Talk:Murder of Larry King: Difference between revisions

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Murder of Larry King. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Murder of Larry King at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies Start‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Schools Start‑class This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. California This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Resolved. Although a news incident, this has reached a notable level and will be subject to reliable sourcing standards as are all articles. Benjiboi 01:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This incident is 11 days old. Why does it already have its own Wiki entry? Don't we want to wait a little while to see if it holds any true historical significance? SchutteGod (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, SchutteGod, but for me the murder of one adolescent boy by another because the victim was apparrently gay has true historical significance for me and certainly for the victim's family. This kind of stuff has to stop, and for that to happen, people need to take notice. I certainly did.Cassiusw90s (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Per WP:TALK this page is not a forum. Benjiboi 01:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SchutteGod, history is writing itself as the seconds role along. Onces that gun was shot, it became a historical event. Many articles on wikipedia are being written as the events go along. You will sometimes see templates on pages displaying that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ResolvedThe suspect in this case is not protected by WP:BLP. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The murderer of Larry King should NOT be withheld from this article, regardless of the fact that he was a minor. His name and picture have already been publicly released via many news sources, including CNN, and the police department. If this were a small incident, and had little to no media attention, then the protection of his name could be argued. But the fact is, it was not and because the mass media attention already being shined on this event, and the many witnesses claiming he was the shooter, the murderer does not rightfully deserve to be protected by WP:BLP. And people who are removing the killers name from this article are only removing it do to a bias twist of the WP:BLP. Publicly released information is not protected by WP:BLP. The two students who committed the Columbine High School massacre, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, have no right to have their name protected from being on the Columbine High School massacre article, and neither does the murderer of Larry King. It is understandable that the killers picture should not be displayed until he is charged for his crime, but his name has no right to be protected by WP:BLP.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from [WP:BLP - Privacy of names]: "Caution should be applied...When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated". The killers name has been widely disseminated, and as such, his name is not protected by the WP:BLP clause.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is without a doubt a very tragic event for everyone involved, especially since both the victim and alleged perpetrator are children. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had a lasting effect of the zeitgeist, and it is not clear that this event will have a similar impact yet. There is no deadline here and no rush to add problematic material about minors. We can wait a few weeks or months and see what the long term impact will be before deciding if the name of the murderer is an essential part of the story. Until then we should remember that the fundamental ethos of the BLP policy is "do no harm". henrik•talk 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cooljuno411. There's no point in refusing to name the alleged perpetrator; most or all the sources for the content of the article name him. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does naming the suspect add to the readers understanding of the event? (This is a serious question) henrik•talk 22:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"What does naming the suspect add to the readers understanding of the event?". That is an ignorant thing to say, what if we learned in history class that just some president freed the slaves, or just some dictator in the middle east killed many of his nations citizens. That would be and injustice to history and the people of the past. A name is just as important as the event that happened.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'm reminding you to be civil and do not use personal attacks like implying someone is ignorant. This is not helping the discussion. Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it against WP policy to state the name of a suspected murderer when the suspect is still legally a minor? There seems to be a disagreement on the E.O. Green School shooting article. Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored, and as news sources appear to have released his name and picture (according to the talk page), I'd say that the information should be included in the article. Just make sure to provide a reliable reference, as per the terms of WP:BLP. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got a source. The relevant policy is WP:BLP. Prodego ^talk 22:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this discussion to the talk page, as the discussion there appears to be ongoing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding and interpretation of WP:BLP is that sourcing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for contentious material. There are other concerns, such as privacy and the ethos of not harming real people. This is doubly important to get right when the involved are minors. henrik•talk 22:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As i previously stated in my argument above, the murderer is not protected by WP:BLP. By committing this crime, he has put his name in public domain. He has no right to privacy because he in fact did kill Larry.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you watch CourtTV or news shows, you'll hear the host or reporter using the word 'suspect' alot during a trial. That's because legally, they cannot say the suspect did in fact commit the crime. The same applies here. We cannot call the suspect a murderer and say "He killed Larry" in the article. It would be considered libel. Naming him as a suspect is another thing, which is what this discussion is all about. If the minor is found guilty in the upcoming trial, then it would be ok to say in the article that the person did in fact commit the murder. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this discussion is not about how the suspect should be classified but about how user:henrik is removing the name of the suspect from the article entirely by claiming WP:BLP. But in fact, the suspect has no right to be protected from by this clause. Also your mention the legality of prejudging the suspect before being prosecuted. Do to this fact, i think it would be appropriate to re-add the suspects name, insuring that we classify him as such.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's "due" not "do." The tone of your comment reflects your unwillingness to engage in a polite conversation. I was simply replying to how you referred to the person as a murderer and said "he in fact did kill Larry." Just because I used the word suspect doesn't mean you now have a right to add it to the article. I was giving an example and I think you realize that. You are now trying to twist my words and I'm not going to further this discussion with you. I'll wait for someone who doesn't imply editors are ignorant (as you did in the above section) or reply sarcastically by using quotations around a word that they don't like I used. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that i offended you AgnosticPreachersKid, in my eyes i thought you were trying to give an alternative to this problem and i was agreeing with you that the suspect should be classified as a "suspect" within the article. In addition, henrik is using the fact that he is a "minor" as an excuse for not displaying his name. But under California Proposition 21 his is recognized as an adult. In addition, the whole "minor" thing is just an interpretation, as i stated above, people are construing WP:BLP context. And correct me if i'm wrong, but i can't find anything within WP:BLP that shields a minor.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to get it right, especially with minors involved. That is why I am advocating restraint and patience in this case. In any case, you have quite clearly articulated your view, and I have mine. I suggest we back off for a while and allow other people to weigh in at this point. In fact, a discussion has been opened on the BLP noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#E.O._Green_School_shooting henrik•talk 23:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to get "right". He is currently recognized as a suspect in the crime by the state of California. And do to this, it is regarded as fact.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Fact"? Ummmm... Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty..." Aleta (Sing) 01:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh yeah, i know what innocent until proven guilty means. Your the one that needs a lil' information. When you are referred to as a "suspect", that means you are being charged with the crime but have not yet proven innocent or guilty.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooljuno411, you're obviously passionate about the article and this issue. I applaud you for that, but I would ask you to step back and carefully review input from other editors. Not because I think you're wrong, but because sometimes passion is blinding, and your wishes may not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia.

Because this is a current event, we have to treat this different (for the moment) than Columbine. Those people have already been convicted, at least in popular opinion, and they committed suicide. The person who is being accused of this crime is still living, and therefore certainly falls under BLP guidelines - he is a living person. One part of BLP states "Do no harm" - we don't go around labeling people with highly contentious terms or naming them as suspects in high profile cases without extremely good reason. And perhaps you're absolutely right and the boy is proven guilty. At that point we can add the information to the article, but we're not under any deadlines here. So cool it - let things settle for a couple days or weeks. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't need educating, thanks. I understand the word suspect. What I perhaps don't understand is what you are calling "fact", because it sounds like what you are saying above is that his being charged means it's a fact that he did the crime, which is why I made the comment about presumption of innocence. Perhaps you could be a bit clearer in your comments. Aleta (Sing) 02:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooljuno411's meaning seemed clear to me. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 15:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since no has anything else to say on this topic, i am going to include the name of the suspect on this article.

Reasons Why:

• Taken from [WP:BLP - Privacy of names]: "Caution should be applied...When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated". The suspects name has been widely disseminated, and as such, his name is not protected by the WP:BLP clause.
  • The minor argument is illegitement. There is no part of the WP:BLP that states that is a negotiable argument. That is a bias interpretation the wording.

Additional input form [[1]]

• • • Wikipedia is not censored, and as news sources appear to have released his name and picture (according to the talk page), I'd say that the information should be included in the article. Just make sure to provide a reliable reference, as per the terms of WP:BLP. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got a source. The relevant policy is WP:BLP. Prodego ^talk 22:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will reinstate the suspects name. And i will insure to include multiple citations.

Those interested can join the discussion here. Benjiboi 02:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a free photo of Larry King? Aleta (Sing) 14:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the suspect is a minor, and that their name is not necessary for understanding the context of the article or the event it discusses, I feel WP:BLP applies strongly (in particular the section Privacy of names). I have removed references to the suspect's name.

Adding it again will end up in the article being protected, the editor blocked, or both. — Coren ^(talk) 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? You're threatening to block people who act in disagreement with your interpretation of BLP? That seems very heavy handed. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 03:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I think you're misapplying the Privacy of names section. Here it is:

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), 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.

Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger.

In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

I bolded the parts I thought were salient. The fact is, the perpetrator is a) well-known via widespread news coverage, and b) one of the two most important figures in this topic. As such, as far as I can see the 'Privacy of names' section doesn't apply to him. And furthermore, the section doesn't mention minors. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 03:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Anchoress here. His name is in, among others, an Associated Press article which by definition makes it widely disseminated. Evil saltine (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) That's entirely besides the point. The section doesn't mention minors, but common sense does. The article gains absolutely no context from naming the suspect; whereas the suspect and his family stands to lose by greater exposition. Basic human decency indicates that we should withhold names of suspects in general when it brings nothing to the article (and, obviously, the subject is not independently notable); all the more reason to not spread around the name of a juvenile suspect. For one, we have to be careful to not presume or imply guilt. Also, there is the family of the suspect we need to be concerned with.

Simply put, there is no valid encyclopedic reason to include the name a suspect, but plenty of BLP concerns that should stay our hand. I stand by my removal, and I expect the admins who then protected the articles feel the same. You are welcome to bring this to a wider venue if you feel it necessary, and I will cooperate in clarifying the matter, but I will not reverse myself on this. — Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although at first I thought naming the minor was against WP:BLP policy, the more I have researched and found articles such as the one Evil saltine mentioned, I have decided that naming the minor in no way violates the policy. His name has been mentioned by the LA Times, CNN,The Huffington Post, Examiner, TIME magazine and Daily Kos. These are only a few of the websites that have mentioned his name, as a google search of his name will prove.

Also, IMO I don't think threatening people with a block that disagree with your opinion is the best way to handle the situation, especially if you're implying you would be the one to administer the block. According to this, you aren't supposed to block someone because you've been involved in the content disupte. The second paragraph in that section says the exception is poorly sourced contentious biographical material about a living person. The name of the minor is not poorly sourced and the links I provided are from mainstream news outlets.

You said WP:BLP applies strongly in this case. According to this, the sources I mentioned are reliable. WP:BLP also states "Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'." If these news outlets have decided there are no legal consequences to naming the minor, then why should WP worry about legal issues? Also, we are not doing any harm to the minor because his name has already been mentioned countless time by television, newspaper, and website outlets. By WP mentioning his name, no harm will come of it. The only thing that will come of it is educating WP readers about the details of this case.

According to the LA Times article, he "has been charged with premeditated murder and will be tried as an adult." Being charged as an adult should also be considered in this case. He is 14, but because of the wide-spread news coverage and because he is being tried as an adult, I think there is more than enough reason to mention his name. You said, "we have to be careful to not presume or imply guilt." I agree that adding he is a suspect is key in avoiding legal issues; no one has an issue with that. Mentioning he is a suspect in no way suggests he is guilty because news outlets constantly use the word when referring to people charged with a crime. Wikipedia is not censored. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't the entity causing harm here. The name is already widespread in the media, so what more of an effect could inclusion have? Obviously the suspect of a murder will lose out from his or her name being widespread, but that in itself isn't a reason to censor it. It would be like removing the names of the shooters from Columbine High School massacre. Maybe the name itself isn't a part of the context, but it's still a relevant piece of information. Evil saltine (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An example of a national news story where the suspect's names have been mentioned in a WP article: 2006 Duke University lacrosse case. An older version of the article can be seen here. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, specifically what BLP violations do you refer to (since that is what you cited)? People differ in what they consider "basic human decency." Evil saltine (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies are descriptive, not prescriptive. This means they describe common actions and outcomes, not enumerate a list of items that must be followed. One shouldn't try to nitpick your way through the policy looking for the exact sentence something violates, but instead try to understand the greater reason the policy tries to describe and then apply it to the situation at hand. Wikipedia policies aren't laws, they're descriptions of what usually happens in many common situations. This means they're obviously not complete.

Five different admins have now acted to express the view that the name is not appropriate for this article. Wikipedia should not be a shaming pole, nor satisfy the base curiosity of onlookers of a tragic event. The suspects name in no way enhances the article, and my previous question on why it needs to be in were met with very weak replies. To put the name there I think we would need to hear some very compelling reasons why it is encyclopedic and enhances the readers understanding to know exactly which 14-year old did a terrible thing he is sure to regret for the rest of his life. henrik•talk 06:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize the views of admins were more important than those of the rest of us; I thought they were fellow editors entrusted with special tools. You're right, of course, about what Wikipedia shouldn't be, but I think you're very wrong about the suspect's name not enhancing the article. If we are to have articles about current events—and maybe we shouldn't, but we do—it is absurd not to name names that have already been used widely in the news media and are readily available elsewhere online. The name enhances the article because it represents the identity of the person responsible for the article's existence in the first place. What constitutes "encyclopedic" is highly subjective, it's true, but omitting the name here would be akin to omitting the author's name in an article about a book, and what kind of an encyclopedia would do that? Your statement about the "terrible thing he is sure to regret for the rest of his life" is really conjecture and sounds just a little POV. This has nothing to do with shaming anyone and everything to do with creating a complete, neutral article.

I've read WP:BLP five times now and cannot find in it a compelling reason to redact the name. Not even close. Neither can I think of a common-sense reason. If there is a subtle reason that I'm missing, I'd be very interested to hear it, but in the meantime I question the need for page protection. There's certainly been no clear violation of BLP, no persistent vandalism, not anything close to an edit war—just some pointed disagreements that mostly stayed civil, then an extensive discussion, then consensus. Sounds like the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Rivertorch (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well howabout if the trial uncovers something like the suspect was framed, severely impaired, delusional, a part of some sci-fi plot or just maybe on trial for murder? This kid is only known for being a suspect, this article will not in any way be enhance by knowing his name is Jonny Gunfire or Ronny Raygun. This is a news event and we are covering the event not the person. Once the trial and appeals are sorted out we can revisit whether the name will have any encyclopedic value. Until then we should leave the news to newspapers. Benjiboi 07:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if? His name is already out there. Whatever we do won't have any effect on that. If it turns out he was innocent we would of course include that in the article. We are covering the event, but he is a part of the event, otherwise we wouldn't mention that there was a suspect at all. Evil saltine (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Evil saltine, his name is already out there...in countless RS.

In regards to Benji's comment, "Until then we should leave the news to newspapers," so what you're saying is people shouldn't update WP articles with facts they find in newspapers? Your statement doesn't make sense.

In regards to henrik's comment, the fact is we know the suspect's name, and obviously it's not illegal or libel to mention it or else CNN, TIME, and the LA Times wouldn't have mentioned it. It's encyclopedic because it's a relevant part of the case to mention the name of a suspect. All media-covered cases report the suspect's name and wikipedia covers current events, so why would we leave out all of the information given to us by news outlets, except the name? Instead of being constantly asked the question, "Why is it encyclopedic?, I'll ask why it is not encyclopedic. I, along with others, have given the reasons (pointed out with links to news articles, links to BLP guidlines, and common sense) we believe it is indeed encyclopedic and we basically get this response: "Well, 5 admins think we know best and we've protected the article in the version we like and protected it so no one can edit it even though there was no reason to place full protection on it...and oh yeah, we'll block you if you try to make an edit we don't like." Powertrip much?

In regards to henrik's other comments, you said "Wikipedia should not be a shaming pole" How are we shaming the person when his name has already been plastered all over news sites, newspapers, and television? Do you really think he will sit and cry because WP mentioned his name? All we are doing is staying current with facts that deal with the case and for the 500th time, naming him as a suspect does not mean we are saying he is guilty. It is a legal term that is commonly used when describing someone involved in a case. Also, when you say "satisfy the base curiosity of onlookers of a tragic event," are you suggesting WP readers just come to read this article to satisfy some odd curiosity to see who might have killed who instead of wanting to learn about the whole background of the case? That phrase doesn't make sense. You said, "One shouldn't try to nitpick." To whom are you referring? When you say, "Wikipedia policies aren't laws, they're descriptions of what usually happens in many common situations. This means they're obviously not complete" does that mean since WP:BLP doesn't specifically mention anything about not mentioning suspect's names, we shouldn't do it? If so, that's your own interpretation and not everyone has to follow it. You said, "my previous question on why it needs to be in were met with very weak replies." That is your own opinion. We have given replies, nothing weak about them. In contrast, we have given you links to show our reasoning, while you and others have done nothing of the sort. You said, "To put the name there I think we would need to hear some very compelling reasons why it is encyclopedic." My suggestion would be to read this entire section again, because "compelling" reasons have been given. Lastly, I see you didn't respond to my mentioning of the Duke Lacross case where the suspects' names were mentioned in the WP article...and you admins are setting bad examples of how WP should operate by reverting to a version you like and then placing full protection on it. I've only been on WP for less than 2 months and have seen this happen several times. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never implied that we shouldn't use RS nor that I'm an admin. Back on point I see no encyclopedic value in revealing the name of a minor whose yet to face trial in a murder. This kid's name is currently splashed around the news because that's what they do. Five years from now who will care what the name of the person who pulled the trigger? Do our readers need to know is was John Killer or Ronny Raygun. Will that somehow make them well informed? I agree that it would be nice to have a policy that editors need to show exceptional reasons to print the names of minors but absent such a policy isn't common sense enough? There seems little encyclopedic value to gain by printing the kid's name and is more likely to cause them harm, IMHO. And, they haven't been convicted of anything quite yet. Perhaps we can let the actual judge and jury have a go first before we jump on that bandwagon. If you really think they are so notable take a try at created a bio on them and see how that goes. I bet it's halted asap because this kid's only notable for one news event. Their are likely to regret it for the rest of their life and we don't need to compound that harm. Benjiboi 10:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy seems to cover much of this. I also ask those who insist on including this to consider the implications of the shooter's motivations, which we think we know but are unsure of, and how our permanent enshrinement of their deeds will play out over the years while the trial(s) plod on and the news media moves onto the next hyped event. Benjiboi 10:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems a bit over the top. The kid walks in, [redacted] it's reported by multiple reliable sources, and yet some of you think BLP applies? Have we lost our collective minds?!? The kid's name is no secret, as has been pointed out above. It's reported everywhere. To not include it in the article per BLP concerns would smack of wikilawyering, if it even made any sense according to WP:BLP, but it doesn't. Bellwether ^B_C 11:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benji, who implied you were an admin? I didn't and am very glad you are not one. It doesn't matter if he is "likely to regret it for the rest of [his] life" because WP and news outlets are just reporting a fact that he is a named suspect. If this hurts his feelings, that's not our problem, it's the court's problems since the court is the one that charged him with murder and his name was released into the public domain. To not report it is withholding the facts about a case many feel to be an important one, all because some think it's mean and might "harm" him. No one said he is notable enough to warrant his own article and thanks for the attitude. (note: Benji likes to takes the opposite side of every discussion I'm involved in and the snarky comments are common practice) We know he is only notable for this one event. Not one person has suggested he is worthy of his own article, so I don't even know why you're talking about that. The fact that he is the one charged with the shooting in an article about a shooting is the most elementary way I can explain to you the reason he should be included. Once again, Benji mentioned that we would be doing harm to him, while his name has already been mentioned countless times on tv, newspapers, websites, etc. I guess some think WP's article on this event should not contain all of the facts in the case. People come to WP to gain knowledge and our primary role as editors is "to write articles that cover existing knowledge" Benji, for someone that got awfully upset when I was removing porn links and very long lists of porn titles from porn actor articles, I'm kind of surprised. You said I was removing encyclopedic information from the site and that "Wikipedia is not censored." I guess it is when one sees fit. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benji, with respect, you're contradicting yourself big time. If it's a news event and we're covering it, then we hardly can "leave the news to newspapers." The article is indeed about a news event, and every major news outlet has decided the name is newsworthy. And we're "covering the event not the person", huh? How on earth can the two be considered separately when the person is alleged to have created the event in the first place!

Should events take an unexpected turn in the case (e.g., dismissal of charges, acquittal, change of suspect's status from adult to juvenile), the name can be removed from the article history, and I would support that. Would the hundreds of Web sites carrying wire-service reports, and the dozens of sites with their own original articles, be so diligent? Doubtful. Arguing that there's necessarily any potential permanent harm by including the name here is specious, since there isn't necessarily any permanence. Rivertorch (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AgnosticPreachersKid, please stop. Your veiled personal attacks on me are unwarranted and unwelcome. It was inferred above that it was a bunch of admins abusing their powers to censor and not use RS's - I was stating that I was suggesting neither. The concept that I "likes to takes the opposite side of every discussion I'm involved in and the snarky comments are common practice" is simply wrong if not delusional. In fact I've unwatchlisted a few articles because you edited them to avoid some interaction. People don't always agree, that's fine but suggesting in any way that I choose a side opposite yours is simply false. Benjiboi 21:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rivertorch, we are the world's encyclopedia. We are as much or more permanent and accesible than seemingly every other media out there. Much of what we write is the only version of an event people will ever see. We are affecting not only the alleged shooter but also their family, and anyone else with the same name who can't prove they aren't the shooter. What we do here can cause real harm to real people. Benjiboi 21:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "reported" to "alleged" because the original sentence "It was reported that the suspect's motivation for the crime was that King was gay, and as such, the shooting was deemed a hate crime murder by prosecutors." implies without question that he did it. Evil saltine (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that. But note that the page is protected, and should NOT really be edited.--Doc^g 09:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but I figured that it was under the scope of BLP as being potentially libelous. Evil saltine (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is currently protected citing WP:BLP. BLP does not apply - all information is easily and readily citable, as the name of the suspect is all over the mainstream press. As BLP does not apply, the page should be unprotected, unless it's actually protected to prevent edit warring - in which case the template needs changing.

Given the lack of BLP issues, of course, the article should really be unprotected, and the name included. But that would require an admittance of wrongly protecting the article, so won't happen. Neıl ☎ 12:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection is likely to lead to edit-warring. Best get agreement first.--Doc^g 12:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason it would lead to edit warring is that some here are misapplying the WP:BLP standards to apply to a person whose name has been splashed all over multiple reliable sources [redacted]. No one has even attempted to show how including the name [redacted] would violate BLP, instead citing vague spirit-of-the-rule nonsense. And it is "nonsense", as the spirit of the rule was not intended to protect cold-blooded killers. Bellwether ^B_C 13:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil said, "But that would require an admittance of wrongly protecting the article, so won't happen." You hit the nail on the head. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could simply start referring to him as "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named", a la Voldemort. You know, Say the name and be blocked!!!! Bellwether ^B_C 15:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could pick an obscure Unicode symbol to represent him and call him "The Suspect Formerly Known As [self-censored]". Rivertorch (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, we could give him a code name, like the Secret Service does the President. I propose we call him "Mork from Ork." Any other suggestions? [I really like the symbol idea, though. Simple, straightforward, and no one living under a rock (but a rock with Wikipedia access) would be any the wiser as to the name of the killer.] Bellwether ^B_C 17:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone who would object to unprotection of the article and the reinstatement of the suspect's name, provided it is heavily referenced and very neutrally written? Please bear in mind WP:BLP only requires all contentious information to be strictly referenced - it has no clauses about "protecting minors". Such a claim is particularly moot given the abundance of reliable sources identifying "BM" as the suspect [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], and 150 or so others. Please comment. Neıl ☎ 14:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Support, per my above comments. Bellwether ^B_C 14:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Support, per my reasoning on this talk page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Support, per BLP and common sense. And I would support semi-protection of the page until the criminal case is resolved. If the name had been redacted by most or all media outlets because the suspect had been charged as a juvenile, I would feel very differently. Rivertorch (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I won't shoot down the proposal, but I still think that naming and shaming a child is wrong (regardless of what was said below, my personal view is that this applies here). I recognize that there may be a significant cultural difference between different regions of the world in this question though. This is primarily a US-related article, and given the press it is apparently culturally acceptable there. henrik•talk 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not one thinks naming and "shaming" the suspected murderer (or child as you call him) is wrong, it has already been done by mainstream media outlets. We are here to report the facts of the case, and the fact is we have a name. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Henrik, I respect you greatly (especially the cool tool you made), but no one's advocating "naming and shaming a child." We're advocating factually recounting what multiple reliable sources have reported about a [redacted], who happens to be under 18. Bellwether ^B_C 17:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've just proven my point right there. The named teenager is emphatically not a cold-blooded killer unless and until he is convicted of being one! At worst, at this moment, he his suspected of being one, and it is alleged that he shot the victim. I'm sorry, but your choice of wording clearly indicates that there is a fundamental problem with the naming. — Coren ^(talk) 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(To be more clear, the fundamental problem is that by naming the suspect we prejudge his guild regardless of how weaselly we manage to be in the wording, or how many "alleged" we sprinkle in. The sensationalist press may have no qualms about causing a teenager to be hung in public opinion, but we are an encyclopedia, and we have no need to drum up our sales by such horrid travesty of faux neutrality). — Coren ^(talk) 18:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• BS. The [redacted] has been "named" in multiple reliable sources. They're not prejudging his [legal] guilt or innocence. The fact is, he [redacted]. Period. What the legal system does with that fact will also be written about in the article. It is a complete and utter misapplication of BLP to claim that it prevents a young man [redacted] from being identified by name, where multiple reliable sources identify that young man by name. This is ludicrous in the extreme. Bellwether ^B_C 18:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's increasingly obvious that your intent here isn't neutral documentation but an understandable (if misguided) sense of wanting "justice". The fact is, you do not know what the facts are, you are not allowed to judge what they are, and you serve neither justice nor the encyclopedia by insisting that the suspect be named. We are not a social cause, we are an encyclopedia. The article gains nothing from the name of the suspect. — Coren ^(talk) 18:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, just because one person is intent on saying killer doesn't deter the fact that the rest of us are using a legal and neutral term, suspect. Please don't open and shut this case by using one person as evidence of why the name shouldn't be mentioned. So far, consensus is in favor of mentioning the name and we have given reasons why the article does indeed gain from mentioning the name. You have not given us a reason other than you don't think it's right. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, but that's not quite what I'm doing: I'm using that person as illustration of why it's dangerous and unwarranted to name the suspect. People will presume guilt. Simply being named as a suspect is enough to destroy a life (regardless of actual guilt). The fact that even editors here, in the midst of discussing the very distinction, are unable to separate being named as a suspect from being guilty is exactly why we should not do so. Yes, newspapers and TV news have done so. They were amoral bastards for doing so, IMO. But the fact that someone else did it does not excuse our doing it. And, FWIW, my personal opinion is that the little monster who killed that kid should be drawn and quartered, and the parents who let their kid grow up to be a murderous bigot should be put to task. But my opinion should not, and does not, affect what is or is not appropriate to put in an article. — Coren ^(talk) 18:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, just because someone on this talk page is not using the word suspect (note: Bellweather did say he/she knows the difference between mentioning that in the artcile and the talk page) does not mean readers cannot understand what the word suspect means. I don't think WP readers are that naive. Being named a suspect is part of the judicial process and is what happens when someone is accused of such a horrendous crime. We can even wikilink "suspect" in the article just in case some is unaware of the term. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, why did you just remove my reply to Bellwether's latest comment? I actually agree that saying col-blooded killer was not the right thing and to use the word "suspect" instead. BTW, because Bellweather did not use the word suspect does not mean you have proved any kind of point...at all. Others, including me, have consistently referred to him as a suspect. I'd appreciate it if you didn't remove my comments from the talk page again. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also erased Anchoress' comment about supporting the mentioning of the name. Was this on purpose? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. We seem to have beat each other over with edit conflicts; and apparently I saved an older modified version above one that had been edited in the meantime. The joys of unthreaded discussions. — Coren ^(talk) 18:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) At any rate, the argument has been made. I still am convinced that inserting the suspect's name into the article introduces a significant amount of needless sleaze; and that is serves no encyclopedic purpose. I will request that anyone who still wishes to seriously examine their motivation for doing so, but I will not, of course, edit war against the consensus that will have emerged after the protection expires (which serves the same immediate purpose my earlier warning did, preventing kneejerk reinsertion of the name). Let's hope this apparent tendency of confusing writing an encyclopedia with yellow journalism is a passing fad. — Coren ^(talk) 19:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now we're assuming bad faith (read: "yellow journalism" and your extensive commentary on my motives) are we? It is not "yellow journalism" to report the widely disseminated name of a young man [redacted]. It's called writing an encyclopedia, and no amount of arguing that you think it's "sleazy" will change that fact. That you can type with a straight face (presumably) that including the name of the young man [redacted] doesn't "add anything" to the article is beyond me. (note: I have stopped referring to the young man [redacted] as a "cold-blooded killer", even on the talkpage. Hope that helps us get over the red herring that was being tossed out.) Bellwether ^B_C 20:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to editors, if you disagree with an admin's personal interpretation of WP guidelines and insert facts that are widely reported, you are apparently inserting "sleaze" in an article. Inserting the name is apparently a "kneejerk" reaction and the insinuation is that we haven't "seriously" thought about it. I guess this whole talk page is not proof enough. Also, the snarky line about confusing writing with yellow journalism (we are apparently guilty of scandal-mongering, sensationalism, or other unethical or unprofessional practices) is "very" administrative of you. Bravo for assuming good faith. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Support per my previous comments. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 18:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree with henrik's take on this, seems unfortunate and I regret that we are doing this. Benjiboi 21:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What is there to "regret", other than the fact that we have now had this article up for quite some time with no mention of the actual name of the young man [redacted]? It's a straightforward case of misinterpretation/misapplication of WP:BLP to a case where it does not apply. Bellwether ^B_C 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bellweather, that's enough. I've snipped that last statement. Any more labelling the suspect as a murderer and you will be blocked. Neıl ☎ 21:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, agree with Neil. Evil saltine (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The information can be very well sourced. It is integral to the topic of the article. WP is not censored. Other articles about crimes list the names of suspects (see, for example, Ipswich 2006 serial murders, where there has now been a conviction, but for over a year beforehand, we gave the suspect's name.) The only reason I can see to withhold this information is the suspect's status as a minor; unless we specifically add that to WP:BLP as a reason not to name someone though, I think we should. Aleta (Sing) 02:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I also strongly support re-adding the suspect name. Histories actions are worthless without a name to go along with them. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP was developed, in large part, to protect individuals (many of them minors) from 'naming and shaming' in instances where they achieved notoriety against their will, or for something that wouldn't have been notable except for the viral qualities of the internet.

It was developed to protect people (who are otherwise unremarkable and anonymous), in instances where, for example, an overweight child slips and falls on chicken grease at KFC, and it's caught on someone's cameraphone and posted on YouTube, and someone who watches it recognises and names the person, and then if that person's name ends up on Wikipedia it would live on forever. Or instances where the irrelevant (to the story) names of minor children who are passive participants in an event come to be known.

It was not developed to force or allow us to avoid naming critical, active participants in notorious crimes that have been major news. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 14:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, legally (and in the main article) we can not call him a "cold blooded killer." In actual fact (and on the talkpage) I can refer to him as that, since it's beyond any doubt that's what he did, and that's what he is. There's a large difference between what is legally true (and reported in reliable sources), and thus included in the article, and what is actually true (beyond doubt), and can be talked about on the talkpage. Bellwether ^B_C 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Although there's much leeway for stating (relevant) opinions on the talk page, one shouldn't call him that here either. The presumption of innocence is well worth respecting, I'd say, and talk pages are just as accessible to the public as article pages. "Alleged" is the operative word used by journalists, and it's worth using here and everywhere (along with the name of the suspect). The "cold-blooded" modifier is unfortunate not only because it's sensationalistic but also because it suggests you know something about the case that the rest of us don't. Were you there? If not, how can you possibly know what is "actually true (beyond doubt)"? You're making presumptions. Rivertorch (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• From the facts in evidence, and the fact that no one contests he did it, it's pretty clear he's a "cold-blooded killer", but that violates WP:SYN so it doesn't belong in the article. And though I think it's unnecessary, I've also stopped referring to him as such here.

• Bellweather_BC, please limit yourself to referring to him as a "suspect" - continuing to refer to someone yet to be convicted as a "killer" or "cold-blooded" or anything similar will see you blocked - yes, on the talk page, too. I'm with you on mentioning the suspect's name in the article, but that is all we should be describing him as, on the article or on the talk page - a suspect. Neıl ☎ 21:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Cut the threats of block. Now. I've done nothing even remotely blockable. I've already unequivocally stated that I won't refer to him as a "cold blooded killer", but there's a distinct difference between what's legally true (he's a "suspect") and what's actually true (based on common sense, and what we know transpired). I don't appreciate having my comments "snipped" because you don't like them. I won't restore them, but you really need to stop. It's very unbecoming. Bellwether ^B_C 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an argument for deletion discussions. In protesting my warning (not threat), you made the same error, again ([17]). There is indeed a difference between what's legally true and what you think is true. Stick to the former, please. Neıl ☎ 01:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. I just realized that you even object to him being referred to as they "young man who killed the other young man." Wow. No one doubts he did it. It's just a matter of having a trial to see if there were factors mitigating enough to temper any actual sentence he might receive for doing so, or to even potentially find him "not guilty by reason of mental defect" (which is far different than saying he didn't do it). Anyways, it's hard for me to fathom that you find even my new benign wording blockable somehow. (After edit conflict, what is legally true is that he's a suspect. What's actually true is that he killed him. Please save your lectures for someone else.) Bellwether ^B_C 01:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Bellwether_BC: I agree with you in principle - this isn't a situation like a dead body found by the side of the road where the suspect, even after arrest, may be exonerated. The evidence is pretty cut-and-dried. However, could you please stand down a little? Neil is a very good, level-headed admin who is basically on our side, and I'd hate for this issue to get side-tracked because we end up splitting hairs over what constitutes an unacceptable characterisation of the suspect on the talkpage the way certain other editors have been splitting hairs over keeping his name off the article page. With all due respect, let's just drop this red herring, call the kid 'the suspect' and get back to determining the boundaries of BLP v/v this issue? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 02:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've already agreed to do so, even though I find it extremely banal that we can't refer to him by what we know beyond doubt he did. And the only reason I'm upset with Neil is that he keeps dropping warnings and block threats on my page for edits that aren't blockable. If he stops doing so, I have no issues with him. Bellwether ^B_C 02:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I realise that, and I guess I'm just asking you to drop it, or take it off this page and to yours or Neil's talkpage. Thanks for your forebearance. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 02:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This annual event is likely to focus heavily on this case. Those interested may want to add it to a "See also" section for future use. Benjiboi 22:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note in the lead that the date of death is said to be February 12th, whereas in the body of the article, it says he was withdrawn from life support on February 15th. I propose that there be a request to edit the protected page to correct this error; I presume the lead is the one that should be changed, rather than the body of the article, based on the references. Risker (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a summary of what happened: "King ... was pronounced brain-dead at St. John's Regional Medical Center in Oxnard about 2 p.m. Wednesday [Feb 13]. He was taken off life support Thursday night [Feb. 14], according to hospital nursing supervisor Sue Crews" [18]. I would recommend changing the "date of death" to the 13th, per brain death: "Today, both the legal and medical communities use "brain death" as a legal definition of death." Evil saltine (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think instead of trying to interpret the meaning of 'dead' (I'd vote for the date they took him off life support), let's cite a reference stating when he died. If there is a contradiction, go with the clear majority of refs or indicate in the text that different sources offer different dates. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 03:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Death is when the person's heart and breathing stops. (I'll see if I can find the relevant statute for that state.) Brain death is not relevant; many people live for years after brain death. When did the organ harvesting take place? That will be the date of death. Risker (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were you replying to me? Because I agree with you, no need to tell me all that. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 03:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The law seems to state that death occurs with either brain death or cessation of circulation and respiration. California Health and Safety Code Section 7180: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead." Evil saltine (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I've seen take the easy way out and say "was declared brain dead on Wednesday, removed from life support on Thursday." Evil saltine (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it acceptable to edit another user's statements because you don't like them? Neil did this above, redacting the words "who killed another young man" from several of my written statements. I find this incredibly offensive, pedantic, and--when combined with the block threats he left at my talk page--intimidating. I'm open to other opinions, though, and welcome them here. Bellwether ^B_C 02:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bellwether, although we agree that the suspect's name should be mentioned, you're going about it the wrong way...and I say that as friendly advice. Also, please read WP:KEEP. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My question had more to do with what folks think about Neil editing my rather benign comments because he didn't like them. Bellwether ^B_C 03:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Neil's action. While he might not have liked your words, that wasn't the reason he removed them. With all due respect, I think your comments weren't exactly benign and were, in fact, counterproductive to the discussion. That's my humble opinion. (As the Toyota commercials used to say, you asked for it, you got it.) (OMG, I'm dating myself.) Rivertorch (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threat singular (if you can call it a threat). It's not because I don't like them, it's because we have a policy - WP:BLP - that, ofr very good reasons, requires comments about living persons to be neutral - even on talk pages. Until the suspect is found guilty of anything, he is a suspect, nothing more. Neıl ☎ 08:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is a consensus per the above discussion to include the suspect's name, provided he is only referred to as a suspect and the statement is carefully, neutrally referenced. Keep it encyclopedic, people. I have reduced the protection for the article down to semi-protection. Neıl ☎ 08:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]