Talk:Slender Man stabbing

In the Slender Man case, the attorney seems to be revealing his defense strategy ahead of time, which is unusual. There's a very important reason why the attorney is doing this and that is because he wants the case moved to juvenile court where the penalties would be much less severe than in adult court. See American juvenile justice system.

The headlines of news articles don't always accurately capture the gist of the news item. The important point of this filing is not what murder charge is most appropriate, but whether the case should be handled in juvenile or adult court. That this is the primary reason for this brief/filing is evident in the headline of the referenced article:

"Defense attorney in Slender Man stabbing argues girl shouldn't face trial in adult court". Fox News. Associated Press. 24 February 2015. Retrieved 27 February 2015.

Thus the requested change in the degree charged of attempted murder is not significant in itself, but rather is significant because the defense attorney wants the case moved to juvenile court.

The defense attorney is in fact not arguing that she should be charged of the second degree crime in juvenile court. He is asking the court to dismiss the current charges. If the court does so, it would be up to the prosecutor to file charges in juvenile court. This is made clearer in a different article.

Lawyer Argues for Dismissal of Charge in Slender Man Case, http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/attorney-argues-dismissal-charge-stabbing-plot-29276705

Also, it appears that it is only the attorney for one of the two girls who is making this argument.

I edited the wiki article itself before reading this second news article. Since it didn't have the facts quite right (it's a request for dismissal), I'm going to revise it again.Ileanadu (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on prior discussion at Talk:Slender_Man/Archive_1#Waukesha_Stabbing_and_names_of_minors I have removed the names of minors / juveniles involved in this. The names are obviously published elsewhere, and that information is easily obtained, so no censorship is occurring. Due to WP:BLP, I see no overwhelming need to use their names at this time. If they are actually convicted in an adult court, then we can discuss this again. At age 12, they are minors by quite a few years, psychological issues are involved and it still appears possible they may be tried as juveniles. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I am in favor of not having their names on the page but in response to above - both girls are being tried as adults, and the issue of the girls' competency is not being considered as a leniency factor to my knowledge. Frankly I think prosecuting children in this way is disgraceful and blockheaded. morsontologica (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with Masonpew. The girls were reading adult stories, planning a murder with the sophistication of an adult, and they committed an adult crime; they should be tried in an adult court. Joshualouie711 (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think not including the defendants' names is an exercise in futility. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, International Business Times, Chicago Tribune and New York Times, among others, have all published their names. Eventually, their names will be added back into the Wikipedia article; and, the longer we go on without including their names, the more tedious that task will be. If you still think their names should be excluded, then I recommend calling them Defendant 1 & 2 or something like that; that way, we will at least know whose court event is being reported. 13ov7 (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

13ov7, I concur. Wikipedia's BLP policy on this states that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." I would therefore assume that the names should be included, since the sources that you mentioned count as reliable sources.

I disagree, they are still minors and apparently there are psychological issues involved. Special caution is recommended when minors are involved. Everything discussed at Talk:Slender_Man/Archive_1#Waukesha_Stabbing_and_names_of_minors is still valid. WP:BLPCRIME still says "For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." If they are judged guilty of adult crimes we can reconsider it at that time. This article does not need to be a blow by blow, day by day description of each court case. A summary can be written at the end when their trials are over. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The defendants have been named in numerous major news articles, including most of the articles cited in this article (in fact some of the articles actually list out the names of the accused in their title). That being said, I'm still kind of uncomfortable naming the defendants within the article given their young age and the fact that a lot of people will be getting their news primarily from this article. I think in this case its best to err on the side of caution, even if doing so is kind of futile. In regards to naming, I'd prefer coding them as Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, and then manually switching over to their actual names if and when they are found guilty in an adult criminal court. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter that you think it's moral to leave their names out. 2601:151:4402:6aad:18e3:d517:13a4:4fce (User talk:2601:151:4402:6aad:18e3:d517:13a4:4fce)

They are being tried in an adult court, for an adult crime, that they planned in an adult way and used weapons only adults can buy. I believe their names should be released on Wikipedia. After all, we are an encyclopedia. Their names should be released, ASAP. Hiitsmebobby (Chat with me here) 17:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Now that the BBC has named one of them (not just in the body of a news story, but in the headline), can this be considered public knowledge? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Now age 15, one has been sentenced, and both names were broadcast and published by local Milwaukee WISN-TV: ABC News Channel 12, so it can't be hidden here. Blainster (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The names of both defendants have received coverage in national and international news sources. One of them has plead and another one has a trial scheduled in a few weeks, both in adult court. While I previously expressed some reservations about listing their names, the two defendants have long been highly public figures. As such, I think its appropriate to list their names at this point in time.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree that they should be named throughout the article. All the major news sources are naming them, and both girls' parents were involved in the HBO documentary so there's obviously no objection to them being public. --Loeba (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Such persons should not be named in articles unless they or their parents/guardians consent to publicize their names. Since the accused's parents freely consented to be in the HBO documentary Beware the Slenderman, in which their full names, were freely given, as were videos of their police interrogations and photos of them going back to infancy/childhood, and since the victim's parents released then-recent photos of her to the media in 2017, parental consent is unambiguously established.

In addition, both names show up in the titles of articles cited as sources that appear repeatedly in the References section, and Anissa's name shows up once in the article body, albeit fairly far down in the paragraph that mentions her activities as a 15-year-old in 2017.

For these reasons, there is no rational reason I can see not to use their names freely through the rest of the article body when it is called for in context. Nightscream (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I also see this as a completely futile endeavor, and the article reads oddly because of it. The rationale behind concealing their names offered by Dual Freq and Masonpew is a moral decision on their part that frankly doesn't apply to an encyclopedia, especially as they were tried as adults, and especially as their names have been published in countless reputable news sources. --Drown Soda (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

At the time the Wikipedia editors were posting, there was legitimate uncertainty about where the two attackers were going to be tried. Almost all media sources were keeping their identities anonymous in case they were tried in juvenile court, so I think the arguments of Dual Freq and Masonpew were correct at the time. The facts have changed though, so there is no longer any point to hiding the identities of the attackers. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

This discussion seems dead, but the minors were convicted in adult court and there names are still gone. Can anyone please change the "minors" part to the name of the people who really did it? ~2025-42193-38 (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The following reference does not support the statement "which automatically places the case in adult court" and does not use the word "premeditated". There is definitely nothing in the reference regarding adult court being automatic. "Premeditated" can perhaps be assumed because the reference says "they had planned..." but the text in the reference only reads "attempted first-degree murder".

Reference: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/slender-man-stabbing/slender-man-stabbing-suspects-blamed-each-other-interrogations-n310176

A better reference is needed to support these statements. Gmporr (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Taken care of by User:Everymorning ...Thanks... Gmporr (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that the section labeled "Investigation and court procedures" seems a lot like proseline to me. Should that section be made into a timeline, or even a separate article? Joshualouie711 (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The "Investigation and court procedures" section is stuck in a sort of limbo. The information is obviously relevant to the attack, and a good quality article will contain information on it. Unfortunately, the pre-trial procedures have been dragging on for years, and I have no clue what's going to be important and what's not. Simply waiting until after the end of the trial is not a good option, since a lot of the sources will likely be lost by that point in time. If the court proceedings end with a plea bargain or movement into juvenile court, then simply summarizing the available information within this article would likely be the best outcome. If it goes to trial in adult court, then making a separate article would be the best option (I'm of course assuming that such a trial would get intense news coverage). However, I don't think a major decision should be made at this precise point in time given the reasons I've laid out.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I see that Spirit of Eagle recently readded the attack section, whereupon DIYeditor re-removed it because it was "phrased as if they have been convicted of a crime". I don't think there's any question that the girls did the attack, and I don't think that saying that they did it is the same as saying they were guilty of committing a crime, as they have not been convicted of one yet and have plead not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. So I think the section should be restored, but I want to hear what other editors think. Everymorning (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured." —DIYeditor (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe that this section and several other sections should be slightly reworded to indicate that the two arrested individuals are accused but have not been convicted of committing the outlined acts, and that the details are alleged. However, outright removing sections detailing violent attacks in an article about a violent attack simply because the accused attacker(s) is awaiting trial is fairly unprecedented and would make it very difficult to write articles about terrorist attacks, assassinations, notable assaults, ect. If we were to remove details about the attacks and the events leading up to it for this specific article, we would just be left with a brief description of Slender Man and the reactions. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I don't see a problem including information from news articles if it is phrased correctly. I think BLP is a serious policy though and it is only fair to apply it even in cases where it may seem obvious that someone did the acts in question. Failing to phrase it as "allegedly" is a slippery slope. By all means take the time to write a corrected paragraph, I felt I had already spent enough time correcting the phrasing through the rest of the article and it was an egregious violation. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I added the section back in, but added language noting that the details of the attack are allegations and accusations rather than hard fact. I did not add this language to the sentences and sentence sections which described the injuries, since these injuries were reported by medical professionals and the fact that they occurred is pretty indisputable. However, any reference to the accused causing the injuries retains the "allegedly" language. Thank you DIYeditor for cleaning the article up and generally ensuring that it was in compliance with policy.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Slender Man stabbing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160529202202/http://fox6now.com/2014/06/03/trying-to-heal-pastors-counselors-available-at-church-after-12-year-old-girl-stabbed/ to http://fox6now.com/2014/06/03/trying-to-heal-pastors-counselors-available-at-church-after-12-year-old-girl-stabbed/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151015181348/http://walker.wi.gov/newsroom/press-release/governor-scott-walker-issues-proclamation-declaring-%E2%80%9Cpurple-hearts-healing to http://walker.wi.gov/newsroom/press-release/governor-scott-walker-issues-proclamation-declaring-%E2%80%9Cpurple-hearts-healing

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Over the last hour and a half or so, I've either uploaded every source into the Wayback Machine, or confirmed that the source was saved there. I saved a handful of sources on Archive.Is as well. Below are a few special notes on certain sources. Note that the numbers refer to the citation number in this revision.

• 11 (Statement by Police Chief Jack) Use Archive.is backup, as the Internet Archive does not display Jack's statements.
• 12 (Slender Man: Police Hunt for Young Girls Accused of Stabbing Their Friend) Neither archival service saved the video, but the Internet Archive saved an automatically generated transcript of the video.
• 26 (http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/09/30/appeals-court-to-decide-status-of-girls-accused-in-slender-man-stabbing/) Saved on Archive.is due to robots.txt restrictions on the Internet Archive.
• 52 (Narrators uNighted video) Saved in the Internet Archive where it played for me without issue.

Anyways, please make sure to archive any source you add to the article. This article is built from dozens of internet sources, many of which are local news. Linkrot is going to hit hard, and we're going to be in a lot of trouble if we aren't prepared. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Now that both girls have pleaded guilty to the crime, is it acceptable to remove "allegedly" and similar words and give their names, since a court has found that they did indeed commit the crimes? --Joshualouie711^talk 23:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Go for it. Also, to be very clear they were found not guilty by reason of mental defect. For our purposes, we can say they carried out the attack, but we should NOT state they were guilty or use any other language implying criminal liability. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

When an editor who has done little or no work wishes to nominate an article for GA status, they are supposed to consult with the editors who have done significant work on the article to see whether they believe the article is ready to meet the Good Article criteria, and only nominate if it is felt to be basically ready.

In this case, there was no consultation, and the article was nominated despite the requirement. Do the active editors here feel that the article is ready, or do they believe it needs further significant work? Please post your thoughts below. Thank you for your time. In the event that there should be a consensus that the article is not ready, the nomination would then be removed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I’m a major contributor, and I think that this article has a lot of work to go through. In particular, we need to write a much better opening, remove all language referring to the two attackers in anonymous terms, summarize the investigation and court procedure section, standardize the citations, and perform a massive amount of tweaks and edits throughout. As someone with two good articles under my belt, I would have never nominated this article as it currently stands. That being said, the nominator does have some experience with good article nominations and the review process tends to be very backlogged. If the nominator is willing to put in the required work to improve the article over the next few weeks, I am fine letting this nomination stand. I can help here and there, but I’m currently in my first semester of law school and just do not have the time to make all of these edits myself. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your assessment, Spirit of Eagle. It is most helpful. If we can get a commitment from MagicatthemovieS by the end of this weekend that the considerable work you've identified will be done, I'm perfectly happy to let the nomination ride. Otherwise, based on its current condition, it will probably be removed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

No such commitment was made nor even the courtesy of a reply; nomination has been removed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

>both perpetrators initially pled not guilty by reason of insanity; however, under a plea deal both of the girls changed their plea to guilty. Both were consequently found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect

These three sentences don't make sense in this order unless I'm missing something, and should be explained. If they changed their pleas from insanity to guilty, how were they CONSEQUENTLY found not guilty by reason of mental disease? TheHYPO (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. According to this CNN article, this was part of a plea deal: the girls would plead guilty and the judge would find them not guilty by reason of insanity. The later ruling basically means they did what they were accused of, but their mental disability precludes criminal guilt. I'll try to clean up the language so its a bit more clear. Here is the relevant statute regarding not guilty by means of mental disability . Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the language in the opening paragraph to be a bit less confusing, and also tweaked some of the language later in the article. A footnote should probably be added somewhere basically explaining what not guilty by reason of mental defect means under Wisconsin law, and also noting that the a not guilty by reason of mental defect still entails being committed. I'll try an get this added sometime over the weekend. (The note has been added since I originally made this post). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

an appeal has been filed in this case and both are expected to have to re-go a whole new trail as both of there rights as minors were violated the feds are looking into charges toward the prosecutors office and the judge being disbarred over abuse of minors ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:FA49:F000:DDAB:69E1:F4D0:4D0D (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey I Need help solving a person named Slender.... Where does he live? What Place does he live in? Who is he? How does he treat kids? And Is he alive now? Killershark101 (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Slender Man is a fictional character created on the Something Awful forum back in 2009. He is not real. By the way, this talk page should be used to discuss the article. While I personally enjoy creative writing and story development, this talk page isn't the appropriate place to do either. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Slender Man Stabbing suspects.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I see alot of details all over the place about the stabbing, but no real coverage of what happened in the immediate aftermath. In the immediate (minutes) aftermath, everyone in the area was notified to be on the lookout, and to lock our doors and windows since someone dangerous was on the loose.... I can't remember if it was just a notice they put out through our local media, or if they used the emergency alert system... Though I think they might have used the system as we were all notified pretty quickly.

Another thing I've never heard further details on is why the girls fled the way they did, they were found near steinhafels, right near the freeway.... But it's not exactly an urban area. Quite the opposite... To get there they would have had to walk on road right near Waukesha's quarries.. There aren't any bus routes that go out that way (our bus system coverage is pretty bad)... nor is walking that way going to get you to any sort of public transport.... However... right across the street from Steinhafels....... is a park and ride.... I've wondered, were they going to get a ride with someone?... I mean sure they said they were going to walk to Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest... But that's all the way at the very northern edge of Wisconsin, a 100 hour 300 mile walk.

to top it off I keep seeing places say it happened at "David's Park", including here on facebook.. but it didn't... David's Park is where they undoubtedly planned to do it (it had the bathroom facilities they described, your typical waukesha park and rec setup), but the woods where it happened aren't part of the park... it's nearby, but it's separated from the woods by rows of homes — Preceding unsigned comment added by RenatusUpborne (talk • contribs) 01:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I attempted to remove category:violence against women and category:incidents of violence against girls when my edit was disallowed. I was advised to bring this issue up here in the talk page (special:diff/1227689045) in order to gain input from other users. Are these categories required after all?197.3.171.40 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that the release info is mixed up and the "released after 7 years" should by under Weier's name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:1533:1D00:FCFE:4A50:70A5:182D (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure exactly how best to address this in the article, but the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel recently reported that Geyser is "now identified as a transgender male, beginning a transition that includes male pronouns". (The article also notes that "court officials continued to refer to Geyser using female pronouns throughout the proceedings and in documentation", and most major media outlets, either unaware or deliberately, have done the same in their recent reporting.) If he has adopted a new name, I'm not finding that name in available sources. – Reschultzed (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of changing Geyser's pronouns in this article to masculine per MOS:GENDERID, or not use pronouns at all. I know that on the Covenant School shooting article, there used to be no pronouns used for the perpetrator (who also identified as a trans man) until very recently. wizzito | say hello! 10:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Morgan Geyser is not schizophrenic and admitted to faking symptoms to avoid going home to her dad, whom she alleged sexually abused her. Her diagnosis of schizophrenia has been removed and she is no longer on any antipsychotic medications. She has not shown any signs of hallucinations or delusions after being taken off her meds. Sources: https://www.fox6now.com/news/slender-man-stabbing-morgan-geyser-conditional-release-denied and https://www.courthousenews.com/slenderman-stabbing-defendant-denied-release-from-mental-health-facility/ GRTLZ00 (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The Courthouse News Service article says, and I quote:

During testimony, however, two psychologists who examined Geyser did not support [his] release from custody in response to questioning from attorneys for the state. Their opposition largely focused on evidence of the defendant’s continued mental instability and the fact that [he] recently — and, in their opinion, spuriously — claimed [he] faked [his] previous schizophrenia diagnosis, which was removed last year.
Both doctors, Deborah Collins and Brooke Lindbohm, said Geyser’s lack of credibility made [his] a difficult case.
They both agreed, however, that there was no evidence that Geyser was malingering or faked symptoms to avoid responsibility for [his] crime. They noted that overall, [his] treatment has gone well since a serious suicide attempt in October 2021.

We can say that he alleged he was faking symptoms, but their doctors claim otherwise. We can say his diagnosis was removed and he hasn't had any symptoms since being of his meds, but we can't outright say he was sexually abused by his now-deceased father or that he was faking a mental disorder this whole time in wikivoice without attribution. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 20:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense! All we have for both points (abuse and faking schizophrenia) are the claims, but they're worth mentioning in my opinion since they change the fundamental aspects of the case. And it is unheard of for someone who actually has schizophrenia to go off medications and no longer have any psychotic symptoms. GRTLZ00 (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

It is unheard of for someone who actually has schizophrenia to go off medications and no longer have any psychotic symptoms.

This is not true. It is not common, but far from impossible. Per Harrow & Jobe, 2007:

The longitudinal data identify a subgroup of schizophrenia patients who do not immediately relapse while off antipsychotics and experience intervals of recovery.

However, regardless of the validity of the claim, it would be original research to claim that he doesn't have schizophrenia based off a statement regarding schizophrenics as a whole. If you can find a reliable source talking about this, it would probably be appropriate to say (for example) "some __ have claimed Geyser doesn't have schizophrenia based off __," but there needs to be a reliable source talking about specifically Geyser.

Just as a personal opinion, I find it very difficult to believe a child would have done something like this without severe mental illness. I experienced psychosis when I was about the same age as Geyser at the time of the attack, and I'm now an adult who isn't on any anti-psychotics and doesn't experience psychosis. It's impossible to judge whether or not someone has a mental illness from news coverage of them alone; no one but him will really know if he was psychotic or not. This is something we can't possibly know for a fact, so it's best to not go further than "I think __ is likely" when speculating. Kittenfan (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The fact that she *claimed* to have been faking schizophrenia and its symptoms is relevant enough to include in the article in my opinion, since that changed the course of her treatment, delayed her release, came up in court frequently, called into question her motive of the attack, etc. GRTLZ00 (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Saturday Nov 22 2025 around 8pM Geyser cut off her department of corrections monitoring bracelet and left the group home. ~2025-35816-27 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I added a section under Aftermath. It's likely this will require updating quite soon, but for now I don't think it's worth expanding right now. Nothing to cover yet. Dieknon (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Can someone check to see if footnote 12 supports the following claim made in tge article because I don't see anything close

"While Geyser was imprisoned, she claimed that her dad committed multiple acts of sexual assault against her for years prior to the attack. Weier also claimed that she was neglected by her family and that her mother committed incest." WAlanAlder (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Why does this keeps getting removed Trade (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a compelling reason as to why each of the entries should be included? Because the whole sections comes off as an indiscrimincate list of murders commited by female adolescents against other female adolescents Trade (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The acquaintance is very clearly a non-public figure and showing their name here could potentially have negative consequences for them due to their association with Geyer and their alleged involvement in her escape. For the time being we should leave out the name until consensus says otherwise per Wikipedia:BLPCRIME Trade (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

And yes not naming the acquaintance applies to any talk page discussions as well--Trade (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Er, how so? This RfC found strong consensus that, even after an RfC has decided to omit a person's name (e.g. a criminal suspect's name), no such restriction applies to our use of sources, or talk pages.

I'm sorry to step on toes here, I did not read this thread prior to my edits. It's not immediately clear to me that WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME require omitting Charly Mecca's name from the article either, but I won't fight for including it at this time. Ping me if you take it to Noticeboard.

It seems like a bigger BLP concern if the text is implying Geyser and Some Acquaintance definitively committed a crime. If so we should add additional hedges and attribute police allegations. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 16:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Should we put the name back if he's convicted? PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure, if you dont forget about it by that time. You really ought to be more careful because i remember you had the same issues with the Assassination of Charlie Kirk article--Trade (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

At further thought you should probably ask at the BLP noticeboard just to be safe--Trade (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Someone added the name back onto the page. Is this allowed? PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely not Trade (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems extremely weird to me that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel would be the only news organization to know and acknowledge that Geyser is a trans man now. All of the recent reporting exclusively refers to them as female. Even the friend that they ran away with used female pronouns to refer to them. I think that until/unless there is further evidence of Geyser actually identifying as male, we should leave it out of the article. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID is clear that we always use their most recent identified gender identity. If you can find something more recent than early January (when the MJS article was written) where Geyser identifies as a woman, that would be a good case to revert. But for now, we should stick with the latest info we have. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The MJS only includes second hand information to claim that Geyser identifies as a trans man. Geyser has never said themselves that they identify as a man. And you don't find it all suspicious that no other news organization has corroborated that story? And that with Geyser being in the news again now after their escape, no news organization has acknowledged them being trans? They even used the first name Stephanie when giving a fake name to the cops. I think we're giving way too much credit by assuming that they must be correct and that every other news source either doesn't know or doesn't care about their identity. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but by the nature of this project, if a source is considered reliable, it is not our remit to second-guess their reporting, even if it seems suspicious to us. (The only time I could see that being justified is when there are other reliable sources contradicting it.) A good reason for this is that we don't want the project to reflect our editors' biases. After all, evolution would seem highly suspect to any editor who believes in creationism. Another reason is that we really only have our sources to inform us of what the facts are.

As far as this not being confirmed elsewhere and even the fake name Geyser gave to the police, there may be a lot of reasons for that. Geyser may not be very open about being transgender, just like many transgender people. (One of the employees of the IT firm my company contracts with regularly gave their name as 'Josh' when we spoke on the phone, and it was only when I met her outside of work that I discovered that she is 'boymoding' for work, for example.) The media itself may be alternately biased against acknowledging Geyser's trans identity, or biased against acknowledging a convicted murderer as being trans. Or it may simply not be widely known that Geyser is trans, and in the lack of that knowledge, there's no reason to question his gender assigned at birth.

Again, if you can find a more recent source which contradicts the MJS claim, that would be sufficient as far as I'm concerned. But in the absence of that, we should prefer masculine pronouns. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

It's extremely hard to prove a negative. They're unlikely to explicitly run an article saying that they're not trans. But isn't them all referring to Geyser exclusively as a female contradicting that claim? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Not at all; it is extremely common for journalists to misgender and misname transgender people. One need look no further than the the WISN article which uses he/him for Mecca despite simultaneously reporting that Geyser makes a point to identify Mecca as transgender and refers to Mecca as "she".

MOS:GENDERID is based on subject's most recent verifiable self-identification, even if it does not match what is most common in sources.

–RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 22:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

What about the fact that even the most recent MJS articles don't refer to Geyser as a man? And to be clear, Geyser has never self identified as a man. I wouldn't have brought this up if they had. The MJS article relies on second hand information. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @JDDJS:. The initial report from MJS seems based on this court mention from a psychologist, but there is nothing from Geyser themselves about how they identify. Basing the entirety of how they identify on how they presented themselves to someone in a therapy environment (which most individuals would assume is confidential and won't later be shared) seems kind of odd until we have better sourcing. Awshort (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Continued at #BLP violations removed. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 16:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

this article from MJS refers to Geyser as a woman the whole time and was published 23 Nov 2025.

https://eu.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2025/11/23/slender-man-defendant-left-wisconsin-group-home-what-we-know/87435801007/ ~2025-36605-58 (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This is the court hearing where Morgan Geyser’s gender identity was discussed: https://www.youtube.com/live/R8qbxhDPb5Q?si=EEhe_Ix3i6CboDBn

Timestamps:

1:00:38 - Morgan Geyser was diagnosed with gender dysphoria in September 2023.

0:59:58 - Morgan Geyser began identifying as nonbinary and switched to a new name (unreleased to the public) in November 2023.

0:58:10 - Morgan Geyser began identifying as a transgender man with another name change (unreleased) in May 2024 and her pronouns were switched to he/him in her treatment records, and began using a breast binder (she also just generally started presenting masculinely)

However, I think we can reasonably believe she is no longer transgender due to her presenting femme and her accomplice using female pronouns for her: “She [Morgan] ran because of me”. (Source: https://www.wisn.com/article/chad-charly-mecca-shares-emotional-call-about-slender-man-stabber-morgan-geyser/69536071 )If Morgan and her accomplice felt comfortable identifying her accomplice as trans, then they probably would’ve felt comfortable identifying Morgan as trans too, but they didn’t.

Also, I highly doubt any news agency would release an article about Morgan detransitioning because

1. It was never widely known that she was transgender

2. Detransitioning comes with extreme stigma

Even if we can’t be completely certain that she identifies as a woman again, we can be reasonably sure that she uses female pronouns again.

Also I still disagree with this article not mentioning that Morgan’s diagnosis of schizophrenia was removed. She is no longer considered schizophrenic, but as having experienced unspecified psychotic symptoms. GRTLZ00 (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

"No longer" would imply that the diagnosis was valid at some point in the past Trade (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

What are you referring to, the schizophrenia diagnosis? Yes, she was previously diagnosed with schizophrenia. The diagnosis has been removed after further testing and she is no longer considered schizophrenic.

If you're referring to the gender dysphoria diagnosis, that's even more fluid. Gender dysphoria can come and go, and many argue that it shouldn't even be a diagnosis or be medicalized. GRTLZ00 (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

From what it looks like, the relationship between Geyser and Mecca was one in which gendered pronouns were respected. After all, they both identified as trans at least at some point in their lives and Geyser referred to Mecca as "her" during their arrest.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

To me, this looks like news outlets haven't caught on to Geyser's self-identification in the haste of reporting on them. I would personally omit all pronouns entirely until some more clarity on the issue. jolielover♥talk 02:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Mecca gendered Geyser as "she" both in the initial arrest as well as on the news interview. Geyser gendered Mecca as "she" in the arrest.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

There's no reason to make any determination. They could simply be referred to as "they" and have a note that their gender identity is not clear, with reference to the conflicting sources. ~2025-36946-21 (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I just found an interesting development while trying to find any evidence of Geyser being trans. Geyser apparently identified her friend, Mecca, that they were arrested with after escaping, as a trans woman. I found articles that still referred to Mecca as a man after acknowledging that, but also found articles that referred to Mecca as a woman. Still haven't found any articles referring to Geyser as a man. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Interesting; I've updated the article (diff) to reflect Mecca's gender. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 22:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The page is currently split awkwardly on pronouns, so I figured I'd put a message here so someone can come to a conclusion and fix it, or at least make them consistent.

I would like to say that a decent option for now is to use a neutral they/them, or just Geyser/Geyser's until someone finds a definitive answer. ~2025-36952-29 (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem with keeping it gender neutral like that. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

We are all free to reasonably believe whatever we like, but for MOS:GENDERID purposes, a testimony by a psychologist counts as evidence of one's gender self-ID, while "presenting femme" or being seemingly misgendered by a friend do not necessarily. That being said, it sometimes makes sense to break from the letter of the rule (in recent memory, Sophie (musician) resumed using she/her as her friends did, in spite of a publicist stating she preferred no pronouns).

I would ask that you do not perform a mass pronoun change to they/them or no pronouns without first running an RfC regarding the four options. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 05:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Keeping MOS:GENDERID in mind, we also should be mindful of the BLP policies surrounding misgendering (WP:RVMISGENDER) and relying on court testimony from a psychiatrist seems to run into issues with WP:BLPPRIMARY. I would disagree with testimony by a psychologist counts as evidence of one's gender self-ID, since there is nothing that signifies that Geyser ever intended for anything they told the psychologist to be public. (I certainly would never expect anything I tell my psychologist to be public knowledge, and I don't know of anyone who would). I would also disagree with an RfC being necessary for changing the individuals pronouns to They/them, since there was seemingly not one done to change Geysers pronouns to He/him based on a single source that wasn't Geyser, and there seems to be an WP:WEIGHT issue with what a single person said in court.

As a possible suggestion, my vote would be to either revert back to She/her pronouns while nothing the discrepancy in a footnote based on what secondary sources have stated, or use the gender neutral they/them and also noting the discrepancy per Biography.com - Editor’s note: According to a psychologist in the case, Geyser began using he/him pronouns and a separate name during treatment. However, this hasn’t been confirmed by Geyser, and any name change hasn’t been shared publicly. We are using Geyser’s birth name and she/her pronouns to reflect court records. until/unless we can get better sourcing in the future based on Geysers actual self-described pronouns.

Awshort (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

That's very well stated. I do wonder how hard it would be to write it to just avoid pronouns in general though rather than using they/them. If that's doable, I think that we can change it to that for now and then if we want to have an RFC, we can get a larger consensus. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I would disagree with testimony by a psychologist counts as evidence of one's gender self-ID, since there is nothing that signifies that Geyser ever intended for anything they told the psychologist to be public. If the psychiatrist was seeing Geyser for the purpose of court proceedings or as a part of their sentence, the entire purpose of the interview would be to enter the substance of the interview and any resultant analysis by the psychiatrist into the record, and malpractice laws require this to be disclosed. Unless there is reason to believe that Geyser was seeing this psychiatrist on their own initiative, assuming any expectation of privacy would be entirely baseless.

That being said, I am unable to read the source owning to the paywall. Hence the last sentence of the paragraph above.

Note that while I prefer sticking to the most definitive information we have, specifically that Geyser identifies as a man, I am using they/them pronouns to avoid the necessity of having to edit this comment at a later time should any RfC not go my way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Having originally been sentenced to 40 years in a mental institution, it seems inevitable that they would have to talk to a psychologist/psychiatrist as a part of their sentence. I would disagree with assuming any expectation of privacy would be entirely baseless - unless Geyser was a danger to themselves or the general public and making statements of such, their sexuality or gender identity being disclosed in a therapeutic environment with a doctor would most certainly be something an individual would consider a privileged statement.

If we are having to use court testimony with a psychologist to determine an individuals gender identity, it is a WP:BLPPRIMARY issue and needs better sourcing.

The bodycam footage from the arrest is available online and while noting the pronouns and fact that the individual they are traveling with is trans and uses she pronouns, Geyser doesn't state the same for themselves, and initially gives a female name to officers for themselves. There is nothing that has been presented from Geyser, or their attorney that has represented them since the initial crime, that signifies they identify as male or use male pronouns.

Awshort (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I would disagree with assuming any expectation of privacy would be entirely baseless Based on what? My comment is based on legal precedent in universal use in common law nations and in numerous explicit laws in both the US at large and Wisconsin specifically regarding informed consent. Simply saying "I disagree" is a worthless response.

In addition, Geyser was most certainly not sentenced to 40 years in a mental institution. As can be seen clearly in the article and the sources, Geyser's sentence was for a minimum of three years of confinement with involuntary psychiatric treatment, and once that three years had passed, was eligible for release, conditional upon a complete resolution of symptoms stemming from their mental issues. This demonstrates how important the content and analysis of their psychiatric treatment is to the courts, and directly undermines your assumption that there would be any expectation of privacy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

If Geyser wasn't sentenced to 40 years in a mental institution, then we need to update the article because that's what it says for their criminal penalty. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The infobox says 40 year to life in mental health institution, which needs to be edited for grammar and accuracy.

The article body states the sentence was 40 years to life, an indeterminate sentence requiring at least three years confinement in addition to involuntary treatment in a state forensic psychiatric institute until complete resolution of symptoms or until age 53, whichever happens first. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

The article body is incorrect and needs to be corrected. In addition, Geyser was most certainly not sentenced to 40 years in a mental institution except she was.

• CNN - February 2018; Geyser was sentenced to 40 years in a mental institution instead of serving jail time, according to a judge’s order.
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - In 2017, Geyser and Weier were both found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and ordered to a mental health institute for decades-long commitments — Weier for 25 years, and Geyser for 40 years.
• New York Times - A Wisconsin teenager was sentenced on Thursday to 40 years in a psychiatric hospital for trying to kill a friend to gain the favor of Slender Man, a fictional internet character.
• The Guardian - Both Geyser and Weier were prosecuted as adults under Wisconsin law and a jury found them not guilty by reason of mental defect or disease. Weier was sentenced in 2017 to 25 years in a mental institution and granted supervised release four years ago; Geyser was sentenced to 40 years in an institution.
• NBC News - Though she had been sentenced to a maximum of 40 years in a mental institution,
• NPR - A Wisconsin girl who pleaded guilty to stabbing a classmate as part of a bizarre attempt to gain favor with a fictional Internet character has been ordered committed to a mental institution for 40 years, the maximum penalty sought by prosecutors.
• BBC - Geyser was 12 years old when she stabbed her classmate 19 times. She was sentenced to 40 years in a mental hospital in 2018 and granted conditional release in July.
• The Independent - In February 2018, Geyser received 40 years in a mental hospital after pleading guilty to attempted first-degree intentional homicide.
• WPR - Morgan Geyser was 12 when she stabbed Payton Leutner 19 times and left her for dead in 2014. She was sentenced in 2018 to 40 years in a psychiatric hospital for the attempted murder.
• USA Today - Morgan Geyser was ordered committed Thursday to 40 years of mental health treatment and monitoring in the Slender Man stabbing case and for the foreseeable future will remain at a secure state hospital in Oshkosh.
• NBC News again, In Nov of '25 - Geyser was 15 when she was sentenced to a maximum of 40 years in a mental hospital for the 2014 stabbing attack

There is some confusion over the initial insertion of the "minimum of three years" wording above for Geyser, which was inserted into the article here,

back in 2018 by an IP user. It was attributed to both girls, when it appears to have only applied to Weier. (According to Waukesha County Circuit Judge Michael Bohren’s ruling, Weier, 16, will spend at least three years at a mental health facility before she can ask to be discharged. If doctors deem she can be released for outpatient care, she could then be under state supervision until she is 37.)

Awshort (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The fact that they were living in a group home from whence they escaped, less than 40 years after being sentenced, demonstrates conclusively that you're relying on an overly simplistic view which was most certainly included in those sources for brevity and simplicity.

I will be frank with you: It's a little alarming that you seem unable or unwilling to recognize this. Involuntary commitment is a very different beast from incarceration, and not only is this common knowledge, it's knowledge that we would expect editors to have when working on articles about crimes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants Sentences can later be changed, but their initial sentencing was for 40 years in a mental hospital according to sources. I'm unsure why you are arguing against that being what the judge I initially sentenced them to? I attempted to meet you in the middle by including what was from sources (that they were sentenced to 40 years in a mental health hospital) with it being an involuntary confinement. Can you provide what was unacceptable, in your eyes, to that?

Awshort (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

So your argument is that Geyser's sentence was changed through a mechanisms which is a hallmark of involuntary confinement, but which was inexplicably (and extra-judiciously) applied to one of incarceration, which was also inexplicably (and extra-judiciously) ordered to be in a mental institution instead of a penitentiary, a sentence which Geyser's attorney completely failed to challenge on legal grounds, and that no RSes reported upon this, but which you were able to discern by reading through the lines of what the RSes did report on.

I'm sorry, but that's not convincing in the slightest. I don't really have anything else to say to you about this, so I would appreciate it if you would not ping me again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This is where I think Wikipedia guidelines help this to be.morass: a doctor's testimony is effectively a self-published source; its inclusion in a trial transcript or even in a newspaper article is not being done with editing to verify the claim, merely reporting that the claim took place. Under WP:BLPSPS, we could not use it for the claim "so-and-so is trans". The question is then whether assigning pronouns requires a reliable-source-level source, and MOS:GENDERID does seem to lean on that ("most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources", emphasis mine.)

But I don't know that we have any reliable sources that document any statement of self-identification (although I reject claims here that this means Geyser has never made such claims; we can't claim to have tracked every published statement and clearly would not track unpublished ones), but we do have enough to feel that the individual fits under the "people whose gender might be questioned" umbrella of MOS:GENDERID (which is a weaker requirement than reliable sourcing, and the doctor's statement is probably sufficient for us to see it as that). Theying someone who likely does have a gender ID is awkward. It might be good if we see how many gendered terms we can simply remove by rewording, including by increased proper noun use, to minimize the damage of whatever we find to be the best pronoun set to navigate this tricky situation. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I think we need an RfC, either here or at WP:BLPN. The edit warring over pronouns has resumed. Awshort, be aware that the last person to revert the shift to masculine pronouns had their edits revdelled. I'm only pinging you as a courtesy, this is not a continuation of the discussion above. I would greatly appreciate it if someone else would get the RfC started, as I'm fairly burnt out on this subject, and just want to limit my involvement to my !vote. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Not pinging MjolnirPants per their request, but the discussion is underway at BLPN already for anyone interested in joining in.

  Awshort (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "he" and "him" (or "his") to her/she in the section about Morgan Geyser. She is a female and should be identified as a female in the article, several times she is referred to by masculine pronouns. ~2025-36299-44 (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: there is a whole section right above this discussing this issue. Please continue discussing this there, since there's unclear consensus on what pronouns to use. jolielover♥talk 02:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to mention the fact that the women Geyser escaped the group home with is transgender? This feel entirely irrelevant and more like fear mongering around trans people. ~2025-37371-24 (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

You definitely raise a valid point. The biggest argument that I can see to include is to explain why she is incorrectly referred to as a man in several articles. But I'm not against removing it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The fact that there is a discrepancy between their gender and the way they are referred to in the news is OR and not supported by any of the references Trade (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Trade Are you talking about Geyser or the companion? Because Geyser specifically identified the companion as a trans woman to the police and used "she" to refer to her. However, despite this, many articles refer to the companion as a man and use he/him pronouns. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is about Geyser, no? Trade (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

No. This section is about the companion and whether or not we need to specify that she's a trans woman. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh well, answer is still the same Trade (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Trade I think that it's pretty careless to be commenting in conversations when you don't even know what it's about. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

ok Trade (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

There is certainly a discrepancy in how sources refer to Mecca, and how Wikipedia writes about transgender people. We do not need a secondary source which claims this fact in order to take the correct action in response.

• The Guardian - Introduces Mecca as C[..]d "Charly" Mecca and refers to her with she/her pronouns.
  • It is a cold day in hell when The Guardian is the least transphobic source in a list.
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel refers to Mecca with he/him pronouns, introduces her by her legal name who goes by Charly
• WISN refers to Mecca with he/him pronouns despite noting Although Police refer to Mecca as "he" in the police report, Geyser makes a point to identify Mecca as transgender and refers to Mecca as "she."
• WKOW uses he/him pronouns; does not mention transgender status
• People.com consistently uses Charly; no pronouns

I could also find articles by TMZ, NYPOST, and POSTMIL which heavily sensationalize Mecca's trans status amid misgendering her. For the purposes of this article, C[..]d Mecca should be handled as a MOS:DEADNAME and a likely privacy interest. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 04:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID gives the guidance that where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis. Because various sources misgender Mecca, I think introducing her as a trans woman is useful to readers who may be surprised by this, and does not constitute fearmongering. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 03:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

That's what I thought that the best argument for keeping it in the article was, but I wasn't sure what the official policy is. Now that I know the policy, I agree that we should leave it in there. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The section on Geyser's escape describes her acquaintance as a trans woman, yet elsewhere in the section that acquaintance is referred to as 'he'. Which is it? Is that the same acquaintance at all? Or is someone fighting a battle in the culture war and using pronouns in accordance with the gender assigned at birth? (That would clearly be against Wikipedia policy on pronouns.) Things are confusing enough without vacillation in pronoun usage. ~2025-38000-28 (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The sentence she [Mecca] snuck into the group house to visit him [Geyser] was written ambiguously, so it looks like the latter pronoun was missed in the most recent pronoun swap.

I've replaced it with Geyser's name to avoid ambiguity. I think that's the only place where this happened. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 17:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

A claim of incest made by Anissa Weier against her mother is unverified. The only source given is an online article by Kathleen Hale, who does not cite any source document for this claim. Provide primary documentation of video, transcript, or direct quote. ~2026-64871-9 (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Crimereads.com does not seem to be discussed at WP:RSN, and I have not reviewed the source for reliability myself, so I cannot speak to whether that is an RS or not. If it is an RS, however, we would not require them to cite their own source, and the demand for video is slightly nauseating in its implications.

That being said, since the claim does not appear in the body and the source is of unknown (to me, at least) reliability, I am removing it from the lead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

EDIT: I was mistaken, it is not in the lead. I will not be removing it. Make the case that the source is unreliable per our policies on the reliability of sources, and then I will remove it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Crimereads is a website which recommends true crime literature; I would not assume they have strong fact-checking standards, and due to the genre, content is likely to be highly sensationalized. However, Hale appears to be recounting interviews she held with Weier and Geyser in prison, as part of her book on the incident (which this article is advertising, capitalizing on the new wave of publicity). Assuming she did not completely fabricate it (which would be strange) Hale is presumably a reliable source for the fact that both reported having been sexually abused by their families. The book would probably be a better source, if anyone can access it. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 07:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with that assessment. True crime is not a subject in which a rigorous adherence to the facts is the standard. I'm not familiar with that particular site or its use here, but I was reluctant to remove precisely because it did read as if it were sourced to those direct interviews. Absent any other information, it seems reliable enough for a single sentence in the body, though I agree that the book would be better. I'll add it to my list of works to check, the next time I visit the library. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)