Talk:Jack Teixeira

BLPGOSSIP

I support removing poorly sourced or irrelevant information from this any any biography per BLPGOSSIP. However, statements to The New York Times by fellow discord chat members about Teixeira constitute a large part of their reporting, which we are using. The statement to the NYT from a fellow group member that Teixeira was “Christian, anti-war,” and wanted others to understand the conflict, provides one of the only descriptions of motive available. It’s also not poorly sourced or libelous. We should keep it for these reasons. -Darouet (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for opening a discussion. From my view, it appears the statement [1] is attributed to an anonymous source by The New York Times [2], which WP:BLPGOSSIP warns us to be wary about. We also need to ask if "a 17-year-old recent high school graduate who identified himself by the screen name he used" is reliable, and if this statement is being presented as true, which it seems to be in the context of the article; additionally per WP:BLPGOSSIP, speculation like this is not relevant to disinterested article about the subject.

I am further concerned that an edit summary adding this material includes "only suggestion of motive so far" [3], which seems to emphasize the risk of how this apparent opinion from this anonymous source could be interpreted, including by suggesting guilt, contrary to WP:BLPCRIME, which is an additional reason to seriously consider not including it. Overall, per WP:BLP policy generally, we need to be careful to avoid sensationalism, so I think there a variety of BLP issues that weigh against inclusion of this and other anonymously-sourced statements speculating on motive. Beccaynr (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Beccaynr, you've taken a very conservative approach to this article and applied that approach consistently. Given your reasoning I'll support your exclusion of this and other potentially erroneous information for now. Thanks for doing so much to keep this article tight. -Darouet (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Date of birth

I added that Teixeira was born in 2001 to the article, on the basis that it appears in the criminal complaint which was published by The New York Times, Boston.com, CBS, etc. User:Beccaynr reverted me on the basis that it violates WP:DOB/WP:BLPPRIMARY to use this source. I disagree with this reasoning; because the criminal complaint has been republished by multiple reliable secondary sources (i.e. I did not dig the court records out of PACER myself; they are widely available in the news media), I think any argument of privacy is out the door. In addition, this is only reporting the year of birth, not the exact date; this is not much different than reporting that he is 21 years old, which has been widely published in the news. Thus, I think we should include the year of birth in this article. –IagoQnsi (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:DOB and WP:BLPPRIMARY seem to emphasize a need for better sources than the criminal complaint with bold font directives in BLPPRIMARY, including about using court documents for personal details, such as date of birth, so I followed that. I also looked for news sources that might have the year of birth but was not successful. I prefer a cautious approach for this detail, but given how widely his age is also reported, I suppose we could use the primary source to supplement the secondary sources widely reporting his age. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi ElijahPepe, in an effort to get this detail right, I reverted the specific date of birth. Teixeira's exact date of birth does not appear to be widely published (per WP:DOB), and the year of birth seems more widely published via the criminal complaint. The use of one NYT article that quotes a Facebook post from a relative for a month and day [4] with a headline implying guilt seems problematic per WP:BLP/WP:DOB and WP:BLPCRIME. Perhaps we can find a better source for the year of birth or develop an alternative (as discussed above) to source the year of birth. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times is one of the most reputable newspapers in the world and revealed Teixeira's identity before his arrest; I doubt they would include a random Facebook post if they didn't believe it was Teixeira's sister. Since we know Teixeira is 21, he must be born in 2002 if he was born on December 21. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

We could ask the BLP Noticeboard about what to do - we have the widely-published criminal complaint that says 2001, but per WP:BLPPRIMARY, should not use court records for personal information; we also have reliable sources describing him as age 21 at or around the time of his arrest.

WP:DOB includes 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. From my view, this policy says we either need wide publication of the full birthdate in reliable sources, or for it to be reasonable to infer based on one relative's Facebook post (with a partial birthdate and no year) that the subject does not object to their full birthdate being made public on Wikipedia.

I don't think it is reasonable to make that inference, and I think the headline raises other BLP issues that should be considered before using the source. However, I also expect further sources will develop for the year of birth, and will help resolve this. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, this is my mistake. Teixeira must be born in 2001, not 2002. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The incomplete reporting has been an odd quirk in the sources so far - I think per WP:DOB it is generally best to only include the year of birth, and I think the article is best served if we have a reliable, non-primary source, but I doubt that we won't have better sources eventually. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

As I finished improving the article I looked at the history and realised I've possibly added in exactly what was removed. I think the difference is that I used one source for day and month, and another for the year. I think I'm on the right side of policy, but it's unfortunate that I saw this after my various edits (about DOB and other stuff) so I'm mentioning it here in case anyone disagrees. CT55555(talk) 10:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You did add what was removed, with one source reporting a Facebook post and a partial birth date, and the source originally in the article for the year; when I use the original source with the "as of" template, it lands us back where we were. Per WP:BLPRESTORE, I think we need consensus to add the personal detail of an exact birth date to this article based on one source reporting a relative's Facebook post with a partial birth date. From my view, the year of birth has less of a privacy interest than a full date of birth per WP:DOB, so sourcing needs to be much better for a full date of birth than is currently available. Beccaynr (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I usually find myself on the other side of this debate, removing exact dates of birth, but when the NYT reports it, independently of court documents, I think the guidance supports including it. Of course, only one newspaper, but one of the world's largest. So I think it should be in. That I did exactly what someone else did, does suggest that others feel the same way (i.e. your opinion seems to be the outlier here). I'm curious what others think, so will watch this space. CT55555(talk) 14:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The policy quoted above appears to have more nuance about the sourcing requirements for personal biographical details, and there does not appear to be a pressing need to include this detail immediately. Because WP:BLP policy tells us to get the article right, it seems better to wait for policy-compliant sourcing for the year of birth and then include it when it becomes available. Beccaynr (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I also think the full birth date should be included. And it's not just based on the Facebook post per the NYT article from April 21 that you linked to: Fellow Discord members sent the user birthday wishes on Dec. 21, the same date Airman Teixeira's sister wished him a happy birthday on Facebook. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I have been looking for better sources for the year of birth, which has less privacy protection according to WP:BLP policy, but have not yet found more. For a full date of birth, we appear cautioned by the WP:DOB section of WP:BLP policy to have better sourcing than this, i.e. 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.

One reliable source reporting anonymous Discord posts and one Facebook message from a relative does not seem enough to reasonably infer that this currently-incarcerated person, notable only for an alleged role in a significant event, does not object to their full birthdate being published on Wikipedia. Under these circumstances, I think it is okay to wait for better sources - the encyclopedic need is minimal, but policy says the privacy concern is substantial. Beccaynr (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Even if an exact date of birth is not yet used, there is no reason to add '2002' which is clearly contradicted by reliable sources. No reason to not use 2001. A year is not specific enough to be considered a privacy violation; there is no dispute on this from outside sources. Only 'controversy' is generated on Wikipedia, which is a violation of NPOV.Ryoung122 06:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• fyi, I opened a discussion at BLPN about these issues: Jack Teixeira and WP:DOB
• Here from BLPN we have multiple sources says he is 21, so we could give a year for DOB as that's a simple calculation (per WP:CALC). However primary documents cannot be used in BLPs, per policy Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. this is not optional. That those primary documents have been republished by third parties doesn't mean they are not primary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is bureaucratic twister tying. We have the year of birth from multiple reliable sources, and there is no reason why including the year of birth should be excluded. Year of birth is not date of birth. Further, it's incorrect to claim that secondary sources are primary sources. Quite ironic that some are pretending to advocate for Jack's privacy about a year of birth. Nowhere does he claim this as confidential information.Ryoung122 06:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Substantial deletions by User:Beccaynr

Though tempted to revert the major deletions by the editor, I believe the deletions should be discussed. Since our views are fairly obvious, mine by my inclusion of sourced material and Beccaynr’s by the deletions and views expressed on the Talk page here, above, I am interested to hear from other editors and see if we can calmly discuss and come to consensus before going to a formal proposal and !voting process. I suggest reverting to 20:07, April 16, while noting that there may be merit in deleting the court documents. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I add edit summaries, e.g. my recent edits include removing the picture of the high school as WP:UNDUE [5]; what seems to be unrelated, excess detail [6], a slight change to a section heading per WP:BLP/WP:NPOV [7]; more detail that seems unrelated to the section [8]; excess detail per MOS:LEAD [9]; continued condensing what had been condensed previously by another editor [10]; expand the infobox [11]; trim excess detail [12]; add pertinent information from a source [13]; remove unsourced information, add from the reference [14]; copyedit according to the references (remove unsourced) [15]; and remove what appear to be WP:BLP problems as well as WP:COATRACK material [16].

Rolling all of that work back, along with the work of other editors that have happened since 20:07, April 16 (which is not in the edit history?) seems a bit contrary to the usual gradual approach to editing and the collaborative process. A more specific objection or concern would be appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Beccaynr Can you expand on why this edit was necessary? CT55555(talk) 15:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The edit summary says "rm per WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK", and this is a good-faith BLP objection, so per WP:BLPRESTORE, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. From my view, there are a variety of issues that support removal of this Reactions section from this article. In the introduction, WP:BLP policy states, "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives", with additional specifics based on various factors in the policy page.

So with regard to the claim by Marjorie Taylor Greene about Teixeira immediately after his arrest, WP:BLPGOSSIP asks us to consider whether MTG is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. On April 15 2023, the AP reports this claim is being made "without any evidence", but MTG appears to present this claim as true. Per WP:BLPCRIME, we should also seriously consider not including speculation about motive, i.e. assumptions that Teixeira commited a crime, so this further appears to weigh against this evidence-free claim being relevant to a disinterested article about this subject.

Also, per WP:BLPBALANCE, this may be the kind of claim that relies on guilt by association and/or (politically) promotional content that we are further warned against. BLPBALANCE also states, Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all, and the response by Lindsey Graham, which discusses leaking classified information generally and MTG indirectly, suggests this type of content is potentially WP:DUE in the 2023 Pentagon document leaks article (subject to BLP policy), because there is a fair amount of political commentary happening about the national security implications; the general comment by Graham seems to show how this section moves away from the topic of the BLP subject as discussed in the WP:COATRACK essay.

The comment by Raja Krishnamoorthi seems to straightforwardly assume that Teixeira is guilty, while seemingly using this assumption of guilt to make a statement about the national security implications, so there also appear to be WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policy problems with including this content in this article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Seconding this. Peanut gallery sections are bad enough outside of BLPs, and just skimming the TOC of WP:BLP gives the impression that we should do nothing of the sort in this area. RAN1 (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Other comments

I am against deleting the article. This man is a fact and covering your eyes does not get you anywhere. It is interesting to see from what family people came and somebody might learn something. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:657E:62C5:EDA:730D (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is the "AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AND ARREST WARRANT" for this case - [17]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.255930/gov.uscourts.mad.255930.3.1.pdf 77.98.206.79 (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I oppose deleting this article. It has enough details in article to keep it. Cwater1 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Cwater1. This section is talking about removing content that violates WP:BLPGOSSIP. To discuss keeping or deleting the entire article, you're probably looking for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Teixeira. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. Sorry about that. Cwater1 (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Usernames related to Teixera

There's already a redirect to "jackthedripper", but what about the other usernames used by this person? Another one mentioned in this article is "exaclibureffect", but one of his friends uses used "OG" as a pseudonym during an interview and I remember reading there were other variations including some wordplay on his real full name. 87.17.255.81 (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)