Talk:Murder of Austin Metcalf/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

BLP Policy and poorly sourced material

@WhoIsCentreLeft The sources you've provided in this edit are extremely low quality. Please note WP:BLPRS's policy on reliable sourcing which states that Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Symphony Regalia (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

How do you know that these sources are "extremely low quality"? Are you some kind of expert? They look fine to me. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Particularly for material relating to living people, we want sources that have a good reputation for accuracy, not simply ones we don't know don't have a bad rep. And what little I could find about newsner suggests a bad reputation. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Reliability is about a source having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You can't just judge it by glancing at the source, you need to know their reputation - and no reputation generally implies low reliability. For minor and unexceptional things that might not matter because low-quality sources are sufficient, but for something like this, which is WP:BLP-sensitive, we need sources with strong reputations, which these don't seem to have. --Aquillion (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I agree with the evaluation of the sources removed as "low quality". They should be used with extreme caution in BLPs and only for innocuous, uncontroversial claims. There is very little about this subject and derivative topics that is innocuous and uncontroversial. It's about the combination of the source quality and its intended use. Please be open to entertaining consensus about this. JFHJr (㊟) 22:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
    @WhoIsCentreLeft, see also WP:RSNP for sources whose reliability might already have a consensus as safe or otherwise. JFHJr (㊟) 00:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
  • "They look fine to me" is not the criteria. Personal bias is a nasty thing - and if we took every source that "looked fine" to one contributor, we'd be filled with tabloids that people say "look fine" just because they agree with the fake news the tabloid is posting. Aquillion above has given you quite a good summary of the requirements for a source to be reliable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Background

WhoIsCenterLeft is trying to edit war in material about Metcalf's funeral into the background section. The funeral is clearly not background, it is something that happened after the individual was killed, obviously. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

If you dont think it belongs in the background put it where you think it does belong and quite edit warring. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Excuse me? If you're going to accuse me of edit warring, please show where I edit warred. (Clue: one revert is not "edit warring") -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I ported it from background to aftermath. What an easy fix. I actually find the consistent WP:OVERLINKing here more problematic so I undid that as well. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Much less weighty question

To me it reads weirdly to say that Metcalf was member of the class of 2026 ~ i mean, apart from the obvious grammatical error, surely it would be more accurate to say he was a "potential member", as are his classmates? The class of [any year] doesn't exist until they have graduated in that year, does it? If i'm being obtuse or pedantic here, please feel free to tell me and ignore me ~ after you correct the missing article ~ LindsayHello 20:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

No, it is common to refer to folks in school by the year of their targeted graduation. Here, for example is a bunch of references from a 2024 newspaper to members of the classes of 2025, 2026 and even 2027. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree with NatGertler. It is merely a cohort designation based on a normally 4-year educational cycle (high school or university or even 1-2 year trade schools). "Class of" is often used as soon as someone matriculates. If a student has no "class of" expected date, the implication is strange, in life anyway. JFHJr (㊟) 22:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, in the various school systems of the United States, an incarcerated person may be eligible to graduate on time. Likewise, I'm personally aware of at least one posthumous graduation (diploma: I don't know, but somewhere there's probably a district that would) in this region of the United States. JFHJr (㊟) 22:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Looking deeper, Hudl is a WP:SPS/WP:BLPSPS according to my own searches. It is the only thing underpinning the (I think) otherwise non-controversial class-ofs. The level of textual detail, however, may be WP:UNDUE. So much for a less weighty question, and sorry, User:LindsayH. But do their stats belong here, and is class-of even really worth its electrons in WP:WEIGHT here? Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Class of 2026 is fine. R. G. Checkers talk 04:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
So, i stand (sit) corrected; thanks all for the responses. It's still not language i would use, but if it's acceptable, good. I have corrected the annoying error i mentioned above, though ~ gotta have that indefinite article! ~ LindsayHello 06:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

"Karmelo Anthony" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Karmelo Anthony has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 18 § Karmelo Anthony until a consensus is reached. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Archiving period

This talk page is now above 100 kB. May we change the archiving period from 90 days to 30 days (or 14 days), or some other shorter period of time? --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jax 0677 That seems reasonable. I've changed it from 90 to 30 days. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 12:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

White Lives Matter protests

Although this question may be tough to answer, but is there White Lives Matter rallies and protests that happened in connection of Metcliff's death from outside both DFW and Texas? 2600:1702:5225:C010:8449:E5B5:2CDC:E391 (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

If no reliable source publishes this, the answer is easy and it's "no" (or at least it doesn't matter here). JFHJr (㊟) 03:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Inconsistency in what the article says and what the case file says

The article says During the argument that ensued, he allegedly told Metcalf, "Touch me and see what happens," while reaching his hand into his backpack. Metcalf then pushed the accused on the bleachers they were on; in response, the accused allegedly said "Punch me and see what happens", to which Austin pushed him. "

However the case file linked as the source says something very different: https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2025/04/karmelo-anthony-arrest-report.pdf

In the actual case file, it says he told him he was in the wrong tent and had to leave. I have no idea where it says pushed him into the bleachers, because that's not here. And there doesn't seem to be an argument mentioned. He said "touch me and see what happens" to which his arm was grabbed. He was not pushed. Then he says "punch me and see what happens" to which he started pulling on his arm and saying 'move.' He was not "pushed" his arm was pulled. The article gives a very different account relative to the sources.

I checked the other sources, just to see if I got it wrong.

The other source https://wchstv.com/news/nation-world/arrest-report-shows-teen-charged-in-fatal-frisco-texas-stabbing-at-track-meet-claims-self-defense-karmelo-anthony-austin-metcalf

"A witness described the altercation as beginning when Metcalf approached Anthony, who was seated beneath a tent belonging to Metcalf’s team, and asked him to move. According to the witness, Anthony reached into his bag, opened it, and then inserted his hand inside. The report further states that Anthony had warned Metcalf, saying, "Touch me and see what happens." The situation escalated when Metcalf allegedly touched Anthony, prompting him to say, "Punch me and see what happens." Metcalf then grabbed Anthony to move him, at which point, Anthony pulled out a black knife and stabbed Metcalf in the chest. He fled the scene shortly afterward, leaving Metcalf with a serious wound."

The final source: https://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-track-meet-stabbing-arrest-report-details/story?id=120490192 "Responding officers say they spoke to multiple witnesses, including one who reported that the altercation began after Metcalf told Anthony to move out from under their team's tent, according to the arrest report. The witness reported that Anthony allegedly reached inside his bag and said, "Touch me and see what happens," according to the arrest report. According to a witness, Metcalf grabbed Anthony to move him, and Anthony allegedly pulled out what the witness described as a black knife and "stabbed Austin once in the chest and then ran away," the arrest report stated."

No source seems to indicate he was pushed around at all, No idea where the bleachers came from, why was the story in the article different than the ones from the sources?

I apologize if I'm wasting anyone's time. Knightlyvalor (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The pop-up tents were indeed set up in the bleachers, behind the barriers between the field and the seating. The EMS crew came in on the field side of the barrier and moved him from the bleachers side. WP:PRIMARY sources consist of allegations that are neither conclusive, definitely true, nor paint a whole picture. The article should show WP:DUE weight and reflect what's stated in reliable non-primary sources as much as possible. JFHJr (㊟) 04:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand the policies so feel free to correct me if I'm saying something wrong here.
I don't understand why the information isn't supported by the sources themselves. The info from the sources say something different from what is described on the incident area. The only "push" mentioned is in one source in ABC news, it's the following:
"He said that after his brother told Anthony he had to leave the tent because he didn't go to Memorial, the two "went back and forth and then Austin stood up and pushed the male to get him out of the tent," according to the arrest report."
That's the only source listed that mentions a push in that section, so I don't understand why it describes metcalf pushing him around in the incident area multiple times as they're talking; what is written there doesn't seem to be clearly written in any of the listed sources for the incident. Either a new source should support what is posted, or what is posted should reflect what was described in the sources, or if none of the content of these sources can be considered conclusive because they are only stating something from the report, the incident should be removed from the wikipedia page. Knightlyvalor (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

lede

"The incident has been the basis for much online attention, misinformation, and fundraising."

Is this a joke? saying that an incident has been the basis for "online misinformation" is like saying water is wet. Why is this included?2604:3D09:C77:4E00:4CCC:CE9C:6CAF:472A (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

The introduction is supposed to summarize the article. The article has a subsection just about the misinformation. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Verbal combat

"Austin then stepped into the confrontation and engaged in verbal combat with the accused."

'Verbal combat'? That can't be up to wikipedia standards. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.97.175.253 (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Good eye! I've copy edited that line of text. JFHJr (㊟) 05:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Article now at WP:BLPN

because of its sources. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Not alleged

(Redacted) is not the alleged killer. He IS the killer. The trial is not to determine if he killed Austin Metcalf or not. It is to determine if he used lawful self defense or if this was murder. Either way, we know exactly who killed Austin Metcalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.87.74 (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCRIME and related, we say "alleged" until there's a conviction. While an admission like that might speed up something like a jury or judicial conviction (or either of those per a plea agreement) IRL, we can't just skip ahead of an actual conviction in wikivoice. JFHJr (㊟) 20:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Funny how even though Daniel Penny was found not guilty, his Wikipedia states that he’s a “killer” and it’s the “killing of Jordan Neely” but oh yeah, forgot he’s white and (Redacted) is black. Double standards don’t apply to white people on Wikipedia 2601:803:8180:C240:7495:46C7:181D:AE37 (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
True... Bcom123 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
EXACTLY dude his family even held a press conference which is proof. Bcom123 (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Dude. Press conferences are only proof of press conferences. Even when reliably reported, the weight we should assign any particular press conference is unclear. WP:BLPCRIME still applies even though there have been and will be press conferences. JFHJr (㊟) 03:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_legislators
Name of killer 72.20.140.38 (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
He hasn't been convicted yet. These people are hypocrites. You are correct. Bcom123 (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
The accused is (Redacted). Zero debate. If Vance is on that, (Redacted) must be on here as well. Bcom123 (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
While I personally supported including the name of the accused in this article, many of the opposers explicitly noted that him being a minor was a major factor in their opinion. Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not being a great argument, the situations are importantly different. Rusalkii (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree with @Rusalkii. Apples and oranges. The event occurred during minority, so there's no aging-out of this one unless an adult suspect affirmatively makes himself a public figure in his majority. This excludes court appearances. But if he so much as does a press release of his own as an adult, the name certainly comes in (for example of indicia, and for example of my position). Unlikely, right? But that's where this line is on this case. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish, sorry for a random ping, but is it maybe worth revdeling everything since 27 May? The post itself is a flagrant disregard and opposition to the working consensus here. Time might well tell otherwise, but for now we aren't naming this suspect, even on tp. I didn't re-forum or email this request for consideration for transparency purposes. And to affirm a standard up to willing publicity as an adult or a conviction for this subject. Thanks as always for any feedback you can lend. JFHJr (㊟) 02:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
The name is unredacted on the talk page, and I just removed it from the article. I think the toothpaste is out of the tube on revdels. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Indeed; (in/ex)clusion here is a matter of local consensus since the name is widely reported in RS, with the current consensus (or lack thereof) being to not include it for editorial/BLPCRIME reasons. Primefac (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
even on tp. That's not true. No one at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 202 § RfC: Exclusion of a person's name following consensus !voted for Option C either. Some1 (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
If the reason it’s being omitted is because they were a minor when it happened, that’s totally understandable. However, we should just make that a BLP guideline (if it isn’t already).
It’s incredibly frustrating (and likely a reason many seasoned editors leave) seeing these overly-politicized articles get taken over by a small number of Wikipedia users who then decide what is included in the article. I’m afraid to even touch articles like this one, mainly because I don’t want to deal with the exhausting WP:XYZ-laden responses.
In reality, the biggest issue with these types of articles is always the same thing: WP:OWN… even though no one will admit it.
MiddleAgedBanana (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
For me, it's absolutely a matter of legal minority (age). If we need better written BLP policies about age and consent to be here textually (for those not independently seeking publicity), I hope I'll be !pinged from another forum where we can do just that. It's not only criminality where the interests of minors not being named carries import. Not a bad idea @MiddleAgedBanana, but we can't do that right here. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 01:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
There was a recent Request for Comment regarding updates to WP:BLPCRIME that did not gain consensus. However, there is nothing in the current guideline that specifically prohibits naming this individual under Wikipedia policy. While age was a consideration for some during the RfC, it is not a policy-based restriction. At this point, the question in this article falls under WP:LOCALCON.
Setting policy aside for a moment, this individual's name appears in numerous reliable sources and the case is high-profile. The omission of their name in this article is, frankly, a disservice to the encyclopedia. There is no real harm in including the name, and this situation highlights how overly rigid interpretations of policy can sometimes hurt both Wikipedia and its readers. Nemov (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Your final sentence is a far more succinct (and better) way of summing up my previous reply, @Nemov.
As someone who reads Wikipedia more than I edit, I love that it has rigid standards and policies. But, as you said, it’s the case-by-case interpretations of those policies that I have issue with (as both a reader and an editor).
MiddleAgedBanana (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm missing how this hurts the readers. The name is not a significant piece of information; we can assume that he has a name, and with his lack of prior notability, the name does not confer a connection to some other event. Ample reference links are provided if readers want more information. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
If you don't understand then discussing it further is a fruitless exercise. Nemov (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
I believe that your entire perspective is made in bad faith, perhaps this wasn't your outright intent, but this is how it appears, this is my opinion.
Implying the name of the murderer is not a significant piece of information is to trivialize the tragedy as well as to unfathomably shield the one who has not disguised his actions as the perpetrator. You might as well be lobbying for the title of the article to read: "The Death of Austin Metcalf" and then disingenuously stand on ideologically motivated and intentional misinterpretations of policy to prevent any facts and all sources from being added to the article, as to shield the protected murderer, because that's clearly your intent.
This talk page and your horrendous reply deeply concerns me, along with the totality of this pages contents, completely shreds the encyclopedia's credibility, exposing the clear and unapologetic editorial biases.
This article is the antithesis of what this encyclopedia was intended to be. 108.88.197.8 (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
What in the world is going on here? I thought this whole thing wrapped up already. Bcom123 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I agree. Could not possibly be anymore slanted. Wikipedia is a joke now. 2603:6010:F0F0:9F00:1369:131E:ECFC:1847 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
I agree. The name matters. The article should be changed if we don't include the name. Karmelo Anthony's name is everywhere. Bcom123 (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
See Special:Contributions/Bcom123 to assess the apparent weight of the above opinion. Youngish account, revdels, reverts. This is not the opinion of an experienced editor. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
It's the opinion of the majority that the name should be listed. Cheers! Bcom123 (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
This can't be decided by a simple vote, and the IPs are just ranting. And of your 76 edits, 12 are here, getting towards WP:BLUDGEONING Doug Weller talk 15:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: At this point I'm mildly curious who might be editing logged out or other stuff in the same drawer. There have been a few different IPs saying the same thing here and on usertalks. I'm a little busy tending growies during a heat dome, and don't mind lending rope until it gets curiouser/worse. JFHJr (㊟) 00:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
As am I. But they hopefully will be ignored. Doug Weller talk 07:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
I mean if you want to say that is different, Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 years old when the Kenosha shooting happened and he was named almost immediately on wikipedia with no issue, this is a strange double standard with editors on this page refusing to name Karmelo Anthony in the article. This is the only time I have ever seen this happen. K3YTMLG (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Exactly. Don't argue though, you will be shut down. Bcom123 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
It is what it is, omitting names accomplishes nothing besides hurting the readability of the article itself. K3YTMLG (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Blackness

Why is the perpetrator's race not mentioned? The article mentions that lots of Black people contributed to the defence - why is that worthy of mention? 2604:3D09:C77:4E00:4CCC:CE9C:6CAF:472A (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not apparently relevant to the event. It's only apparently relevant to reactions, perception, and reporting; the stuff that flows after the event. Only one source was being used to make the sole mention of Black support. I removed it as WP:UNDUE. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
It is easily verifiable and quantifiable by virtue of the litany of real world, similar examples; that had the races been reversed, a white Karmelo Anthony and a black Austin Metcalf, race would be the primary focal point. This article is a walking contradiction and a definitive mark of shame for the encyclopedia. 108.88.197.8 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so it derives a large volume of information from the media as secondary sources. Regardless, if there's a credible secondary source that focuses on blackness, you're free to recommend it. Knightlyvalor (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
it is rather confusing that the article mentions race repeatedly ("unacceptable volume of racist and derogatory remarks", "Metcalf's father told the organizer of the protest that he disapproved of his efforts, stating, "You're trying to create more race divide than bridging the gap", "the group Protect White Americans held a protest".) but does not ever specify why race would be involved. If the reactions have included a lot of focus on racism and/or the race of the people involved then the article should clarify what is being said and why race is being discussed. Currently it's sort of implied that the two people involved were different races, and I guess the image indicates that the victim was white or white-looking, but it should really either be stated directly or else the oblique mentions of "racism" and "race divide" should not be included.
there's a large amount of racist trolling & bizarre hypothetical gotchas on this talk page, so I can see why people are getting frustrated, but I dont think the solution is to avoid mentioning race at in the article at all. It seems clear from the sources that racial issues have been a major element of the public reaction to this, as well as being repeatedly mentioned in the sources, so we should probably just mention that reaction directly. Here is a source discussing the reaction itself-- it seems to be a generally good news site, would that work? Tioseafj (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
100% agree, the racial debate is clearly an important aspect of this topic, covered in multiple reputable sources. It should be included in the article. Stonkaments (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
One may look at the Johnny Bright incident, where mentioning the perpetrator's race in the prose has been deemed correct. CtrlFreak578 (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Is the gag order relevant here?

Doug Weller talk 16:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

If it was a suppression order on the name of the accused, or on reporting of the case, it would have relevance to this article. In Australia the name of the accused, and any photos/video footage of them, is automatically suppressed when they are/were below 18 at the time the alleged crime/s occurred.
This looks like a gag order on involved parties. I'm surprised that such an order is required and not implied. TarnishedPathtalk 08:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Is this article a BLP of the accused

This is not a BLP of the accused; therefore, the accused's name being removed is not valid.Daftmoves (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Editor has now been blocked, but to answer the concern: the very first sentence of WP:BLP makes it clear that BLP guidelines are not limited to biography pages. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Name of the Killer

Since the RfC was closed with WP:NOCONSENSUS and the last stable version before the RfC had the killers name inlcuded, I will add it. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe that's in line with the spirit of the BLP policy. Default for BLP is not the "last stable version", it is to exclude the information unless there is a positive consensus to add it back in. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Actually, it's not in line with the wording of WP:NOCON either. I'll quote the applicable part here (emphasis mine): Living people. In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. Nor with WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPRESTORE which says (emphasis mine): To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.
Neither of these seem to allow for restoration just because it was the "last stable version". Our BLP-related policies are "stricter" than normal requirements for restoring information for good reason. A lack of a consensus is not "consensus... be[ing] obtained" by definition. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
There was no BLP issue here. The admin who closed the RfC was clear on that. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
No, the admin said there was no consensus on the matter. You cannot read that into there is no BLP issue. Again, the default for contested potentially negative information about a living person is removal until there is a consensus to readd it. No consensus is by definition not a consensus. In fact, the closer even said that if there is disagreement as to whether the result means it can be included, it should be excluded while it is discussed. If you are unwilling to revert yourself I will be reverting your addition of the name back pending further discussion here. Update, User:Symphony Regalia already reverted you. Pinging them for courtesy here.
I also disagree with you that the last stable version had the name included. The name was added and quickly was removed. Generally speaking a "stable" version would've needed to remain up for days if not weeks to be considered stable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
No pre-RfC stable versions exist. It's a snipe hunt. The article was created on April 16 without the name. The name was and quickly reverted. Twice. On April 17, it was again added and . It remained with the name until April 18 when it was again . The events repeat until protection just before RfC (still not stable). It stabilized without the name after the RfC began, so that's what we work with. Happy dickering to us all. JFHJr (㊟) 00:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make - the last stable version didn't include the name, because there wasn't a last stable version. However, it stabilizing after the RfC was started doesn't really mean much, since it was removed under BLP so couldn't be readded during the course of the RfC. So with no stable version existing at all (much less one with the name included), and a no consensus outcome of the RfC, it should be excluded. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
The accused is a living person, so this article is covered by WP:CT/BLP and WP:BLP definetely applies. TarnishedPathtalk 00:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm about to unwatchlist this, however, I notice this discussion and I will just add that the last sentence of the close I wrote was: "if there is disagreement as to which was the last stable version, the name should probably be excluded per BLPCRIME while that gets sorted out". Since there seems to be a disagreement as to which was the last stable version (or, indeed, if there was even a last stable version), I would recommend exclusion pending consensus as to what the last stable version was, if such a version existed. Chetsford (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Funny how the name of the shooter was added to this one with no issue at all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_legislators 72.20.140.38 (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. I got warned for trying to change this multiple times. These people just don't like the truth. It's not worth trying any more. Bcom123 (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
This matter had already been addressed at the RFC. Your continue attempts to reinsert it, rather than finding a new consensus, are inappropriate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Not such if I have picked up a stable version of the article, but it's a bit weird that Karmelo Anthony's name is not mentioned in prose but nonetheless appears 21 times in the article in the titles citations... if the consensus is that his name shouldn't appear on Wikipedia shouldn't all these articles be removed? GeebaKhap (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

We had an RfC regarding this at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Archive 202#RfC: Exclusion of a person's name following consensus. The consensus is unanimous--that excluding a name from an article does not restrict its use in sources or other non-content material on Wikipedia. So to answer your question, no, sources shouldn't be removed solely because his name appears in them, either in the headlines or URLs. Some1 (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Interesting change ... only asked because I remember previous instances where a name was basically scrubbed from all Wikipedia namespaces and people were even reverted/blocked for using it. GeebaKhap (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
If the name you're thinking of starts with a "C", then that's because there's no article about the person and people who mention that name on Wikipedia are most likely trolling. Some1 (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Silly question but is this discussion worth reopening? A common argument was that the accused perpetrator's name should be withheld because he was a minor at the time but according to an article I read about his indictment, he is now 18 and therefore not a minor in Texas. Count3D (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

What's the link to that article? Some1 (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Never mind, found one: Karmelo Anthony, the now 18-year-old accused of fatally stabbing another teen during an altercation at a Frisco ISD track meet in early April, was indicted for murder by a Collin County grand jury on Tuesday. Some1 (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
The users on this talk page have made it an intensely ideological pet project to keep Karmelo unnamed in this article for reasons uncertain to me. If you think this is a bizarre double standard, you’re completely correct. 162.222.63.62 (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Look at this IP"s racist and right-wing contributions. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
says the man who only has left wing contributions Hthompson2000 (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The name of the alleged perpetrator appears 22 times on the article page, but is not mentioned in the body of the article. I know that we have different rules from news sources but this is a ridiculous situation. Tigerboy1966  22:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I would also support adding his name back to the body of the article – he is no longer a minor and the case (and his name) continues to be widely reported across national and international media. We seem to be holding ourselves to a higher standard than any other source – are there any media outlets that are withholding his identity? It would make a degree of sense if there was a Wikipedia-wide policy that no minor accused of a crime should be named until they are convicted, but there have been numerous other high-profile instances of accused minors being named on Wikipedia before being brought to trial. Arbitrarily deciding this on a case by case basis isn't a good way to do things. I T B F 📢 04:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
I suggest starting a new RfC (since the first one ended with no consensus and, post-RfC, the defendant is no longer a minor). Some1 (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Finally people realized this. Bcom123 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Given his name is plastered across every major news outlet across the country, and presumably, across the world—withholding his name based on some altruistic sense of fair justice for minors is inherently ridiculous and accomplishes nothing. It undermines the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole and reveals deep seated biases of some of its contributors, given these ‘rules’ aren’t universally applied. 136.57.2.135 (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree. Bcom123 (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Were any of you going to start an RfC? I haven't done one before but there doesn't seem to be any good reason to exclude his name, it weakens the article's completeness. FrodoMarsh (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
This article is the first thing that popped up upon a search of the name "Karmelo Anthony," but as of writing the article currently doesn't name him, instead using more ambiguous language, which is a bit harder to parse (which "he" is being referred to? The victim or the suspected perpetrator?) At the same time, almost all of the source titles state the name outright, instead using terms like "suspect," etc. I wasn't present for previous edits, so I'm not sure when the dichotomy between the article text and sources arose. Will this article be updated to be less confusing in the future, or will there be a RfC before then? I just was curious about what was up with this article, since it doesn't match my usual expectations of Wikipedia. Apologies if I missed something obvious! MysteryCorgi (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
You are missing the current RFC on this very page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Appreciated! I'll go take a look. MysteryCorgi (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me why Shiloh Hendrix is named in the Rochester, MN incident and is being charged with a crime as the suspect, but Karmelo Anthony for some reason can't be named in the wikipedia page of this crime, when there is no doubt he is the prime suspect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daftmoves (talk • contribs) 21:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to raise WP:BLPCRIME concerns regarding that page... although the circumstances are different (doesn't look like that person was a minor at the time, and more directly relevant to BLPCRIME, them starting their own public fundraiser could be argued to elevate them out of low-profile individual status.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2025

Change any non-controversial information that involves the word accused to “Karmelo Anthony” 71.185.195.14 (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Should the name of the indicted suspect be included in the article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Yes. Many objecting to inclusion pointed to WP:BLPCRIME, which says to "seriously consider" not including accusations against people who are not public figures until after conviction. Some editors pointed out that age and indictment are not mentioned here, but many editors took those into account when balancing harms and benefits. A substantial but not overwhelming majority of editors concluded after serious consideration that inclusion is warranted, especially given that the accused has become more publicly known over time, and that the name is widely reported by reliable sources. It is actually already in the article in the title of some cited sources, so there is little practical privacy value to excluding it from prose. Any statements made about the accused must adhere carefully to reliable sources and relevant Wikipedia policies. -- Beland (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
This close is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Talk:Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf#RfC:_Should_the_name_of_the_indicted_suspect_be_included_in_the_article?. -- Beland (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The prior RfC ended in "no consensus" when the suspect was a minor and uncharged. He is now eighteen and was indicted for first-degree murder. Should their name be included in the article? FrodoMarsh (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  • No. He is still not convicted, so WP:BLPCRIME is still very much in play. It is still about actions taken as a minor. And he is not otherwise notable; his name does not connect this event to other events, so the name is not needed for understanding this event. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Include So far as I can tell, the first-degree-murder indictment plus extensive national coverage satisfies the "potential harm vs encyclopedic value" concerns. Omitting the suspect's name, while heavily citing sources that feature it in headlines, violates WP:DUE and misleads readers. As well, the suspect is now an adult and the juvenile concern no longer applies. Finally, notability only decides whether a person gets a stand-alone article or not, which isn't the point here. FrodoMarsh (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Exclude (No). This subject was a minor at the time of the event. The clock is stopped there, not least because he has apparently sought no publicity with a presser or anything as an adult. His aging into adulthood during the proceedings does not impact my analysis, unless he seeks attention as an adult somehow. Minority as of the event definitely impacts how the court could possibly punish him (they see the clock as stopped as well). Short of a conviction, the alternative is to wait for one. There are no deadlines here. User:NatGertler is absolutely correct about WP:BLPCRIME here. JFHJr (㊟) 01:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC) — *PS: WP:NOTNEWS. JFHJr (㊟) 02:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    He's being charged as an adult so I'm not sure what you mean by the clock being stopped. He's also covered nationally, and whether he's sought publicity is irrelevant. Shouldn't we weigh coverage, not media strategy? The indictment and two dozen mainstream headlines already place his name in the public domain and the article is incomplete without it. FrodoMarsh (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    When I say the court in Texas considered the clock stopped, it's that they can't seek the death penalty or even life without parole in actuality. Otherwise, Texas charges minors as adults all the time. They can't necessarily punish them the same. JFHJr (㊟) 02:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    Whether he has sought publicity actually is relevant. WP:BLPCRIME specifies that it's for people who "are not public figures" that we are to give consideration. Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, which discusses non-public figure as roughly the same term, says that Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    (Agreeing with above by User:NatGertler). JFHJr (㊟) 02:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    Out of curiosity, if nearly every headline in the reference list names them and the article pointedly withholds that fact, how is that not manufacturing a POV fork? FrodoMarsh (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    See WP:POVFORK for why this is not such a situation. JFHJr (㊟) 03:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you. I wasn't suggesting a second article exists. My point is that the article's current wording forks from its own sources by omitting a name that the cited headlines use. WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Omitting the name skews weight away from neutrality when the sources are unanimous. FrodoMarsh (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    News media and encyclopedias are different. We definitely draw different lines in different places. JFHJr (㊟) 03:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    The very nature of WP:BLPCRIME presumes that the person is being named in reliable sources. If they were not, other aspects of WP:BLP would already be telling us not to include the name. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes. Numerous reliable sources have named him. He has been indicted. The notability of the case is in part because of the killer's identity, as well as the victim's. An encyclopedia entry would be incomplete without this context. The killer is no longer a minor. The victim was, and his picture and name are in the article. BeatrixGodard (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Indictment and widespread national coverage raise encyclopedic value, and they're now an adult, reducing potential harm. That tips the scale toward inclusion. FrodoMarsh (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Sure - that's why we have an article on this occurrence. But what's the encyclopedic value of the specific name, specifically? The name doesn't have any relation to other notable individuals - for example, if one of Donald Trump's grandchildren committed a crime, but wasn't notable enough for their own article, then it may provide encyclopedic value to list the name. But there is zero encyclopedic value in this name other than trying to "name and shame". We aren't news. We do not have to name someone just because news does. Period. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
By that logic, a Wikipedia also should not name the victim. His name connects to no other event, and its inclusion is not necessary to understand the article. 2600:1011:A03F:A634:DC22:2A2F:EEBC:EE2D (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Don't you know, he did not travel across state lines. I assume that's the only reason wikipedia editors are treating this different from the Kyle article, since it can't be because of age since they were both 17. 2600:1702:7530:510F:D0F4:9EFA:DAB9:AB53 (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia has over 100,000 active editors, so assuming the editors on one page are the same editors on another is likely to be faulty. And certainly at this point Kyle Rittenhouse is considered a "public figure", given his media appearances. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
They are obviously not the same. The editors on Kyle's page wanted his name listed, while the editors on this page want the murderer's name hidden. Must be because one crossed state lines while the other simply brought a weapon to a school event. 2600:1702:7530:510F:D0F4:9EFA:DAB9:AB53 (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
The Kenosha shooting and the identity and background of the accused was far more widely covered by high quality national and international sources, which probably reflects the political dimension to it. This is a local crime story which has drawn wider social media and mostly tabloid interest. We obviously do not need to litigate the use of Rittenhouse's name at this point, but if you cannot see the difference I do not think you are seriously considering what might need to be balanced to justify including the name of the accused here. Chaste Krassley (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
"We obviously do not need to litigate the use of Rittenhouse's name at this point"
Why not? If we can blatantly disregard RS here, why not there, with the exact same reasoning? 84.206.29.66 (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I just explained how the two stories differ. One received wide and deep national media attention from high quality sources; the other has been covered barely at all outside local media and tabloids. Chaste Krassley (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I see plenty of national (non-local) media outlets among the sources, and in the latest Google search results; from which I would infer that this is no longer a local crime story. 84.206.29.66 (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Of reliable non-tabloid outlets? There are certainly some; I've seen CNN, AP, The Independent and USA Today cover it, and I think some of the ABC reporting wasn't from a local affiliate. Those are reliable national (or international) sources, but if they didn't exist (or there was only one or two of them) this event probably wouldn't meet notability to begin with. By contrast Rittenhouse and, for another example, Luigi Mangione, were reported on repeatedly and often at length pretty much everywhere, as well as specifically in national, international, and (non-local) regional papers of record. Another feature in those other cases was the widespread coverage in high quality national and international sources on not just the incident but the identity, background, and potential motivations of the accused, which is something that I think gives an encyclopaedic reason for inclusion and also something we don't have here. I think if BLPCRIME means don't include the name of the accused unless it's in reliable sources and about an event that is notable enough to have an article in the first place then it really means nothing. Chaste Krassley (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Point is, he did not cross state lines, he only brought a weapon to a school event. That's obviously the only reason wikipedia treats this different from Kyle, since they were both same age and wikipedia editors are obviously not racists. 2600:1702:7530:510F:D0F4:9EFA:DAB9:AB53 (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I think you have already made your view clear. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Exactly. It's whataboutism, and not about seeking a particular consensus for this specific article based on WP:BLP and collateral policies and guidelines. It's a poor choice in hills. It's a scarecrow argument. JFHJr (㊟) 22:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  • No, exclude: Although there are press conferences and the fundraiser, these are acts of the broader family and, as far as I can tell, not the sole and willful act of the accused. That individual in question has largely chosen to not engage in these activities as an individual. When present, it appears to be in a limited capacity and in a non-self-promotional way. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 03:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
  • No, still, and propose moratorium on further RfCs until either the conclusion of the trial or at least 6 months. The reasoning is still the same. It does not matter that more time has passed and he is now legally an adult. I'd support the same for an accused who was 18 or 19 too and is being actively brigaded across the internet (either in support or opposed to). We have a responsibility to living people. The name of the accused does not add a single thing to this article in terms of encyclopedic value. That does not change just because a few more weeks have passed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    A few more weeks indeed, and then some I'm sure. This RfC is mostly a trial of patience. A good reason for a moratorium: to encourage patience. JFHJr (㊟) 02:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    WP:CONSENSUS permits renewed discussion when new facts arise. I don't see how a moratorium is appropriate. I raised this when the indictment was made and he aged to an adult, both relevant to some arguments made in the previous RfC. FrodoMarsh (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    And so far as not adding any value, shouldn't readers expect the article to match the sources it cites? FrodoMarsh (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 202#RfC: Exclusion of a person's name following consensus on your very question. JFHJr (㊟) 03:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks again. Option D only said we shouldn't scrub their name from citations though so far as I can tell. It didn't ban them from the text. We have 20-ish mainstream headlines naming them and no equally strong sources that skip it, so leaving the suspect nameless misrepresents the coverage a reader would expect. And it's telling that Google shows the citation snippets with their name in its search preview on the first page of results, while the article itself hides it. That mismatch undercuts the encyclopedia's job. FrodoMarsh (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    Then reopen the VP and overturn it. JFHJr (㊟) 03:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    That VP thread only covered whether to blank names out of citations. This RfC is about article prose. Thanks again. FrodoMarsh (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    In what way do we not match the sources? We do not need to quote sources exactly - if we did, our articles would be full of exact quotes from sources. We routinely deviate from sources in the terminology used. There is no reason we cannot do so in naming a subject as well. And bluntly, even if that was a consideration, there is no encyclopedic value in using the name directly because it's blatantly clear when someone clicks on a source that when we refer to the suspect/charged individual, it's the same person as the source is referring to. Furthermore, the "new information" being that the subject grew up is, to be blunt, absurd. Everyone grows up every day. That is not "new information". There is absolutely no new argument to be had here, and so your claim that there's new information falls flat on its face.
    So I'll ask this again - what encyclopedic value does the name add? Hint: None. Our job is not to "name and shame" even if news sources do such. As such, without there being encyclopedic value to the name, we should not include it until convicted. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    What encyclopedic value does adding the name of an individual who killed Austin Metcalf in an article detailing the Killing of Austin Metcalf add? Just want to make sure I understand your question. FrodoMarsh (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • No per Nat Gertler and JFHJr. Their reasoning is on point and aligns with our policies and guidelines. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes Include you can see the name of the suspect in so many of the RS. IndrasBet (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
  • No, per Nat Gertler. To add to that though I would hesitate to agree with there being 'extensive national coverage' for BLP purposes. I could be wrong but from a look at the sources here and online it appears to be overwhelmingly covered by local publications or affiliates and nationally by tabloids. The story is covered fairly sparingly by some reputable non-local and non-tabloid outlets like CNN and AP, and (from what I can tell) not at all by national papers of record. I am not saying that is disqualifying for inclusion, but if we are inferring that there is a bar for overcoming the strong caution at WP:BLPCRIME on the basis of notability I think that threshold should be higher than what we see here. Chaste Krassley (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  • No (Here from BLPN) This is a non-notable individual, beyond this case. Just because something can be reliably sourced doesn't mean it has to be included (WP:VNOT). Including the name at this point isn't an improvement that out weighs BLP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, include, per FrodoMarsh. Even the completely arbitrary "extensive national coverage" requirement is fully satisfied (Fox, CNN, Independent, NBC from the article's sources alone). There is a strong case to be made that his and his family's actions after the killing establish Anthony as a public figure (with the bond reduction and fundraising antics).
For reference, Nick Sandmann's and Kyle Rittenhouse's names are mentioned in the articles of the only events they're known for 49 and 342 times respectively. (Minor note to the blpcrime sealions: Rittenhouse was acquitted, with basically the entire establishment media demonising him, one outlet even going as far as jury intimidation.) 84.206.29.66 (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Purposeful attempts to address the public make one a public figure, such as Rittenhouse's extensive TV interview or Sandmann's speech at the Republican National Convention. Can you point to similar things in this case? Because when I find reference to things like press conferences, it seems to be the parents, not the accused themself, involved. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
It's the depth of independent coverage that makes someone a public figure, not whether they personally stepped up to a mic. FrodoMarsh (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
We consider someone who has not sought public attention a low-profile individual, per Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
What would you consider the several hundred thousand dollars in donations that the family received after launching a campaign to gain publicly for the purposes of aiding the admitted perpetrator's legal defense? To not treat the over half a million dollar fundraiser as an effort to gain public support and attention is disingenuous. Others have made this point clear, but it is almost always ignored, despite the facts being what they are. 108.88.197.8 (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The then-minor, who was in custody, did not do that. He had no control over any of it. If someone doesn't seek public attention as an adult, that someone is low-profile. JFHJr (㊟) 03:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
The accused had no control over his (essentially) PR team. Got it.
Now let me tell you about this bridge I have for sale. 85.238.68.143 (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
This is untrue. See Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual - for Wikipedia purposes, a low-profile individual is someone who does not seek fame; the policies in question are specifically written for cases like this, to avoid situations where events can "pull someone into the spotlight", so to speak. --Aquillion (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Well now, I can't imagine that the president of the US falsely implying that one is a white supremacist (without evidence) would pull someone into the spotlight. Or the entire left-wing US media blob calling one a racist in unison. Can't see why one would have to mount a defense in response. 85.238.68.143 (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
The parents engaging in high-profile activity, on behalf of the accused, to which the accused ostensibly did not object to (going as far as hiring a racist activist who ends up calling the victim's father disrespectful for daring to be present), seems like a distinction without a difference to me.
But, fine. Are you !voting for the parents' names to be included instead? 85.238.68.143 (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
You just don't get it. Both Rittenhouse and Sandmann crossed state lines. This guy only brought a weapon to a school event. 2600:1702:7530:510F:1CE8:230C:C380:5D3C (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes but not because of the birthday and indictment. Rather, due to extensive discussions on the Talk Page regarding WP:BLPCRIME which altered the way I viewed the previous RFC on this page (where I previously voted no). My vote won't change anything here just like the discussion did nothing to improve the policy there, because we'll always be hung on controversial topics like this where policy is vague, but oh well.
Additionally, part of my reasoning previously was due to WP:SENSATIONAL, and the longevity and consistency of reporting seems like reason enough to turn over my previous vote per WP:PERSISTENCE. Penguino35 (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes pragmatically with fact-based information, including both sides of the argument based on the facts presented without journalistic opinions, and cited to credible sources. Atsme 💬 📧 01:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
  • No. (summoned by bot) He is still not convicted, so WP:BLPCRIME is still very much in play. It is still about actions taken as a minor. And he is not otherwise notable; his name does not connect this event to other events, so the name is not needed for understanding this event per Nat Gertler and others. The aging of the accused is irrelevant, the crime was committed by a minor and no encyc benefit attaches to the name. Pincrete (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes. The name is extensively reported in headlines around the country. He admitted to doing it. Highly unlikely he's going to be found innocent or his trial will drag on... plus, as is, it makes the page look ugly. It's preventing readers from knowing obvious facts they can learn in two seconds by scrolling to the bottom of the page. Count3D (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes There is nothing in WP:BLPCRIME that explicitly prohibits the inclusion of the alleged individual’s name in cases where the name is widely reported in reliable sources. It’s frankly baffling that this policy continues to be cited as if it mandates blanket redaction of names in such cases. The guideline advises caution, particularly for non-public figures or when coverage is sparse or speculative, but that clearly doesn’t apply here. When the individual’s name is already public knowledge through significant, reputable coverage, and no plausible harm can result from its inclusion, omitting it does more harm to neutrality and completeness than good. - Nemov (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed. Caution is due when WP:SENSATIONAL applies. We're well beyond that here. Penguino35 (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes His name is mentioned in a bunch of the sources used in the article and if you Ctrl-F in the article for his name it appears 22 times, all in the references. Ryanisbetter (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
    A disused name can appear in refs alone. It's okay. Use ctrl-f here for VP to see the link that explains why. JFHJr (㊟) 23:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
  • No, per WP:BLPCRIME: "For individuals who are not public figures—individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime." Hammelsmith (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
  • No, the previous decision was based on WP:BLPCRIME and not his age - few people mentioned it in the discussion and it was not part of the closing statement. See my in-depth reasoning in the essay I wrote on this. In this case, he remains a low-profile individual according to our definition; there's nothing particularly noteworthy or significant about his name, and little in-depth coverage focused on him as an individual. I'm completely unconvinced by the simple use of his name in news coverage, which I feel has no relevance to whether we should include it - while we summarize the sources, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and has different standards and a different purpose than news articles, some of which BLP and especially BLPCRIME specifically spell out, which inevitably affect how we specifically summarize the sources, which sources are appropriate to guide which decisions, and so on. I also feel that it's extremely improper to immediately re-ask this question the moment he turns 18, and would support a moratorium on this question until the end of the trial to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. --Aquillion (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
    Beautifully opined. JFHJr (㊟) 23:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
    +1 - great essay and explains my views on this subject very well. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
    "immediately re-ask this question the moment he turns 18" I presented this RfC two months after the killer turned 18, following a reading of the previous RfC. Thanks. FrodoMarsh (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
    Was that also you posting about state lines and school premises (logged out)? JFHJr (㊟) 03:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
    No. All my work is under FrodoMarsh. If you're genuinely worried, take it to SPI and let CheckUser decide. In the meantime, nobody owns this page. Stick to improving the content. FrodoMarsh (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
    From your essay: Wikipedia, as a user-generated source subject to rapid edits, can easily end up containing false, defamatory, or harmful things; and we only have so many editors reviewing articles to make sure that that doesn't happen. If the main concern is avoiding "false, defamatory, or harmful things", then we should simply avoid saying false, defamatory, and harmful things. As long as we follow what reliable secondary sources say, that shouldn't be an issue. There are plenty of editors reviewing this article to make sure that the suspect's name is included in a fair, factual and harm-free manner. Stonkaments (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
    +1 - The article is dutifully regulated by at least a few editors, so this shouldn't be a concern. Well said. FrodoMarsh (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
  • My first thought is to say Yes, include for the sake of readability. This is the first time I've encountered an article like this one, and it doesn't fit the standards of quality I generally associate with Wikipedia. It seriously sticks out. I'm not sure how people who aren't familiar with Wikipedia would be able to parse the lack of name in the article versus the name appearing in the sources. I've only heard of this case today and an initial reading of this article had me stumped, despite being fairly well-versed in reading Wikipedia. (Which is why I immediately came to this talk page to see what was going on.)
However, I would also be willing to defer to the "No, exclude" position until after the court case is over...but only if the article language is changed for the sake of clarity. The main issue I ran into while reading the article is akin to the "gay fanfiction problem" in linguistics (i.e. which "he" is being referred to? The victim or the suspected perpetrator?) I think that using the title/role could suffice until a consensus is made regarding using the names, or the names are used after a trial verdict is reached. It would also be best if the source titles were changed to be consistent.
Out of curiosity, are there any other articles that have run into this issue historically? How were those handled? I see that the Kyle Rittenhouse page was handled differently, but I'm curious if there are others. (I'm not sure the best way to find such pages, especially if the status/categorization has changed over time.) Thank you. MysteryCorgi (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
There are plenty of articles where BLPCRIME concerns are raised. Some of those are biographical articles, where accusations are excluded due to there not being a conviction; others are incident articles like this one where identities are excluded. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! MysteryCorgi (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, include as the name of the accused is widely reported, and Wikipedia is not censored. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Exclude per @JFHJr, @NatGertler, @Pincrete, @Hammelsmith, @Aquillion and others. Per WP:BLPCRIME the detail about the alleged person's name should not be included as they have not been convicted and are a low-profile individual. TarnishedPathtalk 00:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, include. The most direct guidance we have comes from WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, which clearly supports including Anthony's name: Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources....Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. Those who are interpreting WP:BLPCRIME to say that no information from non-public figures should be included are mistaken—rather, the due information should be included with restraint and following high-quality secondary sources.
The suspect's identity in this case specifically is DUE because the debate around race (the victim was white, and the suspect is black) has generated significant news coverage. Stonkaments (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
The accused is not notable and shows no particular person's notability, let alone his own. The event is notable. See the redirect at Karmelo Anthony for a practical example of what I'm pointing out: your opinion supposes notability of the accused where it's not. You have misread what you cited. JFHJr (㊟) 04:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Also, the blatant inconsistency in use of the term "notability" is ambiguous and unhelpful. Stonkaments didn't author that. JFHJr (㊟) 05:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
The link you provided (WP:BIO) describes the notability test “to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.” But that’s not the relevant question here. The accused isn’t notable enough to warrant their own article, but they are still notable in the context of this article, as evidenced by their frequent mention in reliable sources. Stonkaments (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
We can cover an individual's race without naming them. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
This isn't an argument. BLPCRIME assumes the material is in sources. BlackVulcanX (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak include This is a hard case. As others mentioned, it draws some parallels to Rittenhouse in that the crime was widely covered. The family of the accused has worked to raise money with public statements. At some point this becomes high enough profile. While Rittenhouse was even higher profile, I don't see a material difference between the two and feel they should be handled in a similar fashion. The name can be included but statements about his actions also should not undermine his claim of self defense.
Springee (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Include Their name is included in essentially every reputable source (both major and minor news sources) that has reported on the matter. It is our job as editors to objectively document the world based on what the sources say. Once information has been verified/reported by multiple reputable sources, it is no longer our place to decide if it can be included in an article or not. This is why having such strict standards for sources (especially for BLPs) is so important — it allows us to remove ourselves, and our personal views, from the article. MiddleAgedBanana (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Include - basically same reasoning as my vote in the last RfC, only now moreso. We know the name is a significant WP:ASPECT of the topic because it's included in virtually all WP:RSes about the topic. In a notable criminal case, the name of the defendant is almost always going to be a significant aspect because RSes are almost always going to name the defendant. It's just common sense: it's just obviously important who is accused of the crime, but in this case, common sense is backed by NPOV policy. Levivich (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
  • No as it adds nothing to the understanding whilst BLP and legal concerns exist. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes. Its widely cited by RS's and we have set a precedent on other articles. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes as per my comment in the thread above: "He is no longer a minor and the case (and his name) continues to be widely reported across national and international media. We seem to be holding ourselves to a higher standard than any other source." I T B F 📢 07:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
  • No Juvenile who has not been convicted of a crime. Major WP:BLP issues. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
    He is not a juvenile anymore and has not been for four months. This is irrelevant to the facts. 108.88.197.8 (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
    They were a juvenile at the time of the alleged crime. So yes relevant to the facts. TarnishedPathtalk 01:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
  • No due to BLPCRIME. Not a public figure, only accused, adds no value to article. BlackVulcanX (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
  • No, Exclude - Hasn't been convicted of anything, plus is a private person and was not of age at the time of the incident. 37.153.152.31 (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, include. Wikipedia should follow the sources and major news sources have decided to name him. -- Tavix (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes nothing is to be gained by limiting the name of the accused to the titles of the 20+ references in major worldwide online news sources, MSM and otherwise, which mention him. So WP:SENSE tells us there's nothing to be gained here by suppression. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, include there is nothing preventing publication, and the name of the accused has been widely published. That means they are now a public figure. The information is perfectly verifiable and published in high quality sources. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Exclude Not convicted of a crime and was a juvenile. These protections exist for a reason. Wikipedia isn't a news site and even many news sources also do not name him. Ryuudou (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Include I’m astonished by some of the double standards at play here. When Jordan Neely was killed and an article was written about the event, the name of his killer (Daniel Penny) was added basically as soon as it was disclosed even though he hadn’t been charged or indicted with anything yet. He and Karmelo Anthony have both received extensive media coverage by this point. Anyone who knows about the circumstances of both killings and the individuals involved in them can understand what’s going on here. In my honest opinion, the argument that Anthony was a minor is incredibly flimsy. Joseph Hall was a minor when he killed his father and is still alive, yet he isn’t just "the perpetrator." Philroc (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
    Joseph's name was in that article already before the WP:BLPCRIME guidelines were added to our BLP guidelines; and he was since convicted, and thus WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply now. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, include - His name is literally reported in nearly every reliable source that covers this case. Also, it is not like the name is purely trivial, like nothing more than "Police have a minor in custody". We literally describe in detail many things about the accused. Wikipedia should have some editorial caution, but our editorial caution should not grossly exceed that of essentially every reliable source. Not mentioning his name is not protecting his privacy. Genuinely, nothing is accomplished with shielding of his name in this context. R. G. Checkers talk 05:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes – there is currently a war over a hatnote – a pure navigational aid – because of this alleged consensus (in fact, there is no consensus to exclude his name from the article). We follow sources; that is our core principle. Do sources – all sources – consistently include the name of Karmelo Anthony? Yes, they do. If an encyclopedia does not include core facts of secondary sources, it is not an encyclopedia. I echo Jclemens' point about WP:SENSE and also... WP:NOTCENSORED? If sources report on it and we pointedly don't, then it is censorship. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI