Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf#rfc B1575E5

Since the RfC was closed with WP:NOCONSENSUS and the last stable version before the RfC had the killers name inlcuded, I will add it. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't believe that's in line with the spirit of the BLP policy. Default for BLP is not the "last stable version", it is to exclude the information unless there is a positive consensus to add it back in. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Actually, it's not in line with the wording of WP:NOCON either. I'll quote the applicable part here (emphasis mine): {{tq|Living people. In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.}} Nor with WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPRESTORE which says (emphasis mine): {{tq|To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.}}

::Neither of these seem to allow for restoration just because it was the "last stable version". Our BLP-related policies are "stricter" than normal requirements for restoring information for good reason. A lack of a consensus is not "consensus... be[ing] obtained" by definition. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::There was no BLP issue here. The admin who closed the RfC was clear on that. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::No, the admin said there was no consensus on the matter. You cannot read that into there is no BLP issue. Again, the default for contested potentially negative information about a living person is removal until there is a consensus to readd it. No consensus is by definition not a consensus. In fact, the closer even said that if there is disagreement as to whether the result means it can be included, it should be excluded while it is discussed. {{strike|If you are unwilling to revert yourself I will be reverting your addition of the name back pending further discussion here.}} Update, User:Symphony Regalia already reverted you. Pinging them for courtesy here.{{pb}}I also disagree with you that the last stable version had the name included. The name was added and quickly was removed. Generally speaking a "stable" version would've needed to remain up for days if not weeks to be considered stable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No pre-RfC stable versions exist. It's a snipe hunt. The article was created on April 16 without the name. The name was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf&diff=1285892894&oldid=1285892620added and quickly reverted]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf&diff=prev&oldid=1285892894 Twice]. On April 17, it was again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf&diff=prev&oldid=1286000527 added] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf&diff=prev&oldid=1286059775reverted]. It remained with the name until April 18 when it was again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf&diff=prev&oldid=1286252307removed]. The events repeat until protection just before RfC (still not stable). It stabilized without the name after the RfC began, so that's what we work with. Happy dickering to us all. JFHJr (㊟) 00:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make - the last stable version didn't include the name, because there wasn't a last stable version. However, it stabilizing after the RfC was started doesn't really mean much, since it was removed under BLP so couldn't be readded during the course of the RfC. So with no stable version existing at all (much less one with the name included), and a no consensus outcome of the RfC, it should be excluded. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm about to unwatchlist this, however, I notice this discussion and I will just add that the last sentence of the close I wrote was: "if there is disagreement as to which was the last stable version, the name should probably be excluded per BLPCRIME while that gets sorted out". Since there seems to be a disagreement as to which was the last stable version (or, indeed, if there was even a last stable version), I would recommend exclusion pending consensus as to what the last stable version was, if such a version existed. Chetsford (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Funny how the name of the shooter was added to this one with no issue at all

:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_legislators 72.20.140.38 (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. I got warned for trying to change this multiple times. These people just don't like the truth. It's not worth trying any more. Bcom123 (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Not such if I have picked up a stable version of the article, but it's a bit weird that Karmelo Anthony's name is not mentioned in prose but nonetheless appears 21 times in the article in the titles citations... if the consensus is that his name shouldn't appear on Wikipedia shouldn't all these articles be removed? GeebaKhap (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:We had an RfC regarding this at {{slink|Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)|Archive_202#RfC:_Exclusion_of_a_person's_name_following_consensus}}. The consensus is unanimous--that excluding a name from an article does not restrict its use in sources or other non-content material on Wikipedia. So to answer your question, no, sources shouldn't be removed solely because his name appears in them, either in the headlines or URLs. Some1 (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Interesting change ... only asked because I remember previous instances where a name was basically scrubbed from all Wikipedia namespaces and people were even reverted/blocked for using it. GeebaKhap (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If the name you're thinking of starts with a "C", then that's because there's no article about the person and people who mention that name on Wikipedia are most likely trolling. Some1 (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

To me it reads weirdly to say that Metcalf {{tq|was member of the class of 2026}} ~ i mean, apart from the obvious grammatical error, surely it would be more accurate to say he was a "potential member", as are his classmates? The class of [any year] doesn't exist until they have graduated in that year, does it? If i'm being obtuse or pedantic here, please feel free to tell me and ignore me ~ after you correct the missing article ~ Lindsay^Hello 20:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:No, it is common to refer to folks in school by the year of their targeted graduation. [https://www.newspapers.com/image/1081685353/?match=1&terms=%22class%20of%202025 Here, for example] is a bunch of references from a 2024 newspaper to members of the classes of 2025, 2026 and even 2027. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with NatGertler. It is merely a cohort designation based on a normally 4-year educational cycle (high school or university or even 1-2 year trade schools). "Class of" is often used as soon as someone matriculates. If a student has no "class of" expected date, the implication is strange, in life anyway. JFHJr (㊟) 22:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::FWIW, in the various school systems of the United States, an incarcerated person may be eligible to graduate on time. Likewise, I'm personally aware of at least one posthumous graduation (diploma: I don't know, but somewhere there's probably a district that would) in this region of the United States. JFHJr (㊟) 22:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Looking deeper, Hudl is a WP:SPS/WP:BLPSPS according to my own searches. It is the only thing underpinning the (I think) otherwise non-controversial class-ofs. The level of textual detail, however, may be WP:UNDUE. So much for a less weighty question, and sorry, User:LindsayH. But do their stats belong here, and is class-of even really worth its electrons in WP:WEIGHT here? Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Class of 2026 is fine. R. G. Checkers ^talk 04:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:So, i stand (sit) corrected; thanks all for the responses. It's still not language i would use, but if it's acceptable, good. I have corrected the annoying error i mentioned above, though ~ gotta have that indefinite article! ~ Lindsay^Hello 06:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmelo_Anthony&redirect=no Karmelo Anthony] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 18#Karmelo Anthony}} until a consensus is reached. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

This talk page is now above 100 kB. May we change the archiving period from 90 days to 30 days (or 14 days), or some other shorter period of time? --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Jax 0677 That seems reasonable. I've changed it from 90 to 30 days. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 12:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Although this question may be tough to answer, but is there White Lives Matter rallies and protests that happened in connection of Metcliff's death from outside both DFW and Texas? 2600:1702:5225:C010:8449:E5B5:2CDC:E391 (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:If no reliable source publishes this, the answer is easy and it's "no" (or at least it doesn't matter here). JFHJr (㊟) 03:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Karmelo Anthony is not the alleged killer. He IS the killer. The trial is not to determine if he killed Austin Metcalf or not. It is to determine if he used lawful self defense or if this was murder. Either way, we know exactly who killed Austin Metcalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.87.74 (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Per WP:BLPCRIME and related, we say "alleged" until there's a conviction. While an admission like that might speed up something like a jury or judicial conviction (or either of those per a plea agreement) IRL, we can't just skip ahead of an actual conviction in wikivoice. JFHJr (㊟) 20:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:EXACTLY dude his family even held a press conference which is proof. Bcom123 (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Dude. Press conferences are only proof of press conferences. Even when reliably reported, the weight we should assign any particular press conference is unclear. WP:BLPCRIME still applies even though there have been and will be press conferences. JFHJr (㊟) 03:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_legislators

:::Name of killer 72.20.140.38 (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::He hasn't been convicted yet. These people are hypocrites. You are correct. Bcom123 (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The accused is Karmelo Anthony. Zero debate. If Vance is on that, Karmelo must be on here as well. Bcom123 (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::While I personally supported including the name of the accused in this article, many of the opposers explicitly noted that him being a minor was a major factor in their opinion. Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not being a great argument, the situations are importantly different. Rusalkii (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)