Talk:Murder of Brianna Ghey

Do we need to name those convicted?

WP:BLP says:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: 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; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
• 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.

I propose replacing the names with X and Y as it was before they were named as I cannot see what value the actual names can possibly add on top of that. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Surely we can be retrospective though. It's not like the names aren't in the public domain. This is Paul (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would agree with your reading of BLP and WP:BLPNAME in particular, however since the reporting restrictions were lifted there have been multiple in-depth articles published about both killers; The Independent, BBC News, The Guardian, ITV Granada, The Standard. We're now well past the point where the names, and pictures of the killers have been widely disseminated, as well as past the point of "brief appearances of names in news stories".

I suspect in the future something similar to the names of the killers of James Bulger may happen, where if they become eligible for release Jenkinson and Ratcliffe may be given new identities for their protection and privacy. But for now, I think we're likely safe to include their names. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The names of those who have been convicted have been very widely reported and I think it would be pointless to remove them from our article. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I entirely agree. As it was a decision for Mrs Justice Yip, I think we ought to respect the full outcome of this case. They've not just been named, their mugshots will have appeared on television news bulletins across the world for several days now. I'm surprised some editors have not asked for these images to be added into this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

That might be because their images are already in the article, having been added yesterday evening. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems to make a request to replace their names with "X" and "Y" even more ridiculous? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

So how do you think their names improve a readers understanding of the topic of this article? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps because they are essential facts about their respective identities and about the trial itself. I think your suggestion that their names should be removed is utterly ludicrous. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Include killers' names, Wikipedia is not censored. WWGB (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

A non sequitur per WP:NOTCENSORED surely. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Essential? Can you elaborate on why you believe their names are so indispensable. How would saying something like "two 15-year-old children" instead fatally harm the article? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that a person's name (and usually also their date of birth) are indispensable to the legal process in England and Wales. They are considered the most fundamental aspects of a person's identity. This applies equally to suspects and to victims. There may be occasions when suspects or victims names are not disclosed, as part of the legal process and Wikipedia has to respect this. Equally, when the judge in a murder trial decides that names should be made public, Wikipedia also has a duty to report these names. In this particular cases the names and pictures of the murderers have been very widely circulated in news reports. They are part of any "basic understanding" of the case by observers across the world. You seem to want to construct some kind of a separate view of crime, where the names and/or images of the criminals in some way "don't really matter", or in some way don't contribute to a reader's "understanding"? One might argue that these particular crimes would have been equally serious if committed by people named "Scarlett Ratcliffe" and "Eddie Jenkinson". That may be theoretically true. But it's not how Wikipedia works. We reflect what most reliable sources say and they very obviously give the names of the murderers. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is nothing to do with the legal process in England and Wales though, it is an online encyclopaedia created by a volunteer community. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, let alone one of record, or a gazette, so does not have any duty to report anything. The topic of this article is a murder, and the names of those convicted adds nothing of any possible value to readers - does it? The inclusion of the names seems to be an example of a gratuitous "we included it because we can" rather than as a valuable addition to the article.

I know from past experience with other articles that there is always a clamour to add personal details of suspects and perpetrators of grim crimes, as if to seek some sort of revenge, with no thought given to why it would be useful in the article or what value it would add. I'd say we need a robust rationale before we include their names, including an answer to the question of what is lost by keeping them anonymous in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I certainly don't think the article should be filled up with extraneous biographical details of the culprits, and elsewhere on this page I argued against including their neurological diagnoses. But I don't think one can really argue that the well-publicised name of a murderer is extraneous to a discussion of the murder. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If neurological or mental diagnoses were relevant to the suspect's culpability, or to the sentencing decisions made by the judge, as presented in the trial, I'd say they were wholly relevant. What might not be relevant would be their exact place and date of birth, their previous places of employment, the names of their family members, and so on. I'd suggest that the names and ages of those convicted would be a very bare minimum. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Age and gender should satisfy the ghoulish desire for particulars. The names are superfluous detail. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a definitive court record. Or can you explain why you think I am wrong about that. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of the name of a convicted criminal is not "the ghoulish desire for particulars." It may have escaped your notice but there are quite a lot of Wikipedia articles for convicted criminals which use that person's name. Or are you may going to embark, yet again, with the ridiculous argument of "we can't use names here because this isn't a biography article"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Names are fine if the article is about the criminal, but otherwise it has no value to the topic. The topic of this article isn't the criminal, so I cannot see how you've formed the personal opinion that even so, they need to be named. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that this subject has quite a great deal to do with the legal process in England and Wales though. We include the names because they are a central part of understanding who murdered whom. If you really want to waste lots more of lots more editors' time, then you could always open a RfC on this. But I think I could predict what the outcome would be. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is nothing to do with the legal process in England and Wales though, so does not have to follow its conventions. The names add nothing to the understanding, unless you know the individuals personally. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If victims' or suspects' names are not legally released into the public domain, I think that Wikipedia has a legal duty to respect that and not report them. Personal knowledge of the individuals concerned has nothing to do with it. In the absence of any input from other editors, if you insist on extending this discussion thread, I would have no objection to it being hatted, by any non-involved editor, as a disruptive distraction. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If you don't personally know the people, what is the value of their names? Without a clear consensus to include the names they should not be included. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Need a new patio doin'? I'll see if me mate Fred can fit you in. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, I think names are fine if the article topic is the criminal, but otherwise (as in this case) it has no value to the topic. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Good luck over at the grassy knoll. You might have a few to get of rid. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagree that the names aren't relevant. A fundamental factor of events is "who was involved". The names are inherently relevant. We exclude names of the accused in many cases to comply with BLP and err on the side of caution, but post-conviction we do not need to do that. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

"replace with x and y"

Open justice prevails. If a judge orders that juvenile names and images should be placed in the public domain, Wikipedia can't censor court rulings.

The court has also sanctioned the release of Ghey's birth name in open court. It too, should be published. Editors cannot cherry pick, whose names are published or redacted. A good example are the killers, Venables and Thompson names, both were put in the public domain. Few ask for their two names be airbrushed from history.

Justice Yip's quote gives Ghey's birth name;https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/warrington-transgender-manchester-crown-court-cheshire-justice-b2454180.html Jaymailsays (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a more recent discussion below at "Birth name (again)" where a new consensus has been established. Your input has been requested there. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It got added back again today. Thank you User:Martinevans123 for removing it; have you requested revdel? I'm still relatively new to this sort of angle. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I have not requested that. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Kyle Ratcliffe's Conviction for sexual offences relevant to his son's conviction for murder?

The father of Eddie Ratcliffe was arrested and jailed for sexual offences against young girls. Kyle seems to be a prolific offender. Where should this information be inserted in the Article?

https://www.bordercountiesadvertizer.co.uk/news/national/24152875.father-brianna-gheys-murderer-jailed-sex-offences-girls/ Jaymailsays (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I should certainly not be inserted anywhere as it's wholly irrelevant. Kyle Ratcliffe may be "a prolific offender", but no one has ever suggested that he was in any way connected with the murder. Similarly we don't add any mention that he was a kickboxing champion, which would be equally irrelevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an article about Ratcliffe's father. His subsequent conviction for a wholly unrelated matter is not on topic for this article. Yes it's made the news because it follows closely in the temporal wake of his son's conviction, but the father had no direct role in this murder. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I definitely get why this feels like it should be relevant, but this is a mistake. There is nothing solid to suggest that it is actually as relevant as it feels like it should be. As such, it would be WP:SYNTH for us to assert relevance by including it without Reliable Sources explicitly supporting the implied connection. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Judge John Potter pointedly said that the prosecution and conviction of Ratcliffe’s son [Eddie] for murder was not “in any way” mitigation for the offending by Kyle!

By not accepting the mitigation plea, the Judge was certainly not ruling out a connection between the two crimes. Jaymailsays (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The judge didn't rule out V2 rockets being found on the moon. You're logic here is upside down. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's not treat serious subjects in a flippant manner Martinevans123 ! Do you think any of the deceased families are familiar with V2 rockets or would think the reference appropriate, if they had studied 80 year old Nazi technologies?

It is perfectly rational to ask whether the sexual conviction of the killer's father, was indicative of a dysfunctional family home. Jaymailsays (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

If we were writing a thesis on criminal psychology, maybe. We're not, though. We're writing an encyclopedia, and that kind of speculation is well outside our remit. If several reliable sources say something of the sort, it may be worth thinking about. But until and unless they do, we won't. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "the deceased families", but their studies are not my concern? It's inevitable that any appearance of Kyle Ratcliffe in the media will be accompanied by a connection to the crime of his son. That doesn't mean they are in any way realistically "connected". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't mean they are in any way realistically "connected". @Martinevans123

The judge was of a different view;

“It is impossible to divorce this defendant’s offending to that which was occurring in his family unit,” https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/24153225.kyle-ratcliffe-jailed-performing-sex-acts-self-driving/ Jaymailsays (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That was Mark Friend, Ratcliffe's defence counsel, speaking in mitigation. The judge obviously had a very different view. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 lol. Very naive, the Judge heard emphatically in Court

“It is impossible to divorce this defendant’s offending to that which was occurring in his family unit”

Twisting what the Court said in favour of some cheap trashy tabloid seems to be the trend lately, you should call it out for what it is not by defending undoubted bias coming from those sources. Jaymailsays (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

In that case @Martinevans123 you should leave it there and not object to the conviction being included in the Article. Jaymailsays (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Still no idea, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that per the source provided, it was the defence lawyer, not the judge, who said “It is impossible to divorce this defendant’s offending to that which was occurring in his family unit”.

I also agree that the conviction of Kyle Ratcliffe is not relevant to this article, and should not be included.

Sweet6970 (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jaymailsays: Martinevans123 is correct here, the judge did not say that quotation. According to the source you provided (the Warrington Guardian), the quotation "It is impossible to divorce..." was said by Mark Friend, Kyle Ratcliffe's defence barrister.

Really the only concrete connection here is that the judge found the conviction of Eddie not to be mitigating circumstances for Kyle's crime, which makes sense given the nature of the crime Kyle was convicted of, and that reporting restrictions were put in place for Kyle's trial. According to the Manchester Evening News the restrictions were placed by Mrs Justice Yip (the judge overseeing Ghey's murder trial) to avoid prejudicing Kyle's trial.

Again, I really don't see any substantial link that means we should add a paragraph or sentence to this article about Kyle's conviction. Aside from the reporting restrictions, it seems to be a wholly unrelated topic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It was all said in court and the judge did not disagree! Whoever said it, you would expect the judge to disagree if they thought it to be untrue. Dysfunctional family has a bearing on the murder and should be included. Jaymailsays (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't know if the judge agreed or disagreed with the comments by Friend. The sources provided, nor any others that I can find, contain any content about the judge's reaction to these comments. All we know for certain is that Friend made those comments as part of his defence case.

Dysfunctional family has a bearing on the murder and should be included Only if reliable sources establish that as part of the background to the case. To the best of my knowledge, no sources have said that Eddie came from a dysfunctional family (or any other synonym), nor that it had any impact on why he chose to kill Ghey. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not the judge's job to disagree with the defence counsel, unless on a point of law. That's the job of the prosecution. If any connection was thought to be significant, Justice Yip would have mentioned it in her summing up. No source has reported any such comments, so we can assume they were not made. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jaymailsays, the time to discuss whether this should be added to the article is when we can see that the consensus amongst the mainstream reliable sources explicitly describes and supports a relationship and connection between it and the subject of this article, but not before. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)