Jump to content

Talk:2017 Chicago torture incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Names of suspects

[edit]

I had added the names of the suspects, but someone else deleted them, and commented that although they had been charged, they had not been convicted.

I have read plenty of other wikipedia articles that mention the names of suspects who had been charged but not convicted.

Should their names be included or not included at this point in time?

Bk33725681 (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think we should not include the names of accused people or suspects or other otherwise unknown people who appear in a bad light unless necessary. However, when more information becomes available it will be necessary to mention them so that we can differentiate what each person allegedly did. If tomorrow the police said that one of the suspects charged was the wrong person, there would be no need to say who they were. TFD (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My take is currently no we should not include names per WP: BLPCRIME. What's more this subject is new and we need to be mindful of WP: NOTNEWS. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They should be included because they are on video committing the crime and we shouldn't do anything to protect the identities of these horrible people. El cid, el campeador (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I think it is best to steer clear of identifying criminal suspects in our articles per BLPCRIME as noted above. However, if their names are splashed all over the press and media to the point where they become common knowledge, then I think they might be included provided that the text explicitly states they have not been convicted of any crime. As far as I am aware that is not the case at present and so we should not be putting names in place of "suspects." -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed them again. The BLP policy is clear that suspect names should not be included as a general rule. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not entirely clear. See this concurrent discussion on the airport mass shooting. It is not required to wait until a conviction to name suspects. Commonsense suggests that suspects can be named in certain situations, generally after they have been charged. This has been normative practice on Wikipedia for a very long time. Obviously care needs to be applied and and criminal suspects should not be named prematurely. My gut says we should hold off until a criminal indictment is handed down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BLPCrime does not fit this, as the names of the suspects are in the public arena as a result of this crime, and their being charged with this crime. BLPCrime is to avoid harming the privacy of private individuals. Once the names of the suspects are no longer a private matter, which in this case they are not, BLPCrime does not really apply.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get a consensus before just taking out the names.El cid, el campeador (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe a consensus is necessary here. WP:BLPCRIME is pretty clear that well know individuals, as these suspects have become, are not covered by WP:BLPCRIME. The names should be included in the article.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm saying keep it in there.El cid, el campeador (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@El cid, el campeador: That's fine, but you may want to re-evaluate what it is to edit on Wikipedia. Saying things like, "...we shouldn't do anything to protect the identities of these horrible people." may lead people to believe you have some sort of bias or are editing with ulterior motives in mind. Remember to be objective and to edit with the best interest of Wikipedia in mind.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MordeKyle: I never added or took out the names so I'm really not concerned about people thinking I have bias regarding edits I didn't have anything to do with El cid, el campeador (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: Sorry, this is wrong. These suspects diffidently fit WP:WELLKNOWN. Please see this discussion where the name is being used.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Public figures are those that were well known before the particular event, like Bill Cosby or Donald Trump. This does not apply in this case. Also what happens at other articles happens at other articles and does not necessarily affect what happens here. AIRcorn (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: That is not true... Per Public figure:

A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established...

As you can see, this perfectly describes the suspects of this crime, which qualifies them as public figures and therefore exempts them from WP:BLPCRIME.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Using that as a metric everyone who was accused of committing a crime in a newspaper would become a public figure, which would make BLPCRIME obsolete. It is too early to say if the accused in this situation will gain the notoriety needed to become a public figure under the above definition. AIRcorn (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they are not public figures yet. Unlike say yesterday's Florida shootings, newspapers have not published mini-biographies or done much to distinguish the suspects, other than by age and gender. And we should avoid saying things like, "these horrible people," since WP:BLPCRIME says, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." We should "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." TFD (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: That is also not true. It specifically says high profile. This crime absolutely is high profile. As you should clearly be able to see by the sources. @The Four Deuces: Per Wikipedia policy, these people are exempt from WP:BLPCRIME as they qualify as WP:WELLKNOWN. You are also wrong about mini-biographies. The sources we have on hand have plenty of biography like inclusions, including criminal histories and number of children and whatnot, not that this matters. No where does Wikipedia policy state that these things are necessary to warrant inclusion. Wikipedia policy is pretty clear here.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: Also, you can disagree with using that as a metric for everyone, but that is in Public figure, the same article you linked above, which is also the same article that is link directly to by WP:WELLKNOWN.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree that these individuals arise to the level that makes them public figures at the moment. If you can get consensus otherwise then so be it, but we should wait for that first. This will all become moot when convictions are made and in these cases it is best to wait for that to happen. AIRcorn (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In normal circumstances I would agree with you, but I feel this makes for a less than encyclopedic entry about this topic, considering the hate crime aspect of this crime, the individual motivating factors are important and need to be highlighted to each individual suspect, as TFD said earlier in this edit. We have information for individual suspects that are pertinent to the encyclopedic value of this article.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The alleged crime is high profile, the alleged perpetrators are not. Similarly, mass killings are high profile, while individual victims usually are not. And please respect that people are not considered guilty of crimes until proved in court. TFD (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: How can you say these suspects are not high profile? Their mug shots and names are everywhere, including massive publications like BBC, NY Times, CNN, The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, among others. I am really at a loss for why you are so opposed to their inclusion, when this is exactly why we have the WP:WELLKNOWN exemption to WP:BLPCRIME. These suspects fit this policy to a tee. Is this just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I'm really confused by this disregarding of Wikipedia policy.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: Messed up ping, re-pinging.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do not know where they work, where they went to school, whether they are married, their religion or anything else about them than name and gender.[2] Depending on how the media treats this case, they may become celebrities, but it has not happened yet. And if they had not been connected with the alleged crime, we would know even less about them. TFD (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: Again, you are inventing standards that do not exists within Wikipedia policy. Public figure, which is linked directly from WP:WELLKNOWN, which is a specific exemption to WP:BLPCRIME, specifically states that, "A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established..."  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How can someone be a public figure when nothing is known about them except name, gender, age and charges? By that definition, anyone mentioned in a reliable source is a public figure, hence making BLPCRIME redundant, since per RS we can never include information that is not already in reliable sources. And is there any value in including their names, other than to draw attention to them? TFD (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, by that definition only people accused of high profile crimes, such as this, are exempt from BLPCRIME. A local news story is not high profile. A short mention on CNN is not high profile. Repetitive coverage in international news is in fact high profile. This is an article about said crime. Would a crime that is not high profile meet WP:N for inclusion as a stand alone article? Nope. And again you are inventing standards that are not in Wikipedia policy. It specifically states as an example of a public figure, is someone who is accused of a high profile crime. All 4 of these subjects are not only accused of this high profile crime, but they have been criminally charged and already appeared before a judge for this high profile crime. In your earlier post, you even stated that when more information becomes available it will be necessary to mention them so that we can differentiate what each person allegedly did. That information has come forward. Those charges have been filed. In the article's perpetrators section, we are saying things such as, this suspect did this, this suspect did that, this suspect has kids, etc. It is blatantly clear that these 4 suspects are exempt from BLPCRIME and should be named in this article, as suspects are normally named and a vast amount of other articles about high profile crimes. This article is not exempt from Wikipedia policy and is no different from any other.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ping, courtesy ping: @The Four Deuces:  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added the names. My justification for doing this is as follows:

WP:WELLKNOWN states:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

The above linked Public figure states:

A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established...

This clearly qualifies all four subjects as public figures, which qualifies them for theWP:WELLKNOWN exemption to WP:BLPCRIME. The crime is qualified as high profile as it also meets WP:N for inclusion as a stand alone article, as well as it's repetitive coverage in United States national news, as well as international news.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: Please provide your justification for non inclusion, with Wikipedia policy. Please also read my above comment. The inclusion of these individuals is clearly within and encouraged by Wikipedia policy. Specifically, per WP:WELLKNOWN, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Myself and TFD both agree that these names do not meet Wellknown. You disagree, and that is fine, but at the moment we are just running around in circles with our arguments. BLP means that we leave contentious information out unless there is consensus to include it. I am not seeing consensus in this discussion (I count 5-3 against, but consensus is not a !vote count so others my see things differently). We could run a WP:RFC to get more input or take it to the BLP noticeboard if you want. AIRcorn (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: I understand that. I am asking, after showing you exactly why these individuals do meet WP:WELLKNOW, why you still believe they do not.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The public figure link in WP:WELLKNOWN doesn't lead to an internal Wikipedia page, it leads to an article. I don't think using a wikipedia article is a good idea for determining applicability of policy. And in turn I don't agree that they qualify for being well known, their names are only known in reference to this incident we know nothing else about them. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyohyi: Yet it is specifically linked by the policy, so... Also, this isn't an article about each individual person, in which I agree that they are not notable enough for that. Being the accused perpetrators of the crime this article is about however, is the exact reason they meet the WP:WELLKNOWN exemption.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)We obviously have different bars for how well known someone has to be to qualify for WP:Wellknown. I think yours is too loose and if we followed it then we may as well ignore BLP crime. Either way I think there is enough disagreement between us that we should wait for a consensus to emerge (if one does) before adding it. AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: No, we do not have a different bar. I am usually arguing for non-inclusion within BLPCRIME, but these individuals clearly meet the WELLKNOWN exemption. Do you believe this is a high profile crime? If it isn't a high profile crime, why does it then meet WP:N for inclusion as it's own article?  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If a crime that meets our notability threshold is high-profile enough that the names of the suspects can get published under wellknown then what purpose does blpcrime serve. Like I said earlier, we are just going around in circles. I am happy to start a RFC for this if you like. AIRcorn (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: The purpose of BLPCRIME is to protect someone who is not well known from having a charge against them posted on their article. Like say, someone who has a Wikipedia article due to their notability to the contributions to a certain type of science. They are not a public figure and do not fall into the WP:WELLKNOWN exception to WP:BLPCRIME. Whereas these individuals specifically qualify as public figuress due to their being accused of a high profile crime. Which, again is a specific example of public figure, which is directly linked by the WP:WELLKNOWN exemption to WP:BLPCRIME. If you can't see this, then I suppose we need to RFC, as I really can't understand how this is not apparent...  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • IMO, this incident was clearly high-profile enough that it meets the case to include their names prior to conviction. It is a fact that they have been arrested and charged, and the article should refer to them as suspects in the incident. They have ceased being private individuals, for the purposes of BLPCRIME. When you have crimes that receive massive in-depth coverage and make international headlines, common sense applies. —МандичкаYO 😜

"Police find victim"?

[edit]

What kind of title is that anyway? Too tacky and unattractive. Can someone please give it a better and shorter name? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it to 'aftermath' El cid, el campeador (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this reverted?

[edit]

What exactly is wrong with this[3]? I used a reliable source (yes, believe it or not, Fox News is indeed a reliable source, and this article is not commentary) and I put the event in the context the last few months. The attack may not have been motivated by Trump, but there was a clear anti-Trump theme in the attacks.

I also object to this scurrilous edit summary in a previous removal of my edit. This article has nothing to do with Tucker Carlson, if that's what you're referring to. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I also object to this change, which I again changed to a version that I hope we both can agree upon. The source stated that conservatives' attaching this issue to the BLM movement was unsupported, and later in the article shows that the investigation into the motives is still ongoing not set in stone. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not reliable for this info, it's POV. As for the second diff, that's actually what the source say, unlike your text which blatantly and shamelessly misrepresented the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific:
The source doesn't say "without hard evidence". It says "without evidence". There's no qualifier there. Quit trying to falsify the source.
The source doesn't say "saw", it says "tried to pin the blame ". That's also different. Quit trying to falsify the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source makes clear that the motives of this case are not set in stone. That is why I added the word "hard."
"...though Chicago police spokesman Frank Giancamilli said Thursday they had found "no indication that it's linked to any specific group," and another police spokesman, Anthony Guglielmi, said investigators believe the man was targeted because he had special needs, not because he was white."[4]
It clearly states that there is no evidence for any BLM connection, but it is clear a hard conclusion has not been made, as it is still quite early.
By the way, would you accept my version if I removed the word "hard", as that was your only real problem with it, according to your edit summary. Because it is so early in the investigation, and because this subject is so political, it is best not to outright call it "false" (and the article does not say false either). --1990'sguy (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article says it was an "example of violent attacks waged by assailants who’ve invoked Trump’s election during the assault." That is a pretty weak connection and we would have to show that it was significant by finding it noted across reliable sources. TFD (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The perpetrators stated that the victim "represents Trump."[5] Also, according to this Vox article (a left-of-center source, by the way), this attack is connected to the other recent attacks motivated in part due to Trump's election (read the last two-thirds of the article, not just the title).
In addition, in response to you comment, the quote "example of violent attacks waged by assailants who’ve invoked Trump’s election during the assault" actually does show a strong connection. Even if the attack was an "example of violent attacks waged by assailants who’ve invoked Trump’s election during the assault", it still is a recent trend and something notable enough to be mentioned. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The connection has to be shown in reliable sources. See synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Here you are grouping together unrelated cases to say they are part of a pattern. While some people may agree with you, you would need to show this is a mainstream opinion, per weight. The implication is that the attack was carried out at least in part for political reasons. Yet there is no evidence about whether the assailants voted or whether the victim supported Trump or the assailants believed he had. That's probably why few observers draw a connection. TFD (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how the Fox News article is unreliable (hopefully it isn't for the simple fact that it's Fox News). Also, the Vox article seems to clearly and directly connect the crime with Trump, the election, and racial unrest (whether or not these things were the main reason for the torture–and I don't believe they were, based on what I know–is besides the point. There still is a visible connection).
We could word it in a different way. Something like: "Certain media organizations, such as Fox News and Vox, connected the torture incident with other incidents committed shortly before and after the 2016 presidential election that were related to Trump, the election, and racial unrest in the U.S." (or something along those lines; this doesn't have to be final). --1990'sguy (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, we could add a line immediately after stating something along the lines of "Investigators do not believe Donald Trump and the election were motivating factors behind the torture" if you are worried about the above proposed sentence standing alone. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that the Fox News article is unreliable, but that the opinion it expresses lacks weight. The whole point of Fox News is present facts and opinions ignored by the rest of mainstream media. Sometimes views migrate from Fox into NBC, CBS and ABC news at which point they attain weight and we should mention them. BTW if investigators "do not believe Donald Trump and the election were motivating factors behind the torture," when bring it up? TFD (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because there have been a string of attacks in which Trump's name has been mentioned. It may have not been an anti-Trump attack (it doesn't seem like it at this point), but there definitely is a connection with other recent attacks from the later campaign and after the election. If this is the case, we wouldn't say "it was an anti-Trump attack", but that it was one of several attacks in a relatively short period in which Trump was mentioned.
Also, just for clarification, are you saying that you reject my proposal right above? --1990'sguy (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on WP:BLPCRIME

[edit]
The RfC was opened a month ago and there have been no substantive comments or !votes in approximately two weeks. A request for non-admin closure has been registered.
By breadth of support five persons support inclusion of the suspects names while four oppose it.

Argumentation, on the include side, focused on WP:WELLKNOWN, observing that the suspects have been widely and publicly identified. On the other side, this argument was rebutted with concerns about WP:BLPCRIME, specifically that WELLKNOWN applies to public figures while BLPCRIME is the more appropriate standard and demands non-identification prior to conviction in most casts. The include perspective offered the sur-rebuttal that this has not been strictly adhered to, as in the cases of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Dylann Roof.
There is a slim majority of support (56%) for inclusion which does not rise to the level of consensus. Strength of argumentation slightly favors the include argument, due to the unanswered observation that precedent has established there are times when inclusion of suspect names has been allowed even absent a conviction, and notability can trump BLPCRIME.


Ultimately, however, despite greater support and greater argumentative value by the include perspective, a consensus of support exists neither for include nor for exclude. DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Should suspects that have been charged with this crime have their names listed in this article? Question is whether or not suspects qualify as public figure in relation to the WP:WELLKNOWN exemption from WP:BLPCRIME.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not at present The relevant section of BLP states, "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say." Obviously that is talking about people who are notable - individuals discussed by multiple reliable published sources. That cannot include the individuals accused of perpetrating the crime, as they were previously unheard of. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even though that very quote links directly to Public figure, which states, "A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established..."?  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Public figure is a Wikipedia article, which anyone can edit, and does not set Wikipedia's policies. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of this, yet it is directly linked by the policy. The term public figure is a highly subjective term. WP:OSE aside, you can see this argument played out here. It should also be noted that Dylann Roof, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and many others have had articles and been mentioned in articles long before their convictions of their crimes, and none of these people were public figures before they were accused of crimes. They only became public figures as a result of being accused of high profile crimes, such as this exact case.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you show instances where your interpretation of the "policy" has been followed? Because we more or less operate on a system of precedent and usual practice here. And our usual practice has been to dame the accused in cases of this sort.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. BLPCRIME needs to be brought into line with the actual practice of editors on pages about high profile, WP:NOTABLE crimes, which is to have the in of in the article. I edit such pages regularly (mostly pages on terror attacks; ethnicity-related crimes) and I cannot recall having run into a discussion like this, an article, that is, in which editors attempt to keep the names of individuals charged with a high-profile crime off the page. User:Ad Orientem, do you want to start a discussion at the talk page of BLPCRIME?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The line between a "notable" and "non-notable" crime is admittedly sometimes unclear, and the identity of the victim is sometimes justly protected by legal authorities, but I am having genuine trouble recalling an instance in which a crime was notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, the name of the arraigned suspect was widely published, and it was kept off Wikipedia (again, governments in Germany and elsewhere do conceal names of perps; but this is an American case). There may be such a case, but it is not the usual practice, which is why the argument puzzles me utterly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for conviction WP:BLPCRIME 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. This is policy and is pretty clear. The arguement then comes down to whether the accused meet WP:WELLKNOWN WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. Wellknown does not actually say what makes someone wellknown, and instead links to our wikipedia article on public figure. This is problematic for a few reasons and something I will open a discussion about at Talk:BLP soon. My personal take is that the suspects are not public figures. They were unknown before the crime and there has been very little presented about there earlier lives since the crime. As it is I feel we must err on the side of caution and respect BLPCRIME. There is no WP:deadline and convictions are likely. Once this occurs there is no problem having their names on here. That other articles have done things differently doesn't change the policy. AIRcorn (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this type of discussion has not happened before it is probably due. "Seriously consider" are some of the stronger words I've seen used in a policy and in my experience these words are not chosen lightly and usually involve lots of debates and rfc's (truth vs verifiability anyone). If there is a large disconnect between a policy and common practice then one probably needs to change. Maybe when this RFC ends a larger one should be held over the policy at BLP. AIRcorn (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

The Facebook Four

[edit]

Notifying interested editors of a new article, which I take for a good faith effort by an editor unaware of this page. It is now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Facebook Four.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "criticism of media coverage" section

[edit]

Volunteer Marek has removed the section concerning how CBS Radio News was criticized for falsely implying that the "2017 Chicago torture incident" involved four white people torturing a black person. One of the edit summaries used was "who cares". For the record, Volunteer Marek, I care, and I think that a great many people around the world care that the American major media cannot be trusted to report crimes of this nature honestly and accurately. I understand that Wikipedia articles need to be based on reliable sources, and I also understand that copyright needs to be respected. Nonetheless, I find it strange that this important part of the article has been removed completely, and that one of the reasons given seems to have been personal opinion with no basis in policy. Would you mind explaining your reasoning behind your edits further? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, "who cares" what that guy has to say - it's a "you tube personality" in the business of spreading conspiracy theories. All the other sources in the section were unreliable. If you find reliable sources covering this extensively then we can discuss whether it's WP:DUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From the new sources, the NR one is their blog and it's just one guy reposting the mediate story. The other two are not reliable. Also, it's not clear exactly where this misreporting happened. These (unreliable) sources claim it was "CBS News Radio" but I can't find the original station. Was it "THE" CBS News Radio (whatever that would be), a local affiliate, or just a radio station owned by the CBS media company? Did they retract their reporting? Was there anything more to it? Without more info, this is def UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And apparently all this started with Reddit's Gamergate subreddit... another red flag.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely WP:UNDUE, if not WP:FRINGE  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a major story that should be properly reported. Volunteer Marek may well have been right to remove some of the material about criticism of CBS, but removing the content sourced to National Review, as he did here, was inappropriate. Yes, the content was partially sourced to a National Review blog, but no, there is no absolute prohibition on blogs being used as a source. Despite what is sometimes claimed, they can be acceptable if they are associated with a major media outlet. From WP:RS: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Besides that, it makes no difference that National Review was "reposting the mediate story"; if a blog associated with a reliable source chooses to report what appeared in mediate, of course we can report that. I do not accept that the source that was added here is unreliable, nor the New American source. I would like to see more than simply assertions that they are unreliable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeKnowledgeCreator: This has nothing to do with WP:RS. This is about WP:UNDUE. The removed content gives undue weight to this subject. This is an article about this attack. If this was an article about media covering things up, or trying to shed a different light on a subject, then this sections would be a great inclusion.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually it does have something to do with WP:RS, because of course we need to be concerned with whether sources are reliable. As I said, Volunteer Marek was probably right to remove some of the material, including the content sourced to a Mark Dice YouTube video, which I'm sure is not essential to the article. It is specious to say that because this is an article about the attack, that the article should not mention how the attack was reported and how the coverage of the attack was in turn criticized; that's basic factual information that should be here. In any article about a notable event, of course one would discuss controversies about how it was reported or understood, as here. A brief mention of it is in no way undue. Sorry, but while I think that there are reasonable concerns about some of the removed material, you and Volunteer Marek are simply inventing reasons to keep out mention of the controversy. If "this is an article about the attack" were a reason to keep out mention of the controversy, then you might just as well say that "this is an article about the attack" is a reason for keeping out Obama's comments: after all, his comments were not part of the attack. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@FreeKnowledgeCreator: The reason for removal has nothing to do with WP:RS. WP:UNDUE is not an invented reason by any means. Also, I should highlight another concern with this. You stated, "...it is a major story that should be properly reported." This is rather concerning, as you are editing an encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia. Just to clarify with you, wikipadia is not a source of news.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't repeat yourself. You are repeating a point I already replied to, with no sign of having understood the point of my reply. Your invented reason was not WP:UNDUE; it was your made-up claim that because "this is an article about the attack", we cannot report a controversy related to the attack. I explained why that is an absurd view, and you ignored my explanation. Your seizing on my use of the word "reported" is likewise descending into tendentious territory. "Reported" is just a word, and you can use a different word if you like, say, "mention". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@FreeKnowledgeCreator: As you just stated, this is a controversy related to the attack, not a controversy about the attack. This is why this is WP:UNDUE for inclusion, specifically: "...discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Have a good day.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So now you claim that the crucial issue is my use of the word "related"? The controversy concerns both the attack and the way it was reported, and no, a brief mention of it in the article is not undue. I think that enough reliable sources exist for a brief mention. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeKnowledgeCreator: Nope. Your wording of a sentence has nothing to do with this, nor did I claim it had anything to do with this.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed that there is a crucial distinction between "related to the attack" and "about the attack", an absurd suggestion. Obviously if the controversy concerns the attack in any way then it is appropriate to mention it, provided there is sufficient mention in reliable sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a distinction between the two, however, how you worded your above sentence has nothing to with this distinction. Please point to this reliable source you are talking about. This is nothing but an opinion piece, which has no encyclopedic value. Sure, the national review may be an RS, but this is the very definition of WP:UNDUE.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly appropriate for an encyclopedia article to mention opinions about events. Obama's comments about the event also concern his opinions, yet strangely you have not objected to them for that reason. If you think that the definition of WP:UNDUE is "Wikipedia can never mention opinions", you might want to re-read it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@FreeKnowledgeCreator:It's not strange that I have not objected to Obama's comments. He is the President of the United States. His reaction, Trump's reaction, the Governor of Florida's reaction, are all very much notable. This is pretty common practice on Wikipedia. The writer of this opinion piece's reaction simple does not meet WP:N for inclusion, and is still simply WP:UNDUE.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns which topics may have articles created about them, so it has no relevance here. WP:N has no relevance to this issue at all, as it concerns only when an article should be created. Why would you mention an irrelevant policy? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... I'm done with this conversation. Feel free to take this to RfC.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's both about RS and DUE. It's lexicographic. If you can't find RS then there's no point in even discussing the issue. And you really can't - as I already pointed out the NR thing is just one guy reposting the mediate (not RS) story on their blog. IF somehow you find reliable sources then we can discuss whether it's DUE, although I agree with MordeKyle that it is not. Sorry, but it's two hoops here, one smaller than the other.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a reliable source, as noted above: the National Review. I found other sources as well which you asserted are not reliable, but you never showed a consensus that they are not reliable. So, again, a brief mention would be appropriate, and I am seeing nothing but made-up reasons with no basis in policy for keeping it out. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out twice now, it's a blog reports of the mediate story.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already noted above that there is no absolute prohibition on blogs. I quoted WP:RS to that effect. You ignored me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to include opinions that have not received widespread coverage. The WSWS ran an article coming to the opposite conclusion of the NR blogger: the mainstream media has over-emphasized the racial aspect of the case.[7] TFD (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion we're talking about clearly has received "widespread coverage". It is all over the internet. I agree that some of the sources are not reliable, others, however, are reliable, or may be. A brief mention would be proportionate to the amount of space given to the issue in reliable sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Skimming the above, I tend to agree with User:Volunteer Marek and User:MordeKyle about WP:UNDUE. I would however request that all parties remain polite. WP:CIVIL (and for all that matter WP:BATTLEGROUND) applies here, and two or three users continuously replying to each other is almost always a bad sign. Tamwin (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename to 2017 Chicago Facebook torture

[edit]

The title conveys insufficient meaning and does use effective search keywords. Note the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Facebook Four, a page created in good faith by an editor who could not find this page, during which other editors weigh in to agree that they had a hard time finding it (I certainly did) and that the present name should be reconsidered. Note also that this case came to national attention with a focus on the unusual fact that the tormentors had the temerity to post their appalling cruelty live on Facebook, and that the live-streamed aspect is an ongoing focus of press attention being paid.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bad name, stylistically. Almost reads like someone was tortured *with* facebook.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2017 Facebook Live Torture Incident or something to that effect. Regardless 'incident' needs to remain in the title El cid, el campeador (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is much better.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ohio State University was not the crime in the 2016 Ohio State University attack... The title should be something easily searchable by a user, and should stand out and be clear what it is. One of the reasons this crime has been so widely reported is because it was done on Facebook Live.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Facebook aspect of this is of minor importance. What is of importance is the persistent problem of racism in America and that this is caught on camera—just as in the incidences of white police officers shooting black men in 2016. Bus stop (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question. Looks like there isn't a standard, but maybe some similar wording:
Facebook Live beating
Facebook Live attack
Facebook Live torture
Then there are a bunch of non similar wording ones like.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find racism to be the "main thing people think about in relation to this case". Facebook was merely the means for disseminating the video of the incident. It is of minor importance. Bus stop (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think we should add anything like "racism" or "hate crime" to the title absent conviction. I still think the video is key to the notability here. I don't think this would have gotten as much traction or press attention if people hadn't seen part of the crime on that livestreamed video. I tend to agree that it's not that significant that it was livestreamed specifically on Facebook, but that it was livestreamed, and that a video of the crime is still widely available online seems very significant in terms of notability of this incident. --DynaGirl (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When a photographic record is produced by means of a Dashcam or Camera phone we don't necessarily include those terms in the title. Why would we include Livestream in the title? The photographic record is important but of greater importance is the interaction between people. Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be included because when naming an article, common keyword searches should be considered. I think "livestreamed" is an example of a common keyword search people use to find stories and read about this incident. It seems other keywords would be "Facebook", "hate crime" and "Chicago". The current title includes "Chicago", but in general seems to do a poor job utilizing keywords commonly used to search for this incident and I agree with the proposer that the title should be improved. --DynaGirl (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Common keyword terms can be included in redirects. Bus stop (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why rely on redirects to make up for an inadequate title when the inadequate title can be changed? --DynaGirl (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the present title is inadequate. This RfC suggests changing the title from "2017 Chicago torture incident" to "2017 Chicago Facebook torture". I am opposed to that change. But if you wish to suggest a different title, for the sake of clarity of discussion, please start a separate RfC. Bus stop (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure a separate RfC is necessary (or would be appropriate while this RfC is still active). The current RfC has already received support from multiple uses regarding the alternate suggestion of 2017 Facebook Live Torture Incident, which I also supported above. --DynaGirl (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are weighing whether or not to WP:MOVE this page to "2017 Chicago Facebook torture". If you would like to gauge support for a WP:MOVE to a different article title you should start a separate RfC for that purpose. Bus stop (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Give them a medal?

[edit]

"Public defenders for the suspects said that the 24 year old suspect was the mother of two children, ages 11 months and 2 years old; that her sister, the 18 year old female suspect, attended college and was involved with her church; that one of the male suspects worked for a staffing company assembling furniture and attended church with his grandmother; and that the other male suspect was a high school junior, and cared for his twin brother who uses a wheelchair."

What does this add to the article? I didn't think this was meant to be a biography of the attackers. What the lawyers say to try and make their clients seem decent shouldn't be included in a encyclopedia. I'm deleting it. El cid, el campeador (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is important because the media has decided to cover it. From a legal point of view, previous good character tends to add credibility to statements by the accused and is taken into account in sentencing and parole recommendations. From the perspective of social sciences, readers want to know what type of people commit this type of offense, or at least are charged with it. TFD (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. It makes sense in trial, but this isn't a trial. One ABC article means it's being covered? Give me a break. El cid, el campeador (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The information is relevant to include in the article as it gives further context to the alleged crime. It is verifiable and well sourced. That some find the material offensive is immaterial as the project is WP:NOTCENSORED. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At no stage does "readers want to know" automatically become a good reason for including information about a person's life in an article about a crime. Readers may very well want to know all kinds of things that it would be inappropriate, for one reason or another, to include. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will rephrase that. "legitimately want to know." The purpose of any encyclopedia is to provide information that readers want to know and they are used as reference books to look up topics they want information about. TFD (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are statements made on the character of the assailants by a defense attorney. He attended church with his grandmother? Once? Twice? He helped his disabled brother? Once? Twice? Attended college? Once? Twice? They are not useful facts, they are just bare statements without corroboration made by a defense attorney. They were not stated under oath. The defense attorney is trying to make them seem more human so they get leniency. That is NOT the purpose of an encyclopedia. That is not the purpose of this article. You clearly don't understand what you're saying.El cid, el campeador (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing coverage of suspects

[edit]

Grouping these article here while we decide whether they are sufficiently well known to put them on the page. Feel free to add articles that are WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Police reports document Facebook torture suspect's escapades in hours before video, <ref name=Grifinescapades>Griffin, Jake (16 January 2017). "Police reports document Facebook torture suspect's escapades in hours before video". Daily Herald (Arlington Heights). Retrieved 18 January 2017.</ref.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits under 'type' in infobox

[edit]

Hello, Aleccat! I just wanted to clarify why I made the recent edits to the infobox. According to the linked BBC article, the victim "had part of his scalp removed with a knife, and was bound, gagged and beaten." I feel like this should be noted under 'type' since it describes the type of violence the victim experienced. I decided to use the term 'melee attack' since that is the label listed on the page of Classification of terrorist incidents. This incident wasn't explicitly 'terrorism' but using similar terminology across different civil attacks helps to maintain consistency. Kamalthebest (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's really questionable about the terrorism thing, because this was in no way a terror related event. As far as cutting someone's scalp off in an attempt to cause them enduring pain, I can't think of a better descriptor than torture.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 03:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I too believe torture encompasses most, if not all, of this article. It's not a terrorist article, just one involving race. If you still feel this way I think assault would be a good descriptor. --Aleccat 21:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleccat:@MordeKyle: Yeah, sorry if I worded it weird. I didn't say it was terrorism, I said using similar terminology across different civil attacks helps to maintain consistency, and this would count as a civil attack. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2017 Chicago torture incident. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox maps and coordinates?

[edit]

I'm thinking about removing the coordinates and the map from the infobox on the main page of the torture incident, but I'm not sure if you'll let me do it. The reason I'm thinking of removing these from the infobox is because I think these are useless and needless for the page as we all know the incident took place in Chicago. The news article said that the incident took place at an apartment in the West Side of Chicago at West Lexington, but putting the map and coordinates for the incident wouldn't make sense as I don't know the exact site where it happened. There's not even a word saying the exact address for the apartment either other than West Lexington as the news article said. If you think I make things clear, I would be appreciated if you remove the maps and coordinates. Kevinmuniz115 (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 November 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.(closed by page mover) ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Chicago torture incident → 2017 Chicago torture incident – The year was moved because "The unnecessary disambiguation misleads readers into thinking there have been more such events." The implication of this move is that Chicago has never had torture incidents before 2017. If you need proof that this is false, and that disambiguation is necessary, just read the Jon Burge article. FallingGravity 22:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hate Crime Charges Dismissed?

[edit]

I removed claim that "As of Nov 2017 hate crime charges have been dropped against all the defendants." The link provided (http://www2.cookcountysheriff.org/search2/details.asp?jailnumber=2017-0106010) only pointed to Tanisha Covington's record with the Cook County Sheriff's Office listing only one charge of aggravated kidnapping. There was no reference to the other suspects, nor was any news story cited. The fact that the cited page says she is being held without bail is outdated as well, so I don't consider this a reliable source. Baltimatt (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

[edit]

Considering that the perpatrators were saying racist things about whites and that they were charged with hate crimes, is it not relevant to note that they were black and the victim was white in the lede? I've gone over other wp articles about racially motivated crimes and they all include the race of the perpetrator and victim often in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F137:14C3:8577:E453:CB88:2600 (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mentally disabled

[edit]

While it is true that the victim was mentally disabled, there is absolutely no need to repeat this again and again. We should included it once in the main text of the article (right now, the "kidnapping and torture" section") and once in the lede. That is enough. What's the justification for including it, apart from the lede, three times?

The victim has suffered enough, there is no need to "add insult to injury" with this article. Compare it to the perpetrators: there was a long song and dance about naming them in the article. Maybe that was justified before the conviction but not now. But there is no information that is constantly repeated about them.

As for a separate victim section: we simply do not have enough material for that. It's just one line that tells us his age, his skin colour and, again, that he is mentally disabled. That's not enough for a separate section.

Str1977 (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977—you are saying "we simply do not have enough material for that". We are discussing a "Victim" section. What would be the minimum amount of material to justify the existence of a "Victim" section? Bus stop (talk)
I don't think there are special rules for a "victim" section. For any section I would insist that such a section is a) longer than just one line and b) contains more information than the intro. Consider that the entire information in the "victim" section has already been covered in the intro as well as the "kidnapping and torture" section. Str1977 (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Chicago_torture_incident&oldid=1212406010"