Talk:Murder of Brianna Ghey

Additional content, photo

Right now I don't think there's any additional content that can be added. Some reporting, like The Telegraph said that Ghey was targeted, however statements from the police said that they do not currently believe the crime was related to her identity. This might change over the coming days as more details become known.

Almost every news article published at the time of writing this message are using a photo of Ghey, that was released by Cheshire Police. Do we want to include it in the article under fair use? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, next day. There's some reaction statements from her family, school principal, charities, MPs, and some entertainment figures that could possibly be worked in. Listing them all here first so I/we can build a coherent section afterwards.

Family and locals

• In a statement, Ghey's family said her death had "left a massive hole in our family".
• Emma Mills, headteacher of Birchwood Community High School said "We are shocked and truly devastated to hear of the death of Brianna."

Politicians:

• Labour Party MP Dawn Butler said on Twitter that "Anyone in the media who is using her deadname trying to erase Brianna’s identity should be ashamed of themselves."
• Labour Party MP Jess Phillips said on Twitter that the killing was "Utterly tragic" and an "unimaginable loss".
• Jeremy Corbyn said Ghey "was killed because she wanted to be herself."

  Note, secondary sourcing needed for this

• Nadia Whittome said "Brianna deserved a chance to become a beautiful adult woman, and to live to see a world where trans people are safe and respected." and "Anyone in the media who is using her deadname and erasing Brianna’s identity should be ashamed of themselves."

Charities, organisations, and activists:

• Transgender youth charity Mermaids said "Our thoughts are with the loved ones of Brianna Ghey, a trans teenager who was murdered in Cheshire this weekend."
• LGBT rights charity Stonewall said "Our thoughts are with Brianna Ghey, a young trans woman, and her loved ones."
• Transgender Action Block will hold a vigil outside the Department for Education in London on 15 February.
• Activist Erin Reed said on Twitter "Brianna should still be with us today. She deserved to see transgender liberation."
• Professor of human rights law Senthorun Raj said "We all have a responsibility to challenge the insidious ways the media and politicians dehumanise trans people."
• Civil rights attorney Alejandra Caraballo wrote "The gender recognition act that the gender criticals keep fighting, with horrific, demonising language, means that Brianna Ghey’s death certificate cannot list her gender as female. As a final insult, the English government will officially misgender her in death."

Bands, musicians, and media figures

• Yungblud said that he was "heartbroken" by the killing and called for "protect trans kids every day and fight relentlessly against anti-trans sentiment & legislations being pushed by our heinous government."
• Big Joanie expressed disgust over the killing, calling for "Solidarity to all the communities having to live in fear for their own safety and lives for simply existing right now."
• Reverend and the Makers said "The death of Brianna Ghey has really saddened me" and "What happened to being decent towards other humans?"
• Crawlers said that Ghey's life "was taken because of who she was."

Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC) added reflist-talk section below. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Biographical details we can add from various sources:

• Attended Birchwood Community High School
• Was popular on TikTok, with 31,000 followers.

  The Telegraph are reporting 63,000 followers. While PinkNews reported 11,000.

  Note, this might explain the comments from media figures.

• Transition was possibly recent. Media sources are saying at least a few months, but unconfirmed reports on social media place it at circa two years.

Various groups and individuals have been condemning coverage of this in media. Per PinkNews, initial reporting minimised that Ghey was trans, before later being updated to remove references to her as a girl. Additionally The Times and Daily Mail published her deadname. This likely can be worked into a paragraph of prose for a reactions section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@CJ-Moki: I'm working on a draft for the reactions section below. I think there's also some sourcing here that could be used put some biographical content into the newly created empty section on Ghey. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I'm working on biographical details right now. CJ-Moki (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Now that you've beefed up the reactions section (thanks for that), I think the next step is to add more detail to the biography of Ghey. CJ-Moki (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@CJ-Moki: yeah, I was just about to look at that. I'm somewhat minded not to mention how recent her transition was, as there's conflicting information on that and despite the slight amount of media coverage I'm not sure how noteworthy it is on a long term scale.

On the reactions section, I had to trim the statement from Corbyn, as there's no secondary coverage of it yet. If it gets picked up by a secondary source though I think we can add it in. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

conflicting information on that Hopefully the reliable sources will settle on a certain date, and if they do, I'm of the mind that we should include it. If they don't, we can just omit the detail. CJ-Moki (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Do we want to include that her family described her as "a larger-than-life character who would leave a lasting impression on all that met her" in this section? Almost all of the sources that include her family's reaction include that sentence. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: If almost all the relevant sources include it, yes, we should include it. CJ-Moki (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Added. I've re-skimmed all of the sources that have either been linked here, or are currently included in the article, for any additional biographical info on Ghey. Aside from that quote which was used by multiple RS, I've not found anything yet that we haven't already touched on.

I'll take a look now for any new sources that have info on Ghey that we haven't encountered yet, and I'll make a list here if I find any. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I've not found anything yet that we haven't already touched on Unfortunate but understandable, it's my understanding that Ghey wasn't especially notable before she was killed. Thanks for your efforts in finding info.

Right now, I'm looking for more info about the suspects, but haven't found anything in RS. CJ-Moki (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

On the suspects, you're probably not going to find anything for a while beyond what we already have. Because of their age (both are 15, so are treated as youth) and the nature of the crime to which they are suspects, there will almost certainly be reporting restrictions in place against identifying them any more than has already been done by the press.

The only circumstance where I could see that changing for the foreseeable is if this goes to a trial, and a conviction is secured, then the reporting restrictions might be lifted as a matter of public interest. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

That sounds right. CJ-Moki (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@CJ-Moki: Ok, had a look for new sources. While articles are currently being published, with a new one appearing every ten to twenty minutes, most at the moment are focusing on the basics of the killing, and the outpouring of reactions from many individuals and organisations. I'm not seeing anything that we could use to expand Ghey's section any further at this time.

For now I think we'll just want to keep an eye out on what articles continue to be published over the coming hours and days, and see if any other biographical details get covered.

There is a couple more bits I could add to the final paragraph of the reactions section though, on criticisms of UK media coverage. International publications (The Mary Sue, Dazed Digital, Teen Vogue, Daily Dot) all have sections or dedicated articles on the poor coverage, and including relevant parts would strengthen that paragraph. But I've been looking at this for a little too long now and could use a break. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC) added Daily Dot to the list Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Thanks for finding those sources. I'll take a look at them and the last paragraph in the reactions section. CJ-Moki (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, one more source worth keeping an eye on for this is Warrington Guardian. It's a local paper for that townland, so they might cover stuff that the national/international press won't. I'm not sure if there's any other local papers that cover that area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

A quick look at Warrington#Media turned up the Warrington Worldwide and Cheshire Times. I've no idea how reliable they are, but they both seem to cover some or all of the relevant area. Warrington Worldwide looks like your standard 24 hour news publication, Cheshire Times seems like it's published monthly, so if there is going to be an article in it we won't see it until the start of March. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I just added the Mary Sue source to the article. CJ-Moki (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft reactions section

Draft was installed in the article, hiding for ease of navigation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ghey's death has prompted responses from her family, local community, politicians, charities, activists, and musicians. Ghey's family said her death had "left a massive hole in our family". Emma Mills, headteacher of Birchwood Community High School said "We are shocked and truly devastated to hear of the death of Brianna." Labour Party MP Dawn Butler said on Twitter that "Anyone in the media who is using her deadname trying to erase Brianna’s identity should be ashamed of themselves." Another Labour Party MP Nadia Whittome said "Brianna deserved a chance to become a beautiful adult woman, and to live to see a world where trans people are safe and respected." and "Anyone in the media who is using her deadname and erasing Brianna’s identity should be ashamed of themselves." LGBT rights charity Stonewall and transgender youth charity Mermaids both expressed sympathy for Ghey's family. U.S. civil rights attorney Alejandra Caraballo wrote "The gender recognition act that the gender criticals keep fighting, with horrific, demonising language, means that Brianna Ghey’s death certificate cannot list her gender as female. As a final insult, the English government will officially misgender her in death." English musician Yungblud said that he was "heartbroken" by the killing and called for "protect trans kids every day and fight relentlessly against anti-trans sentiment & legislations being pushed by our heinous government." Punk band Big Joanie expressed disgust over the killing, calling for "Solidarity to all the communities having to live in fear for their own safety and lives for simply existing right now." UK media has faced condemnation for their reporting of Ghey's death. The Trans Safety Network said that some UK media outlets were "publicly disrespecting" Ghey in their coverage of her death. Initial reporting by both BBC News and Sky News failed to state that Ghey was transgender. The Times faced strong criticism after amending their original story by removing the word "girl" and including Ghey's deadname. Senthorun Raj, a professor of human rights law, said "We all have a responsibility to challenge the insidious ways the media and politicians dehumanise trans people." Ash Sarkar, a journalist for Novara Media said she "cannot fathom the callousness involved in making the editorial decision to violate her dignity in death." Labour Party MP Charlotte Nichols said that she would be lodging a complaint with The Times and the Independent Press Standards Organisation and that "there is absolutely no need whatsoever for anyone to publish her deadname when identifying her as trans in media coverage."

Reflist

References

Re: missing information template

I personally have concerns about the inclusion of {{Missing information|the identity of the suspects|date=February 2023}}. This is a an article about a UK topic, where the principle of sub judice applies. Also, the reported ages of the suspects makes it unlikely they'll be identified by the media. This is Paul (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah we discussed that issue on reporting restrictions earlier above. I think in the midst of drafting other content we've forgotten to remove it. I'll remove it now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Gone now. I forgot there was two of them; the banner and a {{who}} tag. Thanks for the prompt. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries, glad to help. This is Paul (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Do you think Template:Expand section in the biography section should be removed? As far as I'm aware, RS aren't publishing more biographical details. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah we can probably remove it for now, and just keep an eye out for anything to expand it with as time progresses. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense, I'll remove it. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Photo

Every media outlet is using the same photo, and the copyright holder of said photo is dead, hence the page. What is our ability to use that photo of her for the article? Snokalok (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Copyright does not end with the death of the creator. We'd need to find out what the conditions of use are - which I think we should try to do, but is beyond my expertise. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Typically copyright belongs to the person who took the photo not its subject. I assume that they have allowed the press to use it, although that is not certain. (The British press is certainly not above just using other people's copyrighted material without permission when it feels like it.) Whether that permission exists, who gave it and whether it extends to Wikipedia would need to be looked into. I am not sure how to do that. Obviously, nobody should be approaching her family to ask about it but if they have a representative who is handling the press for them then it might be acceptable to ask them. DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

There's already pretty strong precedent for fair use to apply to images of crime victims when no free image exists. See Killing of JonBenét Ramsey, Killing of Justine Damond, Killing of Amadou Diallo, etc. It would be helpful if we had a confirmed source or copyright holder for the Cheshire Police image, but we can still use it without one. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I had a discussion on this off-wiki with some folks knowledgeable about Wikipedia's image copyright policies a couple of days ago. Because the chocolate bar image (for lack of a better descriptor) does not appear to have been released under a free content license, if we are to include the image it would be under the provisions of WP:NFCC. The opinions of the editors that I spoke to were that it would be a borderline acceptable fair use case, given the widespread use of this image. Most sources seem to have taken the image either from the family, or from Cheshire Police, and cropped it to fit their respective websites.

We probably can add it, we just have to make sure we follow the NFCC criteria, and make sure we have a solid fair use rationale on the upload. This does mean that the upload would be to enwiki, and not Commons however. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Right! Well, I am not well versed enough in wikipedia copyright regs to confidently make the edit, so I’ll leave it to someone else, but I’m glad the consensus seems to be one of it being usable. Snokalok (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

"by members of the public with multiple stab wounds"

The first sentence in the section titled Killing is somewhat awkward because the public didn't have multiple stab wounds. I haven't changed the article for this, but sandboxed the sentence to: "Ghey was found with multiple stab wounds by members of the public, on a path in Culcheth Linear Park." I'm not sure it's better so I'm asking for some wordsmithing help. Ward20 (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Your edit suggests the public inflicted the wounds. Wording fixed to make sense. WWGB (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Inf sourced to MailOnline

I have recently amended this text The Independent reported that MailOnline reported that a parent of one of her school friends criticised the initial police statement, saying, "Let's be frank, she was bullied because of her sexuality. Of course this is a hate crime." in the ‘Reactions’ section to show that the Independent sourced this inf to MailOnline, which is operated by the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is a deprecated source [1] My view is that Wikipedia should not be using any inf sourced to a deprecated source, even indirectly. Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing aside, the sentence is certainly a mouthful now. In this case, although the Mail is the original source, we are citing The Independent for it. It's reasonable to assume that The Independent have done their own fact checking on this before reposting the comments. I'm fairly certain that we do this on other BLPs without issue. But this might be a question better handled at RSN? Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it is a reasonable assumption that the Independent have done their own fact checking – if they had, they would not have carefully sourced this to MailOnline. If they had actually investigated, and independently found evidence of bullying, they would have said so. Wikipedia is currently giving information which is sourced to a deprecated source. It seems to me to be plain that this ought not to occur, but I think it is worth waiting a little longer for comments from other editors before referring this to RSN. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that this sort of issue has come up at RSN before, so I've been searching the archives trying to find it.

While I've not yet had any luck there, I did discover that Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party and Stabbing of Salman Rushdie both indirectly cite the MailOnline in a similar manner through secondary reliable sources, in both cases about BLP subjects. Using those as examples, we could simplify that sentence to The MailOnline reported that a parent of one of her school friends criticised the initial police statement, saying, "Let's be frank, she was bullied because of her sexuality. Of course this is a hate crime." while keeping the citation to The Independent. I'm almost certain I will find numerous other examples of citing deprecated or blocklisted sources through reliable secondary sources, in BLPs and other articles across enwiki. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That being said however, The Independent do have the quotation from the MailOnline in full, and we are attributing it to an anonymous parent, so I'm not entirely sure I agree with the issue that you're seeing. Unless you're doubting over whether the Mail made up the quotation, or if the parent's daughter was not actually a friend of Brianna? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself from the RSN discussion, it might be better to just paraphrase the source rather than to use the direct quote. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I think there’s a similar problem with this text in the ‘Brianna Ghey’ section. Ghey's friends also told tabloids she had faced years of transphobic harassment before she was killed, including being repeatedly "gang beaten”.Sweet6970 (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)  

Thank you for providing these examples. Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party: this does not look like an indirect cite of MailOnline – there is nothing about what MailOnline said. And presumably the comments attributed to Corbyn are directly reported by the Times? Stabbing of Salman Rushdie: this does look like an indirect cite of the MailOnline – and I think it should be challenged for being based on a deprecated source.

As to Unless you're doubting over whether the Mail made up the quotation, or if the parent's daughter was not actually a friend of Brianna?– the reason the Mail is deprecated is that the consensus of editors was that the Mail was unreliable The Daily Mail has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". I have no idea whether the report in the MailOnline is true or not. The fact that it is deprecated on Wikipedia makes me sceptical of anything it says. But the main point is that it is deprecated, and therefore should not be used as a source.

Sweet6970 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there's long been a consensus that if a source is unreliable, but their comments are noted and covered in other reliable sources, their statements can be used with attribution. While we can't directly cite an unreliable source, if multiple RS report find it note-worthy that they reported something, we can include that. I'd say the best option is to try and find other sources that mention the Mail's comment, source it to them too, and update the The Independent reported that MailOnline reported to The MailOnline reported TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

With regards to the long standing consensus, that's also my recollection but I'll be damned if I can find the most recent time that it was brought up at RSN.

On secondary sources from the Mail's quoting of Harry, we already have The Independent using the full quotation. LGBTQNation have a slightly expanded version of the quotation, with some extra words on Brianna's father raising safeguarding issues at the school.

I'm not seeing any other sources that we explicitly consider reliable at this time, but given that we're anonymously quoting the parent I think we're fine with even with just The Independent. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

there is nothing about what MailOnline said That isn't the case here either. We're quoting what the parent said, not what either The Independent or Mail have said about that quotation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe –We don’t know what the parent said . But we do know that the Mail is unreliable for facts and should not be used as a source. I repeat The Daily Mail has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". The “information” we are providing is sourced to the Mail. Please explain why you think that is in accordance with policy.

I see that you are opposed to the Mail when it “deadnames” someone [2] but that you are happy to use it when it says something you want to keep in the article. I observe a contradiction here. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in this discussion is proposing to source anything to The Mail. Are they? Editors have proposed to cite other sources, sources that in turn reference The Mail, as is done in many other articles.

Also, I'm not sure I follow your comment about deadnaming. The comment you link to, from Sideswipe9th, points out that The Times and The Mail chose to publish the deadname of a trans girl who was murdered, quite possibly as a hate crime. I'm not sure that anyone in that discusson was making the argument that WP should follow The Times and The Mail in deadnaming the victim, so what is the contradiction you observe?

Nobody in this discussion is suggesting that we cite The Mail, nobody in the linked discussion is suggesting that we cite The Mail, so I am at a loss here. Newimpartial (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The issue is not The Mail as a cite, it is The Mail as a source. The text "According to the Independent, MailOnline reported ..." is clearly using The Mail as the original source, which is against WP:RSP ("nor should it be used as a source"). WWGB (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I feel like this discussion isn't going to gain a consensus either way, so it's probably time to raise it at RSN for some outside opinion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Question posted at RSN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Minute's silence

I've added a couple of sentences about tomorrow morning's Gaydio-organised minute's silence. It's sourced from a radio industry website, but I think we'll need a better one when it becomes available. This is Paul (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

1RR placed

I have placed this article under the one revert rule for one month. This was applied 00:43, 17 February 2023. Violations may be met with blocks. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

JK Rowling tie-in is wrong, duplicitous, inappropriate and should be removed!

Unproductive and largely off-topic. The discussion below covers the same matter somewhat more constructively.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"British author J. K. Rowling had vocally criticised transgender rights" This is not correct and perpetuates a myth. Quite the opposite she has supported transgender people and has always spoken up against violence against them. What Rowling asserted was that women are intrinsically women and have a right to uniquely associate as such. The female sex is clearly differentiable in human genetics (excepting for very rare growth defects) and produces a physical representation that society has long associated with the word woman. There is currently a movement in society for the right of people to associate with any societal moniker that they believe best describes themselves. The merits, societal implications or even universality of this have yet to be worked out but demonising and misrepresenting someone who adheres to established societal norms going back millennia does no favours for anyone. Please don't reply/negate with the typical: False-equivalences, falsehoods or misguided indignant rage ... so tiresome! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:E557:7FC7:F43A:3EE8 (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC) You can disagree (that's the nicer word I'll use for what you're doing) all you like, but the source says what the source says and is attributed as such. --Pokelova (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC) What's the nicer word for surreptitiously attributing the death of a person to another by such tenuous (which is the nice word I'll use - duplicitous would be the alternative) association? 2001:8003:70F5:2400:E557:7FC7:F43A:3EE8 (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC) If that's the conclusion you wish to draw from that sentence you are welcome to that. But there is no issue with it in this article. --Pokelova (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Perhaps that is, because it reflects the innate bias (and persuasions) of its authors and it wouldn't be the first time a death has been hijacked to promote a wider ideology? Anyway ... I wouldn't expect it to change as opinions are so entrenched and tribal ... maybe some people would like to think on it? 2001:8003:70F5:2400:E557:7FC7:F43A:3EE8 (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure biases are innate - they're learned. And I reject the implicit claim here that wanting to treat trans people with appropriate respect is a 'wider ideology' that's simply a matter of 'entrenched and tribal opinions'. The mention of JKR was probably WP:UNDUE, but the IP poster's rhetoric is characteristic of precisely the ideological viewpoint espoused by her supporters. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC) When a bias is emblematic of a particular PoV/ideology, then it is innate. I am not a supporter of JK Rowling but someone who clearly sees something wrong happening here. You are perhaps, not used to entertaining the viewpoint of the other side: When the perceived rights of Trans-people infringe on the established rights of women and it is pointed out ... guess what ... that's not the Devil (or your parents) speaking. When 'some' becomes 'all' and 1% of what a person says is represented as 100% of everything she is, you know you are speaking to zealots (who by definition, are terribly difficult to reason with). Zealots within the Trans-community (or, perhaps the wider community) took 1% of what Rowlings said - reinterpreted it to amplify the indignation (happened even in the comments here) and then proceeded to besmirch her character (and worse). See what happens; this trans-woman (Brianna Ghey) was murdered and it becomes all about JK Rowling and Trans-this/that. That is why the tie-in to Rowling is both wrong and for this particular article inappropriate (maybe, another forum?). 144.134.150.203 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Re: When the perceived rights of Trans-people infringe on the established rights of woman and it is pointed out ... according to most reliable sources, this isn't a thing that has actually happened. Being told a thing and believing it does not make it true. Newimpartial (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Please try not to let them wind you up and draw you into off-topic discussion. I know it's not easy and I know I have fallen for it a few times myself. Please try to remember that being infuriating can often be a deliberate tactic to derail the project and turn everything into an unedifying circus. DanielRigal (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Enough! This is getting way into WP:NOTFORUM territory and that last comment was right on the border of what I would remove and issue a warning for. Time to stop this and maybe roll this part of the discussion up. Please discuss the article. Please refrain from goading people by referring to their existence as an "ideology" or calling people "zealots" just because they are on edge because for very understandable reasons. Please refrain from misspelling phrases in what looks to be a deliberately pointed way (e.g. the incorrect hyphen in "trans woman".) People might interpret that as trolling. DanielRigal (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• I am removing the reference to J.K. Rowling in this article since I tink this is a serious WP:BLP issue. By mentioning J.K. Rowling in the context that it does, the article seems to blame Rowling for formenting hate that brought about the senseless and heinous murder of the girl. Indeed, the NBC News article specifically cites it as an example of "The climate in the U.K. has grown increasingly hostile for trans people over the last few years." I do recognize that a reliable source, NBC News, mentions Rowling's essay, but that is a necessary condition for inclusion, not a sufficient one. While NBC News is a reliable source in general, I believe the NBC article makes a deceptive omission when it comes to Rowling.

The NBC News article cites Rowling's essay, in particular her comments about natal women being "less safe" in bathrooms and changing rooms. However, it omits that she in the same essay wrote "I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection."

As such, citing the NBC News article to bring Rowling into this article, in a manner that implicates her for creating an environment that made this murder happen, does not meet the standards of WP:V or WP:NPOV that are needed for BLP coverage. I have some issues with the citation of the BBC News article as well (since it somehow interprets "some" as "all"), but since that is not BLP-related I will let it stand for now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object to the removal but I do think that the reasons you give here are mistaken. We do not get to do WP:OR and decide that the NBC source is unusable simply because some of us personally disagree with what it says. What Rowling wrote in her manifesto is (presumably intentionally) open to multiple interpretations. Some people will notice the "trans-identified" dogwhistle in that quote, some genuinely won't and some others will pretend not to. It is not for us to impose our own interpretation in preference to that of the reliable sources. We have to assume that NBC read the manifesto, saw that quote including the dogwhistle, and disregarded it as either insincere or irrelevant to their analysis. If we have a second source also mentioning Rowling then the case for inclusion would become much much stronger but we certainly should not be trying to shoehorn her into this article any more than is actually justified. That risks drawing attention away from the horrific murder and turning this into yet more noise in the "culture war" "debates". It also risks concentrating the spotlight on one specific person when pretty much the whole UK media and political establishment has copious blood on its hands here. (Yes, that last bit was just my opinion. I'm not suggesting we include any of that in the article unless Reliable Sources say the same thing.) DanielRigal (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with DanielRigal's comments about WP:OR above, and also about the comments about Rowling and WP:WEIGHT to give the single NBC source, or alternately if a second source appears. I searched news sources for Ghey and Rowling together. Only a RollingStone article[3] and, what I consider, some minor sources criticizing or defending Rowling come up. I looked at the Rolling Stone article which only mentioned Rowling concerning the controversy over a New York Times opinion piece "In Defense of J.K. Rowling”. However, the RollingStone article had discussions concerning Ghey's now international notability, rallies for her that have become expressions of political angst, finer details on media disrespect, and concerns Ghey's friends have over the politicalization of her death as DanielRigal discussed above. Some of that might be useful in the article, or how to approach this Wiki article. Ward20 (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

On the Rolling Stone article, I was reading it earlier and there are definitely parts I think we can work in. It's something I'm going to look at over the weekend if no-one else gets there first, writing new mainspace prose seems a little hard for me today.

On the Rowling sentence, for me it's a question of WP:WEIGHT. NBCNews clearly felt it was important to bring up in this context, and I don't think that should be discounted based on whether or not we as editors agree or disagree with it. But the lack of other sources bringing it up in the same, or similar way does suggest that unlike the widespread criticism of UK media, it's not really noteworthy in an encyclopaedic sense. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to say the quiet thing out loud, the most plausible interptetation of JKR's "I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection." is not "trans people should be protected from discrimination and hatred based on their gender identity" but rather "trans-identified people are vulnerable, likely mentally ill or having other disabilities, and therefore need help and protection". This is the interpretation that makes the most sense, IMO, given the corpus of JKR's statements and actions on gender identity issues. Of course other editors can disagree with this interpretation, but discounting what RS say about JKR's influence because these editors believe some other interpretation of Rowling's statement to be true - well, I don't think that approach is mandated by policy. We should include content because it is reliably sourced and uncontradicted by other sources, not because we personally believe it to be true. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

While verifiability in reliable sources is a pre-requisite before content can be considered for inclusion, not all verifiable information must be included. WP:V and WP:NPOV have equal weighting when it comes to considering content for inclusion, and there are some weight issues for the Rowling sentence in this article. This might be content that could be included in another article, like Political views of J. K. Rowling, if it isn't already included. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

A single sentence attributed to a reliable source, and making it clear that this is just one interpretation, seems like an acceptable amount of weight to place on this. The wording Wikipedia was using about JKR was already more benign than what NBC had to say about her ("she said allowing trans women to use women’s bathrooms and changing rooms would make cisgender women 'less safe' — an anti-trans talking point that research has debunked."), and this isn't a BLP issue because the information is a response to things she publicly said. Considering that she's possibly the most well-known living writer in the world, what she says will have an impact on the social climate in the UK. I won't bring back the reference to her because I was the one who initially put it there, but I think someone should. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Brianna_Ghey&oldid=prev&diff=1139858577

I believe the revert should be reversed due to the following. I added "vigorously" in front of "criticised transgender rights". The edit summary that removed "vigorously" stated, "your opinion,not in source". The source[4] states, "outspoken critic of trans rights". "Vigorously" is similar in meaning and tone to "outspoken" in this context. Ward20 (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Vociferously" can also be used, which is a possibly closer synonym to "outspoken". Ward20 (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

If the source says "outspoken" then use that term or an accepted synonym. "Vociferous" is similar in meaning, but "vigorous" (forceful) is certainly not. WWGB (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Rowling has been removed, topic now moot. Ward20 (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Number of followers and location of her last TikTok?

So a new editor (@CorrectingFalseInfo) has changed the number of her TikTok followers (to "8k, 80k after death" as opposed to "63k") and has changed the location of the last TikTok from Linear Park to Birchwood Park. Is this true? I have a reason to doubt considering the new account but wanna be sure it's correct info. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It is contradictory to the sources so I have reverted it. --Pokelova (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for confirming my suspicions. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a few different numbers in various sources for how many TikTok followers Brianna had before the account was deleted. At the low end, we have PinkNews and Liverpool Echo who both say 11,000. In the middle there's The Independent with 31,000. And at the high end, we have an earlier version of The Telegraph article we currently cite with 63,000.

Not sure which, if any number we should cite here given the widespread disparity between sources. As the current status-quo is The Telegraph's numbers however, I'll be adjusting the citation in a moment to account for the deviation, by adding an archived link and marking the current URL as deviated. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Do we need to give a number for the TikTok followers, or would simply describing the crime victim as a TikToker work? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Two infoboxes

Do we really need two infoboxes, one on the killing, and a separate on on Brianna and her TikTok? I tried experimenting in the page preview with WP:IEmbed, but I couldn't figure out a way to neatly include all three infoboxen after removing the duplicate info. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree it kind of makes the article look strange. Could the personal information be included in the Killing of Brianna Ghey infobox under the Victim catagory? Just thinking outloud here. Ward20 (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Kinda. The TikTok info is an embedded {{Infobox TikTok personality}} inside the {{Infobox person}}, so adding that as a submodule of the first infobox, {{infobox civilian attack}}, is easy enough. However the first infobox doesn't have parameters for date of birth/death, birth place, or education. And unfortunately embedding the {{Infobox person}} into the first infobox seems to result in a weird parameter display order that I can't figure out how to resolve.

I've also tried to make the Person infobox the attack one, to try and fix it with a different order of the infobox nesting, with the other two being the submodules of it. However the attack infobox doesn't support being embedded into another infobox, it can only be the primary infobox from what I can see in the preview. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to just delete the infobox on the TikTok. It's fairly atypical to have a separate infobox for crime victims, and this article is on the crime; it's not a biography. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with not having two infoboxes and I was working on combining the information into one box, but I researched child murders on Wikipedia and found several articles that had biographical information in the infoboxes. Can you point me to any specific policies or guidelines that state there shouldn't be biographical information in the infobox for crime victims? Thank you. Ward20 (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is the general practice that, if an infobox is on a page, we have a single infobox that summarizes the article's key points. It boils down to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which says that the purpose of infoboxes is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article and that infoboxes should generally be shorter in length rather than longer in length. The principles here point towards having a single infobox, but no, they do not explicitly require it. That being said, I just qualitatively think it's better to have one infobox here, as this article is about the killing. I understand the desire to place a second infobox with biographical details of the victim, either as a memorial or merely to note important facts about her tragically short life, but the former falls victim to WP:NOTMEMORIAL and the latter simply seems to be outside of the purpose of infoboxes. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I have some proposed infobox biographical changes posted at User:Ward20/sandbox that I would like to get feedback on. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the fascination with her (very rubbery) TikTok follower numbers, and the name of her deleted account. It's not as if she was a notable TikToker in life. A mention in the article should suffice without twisting the infobox, which is about an attack, not a biography. WWGB (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There is only a single Infobox I propose for the article, summarizing and not supplanting article information. It does not add any information not in the article. It adds two lines of information about her TikTok account. Without adding any extra lines to the infobox, it now states her age, and the age and gender of the two arrested. That's all that is changed. These are key features of the page's subject, certainly not a memorial. Part of the noteability of the article is from the ages of the persons involved, and Ghey's TicTok account is prominently mentioned in this Wikipedia article, as well as many of the article's sources. Having the infobox present key information is the important issue, not the infobox name or how it is constructed. Thank you. Ward20 (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Grammar

"After her death her TikTok account was deleted." -> "After her death, her TikTok account was deleted." Could someone who can edit this page please make this edit? 80.41.153.196 (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done by Tropicalkitty. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)