Talk:Richardson family murders/Archive 1

Decaying Sorrow

Decaying Sorrow at Vampire Freaks is not Jeremy Steinke, but a friend of his, and member of the band Steinke was in. His name is Grant, and some reports say he is Steinke's cousin. 4.252.73.215 15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)OptyMyst

I removed the link. Feel free to add/remove things from the page yourself, if you know of corrections needed/warranted. --Yank4323 15:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

YCJA

Wikipedia is committing a criminal offence under Canadian law by publishing the fact that the young person is suspected of, charged with and arrested for an offence. You should probably delete references to the allegation right away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.149.207.90 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

WP is hosted in the United States, which means it follows their laws. There is nothing wrong with this page (legally)--speaking as a Canadian myself. :: Colin Keigher 21:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the original statement. The YCJA is being wrongly construed here. While it is a crime to openly out such a person (a youth accused of a crime), the YCJA does NOT require you to be absolutely stupid. It mostly applies to official documents and media outlets, as well as those who are directly related to the incident. Utilization of deductive reasoning to work out who is a murderer (and thus avoid such a person, for instance), isn't punishable. Indeed, it would be quite a leap for the Canadian court system if they were to try and hold someone who -has no good reason to know- something, accountable. If charged with wrongly outing the murderess, one could simply say: "Prove I know it for a fact. Prove I wasn't just shooting my mouth off." Because unless you WERE told by someone reliable, or DID witness the murders, we don't actually KNOW. Putting the name of someone into Wikipedia, if it's verifiable, and doesn't countermand US laws, is perfectly fine. So too would it be fine for me to posit that I believe she did it. This is Canada. If the government really didn't want me to know what everyone else knows, they would have banned news broadcasts and publications from outside of Canada. I doubt that will happen. This case has in fact received national attention and caused Canadians to reconsider the YCJA. 71.7.206.159 (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess the relevant question, then, is whether Wikipedia is a media outlet.

By the way, it looks to me like the YCJA is worded to forbid "any person" in Canada from publishing the names of young offenders as defined in the Act. I'm in the clear, since neither Wikipedia nor this article is aimed at Canadians, I'm not Canadian, and I do not edit this article from Canada, visit it from Canada, or send anybody a link to it when they or I am in Canada, and I do not mention, via e-mail or instant message, specifics about this case to people who are in Canada.

If the government tried to make the argument that its laws applied outside its own borders, it would surely be displeased by the result. dcandeto (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Murderer's name & picture should be public knowledge

Damn right people should know who killed the family. I've already posted the following discussion under the link to the photo:

Thanks for showing this murderer's name & picture. Every news outlet in Canada is suppressing the information, although everyone knows it was the daughter who killed the family. It is a shame that you can kill your entire family and have your identity kept hidden simply because you are under the age of 18. Even worse, I suppose, is the fact she will get a maximum of 10 years in prison and only have to serve 6 years at most. Gotta love our Justice system. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.73.219.237 (talk • contribs).

Legality

The Wikipedia disclaimer states, "Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws." Therefore, as one of the accused is a minor, that person's name should be removed. Hoshq 20:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not illegal for Wikipedia to mention the names of minors accused of crimes, and mentioning Jasmine Richardson as the accused breaks no applicable laws. dcandeto 22:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You may be correct, given that Wikipedia is hosted in the United States, but Canadian contributors may want to familiarize themselves with sections 110, 111, and 138 of Canada's Youth Criminal Justice Act. Loremipsum 02:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I have no plans to edit or even view this article while I'm visiting Canada. I also don't say anything about this article to people who I know are in Canada. Since none of my traffic even leaves the U.S., my edits aren't subject to Canadian law. I do find it interesting that Global National has been identifying the Richardsons as the victims, and then going on to say that the Youth Criminal Justice Act prohibits them from mentioning any relationship between the victims and the accused (often with a smirk from Kevin Newman), and also mentioning that Jeremy Steinke is the boyfriend of the accused, while most media outlets have been mentioning that the girl was accused of killing her parents and brother, and that Jeremy Steinke is the boyfriend of the accused. And then there's this article, which identifies the accused by her initials. It seems to me that any Canadian who gets news from multiple sources would be able to draw the obvious conclusions, and could fill in the blanks on just about everything but the last six letters of her first name. But I digress. dcandeto 09:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems likely that it would be illegal for any Canadian editor to make any edit to the main page, unless it includes removing the girl's name. How about someone (not in Canada) adding a warning? I can't do it, for pretty obvious reasons. Meters 23:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel like I'm going to be in trouble just for knowing this kind of thing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by The hoodie (talk • contribs) 06:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the accused's name was widely published prior to her arrest, as was her picture. In Canadian news articles. --Yamla 15:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes she was identified, but as the article says, that information was suppressed once she became a suspect. As silly as it may be, it is probably illegal to edit the main article from Canada. Meters (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sentencing

It looks like she's going to be sentenced today. dcandeto 14:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

Archives: Archive 1

• This article was undeleted at deletion review: [1] --W.marsh 20:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Daughter's name

Anyway, her name was *! I think it is very very stupid not to write it on wikipedia. It is public, not a secret. Maybe I will go in prison? please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.66.195.134 (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Refactored previous post by 93.66.195.134 to remove Young Offender's name. Lets not start this again. Meters (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to be the one to do it, as I have no desire to break the YCJA, but why isn't the full name of the female co-defendant mentioned in the article? I see no obvious reason why the YCJA should be binding on Wikipedia, given that it's not a news source and not located in Canada.

I suppose there might be some concern with verifiability given that no Canadian media sources will be reporting her name, but some Googling suggests there are ample international sources for it. That Wikipedia should adhere to the gag order seems rather Orwellian to me. --Saforrest (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and there seems to be no objection. Many of the sources used in this article indicate the daughter's name so that can certainly be reliably sourced. We're not subject to Canadian law here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be subject to Canadian law as an entity, but individual editors within Canada certainly are subject to Canadian law — and if a law enforcement agency such as the RCMP chooses to prosecute it, Wikipedia most certainly can be required to provide user information to help investigators identify the individual editor who added the name here. So, bottom line, Wikipedia itself wouldn't be in any danger if the name were added, but the individual editor who chooses to add it most certainly would still be breaking the law and could be arrested and prosecuted as an individual for doing so. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Then I added it, and they're more than welcome to try, as I'm not in Canada and it's in no way illegal in the United States, where I do live. I likely would advise against a Canadian editor adding it, but there are a lot of editors from countries other than Canada. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have requested comment on this from WP:BLP/N#Richardson family murders. It seems to me that, while Wikipedia may make a case for not upholding Canadian law, the principle of protecting the privacy of minors that the Act seeks to enforce should be equally enforced by Wikipedia. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I note that WP:BLP#Privacy of names seems to back me up on this. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The notion that anybody has some sort of right to know or publish the identity of a youth criminal in defiance of the YCJA is absolutely ridiculous and virtually indefensible. Naming her in this article is a WP:POINT-violating endeavour which serves no useful purpose besides flipping Canadian law the bird solely for the sake of flipping Canadian law the bird. In some ways, the legality of it is almost beside the point — nobody in any country possesses any inherent right to know her actual name, regardless of whether or not there's any law against it in that particular jurisdiction. There's simply no compelling reason why her name needs to be published here at all — it doesn't serve any meaningful public interest that can be deemed to override the law of the country where the case is located, and the RCMP certainly can enforce a takedown on the article if necessary. I'd even be prepared to personally forward this situation to their attention if it comes to that. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There is precedent for this sort of action where the RCMP have sought and received the take-down of webpages of foreign websites contravening the Act. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If that occurs then we will let the Foundation deal with it (incidentally, I wasn't aware of that and I can't find any backing for that claim by a quick google search. Do you have a citation for that claim?). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Our article on the YCJA already cites a notable recent example of this. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean the Facevook example? Facebook censors based on pretty close to damn well any complaint. That wasn't a legal complaint that was Canada saying "jump" and Facebook saying "how high?". Moreover, the individuals in that situation were (I think) Canadians who were publishing it. Anyways, this is again all irrelevant. The Foundation can deal with such concerns if they come up. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV pretty much rules out personal assumptions about what Facebook should or shouldn't have done in that situation — we can only treat it as exactly what it was on the face of it: a non-Canadian website complying with Canadian law around identifying underage criminals. Whether they should have or not is strictly your opinion. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this was a reference work. This has nothing to do with "flipping Canadian law the bird". We describe the realistic situations in Iran, China, and North Korea, despite the fact that it is against Iranian, Chinese, and North Korean law to do so. We do not do that to "flip the bird", we do that to provide information, even though other countries have laws which suppress such information.

As to importance, are you meaning to tell me that names of those involved in major incidents are not critical information? "The Watergate Scandal was a conspiracy by a man to burglarize a hotel..." "There was a guy who was a serial killer in Wisconsin...". "Who" is one of the basic five questions a reference should answer, the other four being "What, where, why, when". Would we take information out of the article as to what happened, where it happened, why the police believe it happened, or when it occurred? Of course not, because a location, timeframe, and motive are very basic things. So is a name. It helps one look up further information, and it provides flow and structure ("the girl" and the like is clearly forced).

As to Canada, please feel free to "forward this to them". You'll notice that all the old newspaper articles which name her are quite well online, and have not been subject to a "takedown". This may come as news to you, but Wikimedia isn't hosted in Canada, and it's no more obligated to follow Canadian law then it is obligated to follow the laws of France or South Africa. Nor am I, I'm in the US, and am bound by US law. If you want to argue that this can't go in for some reason (I fail to see why, the name's pretty clearly widely published already), please feel free, but there's no legal issue here. At the very least, ask this gentleman here if you need a clarification. Barring that, it goes back tomorrow. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The point remains that it's not information that anybody has any inherent right to know. It's not essential to the article's context that she be identified by name rather than by the nature of her relationship to the deceased — in fact, it's not even essential that this article exist at all. And WP:BLP#Privacy of names is quite clear that people's actual names can be excluded from articles if there's any valid issue around the name's disclosure in any jurisdiction — that clause does not contain a proviso that it's only subject to American law. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any provision relating to laws at all. The closest thing I see is "...has been intentionally concealed (as in certain court cases)...". That's not the case here, the name has not been intentionally concealed. It has, rather, been widely disseminated. Also, we must consider the spirit of the rule. The section is entitled "Privacy of names". This information is not private, it is public. (Indeed, we link to several very public sources which state it as references, one of which I used as my reference!) We cannot make something private when it is already public, to presume we could would be quite bizarre.

As to "having an inherent right to know", I would submit that this project itself is founded on the very concept that there is a right to know things. This project is supported by a massive nonprofit organization founded on the principle that knowledge should be available to all. That doesn't mean we should have rumor or gossip in our articles, be they a BLP or anything else, because that's not what a reference work does. But this is not rumor, gossip, or supposition, it's public, well-sourced information. (Really, DoubleBlue reverted even my use of "Richardson" in place of "the girl" and the like—are our readers not supposed to know that the surname of an unmarried daughter of the Richardson family was "Richardson"? Is this our idea of protecting privacy?) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, the phrase "has been intentionally concealed" most certainly does include situations where the name is unpublishable by law in the subject's home country — and for another, it's precisely because the name is unpublishable in Canada that it's actually unverifiable information as things currently stand. Until a Canadian journalist who actually has direct access to the trial information publishes her name in a Canadian newspaper, you have absolutely no way to prove that some foreign journalist didn't simply make up a given name for her.

And for the record, I really don't think Wikipedia would consider "the right of people to circumvent the law of their home country by claiming an entitlement to publish otherwise-illegal information on a foreign webserver" to be a core value of the project. YMMV, I suppose, but that's why we have WP:BLP. And it's also why BLP violations are not subject to WP:3RR sanction, meaning that there's no limit to the number of times the name can be removed from the article if necessary. And furthermore, BLP policy also states that Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Bearcat (talk)

(indent reset) Once again, for clarity's sake: Canada is not my home country, the United States of America is. So I'm not circumventing any law of my home country, I'm publishing information about another country which my home country allows me to publish. It would be a sorry state of affairs indeed if we were all restricted by the most restrictive laws in the world! Luckily, that is not so, and I am fortunate enough to live in a country which (despite occasional and sometimes egregious errors) really does tend to respect freedom of speech. As to who their daughter is, plenty of sources before the restriction was put in place gave the daughter's name. Several are even linked from the article. There is also absolutely no restriction about using sources from one country reporting on another (if a US source reported on North Korea, that would most certainly be usable, even if what they reported would be illegal to report were they in North Korea). So yes, it's quite verifiable. Finally, as to 3RR, that exemption applies if and only if there is general agreement a BLP violation even exists. What we have here is a content dispute, as we are dealing with well-sourced, public information. That's no more a "BLP violation" than stating that the murder occurred—it is quite verifiable and quite public. If you want to dispute the content, that is your right, but that is no 3RR exemption. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a BLP violation to publish the name of a criminal whose name cannot be legally published in the country where the crime occurred. Wikipedia is not responsible for what other sources do or don't publish — we are responsible for what we publish. And if the information is a BLP violation — which it most certainly is, as per WP:BLP#Privacy of names — then it doesn't matter how many other sources have or haven't published it. Again, nobody has any right to know or publish her name. Whether they live in a country that's subject to the YCJA or not, there's no legal jurisdiction on earth where there's any constitutional or moral right to know a criminal's name in the absence of an immediate threat to public safety. And the fact that you're American isn't relevant, as you didn't add the name originally — it was added by someone else, and you just came along to reinsert it after another editor removed it.

And to be quite honest, it violates WP:NEWS for this article to even exist at all, really, because the murder simply isn't notable in its own right. The only reason this article exists in the first place is because a Canadian decided to use the fact that Wikipedia isn't officially under the auspices of YCJA to get around the fact that they couldn't legally publish her name on a Canadian website — especially in recent years, there's been a really irritating and absolutely indefensible trend of Canadians purposely poking loopholes in the YCJA by running to foreign websites like Wikipedia or Facebook in order to undermine it with impunity, and Wikipedia absolutely cannot allow itself to become a part of that — it just isn't worth setting a precedent that would make Wikipedia into a haven for violations of Canadian criminal law.

And finally, for the record, the right to publish the name of a 12-year-old criminal is not a "freedom of speech" issue. Freedom of speech does not override privacy rights. And falsely equating it to state censorship in a totalitarian state is inflammatory, offensive and absolutely not on — Canada may have a slightly different set of values around certain issues than the United States does, but it's in absolutely no way a less fundamentally free society. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of speech does not override blasphemy. Or for that matter I could say that same thing about Germany and Holocaust denial. Please, let's not throw our own cultural mores into this matter and stick to policy concerns. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one throwing cultural mores into this — I'm not the one who made the bullshit assertion that this was in any way comparable to combatting government censorship in a totalitarian state. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent)As I've mentioned before, the *only* way to avoid violation of Canadian rules is to delete this entire article. If you read Canadian newspapers, you'll notice they dodge the issue, by breaking coverage into two "versions" of the story. One version mentions the family who was the victim, and doesn't mention it's their daughter accused/convicted of the crime, leaving the false impression it was some kind of random killing (a common early version). Then, there's the other version, which says some anonymous girl killed her parents+brother, giving none of the relevant background that could identify the family (common current version). The newspapers leave people to put the two groups of stories together. Of course, a Wikipedia article can't have separate versions. Now, I originally wanted inclusion of the first name, but now accept removal, for the sole reason it's evidently non-notable (though it is verifiable). The papers now call her "J.R." and that's what (if anything) we should call her, not because of Canadian law, but because of Wikipedia's policy. --Rob (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no benefit to the reader to know the young person's name and the article is in no way less understandable by omitting the name. Equating protecting the privacy of minors with censorship in North Korea is offensive and untrue. I do not have any problem with the way the current article is phrased and ask what is gained by Wikipedia violating Canadian law in order to publish the person's name. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The current version you favour already violates the very law you wish to follow. The article as it stands, and all previous versions, clearly identifies the offender. The Richardson's had exactly one daughter. If you want to follow the Canadian law, you have remove the name "Richardson" entirely, or you have to remove any mention of her relationship to the victims. Or, we can all quit pretending we're following Canadian law on this. The reason I'm arguing this point (even though I accept exclusion of the first name), is I do not want anybody to use this issue as a precedent to censor future articles. --Rob (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I favour protecting the privacy of minors. How we do that is a matter of interpretation and we can argue for or against publishing the family name or relationship. The newspapers are being particularly careful to ensure they follow the Act as it says, "no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person". My argument is that we protect the privacy of minors particularly when it is being enforced by the local law. The precedent I favour is simply protecting the privacy of minors. Publishing the name of the person adds nothing to the understanding of this article. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Who" is a fundamental question in any account of anything, be it journalism or scholarly work. We cannot possibly have a complete article without fully answering the question "Who was involved?", any more than we could without answering "When did this occur?" or "Where did it happen?". We can't have an article up to even the most rudimentary, grade-school standards of writing without answering those. We can certainly reliably source an answer to that question here, and so we should. As to the above assertions by Bearcat that the article shouldn't exist, we're apparently already past that question and we've decided that it should. If we are to have an article, it needs to be properly written and complete. If you think it shouldn't exist, you may assert that that way.

I'm also unclear as to the above reference to notability as forbidding such insertion. Firstly, notability is not a policy (though it is a guideline I do believe should be followed in almost all cases). Secondly, and more importantly, it explicitly does not regulate article content, only what we have an article on. There are enough reliable, nontrivial sources here to satisfy notability of the article subject. Finally, even if notability were used as a barometer here, there are plenty of reliable sources using the real name, so there as well, we see that (at least until legally restricted) reliable sources did indeed publish the name.

Finally, DoubleBlue is bringing up Canadian law again. Let's be clear here. Canadian law is no more relevant here than Italian law or Mongolian law. Our servers are not in Canada. They are in the United States of America. The issue of any Canadian law here is utterly irrelevant. If you want to try to assert some kind of "moral" issue, feel free to do so. I would ask, then, this basic question: What is the moral dilemma in talking about already-public information in public? We are not exactly at risk of violating someone's privacy here. Have a look at some searches here: A generic search one might do for information on the murders, [2], name available second link down; a more specific search for the murderer's real name, [3], very first link; news reports containing her name that we link to as sources: [4], [5], [6]. I'm having a hard time seeing a moral issue in...what? Discussing already-public information in public? That's much like saying it's a privacy violation to say O.J. Simpson was accused of murdering his ex-wife. That's not exactly private information. I guess, given that, I fail to see how there's any possibility of "privacy violation". The very fact that we have reliable, independent sources that are available to the public confirming the information means the information is not private. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that I have pretty consistently stated that my goal here is the protection of privacy for minors. I quoted Canadian law above in reply to why the newspapers do not even state the family name. Your argument does not state any benefit to publishing the person's name beyond newspapers follow the 5Ws. The article already who was convicted of the crime. What additional benefit comes from knowing the name? DoubleBlue (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually not only newspapers follow the 5W's, they're a staple of almost any type of writing, be it scholarly, journalistic, reference, what have you. So that is a significant benefit, as we are a reference work, and should include relevant and reliably-sourced information. There's also a question of mine you've not answered: How can one protect the privacy of information when it is already widely available to the public? How can such information be considered private to begin with? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The article already says who; it need not use the name. Wikipedia has a duty to protect the privacy of minors, whether others fail that duty has no affect on ours. The only reliable source I see comes from only recently following the crime and far before the facts are known and does not and could not identify the perpetrator who was unknown at the time. DoubleBlue (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"J******* Richardson: The youngest person ever charged with multiple counts of murder in Canada". --Rob (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that as a WP:RS and it still does not answer why the name makes any positive difference that overwhelms the negative. What goal is sought in publishing a minor's name? DoubleBlue (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course, I don't (any longer) think we need her first name, as I said above. My point is it is reliably sourced. You're playing a silly game, where you don't find a single source that includes all the facts, including her first name, in one online spot, so you claim it's not reliably sourced. There's ample reliable sourcing for everything, but it's not all in one article, anywhere. Canada's laws have forced the pieces of the story to be broken up, in a clumsy way, in different articles (often one newspaper will run stories will all the facts, but never in a single article). If you think this makes the information unreliable, then you must want to delete the entire article, as the whole thing has the same problem. Every single major print source in Canada printed "J.R."'s full name. All, are available, right now, to anybody who goes to a library (physically or on the non-free web). Even though I also accept removal of the first name, I think it is absolutely essential we understand the proper reasons for doing it, so this case isn't used as a bad precedent. --Rob (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it appears we may have been shouting past each other when we are, in fact, in agreement. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, the article already answers "who": the daughter of the deceased. Not revealing whether her first name is Tiffani or Jennypoo or Maryjane or Fido or Muffin Lips doesn't impair the reader's understanding of the situation, or the quality of the article, in the slightest. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I would quite strongly disagree, especially in this case. Not only is it a bad and dangerous precedent that we should not include well-sourced information, I would say that the splitups of the sources here make it all the more important that the information be included, anyone researching this will need it tied together. Leaving out the name would be like leaving out that it happened in Medicine Hat—we probably could still have something of an article, but it would be badly lacking and hamper those who wish to research further. The job of a reference work, first and foremost, is to facilitate research. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? What possible difference in understanding does giving the minor's name make? It is nothing like leaving out the city's name; without the city name we don't know where it happened, without the minor's name we still know who was convicted. As Bearcat stated, what name is given the person is immaterial to knowledge of the subject but leaving it out is consistent with Wikipedia's obligation to protect the privacy of minors. There is nothing lost in not naming the minor. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Very well, then would you object to using only the latitude and longitude of the city, rather than its common name? Do you think that would detract from the article? After all, we'd still be describing precisely where it happened. But by doing it in an awkward, nonstandard way, we would be detracting from the article, as the common and most informative style is to use the name. The same is true here. The common and most informative style is to give the name, not the killer's relationship to the victims. By not including it, we are failing to include verifiable and pertinent information, and disrupting the flow of the article by writing it in an awkward manner that would impede a researcher, just as if we used "50°02′30″N 110°40′39″W" rather than Medicine Hat. In the most academic, semantic sense, we could say "Sure, the article still says exactly where it happened!" But that is semantics. We can be more precise and use a better, more informative style than that. And so we should. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That's preposterous. The name of the person is meaningless to the reader; the name of the city is not. DoubleBlue (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How so? Many readers may not know offhand where Medicine Hat is or much about it, but putting a common name helps them research further if they wish or need to. The same is true of the name of the killer. For better or worse, the name is used in reports of the crime and would be an aid to research. That's not "meaningless" to readers of a reference work, it's the entire point of a reference work—to be a basic overview and to provide a launching point for further research. That's our mission. (By the way, when making an assertion in a debate or discussion, it is customary to provide one's reasoning behind it, it helps the discussion from degenerating into "Is not! Is too!") Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I will not respond to personal attacks. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What conceivable effect does the difference between identifying the perpetrator by name and identifying her solely as the daughter of the deceased have on the actual research value of this article? Answer: none whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my two cents: given how many newspapers have her name there's no real protection that occurs from not putting the name in the article. If the logic for BLP in this context is "do no harm" there's really no issue because there's no possibility that inclusion here can reasonably do any harm. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The subject is a minor whose name is prohibited to be published by Canadian law to protect the privacy of a minor. Wikipedia has an obligation to protect the privacy of minors. A few newspapers may have briefly published the name when the person's whereabouts and status was unknown but have not since. Any other publications publishing after the fact are, besides synthesising the facts to arrive at that conclusion, not to be imitated by Wikipedia. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself a bit here. As many have explained, Canadian law is irrelevant for our purposes and is about as relevant as Thai law prohibiting criticism of the Thai king or such. Furthermore, the complaint that newspapers have not published the name since the conviction is irrelevant since the name was published prior and other reliable sources have also. I'm furthermore a bit confused by the statement that "Any other publications publishing after the fact are, besides synthesising the facts to arrive at that conclusion, not to be imitated by Wikipedia". Of course they are engaging in synthesis. Reliable sources of all sorts (including newspapers) engage in synthesis all the time. There's nothing wrong with using synthesis from a reliable source. Otherwise pretty close to everything would not be reliable. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

While Wikipedia isn't formally bound by the letter of Canadian law, there's absolutely no valid reason for us to disrespect or thumb our noses at the spirit of the law. There are about a dozen valid reasons to exclude the name here, including respect for the higher legal and moral principle of defending the privacy of a minor (a principle which most certainly does ethically outrank any mythical "inalienable right of the reader to know every last little prurient detail"), while the only reason to include the name here would be thumbing our noses at Canadian law just because we can. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I repeat myself when I'm asked questions to which I've already responded. I have said from the beginning that issue is not Canadian law, it is protection of privacy of minors. The fact that this minor's name is protected by Canadian law is of interest when evaluating whether this should be the case here. Conflating the protection of privacy of minors by Canadian law to censorship or totalitarian regimes is offensive and attempting to inflame. I will now repeat my first statement here: Wikipedia may make a case for not upholding Canadian law, however, the principle of protecting the privacy of minors that the Act seeks to enforce should be equally enforced by Wikipedia and WP:BLP#Privacy of names backs me up on this. What do you hope to gain by publishing a minor's name? DoubleBlue (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Then please allow me to repeat myself, because I'm still not clear on this: How does protection of privacy even apply when the information in question is not private at all, but published in many reputable sources and easily available to the public? To protect the privacy of something, would that thing not need to be, above all, private? (By the way, I'm sorry if you interpreted the above as a personal attack, I did not intend it that way. It was simply to say that argument by assertion really gets us nowhere, and that including our reasoning allows us to have a real discussion on the merits of arguments.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not responsible for what other sources do or don't publish. We are responsible for what we publish. We can and do frequently exclude information from Wikipedia articles that constitutes a privacy violation, even if the same information is freely available in other sources that don't have the same content policies as we do. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Wikipedia has an obligation to protect the privacy of minors. That other "reputable" (I contest that phrasing) sources make assertions about the identity does not mean we are relieved of our obligation. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So what would be the limit? If it were published in the New York Times would that be enough? The Times and the WSJ? Both and CNN? All three and Fox News (ok, being honest Fox would probably publish it well before the others). There's no logical limit to this. And the fact that this is easily googlable means there's no real possibility of harm. This is an attempt to follow an ideology to censor well-sourced content. I sympathize greatly but there's no good reason either based on policy or pragmatics to do this. Wikipedia is not censored. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It is beside the point somewhat but I have yet to see a reliable source for the name of the minor who was arrested or convicted. Try punching the name into GoogleNews and see if anything about arrest or conviction comes up. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What on earth do you suppose the "ideology" behind this to be? Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That minors have more privacy rights than the general public to the extent that moral people will go out of their way to not bring attention to data about them as a matter of principle rather than just a matter of pragmatic risk of harm. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How is that an ideology? Firstly, nobody said minors had more privacy rights than the general public — but they don't have less, either. Secondly, the pragmatic risk of harm is the principle at stake here: would you want the entire rest of your life to be influenced by public knowledge of something you did at the age of 12, when you were in no way old or mature enough to be fully cognizant of the legal or moral implications of your actions? Would you want to be denied the opportunity to even try to be rehabilitated back into society after you'd done your time? Would you want your rights as a citizen of the country you live in to be trampled on just because a website in a foreign country decided that since it wasn't legally obligated to follow the law that granted you those rights, it would ignore the ethical principle at stake by publishing your name for no discernible reason beyond the fact that it could? That's the risk of harm here; it's precisely why the YCJA contains the provisions it does in the first place. And thirdly, neither DoubleBlue nor I have any kind of reputation around here as being excessively ideological editors. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that I who seem to be more in favor of inclusion have more belief in privacy rights to minors. At a fundamental level, minors aren't responsible for themselves to the same extent that adults are. That means that there's more potential for them to screw in a really embarrassing way. There's less justification for publicizing such information about people who are not as responsible for their actions. That is an essentially ideological argument, and one which I support in its more general forms. And like many others ideological claims (if you don't like the term "ideology"(which for reasons I don't fully understand seems to carry a negative connotations to some people) use the term personal points of view) I set it aside when considering Wikipedia content issues. Now moving on to the less of your comment: what I personally would want is close to irrelevant. We are writing an encyclopedia according to neutral point of view not a sympathetic or empathetic point of view regardless of how much sympathy or empathy we have for the individuals in question. Moreover, as already explained there's no valid pragmatic concern here. The name is widely disseminated and continues to be disseminated further. No censorship of Wikipedia will put this name out of the easily researchable. Contrast this for example with Genie where I supported keeping her name out because there was a real possibility that future harm could result given that the name was not at all widely publicized and the people handling the case deliberately choose a pseudonym. In this case, we cannot put the genie back in the bottle. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not responsible for what other sources do or don't publish. We are responsible for what we publish. We can and do frequently exclude information from Wikipedia articles that constitutes a privacy violation, even if the same information is freely available in other sources that don't have the same content policies as we do. And this situation isn't as different from Genie's as you may think — her name is locatable on the web, too, if you're determined to find it. But that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should participate in disseminating either name. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't claim that Genie's name was not locatable. It was just pretty damn hard to do so if you didn't know it in advance. In contrast in this case it is very easy to locate the name. Moreover, you cannot claim that you are being "pragmatic" and and say that we have to do this regardless of what other publications have done. That's the exact opposite of pragmatism and is essentially POV pushing. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the very essence of pragmatism to insist that we base this decision on our policies and procedures (nobody has yet made even the slightest case for why WP:BLP#Privacy of names doesn't apply here, for example), and not on what other publications have or haven't done. Again: Wikipedia is not responsible for what other sources do or don't publish. We are responsible for what we publish. We can and do frequently exclude information from Wikipedia articles that constitutes a privacy violation, even if the same information is freely available in other sources that don't have the same content policies as we do. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No one is claiming that we shouldn't use our policies and guidelines. But to claim that it is "pragmatic" to ignore what is going on surrounding us is just absurd. Maybe looking up the word "pragmatic" might help? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) To respond to DoubleBlue above, I've actually found a scholarly study [7] that certainly reports on her conviction for the crime, and uses not only her name but photo. This is a biography of the writer, who is a PhD: [8]. I don't think there's any case for excluding the name when even a scholarly source uses it, that bears far more weight than a news story. (That aside, I already used the news story as a source, it's not a leap for anyone to say "Oh, here's a news story that says this is the name of the daughter, here's a news story saying the daughter was convicted.") But when other scholarly references have decided to use the name, we would be pushing a viewpoint by deciding to exclude it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Scholarly study? We have a different definition for that. It appears as an advertisement for a tv show to me and there are no sources for it in the bibliography. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because an article on a website is written by somebody who has a Ph.D. doesn't automatically make it a scholarly study. Especially not when the website it's published on says "Copyright Turner Broadcasting System" at the bottom. What academic journal was it published in, for example? Who peer-reviewed it? Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(To DoubleBlue) Long ad. I also don't see the mention of the TV show ostensibly being advertised, what is it? When is it on? As to "sources in the bibliography", there is a bibliography (a rather extensive one), I don't think each example would have to be sourced for us to consider this a study. I suppose I consider a researched study conducted by an academic in the field to be a scholarly study. Now, this likely was not peer reviewed, but it still does show that in academic treatment of the work the name is used, and that it is clearly not private and is readily available to the public. That is the main point here, not the merits or flaws of the study itself.

(To Bearcat) Where did I say it was peer-reviewed or published in a journal? The point here is the information is readily available, whether we're talking news reporters or PhD's reporting on the subject. We can't have an issue of protecting privacy without, first and foremost, something being private to begin with! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You called it a "scholarly study". A peer-reviewed article published in an academic journal is what "scholarly study" means. Even if a person with a Ph.D. writes it, an article on the website of a sensationalist "true crime" TV show on TBS is not a scholarly study. Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

And we come back to the beginning. It is private because the publication of the minor's name is illegal where the whole thing took place and anyone with knowledge of the case is restricted by that law. Jumping from the initial reports of a missing person to the identity of the convict may be reasonable but the privacy laws prevent that from being established conclusively. The "extensive" bibliography has no sources whatsoever for the pages on this case.

Beyond that, Wikipedia's policy on the privacy of living people (including WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy), especially minors, should exclude this name from publication regardless. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If we'd like to play semantics, I can call it a "study by a scholar", hopefully we can at least agree on that regardless of where it might be published. That's not really the issue here, the issue is that the information is available to the public through reliable sources and therefore isn't private. I'm not interested in playing word games or nitpicking as to a definition. As to other sources using synthesis, we can use other sources that use synthesis all the time. We just can't do it ourself, and even then we can't only to an unreasonable degree. We can use basic logic to come to simple, uncontestable conclusions, just not more complex syntheses. "J.R. is the only surviving daughter." "The only surviving daughter was convicted of the crime." "Therefore, J.R. was convicted of the crime." That's not a leap of any type, and to claim there's any is lawyering. There's no real possibility here that the person we're discussing is not the person who was convicted, and I don't think you really believe that. Regardless, however, we have reliable sources that do report the name of who was convicted, and we can use those. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Privacy of names explicitly states that in some cases, there are extenuating circumstances where the mere fact that media sources are available for a person's name still doesn't mean that our article should actually include that name. This is quite clearly one of those circumstances, and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise except by pulling semantic games over the definition of the word "privacy": if other sources have felt free to violate her privacy, it's somehow not a privacy violation anymore if we do it too? It takes just one violation to make the information permanently free for anybody to make use of as they see fit? That's a pretty novel spin on the concept of privacy, and it frankly wouldn't last ten seconds in a court of law — if somebody violates your privacy by posting your bank account number here, since the information's already been made public it isn't a privacy violation anymore if I repost your bank account number somewhere else?

And I also know damn well that you wouldn't have tried to describe a news article as a scholarly study that should carry higher weight in deciding whether to include the name if it weren't for the fact that WP:BLP#Privacy of names specifically states that scholarly studies carry higher weight than news articles when deciding whether to include sensitive names. Funny how selective you are about the application of that policy — it only applies here if it can be invoked in favour of inclusion?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: Wikipedia is not responsible for what other sources do or don't publish. We are responsible for what we publish. We can and do frequently exclude information from Wikipedia articles that constitutes a privacy violation, even if the same information is freely available in other sources that don't have the same content policies as we do. Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record myself, how can one protect the privacy of something that's not private? It's like referring to saving the life of someone who's already dead—it's on its face impossible and the suggestion seems rather bizarre. If we want to define "privacy", here is how Wiktionary defines it:

1. "The state of being private; the state of not being seen by others." [9]

That would move us on to the definition of "private", the most relevant definition seeming to be number 3:

1. "Not accessible by the public. private property." [10]

The other definitions I can find are quite similar, bearing the common thread that something which is private is not open or available to the public. In fact, "public" and "private" are listed as antonyms. If something is public, it is not private, and vice versa. In this case, the information is demonstrably and readily available to the public. It is not private. Somehow, there seems to be an assertion here that it is both.

For when "Privacy of names" applies, I'm afraid it really doesn't apply here at all, by definition.

Finally, the source I showed you is not a news report. It is a study by a scholar. But the news reports themselves show that "privacy" does not apply here, because there is no privacy to protect in the first place! Whether or not one believes the name should have been made public, it has been made public by reliable sources. One cannot protect something which does not exist. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not how privacy works under law. Confidential information does not lose its privacy status just because somebody violates it — no matter how many times privacy is violated, the information is still protected under privacy legislation and every individual violation of privacy is still an individual violation of privacy. It doesn't matter if that privacy is violated a million times by a million individual people, it still doesn't become public information — the million-and-first person to violate that privacy can still be held individually responsible under law for violating privacy, because the information is still covered by privacy law. Private information is private information no matter how many people violate that privacy by publicizing it. It's not like trying to save the life of somebody who's already dead; it's much more like simply declaring them dead, while they're still physically yelling for help, just because of one symptom that looks like death.

And again: an article on the website of a sensationalist true crime television show on TBS is not a scholarly study. You can call it a "study by a scholar" (as if that meant anything different than "scholarly study") all you like — but TBS is news media, not a peer-reviewed academic journal, and thus content that it publishes on its website is not scholarly study, but news reporting. Even if it's written by a person with a Ph.D., it's still news reporting, because it's being published by a news source. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, many forms of confidential information don't work that way. For example, trade secrets if they become widely disseminated are no longer treated as trade secrets. It is not at all true in general that "private information" remains somehow private after is has been published. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Intellectual property has nothing to do with personal privacy law. Bearcat (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe reread what I wrote. The general point was about confidential information. Moreover, as we've already established this isn't about what is legally binding on anyone at all. So let's stop trying to focus on Canadian privacy law ok? The basic point should be clear. Unless one has some fundamental commitment to certain types of information remaining private no matter what (which would be a POV) the basic pragmatic result is to note that the information in question is very much out in the open. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Privacy law works the same way in the United States as it does in Canada. The only difference is what kind of information is covered by it or not. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP is a policy too. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not a study at all, it's a sensationalist collection of cases of the kind made by such tv shows to encourage viewers to continue to watch the show or distribute the links to others to encourage new viewership. The sourcing is off-topic anyway. What is paramount here is that we do not violate the privacy of living people and minors in particular. WP:BLP#Privacy of names very much applies here as well. "Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases or occupations), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their 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." The daughter's name was only released for the few hours when her whereabouts and status were unknown. There are too many reasons not to publish and the argument that you can find the name elsewhere does not mitigate our responsibility to do what is right. I believe the argument has run its course and we are only going in circles. You claim the facts are verifiable, thus we publish. I claim the protection of privacy of living people overrides that. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be running in circles a bit. Maybe we should wait a bit for others to take a look? DoubleBlue and BearCat keep repeating that it is private while Seraphim and I keep repeating that it has been published including in sources after the conviction and pointing out that there's no special need for those to be Canadian sources. (Although I'm inclined to agree that calling this report a "scholarly report" is stretching things). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems to me that Wikipedia policy is to protect minors. And I believe the relevant US law--which is absolutely applicable to WP--is COPPA, in terms of the spirit we should obey when it comes to the privacy of minors.

Just because we can publish something under US law doesn't meant that we should. // roux   editor review 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Response to RFC I don't think that any Wikipedian should feel bound by any laws except those of their own country, and Wikipedia as a whole should definitely not allow any one country to censor our publication (subject, of course, to the usual legal caveats regarding Wikipedia getting sued). If the use of the daughter's name is relevant and helpful to the article, and in keeping with our own policies, we should print it. RayAYang (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Relevant? Yes. Necessary? No. We routinely blank and oversight material in userspace that identifies minors. This is a 12 year old girl who committed a tragic and terrible act. But the point is, she's twelve. She's a minor, and no matter what else she's done she deserves a certain amount of privacy to which adults are not entitled. Forget laws for a minute: the right thing to do is to allow her some shreds of dignity and privacy. She's lived for twelve years and her life is now functionally over. Leave her alone. Report the facts, leave her name out of it. We have these laws in Canada for a reason. And like I said: Just because we can publish something under US law doesn't meant that we should. Wikipedia routinely enforces policies that are stricter than the law; why should this be any different? // roux   editor review 01:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is it's not and should not be within Wikipedia's policy of WP:BLP. We must protect the privacy of minors. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The question at RFC was a question of respecting Canadian law, not the bounds of our WP:BLP policy. My apologies if the question mischaracterized the discussion here; I was answering the question as posed. RayAYang (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there's a Canadian law angle here was mentioned in the RFC question, but it wasn't the crux of the question as phrased — the crux was WP:BLP#Privacy of names. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that Wikipedia should abide by Canadian law for the sake of abiding by Canadian law. I do believe that Wikipedia should be written conservatively, with regards to subjects' privacy. How conservatively are we really writing if we hold ourselves to a lower standard than that to which publications in a liberal democracy with constitutionally-protected free speech are legally held? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad analogy since in many countries like the United States this would never occur and such a law would be considered to be going against basic free speech. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And in many free and democratic societies reasonable limits are considered justified when balancing harming the personal privacy of a minor. And on Wikipedia, WP:BLP recognises that articles can affect real people's lives and we have an ethical and legal responsibility to do no unjustified harm. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still unclear as to what actual (not theoretical, not "But we shouldn't anyway", but actual) harm we could do, when the information in question is widely and readily available to the public. "Do no harm" might be a fine principle, but we should only invoke it upon very certain and indisputable cases where harm would be done. I can't see what effect "privacy" for information which is, when we cut through everything else, not private, would have, nor the lack thereof. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Two things: first, I reject your assertion that theoretical harm isn't sufficient to exercise restraint. In fact, following your logic as long as a BLP violation is reported elsewhere on the internet, we should feel free to emulate it, since "the cat's out of the bag" (after all, repeating somebody else's non-actionable defamation doesn't result in actual harm, right?). Second, though I acknowledge that the minor's name is findable elsewhere on the internet, it's not findable with anywhere near the ease it would be if Wikipedia and its assorted mirrors picked it up (in fact, a healthy percentage of the sites that currently carry the name originally scraped it from Wikipedia). So as far as actual harm goes, including the name here would increase the prominence of the minor's name by a great deal. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, there's a large difference between repeating rumors and repeating reliably-sourced information. We are (for better or worse) generally considered a more reliable source than your average rumor blog, so repeating such assertions based solely on that does do harm, by lending credence to information that has not been fact-checked or verified. On the other hand, here we're talking about repeating reliable information there is no reason to doubt. By definition, putting anything anywhere increases its prominence. Putting information about Monica Lewinsky here increases the prominence of that, so by your definition does some measurable "harm" and should be taken out. It doesn't work like that, if information is already out in reliable sources, it's not private. It's still available to the public, and taking a bit (and a slight bit at that, some very simple Google searches pull it up easily) of effort out of the equation is insufficient to say "It will do harm". Nor in this case are we repeating rumors or speculation, we are repeating facts verified by a reliable source, so your above assertion is not applicable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll refer you back to WP:BLP though. Just because you can find a reference for something does not mean we need to publish it. DoubleBlue (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd advise you to reread what I said earlier about privacy law. Just because a source violates privacy rules by publishing private information doesn't mean that the information becomes public; it remains covered under privacy law no matter how many violations occur. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Boy, that's a lot of arguments. Sadly, none of them change the fact that Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia will not be prosecuted for posting the information, therefore Wikipedia has no legal issues with harbouring it. The info is certainly relevant. Therefore, as long as it can be reliably sourced (and it can), it belongs in the article. Even if I gave a rat's ass about this girl's future--which I most assuredly don't--that would be a wholly irrelevant point of debate, for the aforementioned reason. --Hiddekel (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV pretty much invalidates the notion that whether you personally give a rat's ass about this girl's future or not is in any way relevant to the discussion. Wikipedia has an explicit policy about WP:BLP#Privacy of names, which this article unequivocally falls under. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a re-read of WP:NOTCENSORED. It is mostly about not hiding potentially offensive content and explicitly allows removal under WP:BLP. Whether you think protecting the privacy of minors is a legal issue for Wikipedia or not is possibly interesting, though you don't explain why not, it is still against policy and violating it in this case has no benefit. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not prohibit publication of her name. It merely states that it may be preferable to omit it. In this instance, it's clear that there is no community consensus to omit the name; rather, there's a strong impetus to publish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.104.205 (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors who support including the name: Saforrest, Seraphimblade, JoshuaZ, RayAYang, Hidekkel

Editors who oppose including the name: Bearcat, DoubleBlue, Sarcasticidealist, Thivierr, Roux

Not sure where you get the idea that "there's a strong impetus to publish". Seems pretty deadlocked at the moment. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My view on this is that the girl's name should be omitted. I don't care to get into extensive debate on the topic, but based on WP:BLP#Privacy of names and the fact that the name was withdrawn from printing once she was suspected, arrested and convicted. If someone simply has to know the name, it's easily found. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I support omission of her name per WP:BLP#Privacy of names. momoricks (make my day) 11:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wildhartlive, that's kind of the issue. If someone wants to know the name, it's easily and reliably found (indeed, including from sources we cite as references in this very article!) So I'm going to ask again, how does a section on "privacy" apply to something which is not private, and is instead public knowledge? It's a bit like stating that "BLP" applies to someone dead 200 years, despite the title "Biographies of living persons". In this case, there is no privacy in this name to protect. You can't protect something that's not there to begin with. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It is prohibited under Canadian law, where this took place and was tried, to publish the name of a minor involved. Wikipedia rightly has a policy to protect the privacy of names in just such cases and that should be respected; not imitating those who claim to publish the person's name regardless. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia rightly does have a policy to protect the policy of names when the name is private. What I am asking, and what your answers are nonresponsive to, is one specific point. If a name is already not private, how can we protect its privacy? How can one preserve what has already been lost? What is the good in slamming the barn door after the horse has long since gotten to the next county? That seems nonsensical to me, so I would very much appreciate an explanation addressing that specific point. I understand that it's illegal to publish the name in Canada. That has nothing to do with the question I actually asked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Private information does not become public information under law just because the privacy of the information has been violated. It doesn't matter how many sources decide to publicize private information, it's still private information because it's still covered under privacy law. "Private but violated" does not equal "public", no matter how many times you assert it so. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. It is wrong to violate the privacy of a minor in these cases regardless if it's the first time or not. It is still private information and we must uphold that privacy; not publicise it. Wikipedia rightly keeps a BLP policy and does not just sink to the lowest common denominator. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you please show me the law from the United States of America or the state of Florida which prohibits such publication? I'm not aware of it. If the issue is just a Canadian law, we publish things that are in contravention of UK law (indeed, there currently is a tremendous furor over that, and we're still refusing to remove it despite UK ISPs blocking access to parts of Wikipedia). We publish things in contravention of French and German law such as holocaust denial and Tron (hacker). All of these countries are liberal democracies, to respond to the points earlier, but we still do not obey their local peculiarities of what they happen to censor (or "keep private" if you prefer). There is no reason to do differently for Canada. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The rationale for omitting is not as convoluted as you try to make it. The policy is WP:BLP. A relevant subsection is WP:BLP#Privacy of names. A relevant clause is the name has been "intentionally concealed" by Canada's Youth Criminal Justice Act. The given name adds no value to the article; publishing it violates the privacy of a minor. Personal feelings about any particular case are not relevant; the BLP policy supersedes, as it should. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(out) In fact, let's break that down: Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.

Clearly this person is only notable for a single event.

When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated

It has not been widely disseminated in traditional media. We can safely ignore the Internet when discussing 'widely'; everything is 'widely disseminated' online by definition.

or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases or occupations),

I would say that specific legislation prohibiting such publication counts as 'intentionally concealed'.

it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.

Is there any loss of context with the name omitted? No.

// roux   05:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to RfC local law should be respected. This post by Jimmy Wales relates to copyright law, but expresses a general principle that local laws should be followed unless we have a very good reason not to. It certainly does not express the opinion that we don't need to care about the law outside Florida, just because it suits us to do so. Prohibitions on publishing the names of minors accused of crimes is very common is liberal democracies. I can't see a compelling reason why we should want to ignore Canadian law on this instance. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Move to a venue for discussion that can deal with policy issues. Assuming that it is possible under current WP policy
I think we can all agree that 'we will not be bound by Canada's Orwellian tyranny' and 'we will resist the WP Uber Alles declaration of impunity' do not categorize the case here; no one here is trying to enslave anyone, and the case for sovereignty is not clear. Neither, unfortunately, does WP policy seem to be...yet, as is shown by the fact that we are reaching for quotes from Jimmy Wales about a different area of law regarding a different country. Not saying that makes them inappropriate, saying we deserve better to work with. I propose that this is a perfect opportunity for WP policy refinement; this case needs to be referred to a higher authority.

As you may be able to surmise from my qualification "Assuming that is possible...", I am a fairly new editor, so my belief that we should be able to take this case to a policy-making forum may be no more than a possibility for the distant future.

That said, I do have one thing to add.
Scholars, and although I am thinking of the medical profession, it may well apply to others, typically write about the human subjects of their cases, of any age, with pseudonyms. Anarchangel (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have read this discussion with some real concern. First I am a Canadian who happens to live 3 blocks from where this murder occured, but that doesnt really matter. This is a very important issue for wikipedia in my view. The article as its presented is already in violation of the publication rules and the Canadian youth criminal justice act. It should be pointed out that:

1) The YCJA never contemplated or spoke to a potential youth mass murderer, one who will be released back into the public in 5 short years and who is somehow granted perpetual anonomity. So for those of you who are argueing that "the law exists for a reason" and other nonsense you have not supported your point. The public has a right to know and also a right to be protected - at times (even in this case) the media was allowed to report on the girls name, and often times in the YCJA you see this ban lifted and then put back in place depending on circumstance - so there is nothing sacred in Canadian Law that protects this identity forever. By all accounts the YCJA never considered this possibility and therefor cannot be called upon in some appeal to authority to support the non publication position.

2) This wikipedia article already breaks the publication rules many are citing in defence of witholding her first name. (JR as she was refered to in court). In Canada newspapers were tied to 2 distinctly absurd positions. They could either - publish the fact that the girl was the 12 year old daughter of the victims and withhold the victims names. OR they could publish the victims names, but not reveal the accused relationship. Of course there was no coordinated reporting of the incident so some news articles went one way, others went another - often times within the same newspaper, anybody could put the information together themselves. So this wikipedia article as it is presented is in violation of the judges instructions in Canada. Since the article itself is already against the publication rules it is absurd to pick an arbitrary point for censorship now and apply it to her first name.

As a matter of jurisdiction wikipedia is not subject to the rules of a Canadian publication law that only exists for this accused on the slimest of technicalities. It was never intended or designed to be upheld for this purpose. Appealing to some great wisdom of "the law" in this case is completly without merit - and it is hardly as though laws should go unchallenged. I would encourage you to instead look at your own US constitution and look to the wisdom of free speech offered there in. It is disrespecful for us to ask Americans to set aside their own hard faught and noble values on the topic of free speech to support the unintended consequences of a youth justice legislation for a Canadian mass murderer. it is simply too slippery a slope for an organization (wikipedia) whose sole purpose is to disseminate accurate information to be dancing with censorship on the publication of facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DangerMousemh (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The public does not have an inalienable right to know the full name of a 12-year-old criminal, and "free speech" is not some uniquely American value that Canadians have no understanding of or familiarity with. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Restore previous version

I was surprised to find the daughter's name removed from the article. Until November 17, the article included her name, which was backed up by widely published sources. On that date, her name was removed by an editor citing WP:BLP, which is an odd argument since I don't think WP:BLP has ever been used to omit the widely publicized name of a murderer. The redaction generated criticism on this talk page, and a debate ensued. An RFC failed to move the debate any closer to a resolution.

I believe that Wikipedia procedure in a case like this -- in which there is no consensus to remove a long-standing piece of data from an article -- is to return to the status quo ante. Therefore, the October 8 version of the page should be restored, perhaps with other changes made since then included. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"Return to the status quo ante" is not an invariable procedure that has no permissible exceptions. Under WP:BLP#Privacy of names, this is a situation where including the name is the position that would require a solid consensus behind it and non-inclusion has to be the no-consensus default. And as for your claim that "I don't think WP:BLP has ever been used to omit the widely publicized name of a murderer", two points: firstly, WP:BLP#Privacy of names. And secondly, a few sources publishing a name is not the same thing as widely publicized.

And finally, in response to your user page profile: violating the Youth Criminal Justice Act does not constitute "free speech", as nobody has any moral or ethical right to know the name of a 12-year-old criminal. Free speech is about the right to criticize the government on political issues without reprisal — it has absolutely jack-all to do with any sort of mythical right to post prurient information about a child for no discernible reason than solely because one wants to. In the absence of a compelling reason to publish the name — and not one single reason yet provided by anybody in this discussion has had any higher principle underlining it than "I can if I want to, nyah nyah" — there's no compelling reason to view this as a free speech issue.

I find it especially telling that this comment is coming from an account with no prior edit history whatsoever before commenting here — applying Occam's razor, you're one of two things: a regular user who's trying to hide your usual identity because you know damn well that posting the name could get you into hot water, or a new editor with a vested interest in the outcome. And neither of those things imbues your position with a whole lot of authority. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is nothing in WP:BLP that abrogates the policy of Wikipedia:Consensus. You can't say that your objection to something is so important that consensus need not apply. If that were true, consensus would have no meaning. Secondly, your view of freedom of speech is disturbingly narrow. The Supreme Court of the United States has defined "free speech" to include almost all forms of fact and opinion, whether or not the content is political. Even commercial speech, flag burning and exotic dancing have some degree of free-speech protection. And this is not just the case in America. The Canadian courts, despite Canada's weaker constitutional free-speech protections, have ruled that commercial advertising, for example, is protected speech (see Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General)). In Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., the Supreme Court of Canada said the CBC had the right to show a miniseries about an ongoing criminal matter. In Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), the court said newspapers have the right to report on matrimonial proceedings. The list of free-speech guarantees not related to pressuring the government goes on and on. The key case as far as we are concerned is Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot prevent a newspaper from printing the name of a juvenile suspect. The majority opinion stated that "state action to punish the publication of truthful information seldom can satisfy constitutional standards." Finally, I'm using a new username because my real username includes my real name, and I am resident in Canada at the moment. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, BLP trumps all other Wikipedia policies. BLP is mandated by the WMF, so if you have a problem with it I suggest you contact this man. → ROUX ₪ 03:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not correct. IAR does. The principle of BLP is set by the Foundation, but in extremely general terms. The specific rules used at the English Wikipedia are of our own devising, with the help of ArbCom and the interpretation of them in any one case can always be discussed both by us and by them. When the WMF wishes to intervene, they have the power to do so. Godwin is responsible not for enforcing the rules of the WMF, but for making sure that what they do and what we do is legal, according top the law we work under, which is not that of Canada. If all we needed to do was to avoid breaking the law, the BLP policy would be a great deal more permissive. Subject first to the legal considerations, and then to foundation policy, we make the rules ourselves. The decision whether or not to include the name here is not a legal decision, but one for us to make on the grounds of what wee want to be policy and how we want to interpret it. A good faith argument could be made for either decision. If we don't want to include it, we shouldn't blame it on the foundation--or the law. It is perfectly legitimate to raise the question, but not legitimate to try to cut off the discussion by argumentum ad WMF. DGG (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that this entry has reached a concensus, perhaps you would like to look at the entry for the 1999 Taber shooting, another entry naming a Canadian juvenile offender. At one point it did not list the offender's name while the Richardson page did, and now the situation is reversed.Meters (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The difference in that case is that the media did eventually reveal the name of the perpetrator in direct connection with the crime after he turned 19; for instance, this report from Canadian Press directly names him. So it's not really applicable to this situation. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The perpetrator wasn't named because he had turned 19. He was tried as a juvenile and his age when his name was published was irrelevant. He was named because he was at large, and the police had to obtain an extraordinary, and temporary, court injunction to allow his name to be published. Once he was recaptured his identity was once again protected, and it became a crime in Canada to publish it. The fact that it had at one time been legally published is not enough to justify Wikipedia's continued publication of his name, just as the at one time legal publication of the identity of the Richardson family's juvenile murderer was not sufficient to justify Wikipedia's publication of the identity in the Richardson case. I fail to see how much of the Richardson discussion is not also applicable Meyers case. Meters (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously there is no consensus. The previous post was a rebuttal of a pro-censorship argument, no-one responded, and then you (Meters) announce a pro-censorship "concensus". That's bogus. Absent cogent arguments to the contrary, I will restore the censored information. Qemist (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And if you do, it will be reverted and the edits will be oversighted. If you persist, you will be blocked. – ukexpat (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from attempting to intimidate me. If you abuse your privileges you will lose them. Where is the consensus above? If there is a consensus, why is the offender's name still on the page? Qemist (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Link to Swedish page "Jxxxxxx Richardson"

Why does this page link to the Swedish wiki page that divulges the very information that English wikipedia is so keen to censor? Qemist (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia has no structure that allows for centralized editorial discretion and consistency. Steve Smith (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you can take the link away can't you? Qemist (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I could, given consensus. Since consensus doesn't work to resolve contentious issues like this one, I tend not to initiate such discussions. For whatever reason the English Wikipedia article doesn't come up when the girl's name is googled, and that is as much as I can motivate myself to care for the moment. Steve Smith (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Rehabilitation?

Why doesn't this article also include follow upon her post trial? There have been several postings like http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/06/30/medicine-hat-girl-killer-murder-family-review-home.html that state she has undergone intensive rehab but still has not accepted the seriousness of the crime. Bwieser (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably because most of the effort on this page is dedicated to fighting about whether or not to include her name. If you want to provide some sourced updates on what's happened since the trial, go for it. Steve Smith (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like she's doing well and the government might even send her to university. http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Runaway+Devil+appear+Medicine+court+sentence+review/4164154/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwieser (talk • contribs) 19:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding J******'s name

I live in Australia. If I add J******'s name to the article, will I be violating any Australian laws? FokkerTISM 14:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

YCJA and Publication.

I can understand the motivation in the recent edits of the article (removal of the name and whereabouts) but the article still does not meet the standards of the ban brought upon the Canadian media. So why is it only half censored? The media have managed to comply with the ban in one of two ways. 1. The victims are named, however the murderer is not identified as being related to the victims. 2. The victims are not named, but are identified as being slain by their own daughter.

If the edit is intended to comply with the law in Canada, it should probably fully comply, otherwise not comply at all. The simple omission of the first name of the accused does not conceal her identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chere415 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not every wikipedian is Canadian. This wiki is hosted on US servers and the domain registered with an US based registrar. So the name should be left on the page in full or not shown at all (both first and second names). FokkerTISM 02:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Besides, is 17 years old now. FokkerTISM 02:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is protected because people keep adding her name. Please don't add it to the talk page instead. I have removed her name from the previous edit. Meters (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Swedish Wikipedia has it. FokkerTISM 07:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We know. Steve Smith (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Besides, the article on the WR Myers shooting names the perpetrator (Todd Cameron Smith), so why we can't name the perpetrator for this murder? Give me links to the consensus. Also, I know I'm risking my editing privileges, but I'll add the name in. Besides, it's just a name. The YCJA is a Canadian law. Wikipedia is on USA servers and therefore is subject to USA law as I said in the earlier post. Besides, if I do add the name, it'll be oversighted and I'll be brought before the Wikimedia Foundation or Jimbo. I will protest by blanking my userpage and changing my sig to the offender's name. Besides, the article is only semi-protected. If you're so obsessed with suppressing her name, lock the article so it's only accessible to WMF stewards. FokkerTISM 11:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I might also lose my rollback privileges. FokkerTISM 11:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Done! FokkerTISM 11:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And undone per prior consensus (see above and Talk:Richardson family murders/Archive 1). – ukexpat (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In my edit summary, I said that if anyone removed the name, it's not being put back up by me. FokkerTISM 16:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That would the edit summary labeling us as Zionists if we change the article back. It doesn't seem very civil. Meters (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I see the Swedish Wikipedia's page on [name redacted; talk pages are still subject to BLP] has been deleted. FokkerTISM 13:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The name

I see, for the record, that the attempts to add her name have started up again in earnest, with some editors giving in their edit summaries the rationale that she's no longer underage. So just a reminder to all editors that this is not how the Youth Criminal Justice Act works. The publication ban on a youth criminal's name does not apply solely for the duration of their youth, with the name becoming freely publishable as soon as she reaches the age of adulthood — it's not her age now that the YCJA concerns itself with, but her age at the time the crime was committed. Even when she's 65, her name still won't be legally publishable as the criminal in this matter, because the crime was committed when she was a minor. So the fact that she's 20 years old now does not absolve anyone from legal culpability for a YCJA violation, and the name still cannot be added here.

And, just for the record, this is not a matter of internal Wikipedia consensus that you're free to disregard at your own will — as one of the removing edits makes clear, Wikipedia has received an OTRS communication directing us to remove the name. Accordingly, there's no basis for anyone to even try to establish a new consensus in favour of inclusion — even if such a consensus could be established, the OTRS ticket would override it. It's quite simply a closed matter with no latitude for any further discussion about it, and so I'm reluctantly putting the page back under protection again.

If you don't like it, you're free to write to Peter MacKay and express your opinion that the law should be changed to remove or revise the non-publication requirements — or, alternatively, you have the option of trying to convince the Wikimedia Foundation that it shouldn't comply with the OTRS takedown order (though the phrase "fool's errand" comes to mind on that one.) But until the law is changed, using Wikipedia to violate it is not on your list of options. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The protection status of this article really shouldn't be being manipulated from within Canada as this seems a devious way to attempt to apply Canadian law to a US-owned site on servers in the United States. Leave this to someone who is not here and has access to First Amendment protections to decide, please. K7L (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue of page protection might be worth discussing, but the issue of whether to include the name has been decided, both by consensus and by OTRS. I don't like to see any page fully protected, but edits to this page have resulted in far too many RevDels of content, summaries, and even usernames. Meters (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't greatly care about this, and make no comment about the consensus on the matter, but I can't let the argument that Canada's government has any right to dictate content on an American website stand unchallenged. The "justification" here has been a bunch of hand-wringing and some strange platitudes about "respect" for a non-applicable legal system. Any discussion should only center on whether the name adds to the article, not about the demands of another country's government (I'm American, and am quite free to use the names of everyone involved in this case). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As User:Bearcat pointed out, the issue has now been decided by OTRS. We (or at least I) don't have access to OTRS to see the reasons for the decision. I certainly don't believe that "Canada's government has any right to dictate content on an American website." I doubt very much that that is what is happening, and I would hope that that is not the reason behind the OTRS decision. If you think the OTRS decision was reached for that reason (or any other possibly invalid reason) I suggest that you discuss it with the OTRS team member involved.

I don't think leaving out the perpetrator's first name damages the article. She's clearly identified as the minor daughter of the victims. Meters (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

My experience has been that it helps to check exactly what's been said and whether the person or entity in question is in a position where it matters. I used to have OTRS access, it lapsed a long time ago, but maybe someone who does have it can explain exactly what's going on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a Catch 22 for anyone without OTRS access in that we are allowed to challenge an OTRS decision that we think is invalid, but we are unable to know anything about why the decision was made. For that matter, as far as I know, it's not even possible to verify that an OTRS ticket number is real. At least, I was unable to discover how to do it when I once tried. Meters (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

For reference, OTRS actions are not binding in any way whatever. If we're legally or otherwise bound to it, WMF will undertake the action as an Office action. Otherwise, OTRS actions may be overturned like any other. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. That's exactly why I called it a Catch 22. We're allowed to challenge, but there's no way to know if there's cause to challenge. Anyways, a bit off track now. This page isn't the place for general OTRS discussions. Unless someone knows anything about this particular OTRS and is allowed to say anything, there's no point in continuing. Meters (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think what we really need is a new content RfC, asking simply whether the name should be included or not, and perhaps summarizing the arguments for and against. If we can't know any reasons from OTRS, then we unfortunately can't consider them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As no response has been received here, I'll start working on the new RfC. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I support having a new RfC as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Richardson family murders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070809075419/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2006/04/24/medhatmurder060424.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/04/24/medhatmurder060424.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Richardson family murders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110209043948/http://www.citytv.com:80/calgary/news_28516.aspx to http://www.citytv.com/calgary/news_28516.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 Update

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jr-medicine-hat-murders-steinke-sentence-review-1.3568118

Somebody add this; given the tl;dr discussion above, I'm terrified to touch my keyboard in relation to this article.198.161.2.211 (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That' good information for the article, and there is nothing there that cannot be added. The article does not mention her by name. Go ahead and add it. Meters (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it. I added a bit more detail to it. Meters (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Richardson family murders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140425062118/http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=c3f96856-92e2-40da-b431-2a42761ae015 to http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=c3f96856-92e2-40da-b431-2a42761ae015
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140319225636/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=4a05be55-e965-4494-bc83-1079462aa6e9 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=4a05be55-e965-4494-bc83-1079462aa6e9
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060514034236/http://www.canada.com:80/nationalpost/news/story.html%3Fid%3D96e72579-9f5a-498f-9040-2588431bffd4%26k%3D9921 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=96e72579-9f5a-498f-9040-2588431bffd4&k=9921
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060522051613/http://www.canada.com:80/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=df022f89-4ada-4be1-80dc-4df1090096e3&k=46676 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=df022f89-4ada-4be1-80dc-4df1090096e3&k=46676
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016204402/http://www.northernlife.ca:80/News/LocalNews/2006/04-27-06-homicideTOP.asp to http://www.northernlife.ca/News/LocalNews/2006/04-27-06-homicideTOP.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140813110622/http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=29d18d62-f3bd-40be-a554-7b8eea81458d to http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=29d18d62-f3bd-40be-a554-7b8eea81458d

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)