Talk:Murder of Brianna Ghey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Minute's silence

I've added a couple of sentences about tomorrow morning's Gaydio-organised minute's silence. It's sourced from a radio industry website, but I think we'll need a better one when it becomes available. This is Paul (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Re: missing information template

I personally have concerns about the inclusion of {{Missing information|the identity of the suspects|date=February 2023}}. This is a an article about a UK topic, where the principle of sub judice applies. Also, the reported ages of the suspects makes it unlikely they'll be identified by the media. This is Paul (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah we discussed that issue on reporting restrictions earlier above. I think in the midst of drafting other content we've forgotten to remove it. I'll remove it now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Gone now. I forgot there was two of them; the banner and a {{who}} tag. Thanks for the prompt. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries, glad to help. This is Paul (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Do you think Template:Expand section in the biography section should be removed? As far as I'm aware, RS aren't publishing more biographical details. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah we can probably remove it for now, and just keep an eye out for anything to expand it with as time progresses. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense, I'll remove it. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Additional content, photo

Right now I don't think there's any additional content that can be added. Some reporting, like The Telegraph said that Ghey was targeted, however statements from the police said that they do not currently believe the crime was related to her identity. This might change over the coming days as more details become known.

Almost every news article published at the time of writing this message are using a photo of Ghey, that was released by Cheshire Police. Do we want to include it in the article under fair use? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, next day. There's some reaction statements from her family, school principal, charities, MPs, and some entertainment figures that could possibly be worked in. Listing them all here first so I/we can build a coherent section afterwards.

Family and locals

• In a statement, Ghey's family said her death had "left a massive hole in our family".
• Emma Mills, headteacher of Birchwood Community High School said "We are shocked and truly devastated to hear of the death of Brianna."

Politicians:

• Labour Party MP Dawn Butler said on Twitter that "Anyone in the media who is using her deadname trying to erase Brianna’s identity should be ashamed of themselves."
• Labour Party MP Jess Phillips said on Twitter that the killing was "Utterly tragic" and an "unimaginable loss".
• Jeremy Corbyn said Ghey "was killed because she wanted to be herself."

  Note, secondary sourcing needed for this

• Nadia Whittome said "Brianna deserved a chance to become a beautiful adult woman, and to live to see a world where trans people are safe and respected." and "Anyone in the media who is using her deadname and erasing Brianna’s identity should be ashamed of themselves."

Charities, organisations, and activists:

• Transgender youth charity Mermaids said "Our thoughts are with the loved ones of Brianna Ghey, a trans teenager who was murdered in Cheshire this weekend."
• LGBT rights charity Stonewall said "Our thoughts are with Brianna Ghey, a young trans woman, and her loved ones."
• Transgender Action Block will hold a vigil outside the Department for Education in London on 15 February.
• Activist Erin Reed said on Twitter "Brianna should still be with us today. She deserved to see transgender liberation."
• Professor of human rights law Senthorun Raj said "We all have a responsibility to challenge the insidious ways the media and politicians dehumanise trans people."
• Civil rights attorney Alejandra Caraballo wrote "The gender recognition act that the gender criticals keep fighting, with horrific, demonising language, means that Brianna Ghey’s death certificate cannot list her gender as female. As a final insult, the English government will officially misgender her in death."

Bands, musicians, and media figures

• Yungblud said that he was "heartbroken" by the killing and called for "protect trans kids every day and fight relentlessly against anti-trans sentiment & legislations being pushed by our heinous government."
• Big Joanie expressed disgust over the killing, calling for "Solidarity to all the communities having to live in fear for their own safety and lives for simply existing right now."
• Reverend and the Makers said "The death of Brianna Ghey has really saddened me" and "What happened to being decent towards other humans?"
• Crawlers said that Ghey's life "was taken because of who she was."

Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC) added reflist-talk section below. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Biographical details we can add from various sources:

• Attended Birchwood Community High School
• Was popular on TikTok, with 31,000 followers.

  The Telegraph are reporting 63,000 followers. While PinkNews reported 11,000.

  Note, this might explain the comments from media figures.

• Transition was possibly recent. Media sources are saying at least a few months, but unconfirmed reports on social media place it at circa two years.

Various groups and individuals have been condemning coverage of this in media. Per PinkNews, initial reporting minimised that Ghey was trans, before later being updated to remove references to her as a girl. Additionally The Times and Daily Mail published her deadname. This likely can be worked into a paragraph of prose for a reactions section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@CJ-Moki: I'm working on a draft for the reactions section below. I think there's also some sourcing here that could be used put some biographical content into the newly created empty section on Ghey. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I'm working on biographical details right now. CJ-Moki (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Now that you've beefed up the reactions section (thanks for that), I think the next step is to add more detail to the biography of Ghey. CJ-Moki (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@CJ-Moki: yeah, I was just about to look at that. I'm somewhat minded not to mention how recent her transition was, as there's conflicting information on that and despite the slight amount of media coverage I'm not sure how noteworthy it is on a long term scale.

On the reactions section, I had to trim the statement from Corbyn, as there's no secondary coverage of it yet. If it gets picked up by a secondary source though I think we can add it in. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

conflicting information on that Hopefully the reliable sources will settle on a certain date, and if they do, I'm of the mind that we should include it. If they don't, we can just omit the detail. CJ-Moki (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Do we want to include that her family described her as "a larger-than-life character who would leave a lasting impression on all that met her" in this section? Almost all of the sources that include her family's reaction include that sentence. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: If almost all the relevant sources include it, yes, we should include it. CJ-Moki (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Added. I've re-skimmed all of the sources that have either been linked here, or are currently included in the article, for any additional biographical info on Ghey. Aside from that quote which was used by multiple RS, I've not found anything yet that we haven't already touched on.

I'll take a look now for any new sources that have info on Ghey that we haven't encountered yet, and I'll make a list here if I find any. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I've not found anything yet that we haven't already touched on Unfortunate but understandable, it's my understanding that Ghey wasn't especially notable before she was killed. Thanks for your efforts in finding info.

Right now, I'm looking for more info about the suspects, but haven't found anything in RS. CJ-Moki (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

On the suspects, you're probably not going to find anything for a while beyond what we already have. Because of their age (both are 15, so are treated as youth) and the nature of the crime to which they are suspects, there will almost certainly be reporting restrictions in place against identifying them any more than has already been done by the press.

The only circumstance where I could see that changing for the foreseeable is if this goes to a trial, and a conviction is secured, then the reporting restrictions might be lifted as a matter of public interest. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

That sounds right. CJ-Moki (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@CJ-Moki: Ok, had a look for new sources. While articles are currently being published, with a new one appearing every ten to twenty minutes, most at the moment are focusing on the basics of the killing, and the outpouring of reactions from many individuals and organisations. I'm not seeing anything that we could use to expand Ghey's section any further at this time.

For now I think we'll just want to keep an eye out on what articles continue to be published over the coming hours and days, and see if any other biographical details get covered.

There is a couple more bits I could add to the final paragraph of the reactions section though, on criticisms of UK media coverage. International publications (The Mary Sue, Dazed Digital, Teen Vogue, Daily Dot) all have sections or dedicated articles on the poor coverage, and including relevant parts would strengthen that paragraph. But I've been looking at this for a little too long now and could use a break. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC) added Daily Dot to the list Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Thanks for finding those sources. I'll take a look at them and the last paragraph in the reactions section. CJ-Moki (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, one more source worth keeping an eye on for this is Warrington Guardian. It's a local paper for that townland, so they might cover stuff that the national/international press won't. I'm not sure if there's any other local papers that cover that area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

A quick look at Warrington#Media turned up the Warrington Worldwide and Cheshire Times. I've no idea how reliable they are, but they both seem to cover some or all of the relevant area. Warrington Worldwide looks like your standard 24 hour news publication, Cheshire Times seems like it's published monthly, so if there is going to be an article in it we won't see it until the start of March. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I just added the Mary Sue source to the article. CJ-Moki (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft reactions section

Draft was installed in the article, hiding for ease of navigation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ghey's death has prompted responses from her family, local community, politicians, charities, activists, and musicians. Ghey's family said her death had "left a massive hole in our family". Emma Mills, headteacher of Birchwood Community High School said "We are shocked and truly devastated to hear of the death of Brianna." Labour Party MP Dawn Butler said on Twitter that "Anyone in the media who is using her deadname trying to erase Brianna’s identity should be ashamed of themselves." Another Labour Party MP Nadia Whittome said "Brianna deserved a chance to become a beautiful adult woman, and to live to see a world where trans people are safe and respected." and "Anyone in the media who is using her deadname and erasing Brianna’s identity should be ashamed of themselves." LGBT rights charity Stonewall and transgender youth charity Mermaids both expressed sympathy for Ghey's family. U.S. civil rights attorney Alejandra Caraballo wrote "The gender recognition act that the gender criticals keep fighting, with horrific, demonising language, means that Brianna Ghey’s death certificate cannot list her gender as female. As a final insult, the English government will officially misgender her in death." English musician Yungblud said that he was "heartbroken" by the killing and called for "protect trans kids every day and fight relentlessly against anti-trans sentiment & legislations being pushed by our heinous government." Punk band Big Joanie expressed disgust over the killing, calling for "Solidarity to all the communities having to live in fear for their own safety and lives for simply existing right now." UK media has faced condemnation for their reporting of Ghey's death. The Trans Safety Network said that some UK media outlets were "publicly disrespecting" Ghey in their coverage of her death. Initial reporting by both BBC News and Sky News failed to state that Ghey was transgender. The Times faced strong criticism after amending their original story by removing the word "girl" and including Ghey's deadname. Senthorun Raj, a professor of human rights law, said "We all have a responsibility to challenge the insidious ways the media and politicians dehumanise trans people." Ash Sarkar, a journalist for Novara Media said she "cannot fathom the callousness involved in making the editorial decision to violate her dignity in death." Labour Party MP Charlotte Nichols said that she would be lodging a complaint with The Times and the Independent Press Standards Organisation and that "there is absolutely no need whatsoever for anyone to publish her deadname when identifying her as trans in media coverage."

Reflist

References

Photo

Every media outlet is using the same photo, and the copyright holder of said photo is dead, hence the page. What is our ability to use that photo of her for the article? Snokalok (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Copyright does not end with the death of the creator. We'd need to find out what the conditions of use are - which I think we should try to do, but is beyond my expertise. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Typically copyright belongs to the person who took the photo not its subject. I assume that they have allowed the press to use it, although that is not certain. (The British press is certainly not above just using other people's copyrighted material without permission when it feels like it.) Whether that permission exists, who gave it and whether it extends to Wikipedia would need to be looked into. I am not sure how to do that. Obviously, nobody should be approaching her family to ask about it but if they have a representative who is handling the press for them then it might be acceptable to ask them. DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

There's already pretty strong precedent for fair use to apply to images of crime victims when no free image exists. See Killing of JonBenét Ramsey, Killing of Justine Damond, Killing of Amadou Diallo, etc. It would be helpful if we had a confirmed source or copyright holder for the Cheshire Police image, but we can still use it without one. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I had a discussion on this off-wiki with some folks knowledgeable about Wikipedia's image copyright policies a couple of days ago. Because the chocolate bar image (for lack of a better descriptor) does not appear to have been released under a free content license, if we are to include the image it would be under the provisions of WP:NFCC. The opinions of the editors that I spoke to were that it would be a borderline acceptable fair use case, given the widespread use of this image. Most sources seem to have taken the image either from the family, or from Cheshire Police, and cropped it to fit their respective websites.

We probably can add it, we just have to make sure we follow the NFCC criteria, and make sure we have a solid fair use rationale on the upload. This does mean that the upload would be to enwiki, and not Commons however. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Right! Well, I am not well versed enough in wikipedia copyright regs to confidently make the edit, so I’ll leave it to someone else, but I’m glad the consensus seems to be one of it being usable. Snokalok (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

"by members of the public with multiple stab wounds"

The first sentence in the section titled Killing is somewhat awkward because the public didn't have multiple stab wounds. I haven't changed the article for this, but sandboxed the sentence to: "Ghey was found with multiple stab wounds by members of the public, on a path in Culcheth Linear Park." I'm not sure it's better so I'm asking for some wordsmithing help. Ward20 (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Your edit suggests the public inflicted the wounds. Wording fixed to make sense. WWGB (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

1RR placed

I have placed this article under the one revert rule for one month. This was applied 00:43, 17 February 2023. Violations may be met with blocks. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Brianna_Ghey&oldid=prev&diff=1139858577

I believe the revert should be reversed due to the following. I added "vigorously" in front of "criticised transgender rights". The edit summary that removed "vigorously" stated, "your opinion,not in source". The source[1] states, "outspoken critic of trans rights". "Vigorously" is similar in meaning and tone to "outspoken" in this context. Ward20 (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Vociferously" can also be used, which is a possibly closer synonym to "outspoken". Ward20 (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

If the source says "outspoken" then use that term or an accepted synonym. "Vociferous" is similar in meaning, but "vigorous" (forceful) is certainly not. WWGB (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Rowling has been removed, topic now moot. Ward20 (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

JK Rowling tie-in is wrong, duplicitous, inappropriate and should be removed!

Unproductive and largely off-topic. The discussion below covers the same matter somewhat more constructively.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"British author J. K. Rowling had vocally criticised transgender rights" This is not correct and perpetuates a myth. Quite the opposite she has supported transgender people and has always spoken up against violence against them. What Rowling asserted was that women are intrinsically women and have a right to uniquely associate as such. The female sex is clearly differentiable in human genetics (excepting for very rare growth defects) and produces a physical representation that society has long associated with the word woman. There is currently a movement in society for the right of people to associate with any societal moniker that they believe best describes themselves. The merits, societal implications or even universality of this have yet to be worked out but demonising and misrepresenting someone who adheres to established societal norms going back millennia does no favours for anyone. Please don't reply/negate with the typical: False-equivalences, falsehoods or misguided indignant rage ... so tiresome! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:E557:7FC7:F43A:3EE8 (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC) You can disagree (that's the nicer word I'll use for what you're doing) all you like, but the source says what the source says and is attributed as such. --Pokelova (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC) What's the nicer word for surreptitiously attributing the death of a person to another by such tenuous (which is the nice word I'll use - duplicitous would be the alternative) association? 2001:8003:70F5:2400:E557:7FC7:F43A:3EE8 (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC) If that's the conclusion you wish to draw from that sentence you are welcome to that. But there is no issue with it in this article. --Pokelova (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Perhaps that is, because it reflects the innate bias (and persuasions) of its authors and it wouldn't be the first time a death has been hijacked to promote a wider ideology? Anyway ... I wouldn't expect it to change as opinions are so entrenched and tribal ... maybe some people would like to think on it? 2001:8003:70F5:2400:E557:7FC7:F43A:3EE8 (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure biases are innate - they're learned. And I reject the implicit claim here that wanting to treat trans people with appropriate respect is a 'wider ideology' that's simply a matter of 'entrenched and tribal opinions'. The mention of JKR was probably WP:UNDUE, but the IP poster's rhetoric is characteristic of precisely the ideological viewpoint espoused by her supporters. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC) When a bias is emblematic of a particular PoV/ideology, then it is innate. I am not a supporter of JK Rowling but someone who clearly sees something wrong happening here. You are perhaps, not used to entertaining the viewpoint of the other side: When the perceived rights of Trans-people infringe on the established rights of women and it is pointed out ... guess what ... that's not the Devil (or your parents) speaking. When 'some' becomes 'all' and 1% of what a person says is represented as 100% of everything she is, you know you are speaking to zealots (who by definition, are terribly difficult to reason with). Zealots within the Trans-community (or, perhaps the wider community) took 1% of what Rowlings said - reinterpreted it to amplify the indignation (happened even in the comments here) and then proceeded to besmirch her character (and worse). See what happens; this trans-woman (Brianna Ghey) was murdered and it becomes all about JK Rowling and Trans-this/that. That is why the tie-in to Rowling is both wrong and for this particular article inappropriate (maybe, another forum?). 144.134.150.203 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Re: When the perceived rights of Trans-people infringe on the established rights of woman and it is pointed out ... according to most reliable sources, this isn't a thing that has actually happened. Being told a thing and believing it does not make it true. Newimpartial (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Please try not to let them wind you up and draw you into off-topic discussion. I know it's not easy and I know I have fallen for it a few times myself. Please try to remember that being infuriating can often be a deliberate tactic to derail the project and turn everything into an unedifying circus. DanielRigal (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Enough! This is getting way into WP:NOTFORUM territory and that last comment was right on the border of what I would remove and issue a warning for. Time to stop this and maybe roll this part of the discussion up. Please discuss the article. Please refrain from goading people by referring to their existence as an "ideology" or calling people "zealots" just because they are on edge because for very understandable reasons. Please refrain from misspelling phrases in what looks to be a deliberately pointed way (e.g. the incorrect hyphen in "trans woman".) People might interpret that as trolling. DanielRigal (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• I am removing the reference to J.K. Rowling in this article since I tink this is a serious WP:BLP issue. By mentioning J.K. Rowling in the context that it does, the article seems to blame Rowling for formenting hate that brought about the senseless and heinous murder of the girl. Indeed, the NBC News article specifically cites it as an example of "The climate in the U.K. has grown increasingly hostile for trans people over the last few years." I do recognize that a reliable source, NBC News, mentions Rowling's essay, but that is a necessary condition for inclusion, not a sufficient one. While NBC News is a reliable source in general, I believe the NBC article makes a deceptive omission when it comes to Rowling.

The NBC News article cites Rowling's essay, in particular her comments about natal women being "less safe" in bathrooms and changing rooms. However, it omits that she in the same essay wrote "I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection."

As such, citing the NBC News article to bring Rowling into this article, in a manner that implicates her for creating an environment that made this murder happen, does not meet the standards of WP:V or WP:NPOV that are needed for BLP coverage. I have some issues with the citation of the BBC News article as well (since it somehow interprets "some" as "all"), but since that is not BLP-related I will let it stand for now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object to the removal but I do think that the reasons you give here are mistaken. We do not get to do WP:OR and decide that the NBC source is unusable simply because some of us personally disagree with what it says. What Rowling wrote in her manifesto is (presumably intentionally) open to multiple interpretations. Some people will notice the "trans-identified" dogwhistle in that quote, some genuinely won't and some others will pretend not to. It is not for us to impose our own interpretation in preference to that of the reliable sources. We have to assume that NBC read the manifesto, saw that quote including the dogwhistle, and disregarded it as either insincere or irrelevant to their analysis. If we have a second source also mentioning Rowling then the case for inclusion would become much much stronger but we certainly should not be trying to shoehorn her into this article any more than is actually justified. That risks drawing attention away from the horrific murder and turning this into yet more noise in the "culture war" "debates". It also risks concentrating the spotlight on one specific person when pretty much the whole UK media and political establishment has copious blood on its hands here. (Yes, that last bit was just my opinion. I'm not suggesting we include any of that in the article unless Reliable Sources say the same thing.) DanielRigal (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with DanielRigal's comments about WP:OR above, and also about the comments about Rowling and WP:WEIGHT to give the single NBC source, or alternately if a second source appears. I searched news sources for Ghey and Rowling together. Only a RollingStone article[2] and, what I consider, some minor sources criticizing or defending Rowling come up. I looked at the Rolling Stone article which only mentioned Rowling concerning the controversy over a New York Times opinion piece "In Defense of J.K. Rowling”. However, the RollingStone article had discussions concerning Ghey's now international notability, rallies for her that have become expressions of political angst, finer details on media disrespect, and concerns Ghey's friends have over the politicalization of her death as DanielRigal discussed above. Some of that might be useful in the article, or how to approach this Wiki article. Ward20 (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

On the Rolling Stone article, I was reading it earlier and there are definitely parts I think we can work in. It's something I'm going to look at over the weekend if no-one else gets there first, writing new mainspace prose seems a little hard for me today.

On the Rowling sentence, for me it's a question of WP:WEIGHT. NBCNews clearly felt it was important to bring up in this context, and I don't think that should be discounted based on whether or not we as editors agree or disagree with it. But the lack of other sources bringing it up in the same, or similar way does suggest that unlike the widespread criticism of UK media, it's not really noteworthy in an encyclopaedic sense. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to say the quiet thing out loud, the most plausible interptetation of JKR's "I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection." is not "trans people should be protected from discrimination and hatred based on their gender identity" but rather "trans-identified people are vulnerable, likely mentally ill or having other disabilities, and therefore need help and protection". This is the interpretation that makes the most sense, IMO, given the corpus of JKR's statements and actions on gender identity issues. Of course other editors can disagree with this interpretation, but discounting what RS say about JKR's influence because these editors believe some other interpretation of Rowling's statement to be true - well, I don't think that approach is mandated by policy. We should include content because it is reliably sourced and uncontradicted by other sources, not because we personally believe it to be true. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

While verifiability in reliable sources is a pre-requisite before content can be considered for inclusion, not all verifiable information must be included. WP:V and WP:NPOV have equal weighting when it comes to considering content for inclusion, and there are some weight issues for the Rowling sentence in this article. This might be content that could be included in another article, like Political views of J. K. Rowling, if it isn't already included. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

A single sentence attributed to a reliable source, and making it clear that this is just one interpretation, seems like an acceptable amount of weight to place on this. The wording Wikipedia was using about JKR was already more benign than what NBC had to say about her ("she said allowing trans women to use women’s bathrooms and changing rooms would make cisgender women 'less safe' — an anti-trans talking point that research has debunked."), and this isn't a BLP issue because the information is a response to things she publicly said. Considering that she's possibly the most well-known living writer in the world, what she says will have an impact on the social climate in the UK. I won't bring back the reference to her because I was the one who initially put it there, but I think someone should. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Two infoboxes

Do we really need two infoboxes, one on the killing, and a separate on on Brianna and her TikTok? I tried experimenting in the page preview with WP:IEmbed, but I couldn't figure out a way to neatly include all three infoboxen after removing the duplicate info. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree it kind of makes the article look strange. Could the personal information be included in the Killing of Brianna Ghey infobox under the Victim catagory? Just thinking outloud here. Ward20 (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Kinda. The TikTok info is an embedded {{Infobox TikTok personality}} inside the {{Infobox person}}, so adding that as a submodule of the first infobox, {{infobox civilian attack}}, is easy enough. However the first infobox doesn't have parameters for date of birth/death, birth place, or education. And unfortunately embedding the {{Infobox person}} into the first infobox seems to result in a weird parameter display order that I can't figure out how to resolve.

I've also tried to make the Person infobox the attack one, to try and fix it with a different order of the infobox nesting, with the other two being the submodules of it. However the attack infobox doesn't support being embedded into another infobox, it can only be the primary infobox from what I can see in the preview. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to just delete the infobox on the TikTok. It's fairly atypical to have a separate infobox for crime victims, and this article is on the crime; it's not a biography. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with not having two infoboxes and I was working on combining the information into one box, but I researched child murders on Wikipedia and found several articles that had biographical information in the infoboxes. Can you point me to any specific policies or guidelines that state there shouldn't be biographical information in the infobox for crime victims? Thank you. Ward20 (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is the general practice that, if an infobox is on a page, we have a single infobox that summarizes the article's key points. It boils down to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which says that the purpose of infoboxes is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article and that infoboxes should generally be shorter in length rather than longer in length. The principles here point towards having a single infobox, but no, they do not explicitly require it. That being said, I just qualitatively think it's better to have one infobox here, as this article is about the killing. I understand the desire to place a second infobox with biographical details of the victim, either as a memorial or merely to note important facts about her tragically short life, but the former falls victim to WP:NOTMEMORIAL and the latter simply seems to be outside of the purpose of infoboxes. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I have some proposed infobox biographical changes posted at User:Ward20/sandbox that I would like to get feedback on. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the fascination with her (very rubbery) TikTok follower numbers, and the name of her deleted account. It's not as if she was a notable TikToker in life. A mention in the article should suffice without twisting the infobox, which is about an attack, not a biography. WWGB (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There is only a single Infobox I propose for the article, summarizing and not supplanting article information. It does not add any information not in the article. It adds two lines of information about her TikTok account. Without adding any extra lines to the infobox, it now states her age, and the age and gender of the two arrested. That's all that is changed. These are key features of the page's subject, certainly not a memorial. Part of the noteability of the article is from the ages of the persons involved, and Ghey's TicTok account is prominently mentioned in this Wikipedia article, as well as many of the article's sources. Having the infobox present key information is the important issue, not the infobox name or how it is constructed. Thank you. Ward20 (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Just so I understand

When someone comes to a talk page - not the article itself - and asks a good faith question about the article in question, the proper response is to delete the comments wholesale? Keep I mind I askedd about disucssing the perpetrators of the crime and was deleted thrice and warned about edit warring. I wanted to make sure i understand policy. 2600:1012:B00F:30E3:D96D:41BB:5C11:248E (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, since you did not provide the sources stating what you claimed, and I was unable to find any such sources myself, your allegations were in violation of WP:BLP. --Pokelova (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

So just so I'm clear, because YOU couldn't find sources, the correct action is to delete someone's contribution on a TALK PAGE? Someone who was asking good faith questions.. Is that accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B00F:30E3:D96D:41BB:5C11:248E (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently you can't find the sources either, since you still haven't presented them despite ample opportunity. This is you last chance before I can no longer assume good faith. If you have reliable sources stating what you claim, post them now. --Pokelova (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Number of followers and location of her last TikTok?

So a new editor (@CorrectingFalseInfo) has changed the number of her TikTok followers (to "8k, 80k after death" as opposed to "63k") and has changed the location of the last TikTok from Linear Park to Birchwood Park. Is this true? I have a reason to doubt considering the new account but wanna be sure it's correct info. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It is contradictory to the sources so I have reverted it. --Pokelova (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for confirming my suspicions. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a few different numbers in various sources for how many TikTok followers Brianna had before the account was deleted. At the low end, we have PinkNews and Liverpool Echo who both say 11,000. In the middle there's The Independent with 31,000. And at the high end, we have an earlier version of The Telegraph article we currently cite with 63,000.

Not sure which, if any number we should cite here given the widespread disparity between sources. As the current status-quo is The Telegraph's numbers however, I'll be adjusting the citation in a moment to account for the deviation, by adding an archived link and marking the current URL as deviated. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Do we need to give a number for the TikTok followers, or would simply describing the crime victim as a TikToker work? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

IMO the follower count is useful. While it would be even more useful if we had a RS to mention this, even 11k sounds to me like a low follower count but well above any random TikToker. If we just mention she's a TikToker, I think most readers are going to assume she a not atypical teenager who maybe posted a few videos on TikoTok who maybe had at most a few hundred followers mostly friends or people she knew in real life. The follower count won't mean much to plenty of readers but at least some will probably recognise it means she appears to have had some minor success. (For example, I came to that conclusion despite having basically never touched TikTok.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The deadname is ?

The article makes numerous references to Brianna deadname. So, what is it ? Why is it absent from the encyclopedia ? 93.3.33.148 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:DEADNAME explains it. Basically, if they were not notable before the transition we don't use the prior name. Adding the deadname in this instance adds nothing to the understanding of the subject. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Funeral

Adding a note here, according to BBC News and PinkNews Ghey's funeral will take place on 15 March. There may be more content to add later in the day because of this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

 Added. WWGB (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2023

Change "and on 14 February, the police began to investigate the attack as a possible hate crime,[7] after having previously stated that there was no evidence to suggest that it was.[7]" to "and on 14 February, the police began to investigate the attack as a possible hate crime.[7]"

This is a lie by omission and portrayed a biased narrative to suggest the police changed the narrative behind her motive. The polices official statement at first was that they had no motive as of yet, only mentioning hate crimes in specific because of the question they were asked. This was used to suggest it wasn't a hate crime, and the prior statement is irrelevant. It would be like stating the police HAD no evidence against someone, which is technically always true at the start of an investigation. It's not even a well worded statement. The-LesBeans (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Criticism of UK media

I think this section should currently focus only on specific criticism of the UK media in covering the story, and not about the general climate in the media or politics even though some writers are doing so. I think both the NBC News and Vogue comments are inappropriate and should be removed for now. In both cases, the writers have used the story to then talk about the UK media generally, which is the lowest form of linkage. Essentially, using her death to rant about the wider topic.

The Vogue article is an opinion piece where the writer clearly admits ignorance and that they are openly dumping their unformed thoughts onto the page and despite saying "I know we can’t—or shouldn’t—immediately connect Brianna’s vicious attack with her gender identity." then does. And currently we quote that as though we have a reliable source making serious links vs a "here's my random thoughts at this moment" article.

We don't currently know this will be demonstrated to be a hate crime, or what the motive is. The police ask everyone not to speculate, which includes writing as though we've already decided it is a hate crime, and there are good reasons for us and others to avoid doing that. The NBC/Vogue stuff does more than speculate, but is saying "here are who I blame for this hate crime".

I don't think we should include that at this point. And I think we should use better sources than someone who starts with "I don’t know where to start with my take on the Brianna Ghey murder, how my limited knowledge of the crime..." and just rambles on after that.

After there is a conviction and motive has been established, then we are on safer ground including opinions about blame. -- Colin°^Talk 18:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe that is reasonable to include the NBC article in the section as a reaction to the killing. The NBC article doesn't need to state a connection between the killing and the media coverage, which it specifically does not. It extrapolates from other sources to qualify as a secondary source, and it connnects the quoted statements in the Wikipedia article about the BBC with hostility toward trangender people. The Vogue article not so much because it states it is an opinion piece as a primary source, and talks about the generalities of online transphobia rather than a specific media instance. Ward20 (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not quite following what your argument is. But this section "Criticism of UK media" isn't here as a comment on people's "reaction to the killing". If it was, we'd say something like "Some writers used her death as an excuse to lambast the UK media and politicians for their anti-trans policies" or whatever, assuming such a source could be found for that. That they are reacting to the killing and writing stuff about the UK media and politicians isn't a reason for us to do the same in this article. I find the 'BBC had recently published the article "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women"' to be a particularly egregious example of shoehorning.

The point is that there is ZERO connection between the killing and a general anti-trans media/politics UNLESS it turns out to be a hate crime. At this point we are not allowed to say it is. And even if it does turn out so, we don't know what their influences were, and might never know. Probably not a BBC News website article, written well over a year ago (not "recently"), about lesbians. Also, any article that uses language like "activists slammed the BBC" just makes me think I'm reading the Daily Mail. No respectable writer uses the word "slammed" unless they are talking about a car door. -- Colin°^Talk 21:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for this to be a hate crime for the section to have relevance. It really depends on the sourcing and what they say. This is still a very recent case so it's hard to say what will develop, but there have been protests etc and it seems that these protests have not just concerned her killing but have been also in part due to concerns over the atmosphere and safety of trans people particularly trans girls and women in the UK. Likewise while unfortunately probably unlikely, it's possible that this killing may enough to cause changes in the media and in the UK. This may be more likely if it's a hate crime but it doesn't require it.

To give a loosely related example, if a police killing or death associated with the police in the US results in significant Black Lives Matters protests, if we have article on the killing/death it will probably need to briefly cover this aspect potentially including some brief mention over why it's an issue. (That case since it's a long term thing we do have the advantage of other articles e.g. the BLM one which expound on the issues reducing the need to mention much in the article on the death or killing.)

Depending on the level of protest etc, it matter not if the killing/death doesn't result in any conviction or even disciplinary action. Or heck, even if a coroner's report or camera footage e.g. police body cam causes even most of the public to no longer view the killing or death as particularly controversial. In such a case, because of all that happened, a complete understanding of the killing/death does require understanding a background which may not have direct relevance to the killing/death itself but does have relevance to the other stuff which happened.

However the sources need to be there and only having two may not be enough.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I didn't suggest the section didn't have relevance. There is criticism of the press that is directly related to this topic and our knowledge at this point, and that's fine. What matters is when we do what some writers have done, and either write assuming it is a hate crime and thus the BBC/Daily Mail/Tory Government/etc/etc have blood on their hands, or don't care whether it is or not, but while they/we have a platform concerning trans issues, use it.

As I said, there may be room for a short meta comment that this death has caused some to write about and protest about the anti-trans atmosphere in the media and in politics. But it shouldn't itself become a platform for that protest, completely with quotes and examples of anti-trans writing. Your example of a police killing isn't quite comparable. What would be more comparable, at this stage, would be if nobody had been arrested for some hypothetical murder case we are writing about, but someone had seen "a suspicious person of middle-eastern appearance running near the crime", and the press went on and on about asylum seekers and foreigners. In that case, it would be appropriate to note that the press had done that, but not for us to start quoting their comments about foreigners and immigration and how we should send them all back, as though those comments were an entirely reasonable reaction. -- Colin°^Talk 14:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me as it's not clear, and my head is a bit derpy today. When you're said "what matters is when we do what some writers have done", are you referring to specific text in our article, or talk page comments? If it's the former, could you please identify that text because I'm struggling to see it, bar what I've already remarked on with regards to Vogue and the later half of the NBC News sentence in my reply down below. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The point is that there is ZERO connection between the killing and a general anti-trans media/politics UNLESS it turns out to be a hate crime. Yes and no. In terms of a causal relationship on the motive of the killing, you're right. However the specific criticisms over how UK media covered the early reporting of Ghey's killing are valid regardless of whether or not the crime itself was a hate crime.

On the use of "activists slammed the BBC" by NBC News, I think there's two factors at play. Firstly, they're not writing for a UK audience, they're writing for an American audience, and that will I think impact on the terminology they use. Secondly, even within UK media I think this is becoming a more frequently used term than just the Daily Mail. The BBC seem to semi-regularly use the word in their headlines ([3], [4], [5], [6]), as do The Telegraph ([7], [8], [9]). The Times takes it a step further and uses it in their prose like NBC News have done ([10], [11]) in addition to headline use ([12], [13]). So I'm not really going to begrudge them on that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Sideswipe9th slammed User:Colin for their outdated vocabulary criticism. :-) -- Colin°^Talk 10:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Removing the sentence cited to Vogue makes sense. It is an opinion article, so not appropriate to use here or in this way.

I disagree on the NBC News article however. Like Nil Einne I don't think we need this to be a confirmed hate crime for a section on the media criticism surrounding this killing to be contextually relevant. Nor does this need to be a hate crime before any RS can point out the trans-hostile media environment that is pervasive in the UK at the moment, and how that hostile environment is colouring how the media covered the early stages of this case. We could probably trim that sentence to the end of the concluding quote however. In the same way that we didn't really need to include the Rowling tie-in, the direct tie-in with the BBC article seems a bit undue unless multiple other reliable sources had made the same connection.

When looking at the first two paragraphs of the section, the first paragraph is absolutely due for me. The exclusion from the initial reporting that Ghey was trans, the subsequent removal of the word girl when those stories were later updated to include that she was trans, and that The Times deliberately chose to deadname her were all things that multiple reliable sources have criticised rightly criticised the media for. The second paragraph is a natural follow-on from the first. It elaborates on the general criticisms with some specific examples and quotations. A trimmed version of the NBC News sentence would fit in well there, I think either before or after The Mary Sue sentence. And I think the commentary from Ghey's MP is a good way to end that section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, we seem to have agreement about the Vogue piece. We all agree that "a section on the media criticism surrounding this killing" is relevant and I've never said it wasn't. There's one thing "point[ing] out" that the media is trans-hostile, briefly, but I don't think that permits this article to be a place where random bits of media hostility are brought up as examples. We already had a dispute about mentioning JKR. I don't really see why the BBC article is in any way relevant to this article and it certain wasn't "recently". So I think we agree on that. Is there an article we could link to that discusses UK trans hostility in the media/politics in general? I don't understand your description of how the NBC sentences would be trimmed. I think there is a case for first clause (the first quote about increasingly hostile) as the NBC article does link that to the Times deadnaming, so perhaps there is a link we could use there to move it around as you suggest. -- Colin°^Talk 10:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Use the NBC cite for a general statement about the media that it supports, rather than the last part of the NBC article. Replace everything starting from "noting that the BBC" with: noting that activists within the LGBTQ community have often criticized the UK media in the last few years over publishing articles encouraging anti-transgender sentiments. Ward20 (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to help visualise it, could you put the full suggested wording for the NBC sentence please? It's not clear to me if you want to keep the current quotation on the UK's generalised trans-hostile climate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Replace: A report by NBC News on the killing concluded that "the climate in the U.K. has grown increasingly hostile for trans people over the last few years", noting that the BBC had recently published the article "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women", which was accused of "[painting] all transgender women as sexual predators".

With: A report by NBC News on the killing concluded that "the climate in the U.K. has grown increasingly hostile for trans people over the last few years", noting that advocates within the LGBTQ community have often criticized the UK media in the last few years over publishing articles embracing anti-transgender sentiments. Ward20 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there an article we could link to that discusses UK trans hostility in the media/politics in general? You know, I don't actually think there is yet. The closest I'm aware of is the BBC section in Transgender rights in the United Kingdom. This strikes me as something we should look at drafting, as I'm fairly certain there's more than enough sources to meet GNG on this.

I don't understand your description of how the NBC sentences would be trimmed. You know what, you're right! I'd misread the concluding quotation last night as "the media climate in the U.K. has grown..." and not "the climate in the U.K. has grown...". Rethinking this through, I would consider, notwithstanding a look at what Ward20's suggestion looks like in full, replacing it with A report by NBC News on the killing stated that "in recent years trans activists have accused the British media of stoking anti-trans sentiments." and then moving the sentence into the second paragraph, either before or after the sentence from The Mary Sue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Go for it. I think I'd also mentally inserted that word and reading again, that original quote was more general than belongs in the "Criticism of UK media" section. Your quote is more appropriate, though I wouldn't object to paraphrasing it instead. -- Colin°^Talk 20:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It's an awkward one to paraphrase. In their coverage of the killing, NBC News reported that for several years trans activists have accused the British press of "stoking anti-trans sentiments"? It cuts down the quote to just the stoking part, but that might be too far and could look scare quoteish maybe? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a think. What they are saying is factual, so there's no need to put it in quotes like it is just an opinion. Trans activists really have accused the British press of this. So I think it ideally should be in Wikivoice and we should try to avoid articles becoming a collection of quotes. -- Colin°^Talk 08:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Wrt the BBC section in that other article, hmm, that's a little awkward section too. It focuses two paragraphs on that lesbian pressured story, which AFAICS, is nothing to do with "transgender rights". I'm sure that encyclopaedic content that could be written about the media (not just the BBC, who are far from the worst though perhaps we expect better) but it doesn't seem to have a proper home. -- Colin°^Talk 20:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless there's an article on the topic of UK media trans hostility already that I've missed, I think we're at the point where we should start gathering sources and look at drafting one. From stuff I already had bookmarked and a quick Google search I'm seeing news articles, charity commissioned research, and conference papers dating back at least as far as 2019, with several sources published per year. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Having little puddles of this lying about in articles here and there isn't working. Thinking about that BBC story, it seems more about attitudes towards (and within) trans community, rather than something about rights. Is there an article about the "climate" or "attitudes" in the UK? -- Colin°^Talk 08:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

On the general UK climate/attitudes towards trans people, the closest we have to an article, to my knowledge, is the public attitudes section of the same Transgender rights in the United Kingdom article, and the two hatnotes linked at the top of that section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Inf sourced to MailOnline

I have recently amended this text The Independent reported that MailOnline reported that a parent of one of her school friends criticised the initial police statement, saying, "Let's be frank, she was bullied because of her sexuality. Of course this is a hate crime." in the ‘Reactions’ section to show that the Independent sourced this inf to MailOnline, which is operated by the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is a deprecated source [14] My view is that Wikipedia should not be using any inf sourced to a deprecated source, even indirectly. Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing aside, the sentence is certainly a mouthful now. In this case, although the Mail is the original source, we are citing The Independent for it. It's reasonable to assume that The Independent have done their own fact checking on this before reposting the comments. I'm fairly certain that we do this on other BLPs without issue. But this might be a question better handled at RSN? Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it is a reasonable assumption that the Independent have done their own fact checking – if they had, they would not have carefully sourced this to MailOnline. If they had actually investigated, and independently found evidence of bullying, they would have said so. Wikipedia is currently giving information which is sourced to a deprecated source. It seems to me to be plain that this ought not to occur, but I think it is worth waiting a little longer for comments from other editors before referring this to RSN. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that this sort of issue has come up at RSN before, so I've been searching the archives trying to find it.

While I've not yet had any luck there, I did discover that Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party and Stabbing of Salman Rushdie both indirectly cite the MailOnline in a similar manner through secondary reliable sources, in both cases about BLP subjects. Using those as examples, we could simplify that sentence to The MailOnline reported that a parent of one of her school friends criticised the initial police statement, saying, "Let's be frank, she was bullied because of her sexuality. Of course this is a hate crime." while keeping the citation to The Independent. I'm almost certain I will find numerous other examples of citing deprecated or blocklisted sources through reliable secondary sources, in BLPs and other articles across enwiki. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That being said however, The Independent do have the quotation from the MailOnline in full, and we are attributing it to an anonymous parent, so I'm not entirely sure I agree with the issue that you're seeing. Unless you're doubting over whether the Mail made up the quotation, or if the parent's daughter was not actually a friend of Brianna? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself from the RSN discussion, it might be better to just paraphrase the source rather than to use the direct quote. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I think there’s a similar problem with this text in the ‘Brianna Ghey’ section. Ghey's friends also told tabloids she had faced years of transphobic harassment before she was killed, including being repeatedly "gang beaten”.Sweet6970 (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)  

Thank you for providing these examples. Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party: this does not look like an indirect cite of MailOnline – there is nothing about what MailOnline said. And presumably the comments attributed to Corbyn are directly reported by the Times? Stabbing of Salman Rushdie: this does look like an indirect cite of the MailOnline – and I think it should be challenged for being based on a deprecated source.

As to Unless you're doubting over whether the Mail made up the quotation, or if the parent's daughter was not actually a friend of Brianna?– the reason the Mail is deprecated is that the consensus of editors was that the Mail was unreliable The Daily Mail has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". I have no idea whether the report in the MailOnline is true or not. The fact that it is deprecated on Wikipedia makes me sceptical of anything it says. But the main point is that it is deprecated, and therefore should not be used as a source.

Sweet6970 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there's long been a consensus that if a source is unreliable, but their comments are noted and covered in other reliable sources, their statements can be used with attribution. While we can't directly cite an unreliable source, if multiple RS report find it note-worthy that they reported something, we can include that. I'd say the best option is to try and find other sources that mention the Mail's comment, source it to them too, and update the The Independent reported that MailOnline reported to The MailOnline reported TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

With regards to the long standing consensus, that's also my recollection but I'll be damned if I can find the most recent time that it was brought up at RSN.

On secondary sources from the Mail's quoting of Harry, we already have The Independent using the full quotation. LGBTQNation have a slightly expanded version of the quotation, with some extra words on Brianna's father raising safeguarding issues at the school.

I'm not seeing any other sources that we explicitly consider reliable at this time, but given that we're anonymously quoting the parent I think we're fine with even with just The Independent. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

there is nothing about what MailOnline said That isn't the case here either. We're quoting what the parent said, not what either The Independent or Mail have said about that quotation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe –We don’t know what the parent said . But we do know that the Mail is unreliable for facts and should not be used as a source. I repeat The Daily Mail has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". The “information” we are providing is sourced to the Mail. Please explain why you think that is in accordance with policy.

I see that you are opposed to the Mail when it “deadnames” someone [15] but that you are happy to use it when it says something you want to keep in the article. I observe a contradiction here. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in this discussion is proposing to source anything to The Mail. Are they? Editors have proposed to cite other sources, sources that in turn reference The Mail, as is done in many other articles.

Also, I'm not sure I follow your comment about deadnaming. The comment you link to, from Sideswipe9th, points out that The Times and The Mail chose to publish the deadname of a trans girl who was murdered, quite possibly as a hate crime. I'm not sure that anyone in that discusson was making the argument that WP should follow The Times and The Mail in deadnaming the victim, so what is the contradiction you observe?

Nobody in this discussion is suggesting that we cite The Mail, nobody in the linked discussion is suggesting that we cite The Mail, so I am at a loss here. Newimpartial (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The issue is not The Mail as a cite, it is The Mail as a source. The text "According to the Independent, MailOnline reported ..." is clearly using The Mail as the original source, which is against WP:RSP ("nor should it be used as a source"). WWGB (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I feel like this discussion isn't going to gain a consensus either way, so it's probably time to raise it at RSN for some outside opinion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Question posted at RSN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Per the outcome of the RSN discussion, I've now adjusted the text in the article to more simply reflect where it originated, keeping it cited to The Independent. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I see that there has been a discussion of this issue at RSN. Red-tailed hawk suggested [16] a wording A parent of one of Ghey's friends, speaking with the Daily Mail, alleged that the killing was a hate crime.... Police initially stated that they had no evidence supporting the claim that this was a hate crime, but since have opened an investigation as to whether or not the killing may be a hate crime. which seems to me to be very much better than the current wording, particularly bearing in mind that, as Rth pointed out, simply repeating what was said constitutes specific criminal allegations against living people. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I also like this phrasing, which is why I suggested it. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Could work for me. Would we be keeping the some or all of the quotation from the parent in the ellipses? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I would delete the ellipses, so that the wording would be simply:A parent of one of Ghey's friends, speaking with the Daily Mail, alleged that the killing was a hate crime. Police initially stated that they had no evidence supporting the claim that this was a hate crime, but since have opened an investigation as to whether or not the killing may be a hate crime. I don’t know what Red-tailed hawk had in mind. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The ellipses were just there in case somebody wanted to place a sentence or two in the middle. As they were there to represent filler, I'd be perfectly fine to remove them if there's no filler to go there. I generally don't like to use direct quotes from primary sources unless there is really no way around it (or the exact quote is really important), and I think paraphrasing can convey the substance accurately. That being said, I'm not super familiar with the article subject, so I could go either way. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the current text wrt the discussion on User talk:Sideswipe9th where I noted some advice against quoting. I think this could well fall into the case where we are repeating an opinion that isn't permissible in wikivoice and certainly prejudges the case. I much prefer the wording above, were we describe the allegation, rather than repeat it. -- Colin°^Talk 17:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we now have agreement to change the wording (?) Sweet6970 (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If you think we have agreement WP:BEBOLD! No need for an extra step where we all agree that we agree ;-). -- Colin°^Talk 16:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah go for it. It coveys most of what the parent said. The only thing missing for me is the bit where the parent alleged bullying was a part of why he felt it was a hate crime. Would A parent of one of Ghey's friends, speaking with the Daily Mail, alleged that due to Ghey being bullied [as a result of/due to] her identity the killing was a hate crime. Police initially stated that they had no evidence supporting the claim that this was a hate crime, but since have opened an investigation as to whether or not the killing may be a hate crime (changes in italics) be acceptable to others? Not sure if as a result of or due to is the better choice, you could also just leave the addition as due to Ghey being bullied but it does leave it open to questions of "why was she bullied?" Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I thought we had agreement :-(. I don't like this expansion. I don't think this remark by a parent of a friend has much weight or is particularly encyclopaedic. The proposed text by Sweet6970 informs the reader that at least one person who knew them thinks this was a hate crime. An encyclopaedia is meant to summarise sources, especially primary sources. We aren't here to document in detail what the random parent of a random friend said to the DM at one point. And I don't think that halfway down this article, the reader is in any doubt they were bullied and faced transphobia. I think we shouldn't do much more than inform the reader that these views were out there at the time the police changed what they were saying about possible motive. At this point, all of this could be entirely barking up the wrong tree. -- Colin°^Talk 17:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we still have agreement on the core of the sentence. I was just proposing an optional addition that we could have made as I thought it better reflected dueness of the quotation in sources secondary to the MailOnline, as the "Lets be frank" quotation was picked up on by both The Independent (sourced in article) and LGBTQNation. But I can also see your point that we can adequately summarise it by saying that the parent alleged it was a hate crime, without adding that the reason for the allegation was that Ghey was a target for bullying.

So yeah, consider that proposal withdrawn and I'm supportive of the version posted by Sweet6970 just a few replies above. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I have now made the amendment. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Minor wording change

Hello! I made a minor wording change to the accused section. I was worried that the sentence, as it had been, blurred the line between "targeted attack" with "hate crime," and, when I went to the source for the "targeted attack" claim, I noticed that this was the context:

"Det Ch Supt Mike Evans, of Cheshire Constabulary, described the killing as a 'targeted attack'. However, police said they do not currently believe the crime is related to the fact that Brianna is transgender."

Thus, to make clear that the targeted-attack determination and hate-crime investigation were separate incidents, I converted the article's text into two sentences.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspect entering a plea

Just to note, I've just added content relating to one of the two suspects entering a plea of not guilty at a pre-trial hearing earlier today. The identity of which suspect entered the plea has been withheld by the press due to reporting restrictions on the case, and is not going to be verifiable through reliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There no information about the suspects

Why are we not discussing the perpetrators of the crime? My understanding is that it is against the rules to call this a hate crime or to refer to the ethnicity of the atackers

2600:1700:1250:6D80:202D:4D20:49B3:9319 (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The information that we currently have in the article is all of the information currently released by reliable sources on the suspects. UK law automatically places reporting restrictions on personally identifiable information whenever child or teen is a victim, witness, or defendant to a crime. As such reliable sources are prohibited from reporting on any further details about the suspects than we have already covered, which in this case is their gender, age, and rough location of residence. This situation is unlikely to change in the near future, as there are a lot of different legal criteria that cover the release of PII in this set of circumstances. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Also it's important to note that there are also Wikipedia policy concerns at play here too. Even if some reliable sources had published more information about the suspects than we currently have available, WP:BLPCRIME strongly advises us to withhold that information from articles until a conviction has been secured. This policy applies to criminal suspects of any age, and is there to protect defendants under the presumption of innocence standard that applies in most legal jurisdictions across the world.

As for any sort of general discussion that did not involve improving the article in some way, Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for general discussion about a topic. Article talk pages exist for the purposes of article improvement only. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Well it has changed, and you need to stick to facts and not to what you think are facts 2A00:23EE:1468:3E2D:8315:5C89:ED31:E18E (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Based on sources published today, the facts with regards to the suspects have not changed. Their names and other PII are still subject to reporting restrictions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Based on their other attempted additions, which I just removed from this page, I'm pretty certain that our anonymous friend is just trolling. DanielRigal (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Probably. But there are some good faith editors who may have this page on their watchlist, and may not be familiar with how UK court reporting restrictions work and how they interact with BLPCRIME. This is as much educational for them as a response to the IP editor. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

We have very little reliably sourced information apart from their ages and genders so there is very little to discuss even if we wanted to, which we don't. We do not include speculation and rumours. We should certainly not include information that could either be incorrect or which could prejudice a trial. Any speculation about their ethnicity would be so inappropriate as to have the appearance of racism. Amateur sleuthing is not the way to go here. It could be unhelpful both to Wikipedia and to the cause of justice. DanielRigal (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Policy discussion at BLP mentioning this article

There is an ongoing policy discussion at WP:BLP entitled Naming accused perpetrators of crimes debating the question of whether articles about high-profile criminal cases should name any known suspect(s) prior to conviction, especially when they are only known for their involvement with the event in question. This article is featured as one example of four fitting these criteria which either did not name the suspect(s) after being published by reliable sources, or not until after consensus to name was obtained by discussion. I will be copying this message to the other articles so that interested editors have an opportunity participate in the debate. Xan747 (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

List of people killed for being transgender

@Equivamp: What on earth are you talking about? The article List of people killed for being transgender is plainly, from the title, intended to be a list of people killed for being transgender. The article starts This is a worldwide list of people who were killed for being transgender. There is no consensus on that page is to include all murdered transgender people regardless of motive – that would be contrary to the title and the subject of the article. I suggest you self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should check the talk page history of that page before getting all hostile with me. I'm aware it doesn't make sense, I didn't agree with it but that's what the consensus was. Equivamp - talk 20:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the Talk page that there should be a falsehood at the beginning of the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm on mobile, but it appears to be literally the first section on the tall page. Equivamp - talk 20:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

As I read the first section on the Talk page, there was a failed attempt to move the title of the article to List of unlawfully killed trans people. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I think there's some miscommunication about which sections of which pages are being referred to.

My reading is that Talk:List_of_people_killed_for_being_transgender#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_12_February_2023 contains a 3 to 2 consensus to include Briannna Ghey in the list of people killed for being transgender. Or at least there is until I go there and !vote no on the basis that no motive has as yet been established for her killing. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

As I understand it, the inclusion criteria for that list is broader than the title alone suggests. Though that RfC wasn't formally closed, if I were to close it I would say that there's a rough consensus for proposal A, and I believe that's the inclusion criteria editors have been using in practice since March 2021 despite the lack of closure.

However, even with that proposal's criteria in mind, I'm not sure Ghey meets either of the two tests. No RS have reported that Ghey was killed for being trans, as that has yet to be determined as the criminal case is still pending (criteria 2). And no RS have included Ghey's name in a yearly list of transgender killings (criteria 1). Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Merely placing the link to "List of people killed for being transgender" in the see also section does not mean this is stating that Brianna Ghey was killed for for this reason. Helper201 (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It implies it, which is misleading. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this article should mention the other. I agree it is misleading because reliable sources do not make that claim. What editors on the other page have agreed to isn't entirely compelling on us here, and consensus can change. If proposal A is/was the consensus then that also implies that article title must change to reflect it, which hasn't happened. If the list was titled "List of transgender people who were killed", for example, then there would be no problem with linking it. -- Colin°^Talk 15:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The Brianna Ghey trial is to happen soon, during the trial we will find out if its a killing for being trans. if it is, most likely she should be added to that list. ^^ --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 13:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Deadname should be included

If it is mentioned in external sources then I think Wikipedia should include it. Pale Nabokov (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done You can think whatever you like but our policy is not to do that. Please see WP:DEADNAME. If a person was not notable under a previous name then there is no reason to include it. Being able to find it online does not make it notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)