reliable sources that have already named the suspect would be doing just that. You think CNN is putting a 10 year old rape victim in harm here? Should let them know that. nableezy - 19:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

We don't run CNN, or any of the other outlets, all of which operate on a for-profit basis and are trying to draw eyes to their articles so they can sell advertising. More pointedly, as a matter of policy, we are WP:NOTNEWS. BD2412 T 19:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, we are a tertiary source that summarizes reliable secondary sources, like CNN and every other outlet that this article is relying on already. This argument about protecting the child makes zero sense. And I dont even give a shit about naming the victim in the article, but this virtue signaling redacting all mention of what is widely reported is stupid. nableezy - 19:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nableezy, I do actually think it can harm the child further, even though media has already done that. A Wikipedia article follows someone around for a very long time. So I don't see this as an absurd discussion. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think it's worth discussing. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

How? Every source of any repute will decline to name rape victims. But they will always name somebody when they are publicly charged for the crime. I am unaware of a single serious source that will decline to name somebody charged with a crime with the supposed justification that it somehow protects the victim. I dont even get the logical basis for the argument. The we are drawing a map to the child bit makes zero sense to me at all. Even Reuters has that he, by name, has been charged. USA Today, the Independent, ABC News, and on and on and on. I dont see how youre going to have an article on the crime and not cover the arrest, trial, and verdict and potential sentencing. And youre going to twist yourself in knots trying to redact any article with the name in the headline, much less not name him in our article. I would take the child protection angle more seriously if there was literally any support for such a stance in other sources. But none of them view that as a potential issue, and probably all of them have policies on protecting victims, especially rape victims, especially minor rape victims. But none of them see any issue at all with naming the person who has been publicly charged and will be publicly tried for the crime. nableezy - 19:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Because a Wikipedia article lasts a really long time. The other stuff might be less easily searchable over time. Valereee (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The suspect name is now listed in the links above [19:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)], as well as here. I have added a request at WP:AN to permanently delete such edits. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

That is absurd. This goes beyond anything we've ever done with regards to BLP before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

HEB, I think it may not be absurd considering the specific circumstances. We have a child of tender years who has been raped and had an abortion, and she is quite likely identifiable within her own community because of the name of the accused. We can't put the lid back on the box, but I think it's worth at minimum discussing before we decide whether it's okay to have the suspect named in discussions. It doesn't really help anything, so why not just avoid using it at all? Valereee (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

We are required to edit in a detached manner, if the specific circumstances are overwhelming for a given editor then they need to find a different topic space to edit. The key point is that if we can't use the URLs can we actually have a discussion? If I can't post a link to a CNN article because someone is going to come through and redact it how do we ever get to WP:NPOV? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not overwhelmed in the least. I'm just pointing out that this is an unusual case and it's not absurd to discuss before we decide whether it's okay to use the accused's name in discussions. I'm not saying your point isn't well taken, but the argument has been made (and I think it's reasonable) that unless a source that uses the accused's name in the headline (and therefore URL) is telling us something other RS aren't telling us, can't we just use a source that doesn't iclude the name? And if the source is saying something no other source is saying, maybe we don't need it? It's just a discussion, HEB. Valereee (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

How can we evaluate whether or not that source is saying something different if evaluating the source is forbidden in the first place? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey, if you've got a good enough reason, go for it. Like the NYT or WSJ is using a URL with the suspect's name, and literally NO OTHER RS is giving us the same information...

Is that what's happening that you're worried about? Because I haven't actually seen that happen very often. But if it does, yeah, I'd totally support you coming in here and giving us that URL that is so crucial. Valereee (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

We can't put the lid back on the box That's the crux, we go by sources. If the sources write things we don't like (irritating habit of theirs, I know), it's not up to WP editors to make moral judgements in compensation. Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

We might come to consensus to avoid sources that use the accused's name in the URL, or at least as much as we can. That's what's being discussed. Valereee (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

You mean a consensus to exclude entirely on pain of rev-del? "Avoid" is not what is being proposed or done. Lets talk about reality, and in reality people are redacting URLs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The reality is that people have presented good reasons for why we should omit this information. And since this is a BLP, until people can come up with better reasons (and consensus) as to why it should be included it stays out. Enforced by redaction if need be. BLP is built on the presumption of don't do unnecessary harm. If we can work around these URL's then we should. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

What is the proposed workaround? I must have missed it. It seems that the proposal is simply not to acknowledge their existence in any way, which clearly not a workaround. Also welcome back from wikibreak! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

For the name, the descrption "the accused" appears to be being used in this discussion without issue. For URL's it would depend on if the source is providing new content or not. And people could suggest content text and a note that the source includes the name of the accused in it's header. If a source isn't providing new content, why use the source, and if it is, is the content of sufficient encyclopedic value to include it. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

But how can we know if the if the source is providing new content or not if we're prohibited from posting links to it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

People can propose content on the talk page. Note they have a source and the source has the accused's name in the link so they are not currently linking it. And editors can determine if the proposed content is worth including enough to actually post the link on the talk page or in the article. Heck we could even do a description of the link as in published by and date of publishing for people who may want to look it up themselves. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

How can editors determine whether the proposed content actually reflects the source without reading the source itself? If they can't determine whether the proposed content accurately reflects the source its not possible for them to determine whether the proposed content is worth including. Also note that you can't just say you have a source if the discussion is BLP, you are required to provide a link to the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

If editors feel the content is worthy for inclusion if true, they could post the link to make sure that the content accurately represents the source. Note, content need only be sourced if it is actually challenged or likely to be challenged. So prior to challenging whether the content fairly represents the source you would have to see if the content itself is of sufficient encyclopedic value to include. So, as a process, first propose content and possibly some clues as to where it is sourced. If it's possibly acceptable to include, then post the link to verify that the content is an accurate representation. Assuming that meets scrutiny then the content can be added to the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

BLP content always needs to be sourced, even just to discuss it on the talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Contentious material always needs to be sourced. And again, we can include description as to where the content is sourced to even without including a link. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

BLP material always needs to be sourced, whether or not it is contentious. If it is both BLP and likely to be challenged then an inline citation is required. You are currently arguing that we are prohibited from using such an inline citation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

BLP material always needs to be verifiable. Inline citation (aka sourcing) is only required if challenged or likely to be challenged. And again we can include a description of the source to see if it's good enough to use for a citation. Creating limits is not the same as prohibition. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

How does one create an inline citation without the title or url of the source? As you said the inline citation is *required* in that context, so how can BLP both require the inline citation and limit the ability to create that citation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

We already limit the ability to create citations. If sources aren't up to par we don't include content and thus don't include the citation. This can include talk page discussions. If you want to include something that is being limited you can provide a description of what you want, and a description of the source, and note it includes the name in the link as to why you aren't currently linking it. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

If the source is RS, it shouldn't be limited at all. Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

What is, and is not a RS is always contextual. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Correct, and why deciding upfront that every RS is contextually inappropriate is complete bs. Selfstudier (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

But it isn't deciding up front. If it were, no source would ever be appropriate period. It's only sourcing that names the accuser which has to go through this process. --Kyohyi (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Google it. I see both sides of the argument on this. But fundamentally it's just not that important to an encyclopedia to name the suspect at this stage. This is all rather overblown. DeCausa (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there is much support for naming the suspect in the article, the issue is more about not naming them in discussions, or using URLs that contain the name. I'm fairly certain that anyone interested enough in the case to read the Wikipedia BLPN thread about it doesn't need our help to find the name in the media. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The crime is not notable and would fail WP:BLP1E. The notability comes from the actions of third parties unrelated to the victim. This is not a biography about her. This is not an article about the crime. If those points were not true, I'd be far more sympathetic to the NPOV position being staked out here. The notability stems from the denial of an abortion in one state and the subsequent politicizing of events by others. Slywriter (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

If the crime is not notable then nominate the article about the crime for deletion. nableezy - 19:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The issue is the use of the child as a political pawn has made the initial denial of her abortion notable. Though I am looking at options within our policies to minimize mention and focus of the crime, which has been sort of coat-racked into the article and may be undue. Slywriter (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The use of the child as a pawn? Im sorry, what? nableezy - 22:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

You're going to need to supply a source for that claim. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is quite likely identifiable within her own community because of the name of the accused bit is what makes no sense to me. The local news has reported the name. The national news has reported the name. You think the Wikipedia article not including it somehow alleviates any potential harm that may come to the victim? You think that the multiple unsupported premises that underlines all of this argument actually holds water? That a. the local community does not know who the suspect is, b. the local community does not know who the victim is, c. the local community gets their local news from Wikipedia and not the local news media or the national news media, both of which have included the suspects name. The possibility that all three of those are true is astonishingly small. nableezy - 19:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it alleviates it, no. It might make it slightly less searchable ten years from now. But I'm not actually arguing that we can never use any of these sources. I'm saying while we're discussing it, let's not. Valereee (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

We're not talking about minor local news coverage here... we're not even talking about national coverage. The guy's name and photo is everywhere... This is an international event. I've seen his name in all the national newspapers here and I live 6,000 km away from Ohio... I'm talking about newspapers that are absolutely considered reliable sources, not tabloids.

This will absolutely be something that is talked about for decades to come, that books are written about, that TV documentaries are made about. The horse has long since bolted and the stable door is nowhere to be seen. By all means oversight the hell out of the article (I'd rather it didn't exist), but let's not pretend there is anything we can do for the benefit of the child and let's not pretend that mentioning the suspect's name in a talk page in any way violates BLP criteria. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

WP has much higher standards on the protection on BLP than the mass media. Just because they suspects name can be found "everywhere", we still must consider the BLP issues of the people involved who at the time are definitely non public figures. Masem (t) 20:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nobody is suggesting naming the victim, and BLP is satisfied with respect to the suspect with the high quality sources that can be cited listing him as being charged with rape. nableezy - 22:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would encourage editors to look at Category:Rapes_in_the_United_States and note there are only two pre-teen rapes listed(I skipped any murder of... article). One with suspect and victim named,Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard, as they have gone public and one where none are named, 2010 gang rapes in Cleveland, Texas where neither the convicted or victim are named. News reports will fade with time, Wikipedia is forever and readily available. Slywriter (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

As a comment, in the Durand case, that started as a missing child case, and when she was found they identified her rape and other abuse she received. The child's name is nearly always given in abduction cases to help find them, and in such a situation, it.becomes hard to avoid naming. In this case and the Cleveland case, there was no apparent abduction, so there was no reason to broadcast the name far and wide. Masem (t) 22:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I dont think anybody is suggesting we name the victim. nableezy - 22:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ummm... Its not our job to help find missing people. There is no reason to broadcast the name far and wide on wikipedia in either situation. The exact same protections apply. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply