Talk:2022 University of Idaho killings/Archive 1

Archive 1

More info needed about photo

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.

---

Hi Snakejob - since you are the uploader of the photo to Commons and the one who added it to the article, can you give some more information about it? Where did it come from? Can you include any EXIF data? Right now, in the name of WP:V I'm removing it until we can get more verification around it. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Heres some more info on it. I do not own it, I don't know why it wouldn't let me source it, but its from the new york times article on the killings: New Details Emerge in University of Idaho Killings: What We Know - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Let me know if you need any more information. Snakejob (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You uploaded the photo to Wikimedia Commons, which is only for free images that are not copyrighted. The image you uploaded was by the New York Times, meaning it is copyrighted, and you must upload it here under "Upload a non-free file" if you wish to use it on Wikipedia. Silent-Rains (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inconsistent timeline

The Events section says: “ A livestreamed video[15] from a nearby food truck showed Mogen and Goncalves at the truck at 1:41 a.m., chatting and smiling, getting their food 10 minutes later, and leaving”

Then the next paragraph says: “All four victims had returned to the home by 1:45 a.m”

How could all four victims return home by 145am if two of them were getting their food at ~151am? Dat0990 (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The Moscow police department must have read your message. They changed the timeline, and the change is now reflected in the article.2603:7000:2143:8500:5C41:99F6:C22F:90E0 (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of categories

There is no BLPcrime issue (as asserted) that explains the deletion of two categories here .. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_University_of_Idaho_killings&diff=1123487207&oldid=1123481668 2603:7000:2143:8500:5C41:99F6:C22F:90E0 (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Correct. It's the same editor removing them too. --Killuminator (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Perpetrator Inconsistency

Currently the article says the perpetrator is "Possibly jack showalter." This is inconsistent with the article since in the investigation section it says that Jack Showalter has been ruled out. Shouldn't the perpetrator be changed to unknown then? Phantom1165 (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Phantom1165The edit that added that info seems to be vandalism. Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 16:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Did Kohberger live in the Poconos throughout his life?

As we're getting into the new year, the next chapter is underway involving the life of Kohberger. Yesterday I found more details about his early life in PA. Kohberger graduated from Pleasant Valley High School in the neighboring town of Brodheadsville when he was 18 in May 2013, before heading nearly 20 miles to Bethlehem where he attended Northampton Community College there until graduating with an associate's degree in psychology in 2018. After that, he sailed up to the Allentown area for DeSales. So the main question here is, did he live in the Poconos throughout (or for most of) Kohberger's life? ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Unless you are planning on gathering this information for a BLP of Kohberger for his own Wikipedia page, I don't see the relevance of tracking down more information on him. We can't even agree if his name should be mentioned in the article just yet. Sgerbic (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's leave it for now until we find more evidence. It might come within days especially on his court date in the next few days to come. But for now, let's leave it. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@ImDeadAsADoornail, I don't know what you mean by "let's just leave it for now"? Valereee (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Recently, Moscow Police are currently discussing whether Kohberger had an accomplice, and indeed that Kohberger had acted alone at the time of the stabbings but was unknown why. At the time of his arrest in his Indian Mountain Lake house in Chestnuthill Township, he was spending time with his family (so that's a clue right there). ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Please stop looking for clues. That is not what we do, and we don't speculate here. Valereee (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@ImDeadAsADoornail, you may not have discovered your user talk page yet. That is where other editors leave messages for you, and there are multiple messages there which you haven't responded to. Valereee (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Get a handle on these edits.

These edits are causing more harm than good. Get it together. Include facts and stop including momentary opinions. 47.223.57.163 (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Who are you speaking to and what edits are you specifically talking about? Sgerbic (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

locked?

why is this page locked? 71.223.65.45 (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Because anonymous editors without a Wikipedia account keep vandalising the page. WWGB (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Should the title be changed?

The current title, "2022 University of Idaho killings," implies that the killings happened at the University of Idaho. In reality, the stabbings occurred off campus. Should the title be changed? Silent-Rains (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The "University of Idaho" part of the article name is fine. Wikipedia convention is to use the common name, and "University of Idaho murders" is what the news media is calling it. Nor is "University of Idaho" wrong: while the house may have been technically off-campus, it is still next to campus and typically used as student housing, and furthermore, the victims were all University of Idaho students.

I would, however, support a move from "University of Idaho killings" (for which I'm getting 70,000 Google hits) to "University of Idaho murders" (for which I'm getting 240,000 Google hits) because the latter is the more common form.

—Lowellian (reply) 07:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm ok with either name. --2603:7000:2143:8500:7132:7C4B:C683:2CF3 (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Silent-Rains, Lowellian, BTW, might one of you (as an established editor) be able to add this article to the see also for 2014 Isla Vista killings? Thanks.2603:7000:2143:8500:D1B4:EE77:1BC4:FC91 (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Who is Bryan Christopher Kohberger?

This came in from outside Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, 40 miles away from Scranton and 30 miles away from Allentown: The suspect in connection with the Idaho murders of arrested by Pennsylvania State Police and Monroe County Circuit Court and Sheriff's Office. The suspect was identified as 28-year-old Bryan Christopher Kohberger of Albrightsville, Pennsylvania. He was born on November 21, 1994, in Albrightsville, but his other early information has not been identified at this time; although I found just a short time ago that he was a former graduate of Washington State University in Pullman, Washington. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Although I'm as horrified as anyone by this crime, and my heart can't fathom what the victims' loved ones are going through, I also understand that one reason the USA fought the American Revolution was for due process under the law. Per WP:BLPCRIME I think we should have all mentions of this guy's name rev-deleted, until some point further along in the investigatory/prosecution process.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Everyone has due process. That doesn’t mean a suspect hasn’t been named. There’s no point in shielding the accused when the authorities have encouraged the spreading of his name and the identity has been published everywhere in news media. TheXuitts (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Google the following: Dogpile, Tar and feathering, Lynching, Summary execution, Peer pressure, Follow the herd, Kneejerk, Freed from prison, Falsely accused. See also, Presumption of innocence

I am sufficiently grey-haired that Walmart is already sending me offers of funeral insurance, yet among my loved ones I count teens and college-aged "kids". I'm relieved they have a suspect in custody. But I fear for my own "kids", and their future, if our society gives in to the human tendencies to just string the bastards up, based on our gut, before our brains have sufficient time to think. I'm not alone either. "Fair trials" were one of the reasons our ancestors fought the American Revolution. It's easy to wave these principles when there is nothing stirring our blood, but that is the measure of weaklings. The real test is when we're blazing hot beneath the collar..... do we have discipline for our principles then? Or are we dumb beasts, who just lash out when things get hard?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You know embarrassingly little about the causes of the American Revolution if you think US common law and English common law are in some way very much different.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:15FF:38F9:EF8B:9126 (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

That's complete and utter rubbish. This arrest is obviously very relevant to the story and widely reported by very reputable sources. It's not the job of Wikipedia to make judgements about protecting suspects, and the United States's succession from England centuries ago has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. TheScotch (talk)

Until and unless you bring about a change to our long-standing policy found at WP:BLPCRIME, you're just pounding the table with a macaroni noodle. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright enough with the arguments. Let's make this fair-and-square. So I was expecting early information including Kohberger's family information as soon as possible. So I added a new section here on his early life in Pennsylvania. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we may be dealing with a rather solid bunch of un-cooked spaghetti here. The policy makes it clear we shouldn't suggest NN is guilty when a court hasn't found him so; it does not say we cannot cite reputable sources about the arrest of a named person of interest.

Obviously, we cannot stop readers from jumping to conclusions, but that should not stop us from reporting major developments like this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Nø (talk • contribs)

Of course. Wikipedia regularly reports arrests of persons in cases of significant interest. I think we've now achieved consensus. (I'd "be bold", but I'm too lazy.) TheScotch (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to report the details of the arrested suspect in this article while taking great care to avoid any language suggesting guilt. Paul Potnuru 04:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potnuru (talk • contribs)

Early life in Pennsylvania

As we immediately deep dive into the life of Bryan Christopher Kohberger although it is a WP policy to do so, here are the main questions: [redacted, not important for the article] ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

No, he is just s suspect for now. WWGB (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We do not delve into any of that. If RS mention it, we maybe consider mentioning it, but in general that kind of thing is trivia. Valereee (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, its all up to the trials now. We might see his family or wife later into next year, but in the meantime its completely undetailed. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@ImDeadAsADoornail, even if we do learn about family members, we're not going to mention them in the article unless there's some reason to think they're involved. Valereee (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Correct. But let's see how things turn out nonetheless next year. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous. Naming the accused is standard on Wikipedia. They’re named the *accused* rather than the *perpetrator* because they are not convicted as the perp. Cut the BS TheXuitts (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@TheXuitts, that's not correct, per WP:SUSPECT. We name if there's a reason, but it's not standard, and there's nothing ridiculous or BS about discussing it. Valereee (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

There is clearly reason to include here. TheXuitts (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

We can talk about the reason. What does the name actually do to help the reader understand the subject of the article? Valereee (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Suspect's name in lead/redirects

I'm not comfortable with the name in the lead or redirects from the name while this person is a suspect rather than someone convicted of something. I feel like this is a BLP policy issue that needs to be discussed here and/or at BLPN. Valereee (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Good choice. Adding the redirects and leading section is a good idea; because earlier today while finding more evidence involving Kohberger, there were fights in the comments with the subsequences on media. So you did the best choice. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is with naming a publicly-named defendant in the lead. He hasn't been convicted, but nothing in the lead you removed said that he was. Is there an actual BLP-related policy that applies to this? Otherwise, I just think it's needless paranoia. Many people use Wikipedia for convenience, and making useful information harder to find is not convenient. Silent-Rains (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, policy is at WP:SUSPECT. We don't always mention a suspect's name, much less highlight it by placing it in the lead. Convenience for readers is important, but protecting living people is more important. Valereee (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I am also uncomfortable with the suspect's name in the lead, at least until formal charges are laid. WWGB (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The decision with the Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German case was to not name to the suspect until he is adjudicated guilty, I think we should wait to name the suspect until a conviction. JuliettPapaGolf (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's leave it for now. Despite the DNAs they've tracked, doesn't mean that they have tracked the touches. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I've Googled it, and have no idea what a touche is? Sgerbic (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Its just a unique way I say about DNA. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

What does that sentence mean? Valereee (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

A man was arrested for these murders

There was an arrest for this case today. 208.53.125.83 (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that. That is why there is renewed interest in the article. WWGB (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The article now reads as if that arrested man were another person than Kohberger, who is introduced in the next section. Isn't it established that it's the same person? Or was more than one suspect arrested?--2.200.163.33 (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Affidavit released today with details

Affidavit was released today and contradicts what transpired as written in the article. Link to article Leitmotiv (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

What are the contradictions? You can WP:BOLDly make changes. Also, any such "contradictions" can be added and discussed in the body of the article, as the original reporting could be incorrect. Natg 19 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

There was something in the article that all the roommates were asleep, but affidavit says the opposite and encountered the suspect in the house. Maybe it's been edited since I last checked. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Leitmotiv is totally correct. The article sorely needs updating - many people will come to the article today due to the recent affidavit release, and it is wrong in a number of places. It should mention the actual time of the killings update, the tan knife sheath for the type of knife, the DNA thumbprint on it, the footprint, the sounds caught by the nearby security camera, the words caught by the roommate, the appearance reported by the roommate, the high speed of egress of the car at x hour, the sobbing heard by the roommate, the cell phone records showing tower pinged in the area that night and times over prior months at night .. --2603:7000:2143:8500:D812:26AA:3845:68DD (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• Incredible reading. I am not sure if it is WP:PRIMARY based on upon statement by police. Should not be treated as fact, but certainly was interesting and should be WP:DUE somehow. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The affidavit should "not be treated as fact"? Are you suggesting that the police is lying about one survivor being on the second floor, or the new timeline? --Reibeisen (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The affidavit details are robustly reported in RS articles, so there is no wp:primary issue. 2603:7000:2143:8500:84C7:B13E:3A44:FE52 (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct, thus the affidavit itself is not of any use to use. We dont use PRIMARY in this instance. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• I feel like none of this passes the WP:TENYEARTEST. All of this detail...none of it is going to matter. Why are we including it? The dog barks, the roommate thinks she hears someone crying...why don't we just wait to see what's actually entered as evidence? Valereee (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• I disagree. First, I think it will. Second, that's of course nothing more than an essay. Third, by that thinking, some editor would eviscerate 2014 Isla Vista killings and similar articles. Fourth, the enormous level of coverage for two months weighs against that view. Fifth - its a sworn affidavit; what in sworn testimony do you think superior? Sixth - its what the State views as the most material probable cause information; it's not just a neighbor said, its the State trotting out what it views as most relevant, and of course goes to the timing of observations of the car and cell phone pinging (yes, that's why its in the affidavit we can easily guess), which dovetails with the car being observed speeding away (no, they don't care that a dog barked or a woman sobbed, but the observation of the timing of those, and how those mesh with the car and with the cell phone). Seventh - 344,000 readers opened the article in the past 10 days. Do you think they really came to it to see an article lacking the robustly covered probable cause RS information because an editor thinks that the information should be excluded because .. "why don't we just wait?" I mean, why have an article at all, ever, until we have a conviction or a not guilty plea, under that mode of thinking. 2603:7000:2143:8500:84C7:B13E:3A44:FE52 (talk) 07:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Again, how important will it be to helping the reader understand the subject? Right now all these things seem important because we don't know what's actually happened or what will happen in court. Valereee (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• -Again, the seven points I made above, as to the essay, reader interest, etc.2603:7000:2143:8500:F44B:759C:6453:A74E (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, ten year test says we are not going to do all the excess detail. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• I removed the press release which was being used as a source, it is not an WP:RS to make allegations. A press release is a press release, nothing more, not even in this case. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  People, this is Wikipedia not a print book. Some details can be added in as reported in RS and then as the case progresses and more details are revealed, the prior details that are deemed superfluous can be removed. The bottom line is that the public comes to Wikipedia for trusted information, if it is available in RS then we should use it. We need to keep up with the information as it is released, everything can be altered if needed. Sgerbic (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Truth. 2603:7000:2143:8500:B877:4F95:5E18:5A1B (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Elapsed time is not helpful

The info box says, as of January 8, 2023, “ Date November 13, 2022 (1 months ago)”. It is way more than 1 month ago, and “1months ago” (sic) looks illiterate. It seems to come from a template, which assumes that any event happened several months ago. Is there a way to remove or disable “# months ago?” At least until it is multiple months? Edison (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It has not been two months yet, so it is 1 month ago. It will update on January 13. WWGB (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Under Events (end of 4th paragraph) INFO INCORRECT

The article states that Maddie (Mogen) & Kaylee (Goncalves) were found in Goncalves' room. But that is not accurate. Madison Mogen and Kaylee Goncalves were both found deceased in Maddie's bedroom, while Murphy (Kaylee's dog) was found unharmed inside Kaylee's room with the bedroom door shut. 2601:644:4284:B320:54EA:7646:E100:345D (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I've corrected that - thank you. --DSQ (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2023

Under ‘Investigation’ tab, law enforcement ran 22,000 registrations for 2011-2013 model year elantras, not through 2015, per the sourced article already citing. Also, Latah County coroner did not perform the autopsies. That was done by a medical examiner out of Spokane, WA. 166.205.147.129 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Dp syndrome, and visual snow

On google there are links to news stories which say he posted on a forum about having dp synrdrome and visual snow. He also talked about having no emotion. 70.59.0.12 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

He's the suspect, so it's expected that the media is doing a lot of digging into his background. But this article isn't about him—it's about the murders. Once he becomes convicted, more background information about him and his childhood, etc. could be added later. Some1 (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Info is added about him though in the article, as talked about above. The information above relates directly to the murders, is backed up by valid new sources. Currently the information is relevant even though it does not prove he is guilty and even though he hasn't been proved guilty in a court of law. I think the agreement above was to include important information on the suspect without giving a full bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.0.12 (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The article already includes "important information" about the suspect, such as his hometown, residence, educational background, etc. Allegations/stuff such as mental disorders or conditions, him being obese then losing weight, drug use, bullying people, etc. aren't important yet to include since this isn't a biographical article on the suspect/accused. Some1 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There is also information about the police stopping saying he was tailgaiting, him throwing out trash and his movements etc as well many many other things that connect him to the murders. They are widely reported by many news sources. The difference between "accusations" vs other circumstances seems to me to be extremely arbitrary as well as what is important to the case. Wikipedia currently has a censored version of explaining who Bryan Kohberger was which mentions some biographical information but doesn't mention his online posts at all. That doesn't make much sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.0.12 (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"him throwing out trash and his movements etc as well many many other things that connect him to the murders. They are widely reported by many news sources." Yes, and that information is already included in the article because it is directly related to the killings and subsequent investigation (see the Investigation section). "has a censored version of explaining who Bryan Kohberger was" Because this article isn't a biography about the suspect where editors list every single allegation/rumor/bits of trivia they can find about him on random news websites. If his forum/online posts get brought up during the trial, for example, then it's noteworthy to include (provided that multiple reliable sources are reporting on it, of course). As of now, those forum posts allegedly made by the suspect are trivia/non-noteworthy information. Some1 (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I meant censored in that it neglects to mentions relevant information that everyone wants to know, just like they want to know about the traffic stop. 70.59.0.12 (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"Yes, and that information is already included in the article because it is directly related to the killings and subsequent investigation." Information related to a possible motive for the suspect is relevant to the killing. This isn't random trivia found on random websites...it is important information displayed front page for everyone to see from the major news sites. CNN is an example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kop7AtgUnQM 70.59.0.12 (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

What "information" (be specific) do you want added to the article and what WP:Reliable sources (excluding videos) do you have to support that? Some1 (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That he posted online that he has no emotion to start with maybe? CNN is fine or whoever reported it originally. Actually I don't particularly care if the page gets edited or not and how the page gets edited or what sources are used. Other people can figure that out. 70.59.0.12 (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing and Reading Women Back into History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2023 and 3 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taysun20 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Taysun20 (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Categories: Unsolved Crimes and Unsolved Mass Murders

Seems that a suspect was recently indicted. Should these categories be removed? 174.95.87.77 (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Case is not solved until someone is convicted or otherwise proved guilty. WWGB (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2023

I would respectfully request that the title of this wiki be changed to "University of Idaho Murders" Because that's what it was. Murder. What happened was not just "killings". That word in and of itself removes a sense of humanity from the 4 young people who were brutally murdered.

Thank you for your time. 174.247.237.188 (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It is not murder until a court finds the accused guilty. WWGB (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2023

The Accused Bryan Christopher Kohberger has meet before the 4 university of idaho student as in their college orgenganigatio as like a other other organization students "this statement is based on the victims friend"

source: https://northeasternpost.com/news/crime/bryan-kohberger-visit-idaho-student/ Santoshsendha (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

What change are you proposing? WWGB (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Northeasternpost does not look like a reliable source. Valereee (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing and Reading Women Back into History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2023 and 3 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taysun20 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Taysun20 (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: True Crime and Misinformation

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 2 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gmp76 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ashleyrv2018, Jeiyah, Aberkheimer02, Dc10732.

— Assignment last updated by Aberkheimer02 (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Redirect for name of accused

@Valereee and Jauerback: I noticed that the title Bryan Kohberger has been salted to prevent creation of a redirect. At the time the title was salted (January 6), I think the cautionary approach made sense. The relevant policy is WP:BLPNAME, which states that "it is often preferable to omit" names when "the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed". However, at this point, the name of the accused has been widely disseminated in reliable sources with national-level readership (see e.g. The New York Times, NBC News, Time, ABC News, The Wall Street Journal), and we now dedicate a whole section of this article to discussion of this individual. Because of this, I would argue that a redirect should be created from Bryan Kohberger to this article. Would either of you still oppose? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mz7, I agree, it should be unsalted. Er, looks like I don't know how to do that lol...I guess I should have just temporarily salted? Should I now just change it to expire in an hour? Valereee (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

No opposition here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee and Jauerback: Thanks! I was able to create the redirect through the salt, so no need to modify the protection. Mz7 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see! Thanks! Valereee (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Writer444 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Editi2000, 373077CH.

— Assignment last updated by WikiEdit7205 (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Investigation Section

I'll try to get back to this eventually but don't have time any time soon, so maybe this mention will motivate someone else who has been following the court proceedings…

The details listed in this article seem to be from news sources and don't match the information that's come out in the pre-trial court events.

The court documents are all available on Idaho.gov If you scroll down on the main page they have a Cases of Interest page with all of the court documents available there. Jelly Garcia (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jelly Garcia This is common problem everywhere. The news gets something wrong, but it gets blasted everywhere and never corrected. It would take someone really dedicated to this case to make the corrections. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)