User talk:Dumuzid

Consensus?

Hello, long time no talk! You had recently posted the last consensus of which I was aware was to not name the suspect. Please go to talk before making this change. I just wanted to point out that this is incorrect; no consensus was found for naming which would be WP:NOCON. While still preventing the name from being included due to no agreement, it is different than the 'we all agreed not to name' that comes with consensus :)

I had pointed this out to another user recently, so it has happened before and you aren't alone. And the RfC was almost a year ago so it's understandable to be foggy on it lol.

Take care Awshort (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey Awshort -- that sounds right to me now that you say it, and I apologize for misstating the procedural status, if not the result! You can consider me duly chastened and I will certainly be more specific (and correct!) should it happen again. I am basically resigned to the idea that consensus will soon be against me not only as to this article in particular, but as to the whole concept as well. So it goes! Have a great day. Dumuzid (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries! I had to go back the first time and double check we actually had a consensus before posting to the other user.

I did want to ask one thing regarding BLPCrime issues since I know you are usually in favor of not naming, in both this instance and most. When, if applicable, do you feel a subject/suspect should be named prior to conviction? I know you were active in the Jordan Neely RfC and I think the suspect in that case was named based on his willingness to be interviewed etc. I'm just curious your thoughts on it and haven't ever wanted to sidetrack a ongoing discussion by asking you directly when you are involved.

If I remember correctly, you are not located in the United States (the Cheers in your posts lol), but I am curious to know how the media treats suspects in other countries, and at what point the media devotes attention to said suspects where they become household names. I only recently learned that it wasn't commonplace in the UK to name suspects prior to court proceedings and was honestly astounded. And that was only possible through Wikipedia and learning from other editors what is and is not common in their countries. This is more of a big picture question than specifically about your country since I believe all editors deserve their privacy (with regards to where they edit from, etc).

Take care!

Awshort (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

So, without going too far into my background, I was in fact born and raised in the U.S., did a fairly long stint living in the U.K., and now reside in Canada. That means my views are basically terribly confused, but also, those places have a lot more in common than one might think. You are correct that historically that other countries have been more reticent to name suspects--largely I think a result of the First Amendment's very broad (for good or ill) protections. While that is still the case, I think the various common law jurisdictions of the world are converging to some degree. I feel like the U.S. is becoming slightly more defamation-friendly, if you will, and Canada and the U.K. becoming a bit more protective of free speech. I have a lot less expertise in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, but suffice it to say my gut (for whatever that is worth!) is much the same there.

And you have essentially correctly summarized my position! Unless a suspect is wildly notable, I don't think they should be named in Wikipedia. If the headline were "King Charles arrested for theft of PlayStation in Milwaukee," then yes, we'd have to name the subject. But in general, I do not think it's helpful either to society as a whole or to the encyclopedia. But, as you say, I do think we have to make an exception for cases where the suspect in question actually courts and desires press coverage--as in Jordan Neely. This is definitely informed by defamation law (though I am not saying it should be directly imported). The concept basically boils down to the idea that you cannot use privacy as both a sword and a shield--saying both "I am private so you cannot talk about me," but also "I am private so you cannot respond to what I say publicly." Moreover, in cases like that of Neely, it is clear that the suspect actually wants some level of coverage. In my ideal world, we would still keep the actual usage of a name down to the minimum, but as I say, I think I am on the losing end of this Wikipedia battle, which is fine. I just have two opinions that lead me to try to be very careful around here: (1) I am very skeptical about things I or anyone else "know" for certain; and (2) Wikipedia, despite the jokes, has a very outsized influence on what might be termed "common knowledge." So I will keep fighting against naming most suspects, but am also happy to trust in the wisdom of consensus when overruled. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Lack of possible consensus about 3 words....

thx for blocking this minor change, because a talk about it was going, but i have to inform you, that a consensus is not possible, due to 2 certain individuals inability to accept, that an already used Reliable source since early March is still a reliable source, and that to add the actual full factual statement of this source would not add to the verifiability of the source used by Wikipedia but would make the whole article more undue, than these random quotes from some articles in the article for example. I had to tell them 2-3 times, that the source is already use din the article, they didnt even got this info and just slammed the unreliable source card without informing themself properly.

This is in my honest view simply a WP:DISRUPTIVE case of WP:STEWARDSHIP with the excuse of not fixing the not broken stuff. This is easily highlighted with actual statements of the individuals in the past, that imply even the necessary to add these parts of the controversy, if a reliable source would mention it.

So now one side wants to apparently declare an alread yused and never called unreliable source no longer reliable, because it would mean to add 3 neutral and factual words about this.....crazy. --2003:DF:A72F:9F00:75A5:F75A:BAA2:BBA9 (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)