Talk:Murder of Brianna Ghey

Death certificate/’misgendering’

@Snokalok: – there needs to be a source to say that she has been officially misgendered. Do you have a source saying what is on her death certificate? If you don’t, then you should self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Such as the current sources that say that under British law her death certificate records her as a boy, and that people asked the British government to not do that, and the British government said “no, fuck off”.

That’s, flat misgendering. If you want I can dig up sources that say the word misgendering. And it’s being done by official sources. Thus, it’s misgendering by official sources, or official misgendering. Even if no one uses the direct term “official misgendering”, plenty have still used the term “misgendering”, and thus “official misgendering” is a completely reasonable title. Snokalok (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Snokalok: You still haven’t provided a source saying that she has been misgendered. Your change to the heading is still unsupported. In England, your legal name is the name you are known by. This principle predates the Gender Recognition Act, and is independent of it. I don’t know what is on the death certificate. Do you? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/02/16/brianna-ghey-trans-girl-gender-recognition/

Under the current policy, she will be “misgendered in death”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/13/16-year-old-brianna-ghey-posted-tiktok-hours-stabbed-death/

Under the current policy, “her sex will be recorded as male”

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/03/16/uk-government-rejects-brianna-ghey-death-campaign/

UK govt: “We have no plans to change it”

It is completely reasonable to say, based of the current policy and the statement given by the UK govt regarding how that policy will be applied in this case, that her death certificate records her as male. That’s misgendering, very simply. Snokalok (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think this is reasonable and far removed from any risk of falling into Original Research. It is not necessary for the sources to use the specific word "misgendered" so long as they say words that unambiguously mean the same thing. Also, it is important to note that misgendering can take at least two separate forms on official forms. Using a deadname or putting an incorrect gender marker in a box would each count as acts of misgendering. It is not necessary for both to be present. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

DanielRigal – It looks like you have missed my point. The current heading of the section is Misgendering by official sources. But there is no source saying that she has actually been misgendered, because there is no source saying what is on the death certificate. So we have a heading which breaches Wikipedia policy, in that it is not supported by text which has a citation. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

DanielRigal – please don’t change a post after I have replied to it – it is confusing. And you still haven’t answered my point. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

This is Wikilawyering. The sources demonstrate that it is policy to misgender in this situation, that a request was made for an exception and that it was denied. There is no improper synthesis here. There is no ambiguity here. To speculate that the death certificate might have been issued contrary to policy and that that has been kept secret is, at best, WP:CRYSTAL.

BTW, I was editing the comment while you were replying and hit an edit conflict. I forgot to tag it as such. I have done so now. I was only adding to the comment so it doesn't change the part you were replying to. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation for my confusion around your amendment to your post.

No, it is not Wikilawyering. That essay says Using the rules in a manner to achieve a goal other than compliance with the rule (for example, to "win" an editing dispute) is frowned upon by the Wikipedia community. I am not ‘using the rules’ to ‘achieve a goal other than compliance with the rule’. Please stick to the point, which is the lack of a source.

I would have no objection to the current heading if there was a source saying that the death certificate describes her as male. I have not been able to find any source which says what is actually on her death certificate. You say The sources demonstrate that it is policy to misgender in this situation. But you will also see that the paragraph in our article includes: In April, the Trans Safety Network reported that, contrary popular belief, "in an ongoing case concerning a trans person’s death, the coroner has agreed that a Gender Recognition Certificate is unnecessary in order to record the correct name and gender of a trans person on their death certificate. In the absence of a source saying what is on the death certificate, we don’t know whether this was applied in Ms Ghey’s case.

The rule is that everything said on Wikipedia should be verifiable - this is absolutely basic. Do you have some objection to the basic rule operating in this instance?

Sweet6970 (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The Trans Safety Network, while helpful in some situations regarding the topic of trans rights, is not a particularly strong source. Certainly not strong enough to fundamentally change the title of the section in such a manner Snokalok (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The inquest reported in the Trans Safety Network article is the inquest into Brianna's death. However, I'd agree it's insufficient to fundamentally change the heading at this stage. See below. – Kanayoko (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kanayoko: This reference [1] you have just added has (a) nothing to do with Brianna Ghey and (b) nothing to do with death certificates. Why have you added it? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Since the inquest was put on hold pending the criminal proceedings,[2] the final death certificate may not be complete. The final death certificate apparently comes after the inquest is finalized.[3] As the article indicates, a gender recognition certificate may not be necessary for the death certificate to recognize Ghey's expressed gender, but does not mean it will.[4] as far as I can see there are RS's documenting a misgendering debate, but at this point I don't find a reliable source stating the final death certificate has misgendered her. Indeed it may not according to the sources. Ward20 (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Her death certificate has not been issued. In general, the coroner must adopt the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The prosecution has proved not only to the civil standard of the balance of probability but to the certainty that Brianna Ghey was the girl that X & Y murdered. I don't think she will be misgendered. These developments deserve a new section. – Kanayoko (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I happen to be a local member of the legal profession. We use the term "officialdom" without any negative connotation. It has even become somewhat of a jargon, particularly in the context of equality laws and gender recognition, and our former President of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, has also used this term. It's the most precise word one can find on the supermarket shelves.

I changed it to officialdom because it steers clear of the uncertainty we're discussing in this thread. – Kanayoko (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I have changed the heading to “Posthumous gender recognition” as it's now clear the coroner has adopted the position.—Kanayoko (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kanayoko: Thank you for the information you have added to the article about the Max Sumner case. However, I feel this is not strictly relevant to this article, which is about the murder of Brianna Ghey: I think that, as it is inf of general interest, it would be more appropriate to add it to the article on Transgender rights in the United Kingdom.

Do you have any information on the position on the death certificate for Brianna Ghey?

Sweet6970 (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It's the under the :#Reactions section and it's good enough for now. The next coroner hearing has not been scheduled yet, and we don't know whether the offenders will appeal. WP:NOTFORUM, but see my commentary above. –Kanayoko (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ward20: I'm not sure how a post-inquest case summary produced by the solicitor retained by the 40-year-old charity can be considered original research and unreliable. Could you please explain? –Kanayoko (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The material that I removed [5] is original research for a number of reasons. 1) It states there were "several active inquests" that are not mentioned in the citation. 2) The source does not mention Ghey or her death. The material attempts to connect Ghey's death in proximate time and circumstances. This implies "a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source", which is original research. 3) It is also original research because the citation is not a reliable source. The cited case summary is an anonymously authored and self published E-commerce page. This source can not be considered a reliable source using Wikipedia policy standards. Please self revert your revision. Ward20 (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

In particular, the relevant policy here is WP:SYN - even if the sources were all reliable, combining them in this way is an original synthesis, drawing a conclusion that is not contained in any of them. In any case, we should just wait and see what the inquest actually says. The current section is bordering on undue emphasis. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Child on child murder definition

Please change “Child on child murder” to “Child on adult” murder. Brianna Ghey was 16, 16 is the age of adulthood in the jurisdiction Brianna lived in, when she was killed by real children who were under 16. Changing such is important as LGBT adults 16+ are often targeted very violently by none LGBT people due to the false belief that they are somehow allegedly dangerous to children just because of who they are. Particularly trans people. Nothing is ever said or mentioned in the media about the deadly attacks by straight children on lgbt adults that is fuelled by false insinuations by others of transgender people allegedly being harmful to children, a false stereotype that may have actually been partly why her child murderers targeted Brianna in the first place. Changing it to a child on adult murder would highlight the suffering of lgbt people in this area. 2.99.81.33 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources are as follows: https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/brianna-ghey-trans-teenager-children-found-guilty-murder/

The article makes the distinction between the child murderers being children and Brianna being a teenager or young adult.

In England, where the murder took place the age of adulthood for most issues is 16. Her killers were 15 year old children when she was killed at 16. Brianna’s mother had made the error of stating that her daughters killers “Were not children” and were adults like her daughter well they were children although her daughter was an adult. This was not a “child on child killing” but a child on adult killing. 2.99.81.33 (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that labeling the murder as child-on-child sounds odd for the reasons you mentioned, I also heard the judge remarking that the defendants, while technically children, displayed adult-like behaviour. However, for sentencing purposes, both the victim and the offenders are considered children. Therefore, I believe we should simply refer to it as murder. What do you think? —Kanayoko (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I would settle just for it to read murder however, their is a problem with trans adults being regarded by kids as automatic dangers unjustly just for the fact the person is transgender. But yes just murder I would settle for that.2.99.81.33 (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The age of majority in England is 18 (source) EvergreenFir (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes that is true. The law in England in this area is confused. At 10, a child can be arrested like an adult. At 16, they can procreate like an adult but not marry like any other adult and at 18 they can vote like an adult while at 21 finally stand for the public office they voted on like any other adult. I suppose it rests on the legal and moral philosophical question “When does a person become an adult ?” When they can reproduce like an adult mammal or when they can vote like any other citizen ? What defines adulthood ? The UN seem to leave the question open for member states to set at anywhere between 16-18 as an acceptable age range as is the case in some US states. Either way, her killers were classed as children anywhere in the civilized world as they were below the lowest definition of an adult of 16 for any civilized society. They were 15. So, there was indeed a clear difference between her killers and her, comparative to the the UN range. It’s really up to the editor I suppose, I just think that a lot of stigma may have been attributed to Brianna for who she was by her child killers falsely believing Brianna was a danger to them and society for being older and trans in amongst them. Maybe classing it as an adult on child murder or simply a murder as has been suggested may help highlight the dangers of false suspicion and the effects they have especially on trans people by none trans people.

As I stated it’s the editors call. 2.99.81.33 (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Done. I've updated the displayed text to simply “murder” with the link pointing to child murder. Kanayoko (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"Autistic spectrum personality disorder"

According to the article, "Ratcliffe has a mild form of autistic spectrum personality disorder". However, I cannot find any reference to this in the given cite, nor can I find any mention of such a thing as "autistic spectrum personality disorder" on the web. Yes, there are people with autistic spectrum disorders who also have personality disorders, and lots of research on this, but as far as I am aware, there is no such clinical entity as "autistic spectrum personality disorder". Now, the lack of cite validation may be because it's a link to a live updated page, but that's irrelevant to its usefulness here; I have struck this whole part of the sentence as uncited. — The Anome (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It's likely to be irrelevant to the overall story. I'd favour ditching any discussion of the culprits' medical diagnoses unless there's a clear and strong reason to include them. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Scepticism of Jenkinson's confession

Lead prosecutor Heer said that following the conviction, Jenkinson had admitted to a psychiatrist that she had stabbed Ghey. Hear reported that Jenkinson had "snatched the knife" from Ratcliffe's hands and repeatedly stabbed Ghey, after Ratcliffe "panicked and said he did not want to kill her". Justice Yip said that she suspected that Jenkinson wished to "paint herself in as bad a light as possible" after her conviction, but that there was "so much evidence of untruths" in Jenkinson's case that it was "impossible to believe anything she says."

I was about to add the above text to the Verdict and sentencing subsection of the article, but wanted a second opinion on it, as it may also have an impact on how we add additional content now that the sentences have been handed down, and the final reporting restrictions have been lifted. How cautious should we be, if Justice Yip is correct in her suspicion that Jenkinson is trying to "paint herself in as bad a light as possible", in adding content about Jenkinson's motivations? Multiple reliable sources have remarked on the post-conviction confession from Jenkinson (The Guardian, The Telegraph, BBC News), though all have kept it in the realm of direct quotations. Should we include this confession by Jenkinson? And if so, how should we treat it? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Since the judge expressed scepticism, I think we should not include this material in our article. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that "Justice Yip said that she suspected that Jenkinson wished to "paint herself in as bad a light as possible" after her conviction, but that there was "so much evidence of untruths" in Jenkinson's case that it was "impossible to believe anything she says" is quite worthy of inclusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This text conveys no definite information, and I don’t see the point of adding it. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The Judge thought Jenkinson was a complete liar. But that's of no consequence? I'm surprised. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Jenkinson pleaded ‘not guilty’ and was convicted by the jury – so they didn’t believe her story, either. This will always be the case where the jury convicts someone who pleads ‘not guilty’. I fail to see any significance in the fact that the judge didn’t believe what she said, either. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Reflist

References

Conflicting stories re bullying history

We have the text with footnotes 16..19 saying that she was bullied at the school, and then an immediately following claim by the head teacher footnoted 20 saying that she wasn't. If two diametrically opposed narratives are going to be read into the encyclopaedic record, shouldn't there be an attempt to explain why there's no reason to prefer one over the other? Guyal of Sfere (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It’s not a narrative, it’s different things said by different sources. This is how you write in NPOV Snokalok (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Refs in lead

Currently there are 14 refs in the lead. As none seem to be needed to support anything that is contentious or controversial, I'd suggest that, in line with WP:LEADCITE, they should they all (apart from the one for surname pronunciation) be moved, if required, into the article main body. However, her date of birth seems to be currently unsourced. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd support such an initiative. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you know of any source that supports her date of birth? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Go for it.

On the birthday, it looks like it was added in this edit, with the edit summary pointing to this PinkNews article. While it doesn't explicitly state 7 November 2008, it does state her birthday was 7 November, and I guess someone just did the math from there. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Source support the data and that her 17th birthday would have been in 2023. The year is 2006, not 2008. Just added the citation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Curse you 6 and 8 looking very similar(!) I'd say I need to get my glasses checked, but I had laser eye surgery a little over a year ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a couple of other sources that mention 7 November as being her birthday; Liverpool Echo, Attitude, and Warrington Guardian. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for the birthday sources. I have now trimmed the other refs out of the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

NBC & Vogue – previous discussion

In the latest previous discussion, in December 2023, on the material which I removed, and which Sideswipe9th partially reinstated, Sideswipe’s suggested wording: An article by NBC News on the killing commented that "the climate in the U.K. has grown increasingly hostile for trans people over the last few years", noting that advocates within the LGBTQ community have often criticized the UK media in the last few years over publishing articles embracing anti-transgender sentiments. was accepted, and the reference to the comments in Vogue was removed. This is better than what is now in the article. (Talk:Murder of Brianna Ghey/Archive 2 - Wikipedia Heading Inappropriate sections? ) Sweet6970 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: The content that is currently in the article is identical to the version that was proposed and accepted in the December 2023 discussion, right down to the American-English spelling of criticized instead of criticised. The December 2023 version cannot be better than what is now in the article, because it is the exact same content. I called this a partial reversion because your edit completely removed the entire sentence about the NBC report, and not just the small portion on Rowling, and I was partially restoring the non-BLP applicable content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

No – look at the version at the end of December 2023 – the bit about Vogue was deleted, by agreement. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, now I see what you mean! That damn Vogue piece is like some sort of zombie, that must be what, the third time we've discussed removing it? Now that it's clear what issue you were raising, I've removed the sentence cited to British Vogue, as well as a duplicate sentence repeating what was already said in the NBC News report. Hopefully the Vogue part stays out this time! Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest edit. The history of this part of the article has been very confusing – I had remembered that Vogue had been deleted, but had forgotten that NBC had been kept. Let’s hope this stays stable now. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Do we need to name those convicted?

WP:BLP says:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
• When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

I propose replacing the names with X and Y as it was before they were named as I cannot see what value the actual names can possibly add on top of that. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Surely we can be retrospective though. It's not like the names aren't in the public domain. This is Paul (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would agree with your reading of BLP and WP:BLPNAME in particular, however since the reporting restrictions were lifted there have been multiple in-depth articles published about both killers; The Independent, BBC News, The Guardian, ITV Granada, The Standard. We're now well past the point where the names, and pictures of the killers have been widely disseminated, as well as past the point of "brief appearances of names in news stories".

I suspect in the future something similar to the names of the killers of James Bulger may happen, where if they become eligible for release Jenkinson and Ratcliffe may be given new identities for their protection and privacy. But for now, I think we're likely safe to include their names. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The names of those who have been convicted have been very widely reported and I think it would be pointless to remove them from our article. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I entirely agree. As it was a decision for Mrs Justice Yip, I think we ought to respect the full outcome of this case. They've not just been named, their mugshots will have appeared on television news bulletins across the world for several days now. I'm surprised some editors have not asked for these images to be added into this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

That might be because their images are already in the article, having been added yesterday evening. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems to make a request to replace their names with "X" and "Y" even more ridiculous? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

So how do you think their names improve a readers understanding of the topic of this article? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps because they are essential facts about their respective identities and about the trial itself. I think your suggestion that their names should be removed is utterly ludicrous. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Include killers' names, Wikipedia is not censored. WWGB (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

A non sequitur per WP:NOTCENSORED surely. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Essential? Can you elaborate on why you believe their names are so indispensable. How would saying something like "two 15-year-old children" instead fatally harm the article? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that a person's name (and usually also their date of birth) are indispensable to the legal process in England and Wales. They are considered the most fundamental aspects of a person's identity. This applies equally to suspects and to victims. There may be occasions when suspects or victims names are not disclosed, as part of the legal process and Wikipedia has to respect this. Equally, when the judge in a murder trial decides that names should be made public, Wikipedia also has a duty to report these names. In this particular cases the names and pictures of the murderers have been very widely circulated in news reports. They are part of any "basic understanding" of the case by observers across the world. You seem to want to construct some kind of a separate view of crime, where the names and/or images of the criminals in some way "don't really matter", or in some way don't contribute to a reader's "understanding"? One might argue that these particular crimes would have been equally serious if committed by people named "Scarlett Ratcliffe" and "Eddie Jenkinson". That may be theoretically true. But it's not how Wikipedia works. We reflect what most reliable sources say and they very obviously give the names of the murderers. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is nothing to do with the legal process in England and Wales though, it is an online encyclopaedia created by a volunteer community. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, let alone one of record, or a gazette, so does not have any duty to report anything. The topic of this article is a murder, and the names of those convicted adds nothing of any possible value to readers - does it? The inclusion of the names seems to be an example of a gratuitous "we included it because we can" rather than as a valuable addition to the article.

I know from past experience with other articles that there is always a clamour to add personal details of suspects and perpetrators of grim crimes, as if to seek some sort of revenge, with no thought given to why it would be useful in the article or what value it would add. I'd say we need a robust rationale before we include their names, including an answer to the question of what is lost by keeping them anonymous in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I certainly don't think the article should be filled up with extraneous biographical details of the culprits, and elsewhere on this page I argued against including their neurological diagnoses. But I don't think one can really argue that the well-publicised name of a murderer is extraneous to a discussion of the murder. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If neurological or mental diagnoses were relevant to the suspect's culpability, or to the sentencing decisions made by the judge, as presented in the trial, I'd say they were wholly relevant. What might not be relevant would be their exact place and date of birth, their previous places of employment, the names of their family members, and so on. I'd suggest that the names and ages of those convicted would be a very bare minimum. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Age and gender should satisfy the ghoulish desire for particulars. The names are superfluous detail. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a definitive court record. Or can you explain why you think I am wrong about that. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of the name of a convicted criminal is not "the ghoulish desire for particulars." It may have escaped your notice but there are quite a lot of Wikipedia articles for convicted criminals which use that person's name. Or are you may going to embark, yet again, with the ridiculous argument of "we can't use names here because this isn't a biography article"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Names are fine if the article is about the criminal, but otherwise it has no value to the topic. The topic of this article isn't the criminal, so I cannot see how you've formed the personal opinion that even so, they need to be named. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that this subject has quite a great deal to do with the legal process in England and Wales though. We include the names because they are a central part of understanding who murdered whom. If you really want to waste lots more of lots more editors' time, then you could always open a RfC on this. But I think I could predict what the outcome would be. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is nothing to do with the legal process in England and Wales though, so does not have to follow its conventions. The names add nothing to the understanding, unless you know the individuals personally. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If victims' or suspects' names are not legally released into the public domain, I think that Wikipedia has a legal duty to respect that and not report them. Personal knowledge of the individuals concerned has nothing to do with it. In the absence of any input from other editors, if you insist on extending this discussion thread, I would have no objection to it being hatted, by any non-involved editor, as a disruptive distraction. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If you don't personally know the people, what is the value of their names? Without a clear consensus to include the names they should not be included. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Need a new patio doin'? I'll see if me mate Fred can fit you in. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, I think names are fine if the article topic is the criminal, but otherwise (as in this case) it has no value to the topic. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Good luck over at the grassy knoll. You might have a few to get of rid. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagree that the names aren't relevant. A fundamental factor of events is "who was involved". The names are inherently relevant. We exclude names of the accused in many cases to comply with BLP and err on the side of caution, but post-conviction we do not need to do that. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Ghey surname

Could the article say something about the origins of the surname Ghey, which is very unusual? 86.170.222.118 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The surname of Brianna's mum is Ghey, so I assume it came from her. As for the etymology of the surname in general, we don't have an article on that topic and I can't quickly find any reliable sources on it. Without sources on the origins of the surname, there's no way to add content to this or any other article about it I'm afraid. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Apparently the name is a derivative of the Irish Gaelic Mac Eachaidh, and there are other derivative surnames (such as McGaughey and McCahey), but there's no reliable sources to make creating an article feasible. A disambiguation page would also be impossible as this is currently the only page relating to the surname. This is Paul (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Mmm, I think I know what site you found that information on (House of Names?) and I'm not entirely convinced it's reliable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I should have preceded that post with "According to House of Names". This is Paul (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Why has the pronunciation been taken away? That was really useful because it's such an unusual name. A lot of people think she was called "Brianna Gay". 86.170.222.118 (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It was right at the start of the lead, suggesting it was one of the most important points about the event - which it is not. If you think it is even relevant to the article, then please provide a reliable source relating it to the subject of this article and perhaps add it in the body of the article somewhere. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes it was next to her name. The most useful place to have it. 86.170.222.118 (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

DeFacto, please stop cutting material from this article without discussion. I have restored Ghey's birthdate and the pronunciation of her surname in a non-IPA format (leaving the IPA one in) along with their respective sources. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

We need a source that discusses the spelling and confirms how she would have pronounced it, not just an example of how one specific news reporter happens to say it. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with DeFacto on the date move and pronuncation removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Also agreeing with DeFacto. The way it may be pronounced by news reporters may have nothing to do with how it is pronounced. I was going to raise Greta Thunberg as another example of a surname you never hear pronounced right - but I see that our page actually does have it right! But in any case, if we are going to make a deal of it, it needs to be sourced to something other than a reporter pronouncing or mispronouncing it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

'Hate crime' in introduction

Today, Sweet6970 has twice removed the description of the murder as a hate crime from the first paragraph of the article, describing this change in the first edit summary blandly as a 'correction'. Hatred for the victim based on her identity was clearly cited by the judge in her judgment, so this doesn't strike me as a non-contentious change, and I don't accept that reversing it is POV-pushing. A discussion here (which I am now starting) would have been a better approach. Sweet6970 has an extensive history of editing on topics related to trans people and especially to so-called gender-critical feminism, which is perhaps relevant here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

1) When I last edited the article on 4 February, the lead said: On 11 February 2023, Brianna Ghey (/dʒaɪ/ JY;[2] 7 November 2006 – 11 February 2023[3]), a 16-year-old British transgender girl from Birchwood in Warrington, was murdered in premeditated attack, when she was fatally stabbed in Culcheth Linear Park in Culcheth. /para/Scarlett Jenkinson and Eddie Ratcliffe, both aged 15 at the time, were arrested the next day and eventually charged and convicted of murder. They were convicted on 20 December 2023 at Manchester Crown Court and were both sentenced on 2 February 2024 to life imprisonment, with a minimum of 22 years for Jenkinson and 20 years for Ratcliffe before being eligible for parole. The court decided the offence was primarily motivated by sadistic tendencies, with hate against transgender people as a secondary motive. The murder involved a significant degree of brutality and planning.

This is correct. When I came back to the article today, I discovered that the lead had been changed to On 11 February 2023, Brianna Ghey /dʒaɪ/ JY;[1] (born 7 November 2006[2]), a 16-year-old British transgender girl was murdered in a premeditated anti-transgender hate crime. She was fatally stabbed in Culcheth Linear Park in Culcheth. /para/ Scarlett Jenkinson and Eddie Ratcliffe, both aged 15 at the time, were arrested the next day and eventually charged and convicted of murder. They were convicted on 20 December 2023 at Manchester Crown Court and were both sentenced on 2 February 2024 to life imprisonment, with a minimum of 22 years for Jenkinson and 20 years for Ratcliffe before being eligible for parole. The court decided the offence was motivated by sadistic tendencies and hate against transgender people. The murder involved a significant degree of brutality and planning.

The first sentence had been falsified by saying that the crime was an anti-transgender hate crime, whereas the judge said that only one defendant, Ratcliffe, was secondarily motivated by hate against transgender people. This version would deny that Jenkinson, who actually received the longer minimum term, was involved in the crime at all.

Since the change conflicts with the information in the article, I regard the change made as borderline vandalism.

2) The comment by GenevieveDEon Sweet6970 has an extensive history of editing on topics related to trans people and especially to so-called gender-critical feminism, which is perhaps relevant here. is bizarre. Editing in gensex is not an offence.

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

"Borderline vandalism" is a frankly ridiculous charge to lay here.

Many commentators, including some involved with the case, have described Ghey's murder as a transphobic hate crime; this in no way den[ies] that Jenkinson, who actually received the longer minimum term, was involved in the crime at all — just because the judge said that Jenkinson was not motivated by transphobia does not mean the crime itself was not, even if the judge's opinion were objectively correct. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 21:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion: I do not know either editor, but any alleged bias by any editor is a matter for WP:AE and only when accompanied by very, very, very strong evidence of bias, or there will be a WP:BOOMERANG. This talk page, or user talk pages, are not the place for that discussion. On the topic of the article, it is true that the judge reached the conclusion that only Ratcliffe had a transphobic motive; this conclusion is shared by Ghey's mother: "...carried out not because Brianna had done anything wrong but just because one hated trans people and the other thought it would be fun". [6] Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Then I misjudged the situation. I'm content to leave this as it is. My apologies. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Chronology of article

Maybe there is no right way to do this, but I noticed the section "Trial" includes the sentencing, where the motives were stated by the judge, and then in the section "Reactions#Trial aftermath", we jump back in time: we have a detective doubting the relevance of gender identity, and then a representative of the CPS explaining the legal principles applying to every case in England.

There probably is a relevance to including the detective's opinion because the judge disagreed with it. There probably are secondary sources criticising the detective for saying this. As for the prosecutor's statement, I had actually added the exact same information into the trial section after the verdict, because I thought the readers deserved to know that the jury hadn't decided or disavowed any potential motivation. Now, I don't see how it's relevant at all to explain what we can plainly see; the jury reached a verdict and the judge decided on a motive. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Ghey"

There are many videos available on YouTube, of news bulletins and interviews, which include use of the surname "Ghey". One might reasonably expect national UK news channels, such as ITV and BBC, to have fact-checked the pronunciation. The pronunciation is /dʒaɪ/ JY. Furthermore there are also numerous videos on YouTube which specifically offer information on how to pronounce the surname. In addition, there are also reports and videos on X and TikTok with advice on the pronunciation. So what would constitute an "appropriate" source for use in this article? Alternatively, how many different WP:RS sources are required to establish reliability? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You need just one reliable source that not merely uses the name, but that is explicit in saying how the name is pronounced in the context of Brianna, the victim in the topic of this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I think one is very unlikely to find such a source. News channels tend just to use the pronunciation recommended by their in-house pronunciation units. Why can't ITV and BBC be trusted to get this right, i.e. to be wholly reliable? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

p.s. all of the sources I have listed are "in the context of Brianna". I think you might struggle to find any others.

Would others be ok with a footnote on first use of the name that includes something like "Multiple sources use the pronunciation ..."? A bundle of citations of videos could follow. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

No objections but, as I've said above, I don't see why ITV, BBC, SkyNews, etc., in interviews with Esther Ghey herself can't simply be trusted to be reliable on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. The ongoing debates about pronunciation and OR are not my cup of tea. I do think videos with pronunciation while interviewing Esther would be stronger sources to cite. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I quite agree. I don't see why they would be problematic. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Weasel

Pinging involved editors @Martinevans123 and DeFacto. DF, we can use vague terms when attributing to a source that also uses them. This is explicit in MOS:WEASEL: "Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source." We can also create summary intro lines, as long as specifics are later provided. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The sentence "The Trans Safety Network said that some UK media outlets were "publicly disrespecting" Ghey in their coverage of her death." has now been tagged. Are editors expected to name these outlets? What if TSN has chosen not to name them? I had previously removed the tag (together with a second similar one) with the edit summary "we don't need to do their job for them, that would be WP:OR? we just report what they say; quotes could be added if available". But the tag has now been replaced, wirh the edit summary "per WP:WEASEL." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that 'which' tag is the most straightforward case. The cited source says "Trans Safety Network said some sections of the media are “publicly disrespecting” Ghey in the wake of her death." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what anyone is expected to add to that. Or is the expectation to remove it altogether, as it's in some way "too vague"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

If the source leaves it at that without further qualifying it later, then restore it with that in the edit summary, otherwise further qualify it if possible from the source. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, fair enough if the source uses those precise words rather than just us summarising it that way. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

So would you care to remove your tag? I imagine you will have fully read the two sources. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

After improving the attribution and removing the weasel wording I removed those two tags. At the same time I modified both sentences to only reflect what was actually supported by the cited sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This edit is not an improvement. The addition of the {{who}} tag in this edit was inappropriate to that sentence, as the source we're citing is that generalised in its commentary. We had previously discussed whether it was more appropriate to quote or summarise back in February 2023, and the exact wording was discussed in in December 2023. The prior wording had a pretty strong consensus per the December discussion, and editors in that discussion felt as though it supported the content. I would suggest that you self-revert this change back to the prior consensus version. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, in your first case I replaced:

An article by NBC News on the killing commented that... noting that advocates within the LGBTQ community have often criticised the UK media in the last few years over publishing articles embracing anti-transgender sentiments.

With:

An article by NBC News on the killing commented that... adding that "trans activists" had also accused UK media of inflaming anti-transgender sentiments in recent years.

With the edit summary:

... closer to what the source says and provided the answer to the "who?" tag I had added, so removed it

Clarification:

The phrase noting that advocates within the LGBTQ community contravenes both WP:SAID and WP:WEASEL.

WP:SAID characterises "noted" as a "loaded term" and says "to write that someone... noted ... can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable".

Hence I replaced "noted" with the more impartial term "added" (to what they had already "commented").

WP:WEASEL says "a common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis".

Hence I replaced the unsupported and vague "advocates within the LGBTQ community" with '"trans activists"' - a direct quote from the cited source.

The phrase embracing anti-transgender sentiments contravenes WP:V.

WP:V says "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source" and the source says "stoking anti-trans sentiments".

Hence, as I believe that "inflaming" is a more accurate paraphrasing of "stoking" than "embracing" is, I made the replacement to improve verifiability.

As for your second case, I think we've already resolved the use of that {{which}} (not {{who}}) tag above.

I hope that helps you to understand why I disagree with your characterisation of my edit and believe that I improved the policy/guideline compliance of the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

As for this edit, firstly the {{which}} tag that was added in this edit was inappropriate. As with the NBC example, the source is that general in its original statement. Secondly, the attribution that was added casts some scepticism on the TSN reporting, this change is pretty much a textbook example of MOS:QUOTEPOV. It's also quite redundant. Why do we need to state that PinkNews reported that TSN reported that some media outlets had disrespected Ghey in their coverage of her death? Overall, this does not strike me as an appropriate use of intext attribution, and again I would suggest that you self-revert this change back to the version prior to your addition of the tags. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

"detained at His Majesty's pleasure"

Regarding this recent revert (the third) by new user User:The Macbook Air User, I'd suggest that this phrase can't be just in the lead section, even with a source. The main body of the article and the lead should be consistent and the phrase might need to be explained. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The appropriate link would be to At His Majesty's pleasure. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: user now indef blocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The source offered by the now-banned user was this one. I have no objection to addition of the phrase "At His Majesty's pleasure", as those were the words used by Mrs Justice Yip in the official sentencing, but I am unable to find that in any of the existing sources, in the "Verdict and sentencing" section. Any views?

I'm pro-removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Well it's gone now. But should it go back? Those were the words used by the judge, which may be seen very plainly at the end of the BBC documentary Killed in the Park. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of media

@DeFacto: firstly, could you please self-revert this edit per WP:BRD? I've already undone it once and you really should get a consensus for your changes. Secondly, could you please explain why you think that the summary version of the text you reverted is unencyclopaedic and fails NPOV? Wikipedia articles are generally written in summary style, and the criticism of the UK media's initial reporting on the killing was widely criticised both nationally and internationally. The shortcomings on their reporting is factual and non-controversial. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Removing Ghey's TikTok handle

Is there any reason to include Ghey's TikTok username in the article? Her original account has since been deleted and it seems that it has since been replaced by a new account. It doesn't give readers any meaningful understanding of the subject and also risks directing users to an account that does not belong to Ghey nor represent her views. Nullh1ve (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Birth Name

The first paragraph of the 'background' section should begin "Brianna Ghey (born (Redacted), 7 November 2006) was a 16-year-old transgender girl and...

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/warrington-transgender-manchester-crown-court-cheshire-justice-b2454180.html

It is standard Wikipedia practice to include the birth name of someone who changes their surname. From the style manual: "If a subject changed their surname (last name) for whatever reason... then their surname at birth should generally also be given in the lead."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#:~:text=If%20a%20subject,country%20music%20singer%C2%A0... 195.188.14.222 (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

No. Ghey was not notable under her deadname. MOS:GENDERID is the more specific rule here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be a majority support for a change to that rule, and the MOS:GENDERID section you link to has been apparently 'filibustered' by a minority of editors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Names_of_deceased_trans_people 195.188.14.222 (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

If the rule changes, we can change the application here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

To my annoyance that RfC has yet to be closed, and even if it is closed as successful I would still argue that for this article extenuating circumstances apply surrounding Ghey's former name and that it should not be included. As the Criticism of media section states, there was a great deal of controversy surrounding The Times including what was then believed to be her former name (from memory what the Times added was wrong) and adding it ourselves would be a non-neutral act that would open Wikipedia to the same sort of criticism.

As it stands right now however, that RfC has not been closed and the consensus (or lack thereof) from it has not yet been determined. In the absence of that, and because we're still in the period where BLP applies after death, the current provisions in GENDERID about a non-notable former name applies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

On the criticism of The Times article - just because PinkNews and other publications were critical of The Times for publishing Ghey's former name does not mean that this criticism was valid or that we should take heed of it. Ours is not to question the validity and morality of secondary sources like The Times which are widely considered reliable.

I do not believe extenuating circumstances would apply here as I see no grounds for their application.

I fundamentally believe that if there is a piece of well-sourced information that would not only be of interest to readers, but would be a piece of information they are actively looking for, that information should be provided on the Wikipedia page on that topic or person. One's moral judgement of those looking for this information and their reasoning behind doing so is immaterial. This I take as a fundamental principle, and therefore I argue that any Wikipedia rule that guide away from adherence to it should be itself thrown out. 195.188.14.222 (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

very ridiculous that Wikipedia has been made a politically correct playground for lefties, instead of being a factual source of information. Having the "dead name" would remove any confusion of biological identities. Eck (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Expanding "Murder" section

I'm wondering if anybody has plans on expanding the "Murder" section to include details leading up to Ghey's murder? I wanted to copyedit the lead to include some extra and relevant details, such as Ghey being lured by Jenkinson, which would likely be a good addition to this section. Thanks. B3251 (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a useful addition to the "Murder" section. Esther Ghey made it clear that it was unusual for Brianna to board a bus unaccompanied and she had only done so after being lured, by telephone, by Jenkinson, whom she regarded as a friend. She had no idea that Ratcliffe, whom she had never met, would also be waiting to tag along, with a knife. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I just expanded the lead a little bit, the citation I attached is necessary at the moment but can be moved down if somebody would like to add the details leading up to her murder in that section, I might be able to do it if I'm available sometime soon too. B3251 (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The lead section is meant to serve as a summary of the entire article. There should be nothing in the lead that's not fully covered, with sources, in the main body. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It's relevant information, the only thing that needs to be done to fix this is the addition of details leading up to her murder in the "Murder" section. I can't do it right now, but if nobody does it I'll do it next time I'm available. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

References