Talk:Assassination of Jovenel Moïse

But ...

here, different than our article and source, is a NYT quote that the Colombians left the military between 2002 and 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/07/09/world/jovenel-moise-assassinated --2603:7000:2143:8500:2958:7608:DD4E:E130 (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm finding other sources that are saying 2002–2018, but also many saying 2018–2020. All of them quote the same source: Navarro. Could this have been some sort of transpositional error that has been copied and repeated? Whatever the case is, what is the real range? WP Ludicer (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

And ... what should this article reflect - in the meantime, if we are unsure, and there are different ranges in RSs? --2603:7000:2143:8500:9458:8E90:62D1:98FE (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

--- I would suggest something like: "Some sources stated X [cite][cite], while other sources stated Y [cite][cite]." 97.102.30.205 (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Identities of suspects

In the section "Hunt for suspects and investigation" there is a subsection called Identities of suspects, where many of the suspects are named, and personal details are revealed.

This seems to me to be a blatant violation of MOS:BLP, particularly the paragraphs in WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME.

I propose deleting the entire "Identities of suspects" subection until courts can weigh in on the suspects' guilt or innocence. Hadron137 (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed everything that directly named people. The resulting paragraph looks fine. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

All the policies you cite and WP:BLPNAME do not explicitly prohibit naming suspects per se Hadron137. They advise to consider whether they should be and take caution when including them. It's preferable to omit which is an advise not a mandate. The same rule says you can consider exceptions where names are included. Given how their identities have been important and discussed by reliable secondary sources, they're notable enough to include. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with LéKashmiriSocialiste. Lots of examples, in terrorist killings for example, where we do so. And obviously those who have been killed, btw, have no blp protection. 2603:7000:2143:8500:9458:8E90:62D1:98FE (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinions. I agree that including the suspects' names is not strictly forbidden. But I don't see how a bullet list of 20 arrested suspects adds value to this article. Perhaps if there is a meaningful development about a particular individual, then they should be named.

I Hope I'm not starting an edit war here, but until this issue reaches a concensus, we should adhere to the recommendations of the MOS. If a reader is curious about the names, then they can follow the cited links Hadron137 (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't have consensus to remove the names. I would therefore ask you to restore them. Other than you, you do not have a majority in favor of your deletion - rather 2-1 against. No doubt you don't either see the value of the many RSs reporting them - but that is your subjective view, differing from that of the RSs that do report the names. And reporting the Americans' names and not the Colombians' is clearly undue.2603:7000:2143:8500:9458:8E90:62D1:98FE (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

By my count, there are two editors in favor of removing the names, and two in favor of keeping them (as of today, on this talk page). To paraphrase the arguments listed in favor of including the names

• they're already published in secondary sources,
• articles about terrorism sometimes list suspects' names.

These are moot arguments WP:OTHERCONTENT. Just because material appears in other articles does not necessarily justify a practice. I haven't yet read a compelling reason why the names of the suspects adds value to this article, unless or until some of the people are convicted or otherwise have some noteworthy content.Hadron137 (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Susmuffin hasn't really agreed to you in a dispute. He just thought what you were saying was right, and agreed to remove the names because you didn't properly list the rules and no one had objected you. WP:STATUSQUO says you must leave disputed content as it is before your dispute. WP:OTHERCONTENT doesn't say what appears on other articles is wholly irrelevant either. Normal practices of Wikipedia editors are important and often acts as guidelines. It seems to me you haven't clearly read the rules.

The identities are important given how they were people with normal jobs and ex-military with shady past or some who got jobs in other fields being possibly snared. It seems more to me that you don't want the identities here than this being about victimization of any of them or their families. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hadron - you have not accurately reflected wp:othercontent. Please read the bit about "solely" .... which reflects why it is inapposite here.

There is one suggested improvement that I would suggest. After those killed, the alphatizing of the rest of the list.2603:7000:2143:8500:9458:8E90:62D1:98FE (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll just reiterate that the gist of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME is to presume innocence of arrested suspects, and to seriously considering the value of including their names. I'd say when in doubt leave it out. Recent developments suggest that the arrested men were not the assassins. As of now, this story is evolving too quickly for a Wikipedia article to make definitive statements about particular individuals. If a particular person has something noteworthy to comment on, fine their name adds value to the article. But I just can't see the value in a bullet list at this time. Hadron137 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I see that the bullet list of suspects has been reinstated. Also, my read on WP:STATUSQUO says that contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, or material about living people. Rather than removing the bullet list a third time, I have requested the input from a neutral third party, using BLP noticeboard {{BLP noticeboard}} Hadron137 (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

No one is assuming they're definitely guilty. Of course some language might have been wrongly worded in the article and that will be corrected. Excluding or including names is not going to change presumption of innocence or guilt.

For something to be removed per WP:STATUSQUO it has to be actually contentious and an actual violation. That's why it says contentious material should be immediately removed. You citing rules in a wrong manner as to why it's wrong to include names doesn't qualify in that. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll also note that Hadron137 hasn't contributed into building this article at all. His only concern has been about removing the names of suspects. These have been his simgular concern since he resumed editing on 11 July. Obviously Wiki editors focused on singular things for a while isn't good. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• I believe revealing those names – which are not those of public figures (are they?) – is going against WP:SUSPECT:

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

--Mhhossein ^talk 14:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

If you somehow think revealing names means saying they are guilty, I don't have any idea how to respond. Even courts often decide to publish names of suspect publicly. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyway I have removed the names. There is clear consensus against it and I don't believe there will be one in favour of me. If some other editor wants to restore it, I advise not to and instead try the discussion. My opinion is still in favour of mentioning their names. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• The list should be reinstated. The efforts to delete the list have referred to inapplicable rules. WP commonly mentions names of arrested people as having been arrested, in major terrorist attacks and in assassinations. The important think is to reflect the RS statements that they have been arrested. And - if they have not been charged - to not indicate that they have been charged. And that indeed is what the language quoted above refers to. But they were being listed for being arrested in connection with this investigation, which is by itself perfectly fine. I think what we have now, the stripping out of the article of all the arrested, including the Colombians, the Haitian, and the Haitian-Americans, is absurd - their names have been in dozens of articles .. what do people seriously think they are doing that is sensible here? It's not in keeping with wp rules, with wp practice, or with common sense. BTW - does anyone think that the 9/11 attackers names cannot be mentioned, because they were never tried? --2603:7000:2143:8500:643C:473C:C984:2D47 (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:SUSPECT says otherwise. It clearly says "public figures" should not be named "unless a conviction has been secured". Anyway, court sentence will be released and then you can reinstate the names announced by the law. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

There's no such statement made anywhere in it. It's only about casting suspicions on someone. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

But I already quoted the guideline. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Note on WP:BLPNAME - Just so everyone is aware, BLPNAME applies to names of private individuals that have "not been widely disseminated". We can assume that any names appearing in national level news sources has been widely disseminated, and thus aren't restricted by BLPNAME. Please do not remove names of such individuals. It looks slightly stupid when every major news outlet is mentioning specific people but WP is not. NickCT (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There's no point in us concealing the identities any longer and revealing it doesn't mean people would automatically believe they are guilty. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone presently disagree? NickCT (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No one needs to satisfy you "presently" NickCT. Your information only contains new names and that's it. Unless you have a consensus don't restore the names. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

User:LéKashmiriSocialiste - You seem to be the only person pushing to keep the names out at this point. The last several comments both here and at the BLP noticeboard are for restoring the names. My edits contain new names and new references in national level news sources mentioning the names, which negates the past discussion here. NickCT (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Because I'm the only one asides from you editing at this point? New names and references don't make any difference. The consensus was to simply keep names out. Not the old names out. I already told people the names were being discussed by many sources before you. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion isn't consensus. What's weird is that the last several editors to comment on this topic, all seem to agree that the names can go in. Has anyone commented in the past 3 days objecting to the names? With rapidly developing stories like this, consensus changes quickly, and consensus currently seems to be to keep the names. 00:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

My opinion isn't and neither is yours. But 3 or 4 individuals who opposed it do make a consensus. There are 3 who support keeping but one is you and it's still a tie at most if you don't count Susmuffin's comment. A consensus isn't supposed to satisfy you at the present time. Nothing has changed concerning the suspects except there are new suspects. So there needs to be no new consensus. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CCC. With recent news items like this, comments made 5 days ago lose value. Of people who have commented in the past couple days, how many were against the names? NickCT (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Two days ago actually. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Assassination of Jovenel Moïse. For demanding a new consensus there must be a substantial change that mandates one. New suspect names cropping up, which is bound to happen in any crime with multiple assailants, isn't that change. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like those were over 48 hrs ago. Again, this is a rapidly evolving topic. There have been a bunch of new references in the intervening time naming the suspects.

Surely it's clear to you these names will go in eventually? Out of curiosity, what do you think the appropriate wait time is? What do think we're waiting for? NickCT (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

We don't consider days old consensus as irrelevant. And you haven't proven that the article has evolved when it comes to names of suspects. The appropriate time is when there's a clear majority in favour of adding the names or there's a conviction. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

With recent events, days old consensus can be irrelevant. If the consensus over the past 48hrs is for including the names, that's probably good enough. Regardless, we can give folks a little more time to object if it makes you happy.... NickCT (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No one closed this discussion. But please don't decide what consensus you'll discard. You haven't proven anything as to how the article's changed in relation to the suspects. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright buddy. If you want to pull in additional folks get some sense of what consensus is today, you certainly can. I'm going to assume the consensus developed in the past couple days will stand. NickCT (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Consensus can rapidly change, but there needs to be some clear indication it has changed. If there was an earlier consensus, I see no indication it has changed therefore we will need to stick with the earlier consensus until there is indication it has changed. In other words, it's bullshit to claim there is a consensus that developed the past couple of days. Also as I pointed out at BLPN, it's silly to suggest we need to name them all just so we can discuss certain specific individuals. It's not something supported by any of our policies and guidelines, indeed it goes against it. Nil Einne (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Weirdly enough it's not even clear to me if anyone is really claiming consensus has changed. As I said at BLPN, the earlier discussion was mostly over a list of suspects with no context. It seems now instead of arguing for such a list, some editors want to include certain suspects and their names, yet I'm not sure if anyone ever actually opposed ever including any living suspect (before a conviction). Actually maybe this is what User:Mhhossein was suggesting above, I'm not sure, but I don't believe this is what a lot of people at BLPN were really talking about it was mostly over a list of all names. In other words, it looks to me a lot like editors are arguing at cross-purposes. The far bigger issue is under what conditions should we name someone i.e. who should we name, I suspect this is likely to remain a significant area of dispute. If editors want to continue to advocate for a list of all names, that's their choice but I would suggest editors should be clearer on what they're advocating. Nil Einne (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne User NickCT is demanding that a new consensus be held on including names of suspects. Even though an earlier consensus decided against it. When asked why a new one needs to be held, he says because this is a rapidly evolving article and the consensus was made days ago. I have pointed out to him that nothing has canged except naming of new suspects. Just because new suspects are named it doesn't invalidate a consensus against naming. He also states that since the names have been discussed widely in national newspapers of various countries, they should be included here. But I already cited this reason myself to justify keeping the names in the article in past, however consensus was still against including them. But NickCT won't listen. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: - You're not listening. If the initial consensus was about the list, then there wasn't a consensus about excluding the names. How many people need to tell you a discussion was outdated or irrelevant before you get it? NickCT (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't make up excuses User:NickCT, it was about all names. Even those outside a list. The names weren't excluded because they were in a list, but because they were names of suspects. Even the names of the Haitians not included in the list were removed. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

re " it was about all names" - You seem to have real trouble with your interpretation versus reality. YOU seem to think it was about all names. Others are questioning that. NickCT (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I also note that you're moving goalposts. First it was about rapidly evolving article, then names being covered by national newspapers unlike before, then the consensus being days old. Now you're arguing that if was about excluding names in a list and not excluding all names in specific. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

My position is simple and consistent. The names can be included in any context b/c they have been widely reported on. There has been a lot of reporting over the past couple days, which reduces the value of any comments from editors from a couple days ago (i.e. the comments you seem to be clinging to).

Look, you're obviously not someone who's going to listen to reason. I can always just RfC this and work around you. NickCT (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You have been making up various things to try to include names. The consensus was excluding names in general. You're just trying to fight over irrelevant issues. Go do a RfC if you want but unless you get a clear majority in your favour, the previous decision of the consensus remains valid. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

A wild imagination isn't consensus. I really don't need a majority at this point. I'm simply doing this for you to show you how consensus is built on WP. NickCT (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at comments here against naming suspects and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Assassination of Jovenel Moïse. That is not my imagination, those are real comments against naming the suspects. You know the rules. Find a clear consensus in your favour. If you can't, well the previous consensus stays. Simple as that. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Right. Well, I've started the RfC for you so that the issue can be discussed on talkpage instead of edit warring. I was patient on the 3RR thing before. I may not be patient moving forward. NickCT (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You started it for yourself because you want to insert the names no matter what. And don't try to threaten me over 3RR. You can be blocked even without breaching the limit and mine was a mistake which you know well. So do what you can, you aren't innocent. I've noted your threats and will notify admins about it in future. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Transfer of the body of Jovenel Moïse.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC : Inclusion of names of suspects and involved individuals

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to exclude the names of those involved in the event. Muhibm0307 (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

---

There's been some heated discussion over whether WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME prevents the inclusion of names of individuals involved in this event (see "Identities of suspects" above). Below are a list of involved peoples. Please comment on whether you feel these individuals' names ought to included or excluded. If there are other folks you think should be added, please feel free to add them to the list. NickCT (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Antonio Intriago

  Include - Name "widely disseminated" in national media. NickCT (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Christian Sanon

  Include - Name "widely disseminated" in national media. NickCT (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Walter Veintemilla

  Include - Name "widely disseminated" in national media. NickCT (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Exclude all: NickCT is ignoring consensus established here and on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Assassination of Jovenel Moïse against including names of suspects in the assassination because he wants to add them in whatever way possible. I initially supported including suspect names but NickCT's attempt at adding them is absurd. Nothing has changed since the last consensus except discovery of new suspects. We hide names regardless of wide dissemination to avoid victimization. Per the same WP:BLPNAME: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Exclude suspect names: per WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTNEWS. The section reads more like a broadsheet than an encyclopedia. (Summoned by bot), Lindenfall (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Provisional exclude If someone wants to provide the actual sourcing for a claim that names should be included, I'm prepared to look. But without that list, it has to be excluded. Striking my exclude for now. The sources look reasonable. My mind is open. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Provisional exclude ~ HAL333 18:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Adoring nanny HAL At least one of the names, Christian Sanonare, appears to be widely published as a suspect in a number of articles - Just some examples: here here here and here Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I still want to Exclude for now until they are convicted. ~ HAL333 23:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Exclude : Per WP:BLPNAME. Sea Ane (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Exclude per editors above. Idealigic (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Unless there is an argument to overcome WP:BLPNAME, namely "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured", the names should be excluded from the article. There is no evidence of any convictions and absent additional information, the names should be excluded. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Exclude - Are there any new arguments for inclusion in spite of previous consensus? Yes, at a first glance it might seem absurd that Wikipedia won't publish something that every newspaper in the world publishes, but that is because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude I agree with PraiseVivec - it does seem odd not to publish what has otherwise widely been published, but we have WP:BLPNAME policy to follow, and it specifically says not to publish unless a conviction has been secured. Dems da rules! Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Include WP:BLPNAME is not applicable here, because the policy says that names should be excluded for reasons of privacy UNLESS they have been "widely disseminated" already. The policy says " When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it,". So, from a bit or research, in this case, one name at least HAS been widely disseminated. I just checked the top 8 article results on Google, and 4 of those mentioned that Christian Sanon had been arrested as a suspect, clearly his name is being widely published. As his name already has been published, WP:BLPNAME does not apply. For instance, see here here here and here Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Instead of individually discussing names, this should be about suspects in general. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Instead of just asserting the name is "widely disseminated in national media", it would be helpful to provide some examples of such media coverage. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Seraphimblade: - Intriago is named on NPR, in WaPo, in NYT, Sanon is named in NYT, in WaPo, and in Time, Veintemilla is named in WaPo, in NYT, in The Hill NickCT (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Seems like it will Snow - Ok. I'm getting the sense this isn't going my may and may withdraw. Honestly, this discussion and the people weighing in here are super depressing. I think this is a great example of the BLP fascist Idiocracy that exists on WP. Am I the only person who thinks it's a little fricking crazy that we can't print something that every major news outlet is printing? Who the heck do people think they are protecting? We're not protecting anyone. We're just making WP look stupid. NickCT (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Adoring nanny: - Honestly, a quick Google should have provided a ready list of sources. But I've offered a list above... NickCT (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @NickCT: - Your dilemma was avoidable. You started the RfC to seek input from outsiders, so you should have provided more context at the outset or invested a little bit more time in structuring this more convincingly. If you remain confident about your position on this issue, I think you should see this through. If not, you can withdraw the RfC, apologise to LéKashmiriSocialiste and/or self-revert as to the issue in question. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @Ncmvocalist: - Well I'm definitely confident my position is correct. I'm not confident it will prevail. Regardless, there are more valuable places for me to be. But regardless, why are you offering your opinion on the process and not the content? If you care, weigh-in on the question...... to include or not to include? NickCT (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
      • @NickCT: My eyes came upon RfC as a result of a thread at ANI concerning LéKashmiriSocialiste and you in particular. While I am staying uninvolved in the content dispute, I think that prejudicing the underyling content issue at the outset due to flaws in following the process is not ideal for the article, or the encyclopedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
        • @Ncmvocalist: - Being coy about your opinion probably isn't ideal either. Look, I don't mind being told I goofed the RfC, but what would you have had me do? I pointed to the relevant section for people to read. If they didn't want to read, is that my fault? In my experience short and sweet RfC's generally have a better chance of succeeding. If you really think the problem was the phrasing, I'm happy to withdraw and let you take a bat at it as an "uninvolved" person. NickCT (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• @LéKashmiriSocialiste: - "initially supported including suspect names but NickCT's attempt at adding them is absurd" - Good work focusing on content and not people. NickCT (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@NickCT: I suggest when you are blaming others you don't insult them or call them fascist idiocrats. Also you omitted a key portion of my comment for opposing you: "Nothing has changed since the last consensus except discovery of new suspects. We hide names regardless of wide dissemination to avoid victimization." This was the reason I said, "NickCT's attempt at adding them is absurd." If you are going to tell others to focus on content, I suggest you start doing that yourself and not blame or directly insult others. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• @PraiseVivec and Deathlibrarian: - Ignoring the "widely disseminated" portion of BLPNAME leads to some truly wacky conclusions. Imagine if after the Boston Bombing or the 9/11 attacks I tried remove Tsarnaev's name, or Osama Bin Laden's. Obviously that would have been wrong. What's the difference in this case? NickCT (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok, I must admit, I agree with you. According to BLPNAME, if the suspects name has been widely disseminated, then they should be included in the article, and from looking at the articles covering this event, at least one of these people has been. I've changed my vote. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @Deathlibrarian: - Wow. Thank you buddy. It's sorta rare on WP that editors will simply rethink and adjust their opinions after a basic re-read of policy. It should happen more often. Thanks for having the maturity. NickCT (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME does not state that if the name is widely disseminated you have free pass. Rather you should consider first whether it is to be included and what kind of sources mention it. Scholarly journals and experts matter more than the media, especially if mentioned briefly in news. You're misunderstanding the policy yourself: When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: the sentence you quoted from BLP policy is clearly directed at matters that appear in secondary sources or the work of recognized experts but simultaneously have news media which make brief references to a name. Which secondary sources do you say deal with this assassination and which of those do you say should be afforded greater weight than the news media cited by Deathlibrarian and NickCT? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It's actually about which sources should be given weight when including a name rather than depending on news media, especially if they're briefly mentioned in news. That is scholarly journals and recognized experts should be considered over mentions in news. "its publication in secondary sources other than news media such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight..." is quite clear. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

More simply put, news mentions are not really relevant. We should see if scholars and analysts who discuss topics like security, crime, politics and terrorism mention them. Whether in a written work, interviews, debate panels etc. Right now I see none. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: Actually, the sentence does not say names in news media are irrelevant; it merely says greater weight is given to the publication of names in secondary sources than the brief appearances in news stories. The direct comparison is explicit. Noting that no secondary sources appear to deal with this topic at all, you have demonstrated that you misunderstood the policy by quoting that sentence as an issue here when it isn't one. I don't see any basis for your suggestion that NickCT or Deathlibrarian misunderstood the policy. To correctly apply caution under WP:BLPNAME for this article, the relevant questions were: (1) is the name directly involved in the article topic (and if not, does it add significant value to the article); (2) is the name widely disseminated; and (3) is the name of a loosely-involved low profile person? If the answers are yes, yes and no respectively, the BLPNAME presumption against privacy is rebutted; the issue is what those answers actually are. Similarly, there are other issues to consider, such as WP:BLPCRIME which was raised (inadvertently as BLPNAME) by Jurisdicta (as well as Hal333 a short time ago), as well as WP:NOTNEWS which was raised by Lindenfall and Praisevivec. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Ncmvocalist here, The name of the suspect is mentioned in the articles, it is widely disseminated and the person is loosely involved. The privacy aspect of BLPNAME is for keeping information private about individuals, where the information is *currently private* - but in this case, its already been widely publicised, so it doesn't apply here. I completley dissagree with LéKashmiriSocialiste on the priority of scholarly journals over news media in this case. Scholarly material can takes months to get published and this is a recent event, so its obvious news media is the main RS we have at the moment. To exclude it in favour of another source *that doesn't exist* doesn't make sense.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist: Everything doesn't have to be explicit. I don't say they're entirely irrelevant, but mostly they are unimportant. Not entirely. The policy also doesn't say being widely disseminated allows a name to published if we have to go by word-by-word accuracy. If it says that scholarly sources and experts should be afforded greater weight, it's obvious we shouldn't give some names in media much importance and should consider other sources instead. Whether you disagree User:Deathlibrarian that's your opinion, I'm just explaining the policy in its spirit. Or if you want we can ask those who drafted the naming policies. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@NickCT: Can you please stop pinging every user that voted against your proposal to chide them for their vote or asking them to reconsider? One or two is normal. But you're just badgering others, not to mention your attacks on people for disagreeing with you. I watched silently as I don't want another dispute but you keep doing what you want. That said regarding Tsarnaev and Osama, they've been proven to be responsible by courts of law and commissions. They're not suspects. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I probably can't stop pinging others, but you can stop pinging me as I'm really uninterested in communicating w/ folks who can't focus on content and can't form cogent opinions.

Obviously shortly after the Boston Bombing & 9/11 Tsarnev and Osama hadn't been "proven responsible". You think BLPNAME would make us exclude their names during that period?

Watch more silently please. NickCT (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

If you have to ping everyone that's badgering. I pinged you for the first time in a few days. That wasn't a problem when you had to ping me earlier. Yes WP:BLPNAME would have made us exclude the name. You talk about focusing on content when you've been using insults and outright rude language. Crossed 3RR yourself despite warning me not to. When you cross a line, don't expect others to remain silent. Why are you ordering me around and telling me to watch more silently anyway? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

re "Yes WP:BLPNAME would have made us exclude the name." - Honestly, if it's not self-evident to you why excluding Tsarnev's or Osama's name from the Boston Bombing or 9/11 pages would have clearly been wrong, I'm not sure I can help you. Suffices to say, that's not how it was done on those pages.

Orders don't typically come with "pleases" attached. NickCT (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

If they were suspects and not notable beyond one thing (Osama doesn't fall into that though), yes it would. When someone uses please they aren't always requesting others. It can also be to tell others to get out, like with your comment. Like please leave me alone and don't bother me isn't really a request. Words can be used in different ways. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Unless anyone has a major issue, can we please have this closed by August 1 or 2, if no one votes or changes their mind about their vote? While technically RfCs are allowed to remain open for a month, this has had no vote for 8 days now. There are two support votes, one is undecided, and 7 against (Jurisdicta hasn't mentioned in bolded letter they oppose, but clearly say they oppose it in a comment). That's discounting those who opposed mentioning all suspect names earlier no matter how much disseminated they are.

The last time a person changed their mind 22 July. And since end of 1 August marks 10 days since then, I think it's pretty reasonable. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Now it is the time for closure. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Claude Joseph (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)