Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf/Archive 1#RFC: Name of alleged killer

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 April 18#Karmelo Anthony}} until a consensus is reached. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Reading discussion about the possibility of excluding the alleged killer's name in the article. While it may not be needed at the moment for the alleged killer to have a section delving into his background, is there objection to creating one for Metcalf? Taking cues from layouts of pages involving similar subject matter. Count3D (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:It's best perhaps to cover the victim's background in a Background section preceding the main section on events rather than to try adding a summary at the end. The accused perp should not be named for lack of relevance to the decedent or legal determination (and because we don't yet have an RfC determination). JFHJr (㊟) 17:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for your response. There's quite some discussion above to include or exclude the accused's name. Even though his name is littering the article, I will take your suggestion and not include it in my edit for the background section. Count3D (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Multiple editors have added "rumors" to the misinformation section. Covering rumors as rumors is always a fraught matter, particularly in material involved living persons. In this case, phrasing from source that certain supposed facts were being hidden by the mainstream media is being translated into a claim that it was false that mainstream media was hiding anything, which both goes beyond the source and in any case, for which the source (being mainstream media) could be considered problematic. There is also lumping of claims of bullying in with things that are "rumors", while it could be a description of the events that took place in the tent. This material does not lend much to an understanding of the incident and risks conveying false information, and should be removed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:I should also point out that the main source being used in the most recent version, [https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/spokesman-rubbishes-karmelo-anthony-conspiracy-theory/ar-AA1CEwC3?apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1 this], is not by MSN, it's by Newsner (MSN republishes all sorts of stuff like that.) I don't think that Newsner is a high-enough quality source for something so obviously WP:BLP / WP:BDP-sensitive. --Aquillion (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:I also agree the rumors should be removed, and I would also support removing that whole "misinformation" section. The problem with sections like this is there is usually no sustained coverage of this material, which makes it undue, and it's not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we shouldn't be covering this incident like we are a newspaper. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think there's need for at least a brief mention of the social media tumult, including misinformation efforts, because that's part of what makes the topic worthy of a Wikipedia article (if indeed it is); otherwise, it's a non-notable individual killing another non-notable individual; tragic but not uncommon. But that's different than playing up certain rumors. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't know, it seems like to me we are amplifying the misinformation by including it here. Saying that The Daily Mail, and an anonymous Twitter account spread misinformation is akin to saying the sky is blue. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I think that we can say that there was misinformation and rumormongering while limiting the specifics of what they were. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::This is tricky because I think it's fair to say that the exact content of that misinformation (and the racial dynamic in particular, which underlies a lot of it) is central to why this is getting so much attention and, therefore, to its notability. As I mentioned in the RFC above, the name of the accused isn't important, but the race absolutely is (in the sense that none of the attention this is getting would be present if not for the racial dynamic.) So we do have to cover that in some form eventually, and probably not just in the body but in the lead. I think the thing to do is to use high-quality secondary sources summarizing the entire situation, if they exist now. If not then we can just wait for them. --Aquillion (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how editing works. There is not a charge of "First Degree Murder" in Texas. What would be first degree murder in other states is called "Capitol Murder" in Texas....while the charge of "Murder", which is {{redacted}} charge, would be equal to 2nd degree murder if Texas were to use those terms....so that part of the entry is incorrect. 76.250.175.118 (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:The source cited ([https://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-track-meet-stabbing-arrest-report-details/story?id=120490192 this news article]) states the following: "The suspect in the deadly stabbing ... has been charged with first-degree murder, police said."

:While you're correct that Texas has specific names for the different levels of murder/manslaughter charges rather than calling them "degrees", Wikipedia operates on what reliable sources call it as well as trying to use terms that common people will understand. In this case, people outside of Texas (and even many inside Texas) will not understand exactly what the specific terms used to refer to the different "levels" of killing refer to. As such, even if reliable sources didn't refer to it as "first-degree", it would still be appropriate to refer to it as such. The "degrees" as in common use are Capitol Murder -> 1st degree -> 2nd degree -> 3rd degree. Many states use other terms for those degrees - but they pretty much all have 4 degrees of "killing another person" total. So it makes sense to standardize those degrees and report them in a standard way across articles, so that the charge here (the "second from the top level") can be compared to other states, even if they call it something different.

:Lastly, I've removed the perpetrator's name from your comment - please review this talk page to understand why. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::Capitol murder would be something really very different to capital murder. JFHJr (㊟) 04:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Dang it, I used the word used by this (and below) with that spelling... without checking. My bad >:( -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::# [https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/reporter-notebook-bond-hearing-held-for-teen-accused-in-track-meet-stabbing/3819631/ This source] specifically says that this is not a "capital murder" case.

:::# The source we're using is supposedly citing the police... but it's probably not the police who charge. It's not our source putting it in their own voice. In contrast, the source I just linked to simply says he was charged with "murder", in their own voice. Probably best to go with. that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::#:I agree. Just "murder" is enough. JFHJr (㊟) 05:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::#:I don't have a problem with "expanding" the charges to just "murder" for now. But if it is going to be expanded upon, I'd support using "generic" terms (i.e. capital -> 1st degree -> 2nd -> 3rd) rather than the specific state law wording. This is because the vast majority of states only have at most 4 "levels" of "killing another person" charges, and as such if we are going to specify, we should do so in generic terms that will be understood by a majority of readers, rather than state-specific charge terms. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:IMO, we should go with what the charging document says. Some1 (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::I have seen the arrest report but not the indictment document. The closest I got to a judicial document showing the charge was by entering the accused's name [https://cijspub.co.collin.tx.us/PublicAccess/JailingSearch.aspx?ID=700 in Jail Bond Records]. The results are a cgi bin display and not a stable URL for citation. The charge is just "murder" with no degree specified. Not sure how to make this hard-to-cite WP:PRIMARY info useful textually other than say just "murder" in wikivoice. Anyone else find a nice PDF or something from court showing the actual charge? JFHJr (㊟) 16:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::I don’t know if that’s a good idea though. Different states have different terms for basically the same “level of crime. We should venture to use a term that will be understood by a majority of readers - even those who don’t know what the “levels” of “illegally causing the death of someone else” in Texas are. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, the charging document will most likely say "Murder" anyway since that's what 19.02(C) 09990030 is (unless they decide to charge him with something else later). The Charges parameter in the infobox is correct in listing just "Murder" for now. Some1 (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I'd be okay with just saying "murder" to avoid confusion too. I think my biggest thing is that if it's going to specify something beyond, we should strive to use terms that will be easy to understand, even if that may not be the exact name of it in the law/charging documents. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Right. You shouldn't need to be a Texas lawyer to understand what's being said. It's just "murder" for all we care right now. JFHJr (㊟) 03:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I went ahead and did that bold thing. JFHJr (㊟) 04:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Killing of Austin Metcalf|answered=yes}}

Change "first degree murder" to "murder". There is NOT a first degree murder charge in Texas. Only Capitol Murder (equal to first degree in other states), MURDER (Anthony's charge, equal to second degree in other states), and manslaughter. Jodyandrewlee (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{nd}} See above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!

:{{done}}. See above. Thank you Jodyandrewlee! JFHJr (㊟) 04:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit extended-protected|Killing of Austin Metcalf|answered=yes}}

I would would like to be granted permission to edit this page by adding "April 2025 crimes in the United States" to it's categories, please and thank you. Jason.gundestrup360 (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{partly done}}: The category was added, but this is not the place to request additional user rights. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{nd}}. The addition you requested was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf&diff=prev&oldid=1288005532 done but reverted] because it has not yet been determined whether a crime occurred (that takes patience for courts). Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to put anything about political sides? I’m not right and I’m as outraged as you mock them to be. Do better. 209.36.200.42 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Because Wikipedia is extremely biased politically and the left has a stranglehold on the narrative, that's why. HammerOfThorazine (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::yup. Bcom123 (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:The public reaction is a key part of why this story is of import (most killings are not covered on Wikipedia), and our reliable source points to particularly strong activity from certain political circles. Not sure why we should ignore that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:What I find most interesting regarding the political aspect of this is that such a large number of people - on both sides - seem to be 100% certain that their side is correct, and that the other side is wrong, despite the lack of publication of any video footage, or the publication of the results of any forensic examination.

:Maybe this killing was done in self defense, or maybe it was murder. As of right now, reliable sources give no indication either way.

:And yet, despite this ambiguity, a huge number of people on both sides seem so certain about what happened. I think this is largely due to their own political bias, coming from both sides.

:If we could find some commentary from reliable sources about why so many people on both sides seem so certain that their side is correct, despite the lack of any video footage or other forensic evidence being reported in the news, I think it would make for a very interesting addition to the article.

:R5Y93mdf (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for your reflection here. I'm glad you got some feedback! I'd further comment that where you see editorial personal positions ("political bias"), that may actually be wikipolitik with BLP-related opposition reflecting a conservative reading of our BLP policy, and voices for inclusion seeking flexibility and practicality in wikivoice. It's not necessarily real world right-left politics motivating our read of wikipolicy. I don't speak for all, just myself. It's easy to overestimate the real world right-left when it's not of any real importance to editorial opinions. JFHJr (㊟) 00:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::To clarify: When I said there was a lot of "political bias," I was not talking about wikipedia. I was talking about Twitter. A lot of people at Twitter - a huge amount - on both sides, seem 100% certain that their side is correct, even though they have not seen any video, or read about any other strong forensic evidence. That's the "political bias" that I was talking about.

:::Speaking of video, the unreliable Post Millennial claims that there is video of the incident. They link to the even more unreliable Fox News, which shows an interview with the yet even more unreliable spokesperson for the person who was arrested. The video of the spokesperson is very long, and I don't know where in the video he says it, but here the are respective links. Nothing reliable here, but nevertheless, a sign of hope for actual reliable sources to hopefully confirm this.

:::https://thepostmillennial.com/texas-authorities-have-video-of-austin-metcalf-karmelo-anthony-confrontation-before-fatal-stabbing

:::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTSsnMgn11U (FOX 4 Dallas-Fort Worth)

:::R5Y93mdf (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::There are no "sides" when it comes to politicizing tragedy. There is only objective reality. And objective reality is rarely, if ever on the side of people who are consciously spreading disinformation. Stick to the facts. This talk page is about improving the article, not about musing over how "people on both sides" are interpreting the event. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Because whether you like it or not, the right has politicized this case, and are spreading disinformation to push a white supremacist agenda. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::It's "white supremacy" when you oppose the murder of an unarmed white kid. Good one, I guess it's not political in your eye to advocate for murdering white people. 73.92.154.233 (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top|WP:NAC: {{resolved}} To remove vandalism cached in previews, make non-zero dummy edits to the WP:LEDE between manual purges. And give it time. JFHJr (㊟) 23:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}

immediately in the beginning of this page is a masked racial slur along with a possibly exaggerated lengthy name of the accused. 73.227.86.102 (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:At first glance I don't see it, at second I still didn't see it. Could you check if it is still there? If it was from a few hours ago then it's well gone and taken care of. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Noting: the immediate beginning (lede) has not been touched in days. JFHJr (㊟) 01:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|On April 2, 2025, 17-year-old Austin Metcalf, an American student at Memorial High School, was fatally stabbed while attending a high school track meet in Frisco, Texas, United States. He died of his injuries at the scene.}} Which word is a masked racial slur? JFHJr (㊟) 00:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't know why its not showing up on desktop proper, however, the n-word (with a "|" between the two Gs) does appear when you hover over the link to this article from another one. It also shows up on the mobile version. 2600:1702:4730:3820:B853:EF88:EA8F:7BA9 (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I checked both short-description and wikidata for what you described, but there was nothing to remove. I could not replicate what you described on my own desktop or mobile views. I'm not sure what might do what you're describing or how to fix it. You might consider sending an email to Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team with a screenshot. Unless another volunteer here can see what you're seeing, we can't do much. And it's not something you should screenshot and post publicly, according to your concerns. JFHJr (㊟) 01:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Did not see this until just now. 2600:1702:4730:3820:B853:EF88:EA8F:7BA9 (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::This is a third-party issue. The problem version got revdeled. The vandal's edits got cached outside Wikipedia before the revdel. I can't show you the revdel links obviously. JFHJr (㊟) 01:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::And I just told you not to screenshot and post. Don't do that again please. If it got removed, it should not be reproduced here. JFHJr (㊟) 01:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::To be fair, you told me not to screenshot and post almost simultaneously to when I posted the links. No skirting of any rule was intended. But regardless, it sounds like the problem has been dealt with. 2600:1702:4730:3820:B853:EF88:EA8F:7BA9 (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I truly hope so. Thank you for dealing with me (and others) when I literally couldn't tell what you were talking about. I'd like to help. JFHJr (㊟) 01:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's not showing up for me on desktop now. I made a null edit to see if the preview will re-set itself if it is some issue related to the previews. But otherwise I have no ideas since it's not showing up for me on desktop previews. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::To me it looks like a vandal who knows how/when to get SEO caching. A minor sophistication. JFHJr (㊟) 01:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Either that or they just got lucky, which does sometimes happen. Phab:T235346 about this issue has been open since 2019, so don't expect a quick fix, but do report there any further instances of it that you see. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The solution is just to wait, I think. In the ticket you provided, a comment seems to indicate {{tq|Varnish was serving the old one until it fell out of cache}}, and it still seems to be functioning in the same way. JFHJr (㊟) 20:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The mobile (android) version of this article has a disguised slur in the introduction of the article. I tried editing it out from my laptop but it doesn't appear to be on the web version. Any clues how to change it? Jovani47 (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:ahh, disregard, I made the post before seeing previous discussion. Jovani47 (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Jovani47 how's it looking now? JFHJr (㊟) 23:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@JFHJr it's fixed now, thanks for following up 199.254.158.151 (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Someone report it? It has to be changed Adinmazin (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Adinmazin}} see the above section (which I've combined your report with). It's already been removed from the article, it's a caching issue with the previews that at least nobody who's seen this yet has any idea how to fix it - or if it even is something that can be fixed/recached on the website level. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Adinmazin please see above for explanation. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:The cache [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf&diff=prev&oldid=1289310359 takes a few days to clear]. This vandalism appears to have triggered caching, and purges take time to work through to uncache the revdeled edit. JFHJr (㊟) 20:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Adinmazin, can you still see it? And yes or no, what OS and display are you using? I'd like to help. JFHJr (㊟) 23:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I did see this on an apple desktop preview around 5pm (UTC 21:00 ish) today. I've left that computer for today, but I've done some edits and purges, and also given it some time. The preview has changed to something acceptable as far as I can see. I checked on one apple mobile device (desktop and mobile views), one android mobile device (both views as well), plus windows desktop (no mobile views for that dinosaur). If anyone else can second that the offensive versions are no longer previewed, please either close this thread or ask me to do so. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:...And if this did work, the short answer appears to be to edit the lede with non-zero dummy edits. And hit purge before and after for voodoo purposes. Just to save anyone else reading the phab ticket a few minutes. JFHJr (㊟) 23:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1748178072}}

{{rfc top|This is WP:NOTAVOTE, however, as an opening assessment, a census of opinions was conducted. That census found 21 !votes for Include and 16 for Exclude, with a handful of !votes not clearly defined.

Per WP:DETCON, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." In closing an RfC, per WP:NHC, the closer determines consensus by "judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it" after excluding irrelevant arguments.

I operationalized these maxims by first determining which of the !voters were "responsible Wikipedians". This meant I generally excluded or deweighted !votes coming from topic banned editors, SPAs, sockpuppets, and editors obviously canvassed to the discussion. This resulted in the following adjusted census: 19 !votes for Include and 16 for Exclude, with a handful of !votes not clearly defined.

I next discounted !votes that made no policy appeal, or made a policy appeal so strange that no reasonable editor could be expected to respond, or expressed personal preference only, or which were merely WP:VAGUEWAVEs. In doing so, I applied a very liberal standard so that even the broad hint of a !vote based on some aspect of policy was counted. This resulted in the following adjusted census: 18 !votes for Include and 15 for Exclude, with a handful of !votes not clearly defined.

At the crux of it, this discussion came down to a question of BLPCRIMEs proscription on mentioning the names of most criminal suspects, or whether such a proscription existed (e.g. User:NickCT {{xt|"BLPCRIME doesn't say we "must" exclude material. It simply says we must consider exluding material."}}) and, even if it did, was it not intended for cases like this (e.g. Nemov]: {{Xt|"A strict interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME seems inadequate in cases like this. The individual's name is widely reported in reliable sources, and there appears to be no clear harm in including it. Omitting it solely because the policy has not been updated to account for situations like this feels unreasonable."}}). This last argument was essentially an WP:IAR one. While IAR is a policy, it's usually not very convincing in RfCs because it gets used as a magic talisman to evaporate all of the other side's arguments. However, this is one of the few times I've seen that an IAR argument might be appropriate and salient.

At the end of the day, after evaluating only the policy-based arguments advanced by "responsible Wikipedians", we find a slim majority (55%) support inclusion. (Again, this is not a vote or a headcount. Several expressions were qualitatively suppressed, as described above. Nonetheless, after these adjustments are made we typically apply consensus as an expression of the community that eclipses a bare majority thereof. Consensus does not require unanimity, but it does require broad coherence of thought, or at least the absence of significant and implacable objection.)

There is no consensus to include the name of the suspect and no consensus to exclude it. As per WP:NOCONSENSUS, the decision to include or exclude should be based on that which was in the most recent, stable version of the article prior to this RfC. I believe, though I'm not certain, the last stable version excluded the name of the suspect. If I'm incorrect, you can work it out amongst yourselves, though, as that's a separate question from the RfC (except to say that 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). Chetsford (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Should the alleged killer's name be included in the article? 12:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that when I searched wikipedia for the name of the alleged killer, it did not redirect to this article. The alleged killer's name is in most of the sources. What does wikipedia say about redirects for a person who had been named in reliable sources as being a suspect in a crime? R5Y93mdf (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• We follow WP:BLPCRIME, which suggests that we should be cautious in including the name of an accused nonpublic figure. Considering the perpetrator's age and the sensationalization in tabloids, I think there is a good case against exclusing it. On the other hand, it is normal to include names of the accused when it is widely reported in media. It's a tough call, but I'd vote to include his name. R. G. Checkers ^talk 21:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Thank you so much for that very helpful link. R5Y93mdf (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• :There is multiple contradictions in this excuse, and I would appreciate it if you address them.
• :You had said “sensationalization in tabloids” but the sources that name him are all well known news sources, not tabloids.

:::As a point of reference, WP:SENSATIONAL specifically addresses perceived media bias in sensational topics {{tq|even in respected media}} and encourages editors to tread carefully. Penguino35 (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• :Sensationalization assumes things are intentionally presented in an exaggerated way, however there is no evidence of any new sources presenting this in an exaggerated way.
• :Hi name is already well known because his own family posted a public GoFundMe. Luthienthemortal (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Include since it's widely reported. JDiala (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude the name, as this is a WP:BLPCRIME issue, the individual is not otherwise notable, and is a minor to boot. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• :He is under 18, but in Texas all people 17 and up are prosecuted as adults. R. G. Checkers ^talk 20:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::In Texas, people under 18 [https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.129.htm are still minors]. Concerns about minorhood are not limited to crime trials. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• :This is not a valid reason to exclude as state previously about Texas law, and the figure in question is notable. You have contradicted yourself multiple times. Luthienthemortal (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Wikipedia has standards based around whether a person is a minor, such as this one. We do not have any standards that I know of grounded in whether a person is of age to be prosecuted as an adult.
• ::As for the claim of my having contradicted myself, barring some specific evidence, I think "nuh-uh" will need to suffice as the contrasting debate claim. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude. I've restored Nat Gertler's previous version without the name of the accused per WP:BLPCRIME. Widely reported doesn't overcome a BLP violation for a private non-notable figure. That's the difference between an encyclopedia and a newspaper. This is a situation of sensationalism. The fact that half the article depends on cites to coverage of the accused indicates the event is mostly about a (currently) unconvicted minor. Most of it is unsupportable until and unless a conviction occurs. JFHJr (㊟) 04:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Omit name of suspect - I support omitting the name of the suspect who is a minor that has not been convicted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Although I can understanding where you are coming from, but the cat is already out of the bag. Anthony's name has been widely broadcasted on many different outlets, and any observer watching this case is well familiar with it. What is the point of censoring his name when it so easily available in other sources and the surrounding public discourse? Randomuser335S (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Our WP:BLPCRIME guideline is built around assuming that the name of an individual is already being reported; otherwise, other policies and guidelines would cover it. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, is not intended to serve the same purpose as what the news is doing, and thus has different standards. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::The same discussion was had with respect to Gerson Fuentes, in that his name was hidden until he was convicted, which should also be the case here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::But this was not the case with, say, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenosha_unrest_shooting&oldid=986480255 Kenosha unrest shooting] where the shooter was also 17. StAnselm (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• :There own family posted a GiveSendGo with his name in the title, and his face as the cover photo. They did a public news conference with him in it.
• :He you have yet presented any sort of valid, objective justification not to include his name.
• :Exluding his name at this point is based on subjective bias, and this can be easily verified. Luthienthemortal (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Adding to my initial Inclusion !vote -- If the name was just being reported in local affiliates (with less editorial care) then BLPNAME would suggest exclusion. But in this case national news is reporting the name and, as I said above, the state of Texas does not shield the name of 17-year-old suspects in Texas. The biggest argument for inclusion is not just the wide spread reporting, but the nature of the reporting. Reports are not about the crime that occurred. They are about the suspect mostly. It genuinely will be difficult (and will seem silly) to shield the name while literally talking about the suspect and various details of him. R. G. Checkers ^talk 23:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Include. The name of the suspect has encyclopedic value. That is, regardless of the outcome of the trial, Anthony is historically significant and his name will be remembered. His significance will possibly increase if he is not convicted. (Note of course that this article is not necessarily about a crime - it might have been a self-defense killing.) StAnselm (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• :The article talks about him being charged with a crime. It talks about someone as his "victim". That's all very much in suggesting a crime was committed. If this reaches a point of being history rather than a current event, we will likely either have a conviction (which will get past WP:BLPCRIME concerns), or him being found innocent (in which case we can talk about him in that context); those aren't the only possibilities (charges could be dropped, for example).
• :It's hard to see how having the specifics of his name helps the information in this; it doesn't connect it to any other matter. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Since people here are already !voting with bolded Include/Exclude, I've turned this discussion into an RfC to get wider community input and a consensus that editors can refer back to when needed. Some1 (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude. No particular reason to overcome WP:BLP's caution about low-profile individuals accused of a crime; the only arguments made above are that it was widely-reported and that he is "historically significant", but obviously wide reporting alone isn't enough or the caution advised by BLP wouldn't be necessary; and nothing has actually been presented to support the contention that this has long-term political significance. Killings that become political flashpoints are unfortunately not that uncommon nowadays and most of them end up being flash-in-the-pan events in the long term; if later coverage does make it clear this one was historically significant, or if there's coverage indicating long-term significance in some other way, we can always add the name later, but right now it's not like people are rushing to make biopics about it or anything like that. Additionally, nothing in the current coverage really supports the contention that the accused's name is what is important - the only real focus here is race; his name does not currently seem to have long-term encyclopedic value. (That said, we might need to mention the race of the accused and the victim more clearly somewhere - I can understand the reluctance to do so but things stemming from that are in fact why this killing is notable, making it necessary for understanding the topic.) EDIT: Since this was asked below, I don't think that we should exclude sources that use the name in their titles. Excluding the name in the article text is an easy call for me because the name itself has little value and at least some risk of harm; but citations are less visible, with lower risk of harm, and at the same time more clearly valuable, so there's more of a cost to excluding them. Excluding them requires a higher standard than just keeping the name out of the article text. --Aquillion (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude {{summoned by bot}} per Aquillion and others. We're not a newspaper and we need to take into account our BLP policy. TarnishedPath^talk 22:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude for now per BLPCRIME and just ordinary, common-sense attempts to keep non-public-figure minors' names out of Wikipedia for Wikipedia:Don't be evil reasons. {{pb}}I actually wonder whether this will get deleted in a few years. Of course it's shocking when a teenager gets killed as a result of assaulting another teen, but this feels like an ordinary run-of-the-mill event that is not likely to have any lasting effect on society, though it will haunt the directly affected loved ones for the rest of their lives. For example, I don't think that Texas' stand-your-ground-law is going to get repealed or weakened as a result of this death; if it did, then that (specifically, the sources discussing this death's relationship to the legal changes) would of course be a good marker for notability. But I suspect that we'll be looking back at this in five years and saying "Eh, one of thousands of people who got killed. Ignored by sources after the initial flash in the pan. Time to be done with it." WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• :You're absolutely correct, per WP:EVENTCRIT, which states, {{tq|"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."}} Regardless, it feels insensitive, doesn't it? Hence, neutrality of Wikipedia. Penguino35 (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude per BLPCRIME right now, and of course this issue will probably be re-visited in the future. And since this is a disputed content issue per BLP, it's unclear why his name is already included in the article, I would think that WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE applies in this case. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: the extended confirmed protection will expire in a little over 20 hours, so expect a lot worse page treatment if the ec is not extended further. At this point, wikipedians' opinions may differ, but it's not showing up as disruption in page space at this timestamp. Do commenters here want the ec protection lifted or adjusted? BusterD (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Include its widely reported and there doesn't seem to be any kind of news embargo on the suspect's identity. For precedent see the Kenosha unrest shooting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenosha_unrest_shooting&oldid=989099304], where the 17 year old suspect was named from inception of that article. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Include - "Widely reported" is right. WP looks sorta dumb when we refuse to mention information that appears immediately as soon as someone does a simple google search. WP:BLPCRIME doesn't say we "must" exclude material. It simply says we must consider exluding material. I completely appreciate that the "exlucde" folks here feel like they are protecting children, which is certainly a noble thing to be doing and which we all seek to do. That said, the cat is out-of-the-bag on this one. We're not achieving anything by excluding except making ourselves look dumb. NickCT (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Include - the family of the accused is talking to the media and even held a press conference. So there is no privacy to protect by withholding the name. Also, afaict, all mainstream news outlets are publishing the name of the accused. BLPCRIME is for instances where, eg, in an article about an actor we don't mention the drunk driving citation they got from years ago even if it's in a local newspaper. It's not for the case where a criminal defendant's name is published by worldwide mainstream media and the family of the defendant is holding press conferences, even if the defendant is a minor. There's just no reason to withhold the name when both the family and the press are publicizing it. Levivich (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude. We can and should choose to maintain higher standards than certain American newspapers.—S Marshall T/C 18:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Is there even one example of an RS that covers this story without naming the accused? Levivich (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• :: Let's say there wasn't. How does that change the ethics of naming an under-18 who hasn't been tried?—S Marshall T/C 06:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Why is 18 magic? If their being a minor is so significant then surely the ethics must include consideration of their parent's wishes? The parents seem to desire their son's name to be public. If the parents desired to keep the name private there would be significantly many people arguing to honour their wishes, so should we not do the same in this situation? Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The parents didn't have a choice in their sons and mugshot being released, the police put out a [https://www.friscotexas.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=2343 press release] on the day it happened, and media outlets started reporting it, so there was no "desire" for their son's name to be public, it was forced on them. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I'd note that in a number of countries, parents often get limited say in what a minor can do when it's best regarded as a decision made when the minor is old enough. E.g. in NZ a rape victim can ask the court to remove name suppression of their rapist intended to protect their identity, but only after they turn 18. [//www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3360347.html]. Their parents wishes are never considered. (Indeed such name suppression is often because a parent is the rapist.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::I'd say it establishes that professional journalists like those at AP and WaPo believe it's ethical. I don't think paternalism is a virtue, especially not by random strangers on the internet like we Wikipedia editors. Who are we to say our ethics are superior to those of the defendant, his family, and professional journalists?
• :::You believe that omitting the name is the moral or ethical thing to do, but I say "citation needed." I say give the 17-year-old his agency and autonomy. If he wants to speak out and declare his innocence and argue self defense and tell his side of the story, eg via a press conference, who are we Wikipedia editors to say "no, we know what's best for you. We know better than you, your family, and professional journalists. We, self appointed volunteer amateurs on the internet, know the ethics best." (It's even worse when it's a middle aged white guys like me telling a black kid his name should be kept secret.)
• :::"Follow the sources" is the Wikipedia mantra, not "follow the ethical beliefs of Wikipedia volunteers." Levivich (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Actually, "follow policy and guidelines" is the mantra; WP:BLPCRIME clearly assumes that the name is being reported by reliable sources, otherwise it would not reach the point of being an issue. As for giving the accused his autonomy, well, if he's been in this discussion asking that his name be included, I've missed it. It looks more like "a middle aged white guy" presumes to speak for him. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::(I don't know why wikipedians have to get so personal so fast all the time -- straight to accusing me of speaking for the subject. Can't you disagree without rudeness and insults?)
• :::::(BTW, "follow PAGs" is definitely not Wikipedia's mantra, which has no firm rules as a pillar, and IAR as a core PAG. It's "follow the sources," not "follow the rules.")
• :::::The family press conference would be the indication that the family wants their voice heard. If the family had said they wanted privacy, etc, it'd change my mind. But the family explicitly said at the press conference that the point of the press conference was so that they could speak for themselves and on behalf of their son. So I'm not speaking for them, I'm listening to what they said. Levivich (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::It's not as clear cut and dried as "it's follow the sources", just because some content can be reliably sourced and verified, doesn't automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion. Consensus is also policy, and that holds more weight than "it's follow the sources", when to comes to disputed content issues. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::That's absolutely true, WP:V policy says that just because content meets V doesn't necessarily mean it should be included. To determine which content should be included, we are guided by WP:NPOV, in this case, WP:ASPECT, which says {{tqq|An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.}} So what weight does the body of WP:RS give the name of the accused? Well, if every RS prominently names the accused, e.g. in the lead, then WP:ASPECT says the Wikipedia article should, too.
• :::::::It's also true, of course, that on Wikipedia, consensus is king. WP:BLP represents global consensus that in some cases we should not follow WP:ASPECT. The global consensus documented at WP:BLPCRIME is that {{tqq|editors must seriously consider not including material}}. We are certainly following consensus here by seriously considering not including it.
• :::::::In this case, policy neither requires nor prohibits including the name. Votes to include are following NPOV/ASPECT and BLPCRIME. Votes to exclude are saying BLP considerations override NPOV/ASPECT in this case. Both views are policy-compliant views. Levivich (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Thryduulf, you asked me, {{tq|Why is 18 magic?}} Well, that needs one of two answers. Either I could give you a dissertation on the history and the legal exigencies which necessitated rules about the age of criminal responsbility, the age of majority, and reporting restrictions on minors, or else I could ask you "What age should it be?" You're a Brit so you likely already know that if this had happened in the UK, nobody would have named the child, because if inappropriately named in the press, he could escape justice entirely.—S Marshall T/C 19:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Include as long as all text refers to a suspect, not a criminal, per basic BLP standards. The case is widely known and reported on. The page - not redirect, page - Derek Chauvin existed when he was a suspect. Even horrendous people like Dylan Roof were once suspects with the right to due process and a fair trial, and nobody could have possibly suggested wiping those names. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I find the lack of consistency puzzling. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Someone mentioned that Rittenhouse (17 years old as well) was always mentioned by name, and he would go on to be acquitted. Not a good double standard to set, with exclusion or no consensus with BLPRESTORE removal looking like the likely result here. R. G. Checkers ^talk 21:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• :This is a laudable position, however, the article has been included in the 'crimes' category for the last 5 days, since 18 April. It's a risky business including the name and saying we should get it right, when we're clearly getting it wrong. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• I never expected so many people to help out with comments. I appreciate what everyone here has said. {{pb}} I find it interesting that even though wikipedia has an official policy on this, and even though others here cited other wikipedia articles where a criminal suspect had their name included in the article, it's still not very easy for the general wikipedia community to reach anything close to a unanimous consensus on whether or not to include the suspect's name in this particular article. {{pb}} I think the arguments that have been presented above, both for and against including the suspect's name, are pretty persuasive. I'm not taking sides on this right now, but it is worth mentioning that many of the links to news articles in this wikipedia article do include the suspect's name, so it won't be exactly a secret to anyone who reads this article. {{pb}} Anyway, thanks to all of you for addressing my question. R5Y93mdf (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :We love addressing questions! Anyway, the problem as I see it is that the "policy" is vague. It just says we've got to "consider" excluding. Not that we actually have to exclude.
• :If nothing else, this RfC surely proves that we've "considered" it. NickCT (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Include - A strict interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME seems inadequate in cases like this. The individual's name is widely reported in reliable sources, and there appears to be no clear harm in including it. Omitting it solely because the policy has not been updated to account for situations like this feels unreasonable.. Nemov (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :The policy doesn't say to omit, it says to consider omitting. Both inclusion and exclusion are thus fully in accordance with the policy as long as both options have been considered - and in this case it is unarguable that they have been. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::I understand, but it BLPCRIME could be clearer based on the number of exclude votes here just citing it without the full context. Nemov (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yeah. Totally agree w/ User:Nemov on this. The policy is bad. Folks are obviously taking the policy to mean that we should automatically exclude. The policy might be better if it outlined on what basis folks should "consider" excluding. NickCT (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::This is misleading. WP:BLPCRIME was elevated to site policy precisely because these should not ever be considered equal options. And that's without even considering the fact that the accused is a juvenile. Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::If that was true then the wording would be a lot stronger than "seriously consider not including" it would be something like "should be included only in exceptional circumstances". Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::These comments are only strengthening my original comment that too many editors don't actually understand this policy. Nemov (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::WP:BLPCRIME needs a re-write IMO. Some1 (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::The only ones I've seen not understanding the policy thus far are editors insisting that ignoring BLP is okay because it's reported in sources.
• :::::It's the other way around. WP:BLPCRIME precludes the name being reported in sources, otherwise there would be no violation to be had, thus "well sources already said his name" is not an argument against WP:BLPCRIME. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::BLP does not preclude the inclusion of anything that appears in reliable sources. Actively choosing to include something after strong consideration of all the individual circumstances is the exact opposite of ignoring BLP. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::It is true; the actual wording is "editors must seriously consider not including material" ("not" emphasis a part of policy). Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::You are still reading things it does not say. If exclusion were mandatory it would say that. If exclusion were the default then exclusion would not need to be "considered", that would apply to inclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::If they were equal options WP:BLPCRIME would not exist nor would it be global policy. It is effectively Wikipedia significantly tipping the scale in favor of exclusion. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I have no opinion at the time on the inclusion of the name but wanted to say ultimately whichever direction we go you can easily come up with examples where you could argue we are inconsist. For all the Chauvins and Rittenhouses who we did name pre-conviction or acquittal, we have Richard Matthew Allens who we did not name. I'm sure you can come up with similarities and differences of each different case but I'm unconvinced you can come up with some special formula. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :P.S. People have previously brought up Gerson Fuentes who we also did not name [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Ohio_child-rape_and_Indiana_abortion_case&diff=prev&oldid=1163689029], but I didn't mention it given the article is primarily focused on stuff other than the crime. Nil Einne (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :All the inconsistency shows is that both inclusion and exclusion are permitted by policy (which I think is completely settled at this point?) and the circumstances surrounding each case need to be considered individually. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::But that's the point though. I don't think even considering the you circumstances if each case can point to a clear rationale for why we included for each cases. People are saying that because they were both minors or because XYZ then we must include or exclude to be consistent but there's simply no such thing. Whatever we do you can come up with a reasonable argument for how we were inconsistent. So as always per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS we should put all that aside and just focus on this case not what we did in other cases. If editors want to try to implementa some clearer guidelines this is the wrong place. Note I said as much several months ago about the Richard Allen example but we're still here further demonstrating this is the wrong place for all that. 04:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk)
• :::Sorry about the signature error. Also I should clarify I mean "for why we included or exclude for each (of the many) cases (we've dealt with historically). I wanted to keep comment brief but to be clear my XYZ is meant to cover the plenty of similarities and differences in each case like level of coverage, lack of any doubt that over identity, etc etc. My point is what even if you take each of these various variables, I'm also certain you can come up with a counter example where we did or didn't. So any demands that we must include or exclude because we did in this previous case where XYZ applied as well falls flat IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Include There is no alleged killer; there is a question whether the homicide in question was justified or not. The incident is widely reported in RS'es; we look stupid if we're the only ones on the entire Internet not repeating the sourced name. Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude per BLPCRIME at the moment, acknowledging that circumstances may change. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude Juvenile who has not been convicted of a crime. Major WP:BLP issues. Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• :How is it a "major WP:BLP issue" to repeat the name of an individual whose arrest has been reported in nearly every reliable source which has written on this even? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• The accused should be named. We all know innocent until proven guilty. His name has been released already. Why is his name hidden here? 162.229.231.174 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Question: If we decide to exclude the accused's name from the article body, what do we do about all the occurrences of his name in the citations? It's currently 16, by my count. StAnselm (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Good question. At the Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German article (where the RfC found no consensus to include the suspect's name), editors were removing every single source from the article that included the suspect's name in the headlines/article titles and/or URLs. I'm assuming that's what will happen here if this RfC finds no consensus to include Anthony's name. Some1 (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::I've started an RfC here: {{slink|Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)|RfC:_Exclusion_of_a_person's_name_following_consensus}} Some1 (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Some1 Eh...one editor, if memory serves correct. However, I believe it was also 'if a suitable alternative is found, replace. If not, it can stay. But don't add just for the sake of including the name in a backhanded way.'
• ::Awshort (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude Aside from being a minor, the suspected assailant was not yet proven guilty of the crime. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• :What policy reason prohibits the inclusion of the name on the grounds you've mentioned? Nemov (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::WP:BLPCRIME clearly allows for the exclusion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::@NatGertler it also clearly allows for its inclusion so that's not really a policy reason for exclusion. Nemov (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::It specifically calls for us to consider exclusion, so demanding that people put forth something that requires exclusion is basically ignoring its existence. You put forth no policy calling for inclusion when you !voted "include" above. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::@NatGertler anything that's overwhelmingly reported by reliable sources is due inclusion unless there's some policy reason for exclusion. In this case, the only argument against inclusion is a misunderstanding of policy. I hope the closer reads BLPCRIME and discounts the exclude votes citing it because leaving this out when something is this widely reported is bizarre. Someone coming to this article to learn about this topic might think that this exists in an alternate reality. Nemov (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::{{tq|anything that's overwhelmingly reported by reliable sources is due inclusion}}
• ::::::This is incorrect understanding of even basic policy (WP:V). See WP:VNOT. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::@Symphony Regalia it's reported overwhelmingly and it's important and relevant. It's taking extreme levels of Wikilawyering to back excision and for what exactly? Why is this a hill to die on? Nemov (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::We don't reflect the news coverage based on its wideness because we are WP:NOTNEWS. JFHJr (㊟) 03:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::@JFHJr I don't understand your argument, do you wish to delete the article? This person is central to this article. Nemov (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::No. The topic is notable. This takes time. Courts take time. An encyclopedia article doesn't need to keep up with news. I think it's rather soon to have an encyclopedic "Aftermath" section. Conferences and protests cannot be contextualized yet (think at least 10-year timeframe). We all just need to be patient and avoid appliqué-ing each new rapportage here. I'm even of the view that his mention in sourcing and markup is a non-issue here for the same reason as your own points. JFHJr (㊟) 04:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::On the contrary, WP:V is basic policy which makes it very far from wikilawyering. Per WP:VNOT {{tq|not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate}}. Also, I would say thus far, the only argument for inclusion is a misunderstanding of policy. WP:BLPCRIME already assumes the name is being reported in sources, otherwise there would be no violation to be had, thus "well some american newspapers already said his name!" is not a proper reason to ignore WP:BLP. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::So.... yes, you're still not actually citing policy. And yoiu don't seem to be showing signs of doing the serious consideration that WP:BLPCRIME calls for, the actual policy that has been cited repeatedly... and in fact you're now saying that actually citing policy is a reason to discount !votes. That flies in the face of WP:CONBUILD, which actually wants us to look at "existing policies and guidelines" when judging cosensus. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::@NatGertler I've said quite enough on this subject and it's clear that there is a huge chasm in understanding on this topic that needs to be addressed. Nemov (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::BLPCRIME requires only that exclusion be considered, "per BLPCRIME" alone is therefore not a policy-based reason for either including or excluding. "Per BLPcRIME and [relevant other thing]" can be a policy-based reason for inclusion or exclusion (obviously depending on the nature of the other thing). Thryduulf (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Again, this is misleading as WP:BLPCRIME does not weigh both equally. It was elevated to site policy to prevent these two things from being considered as equal options. And that's without even considering the fact that the accused is a juvenile. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Again, that is not what BLPCRIME actually says. If you want it to say what you think it should say then get consensus to change it. Until that time, we go by what the policy actually says. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Indeed, we do go by what it says, which is clear: "editors must seriously consider not including material" ("not" emphasis a part of policy). If these were equal options in the eyes of Wikipedia policy serious consideration of one would not be mandated. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::The key point is that BLPCRIME does not mandate either option - i.e. it envisages situations in which the name should be excluded and situations in which the name should not be excluded. It does not presume that one or the other is correct (if it did it would explicitly say that). The default on Wikipedia is to include information that is reliably sourced, with due weight based on factors including the prominence it is afforded in those sources, where doing so is judged to be encyclopaedically relevant. That includes the names of living people. BLPCRIME only requires editors to explicitly and actively consider whether inclusion or exclusion is correct in situations where this policy is relevant. The discussion Levivich links to from 2 years ago considered whether it should be worded more strongly in favour of exclusion, but there was no consensus in favour of that. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• From two years ago: {{slink|WT:Biographies of living persons/Archive 52|BLPCRIME is useless}}. Levivich (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I wrote an essay with my thoughts on this here. Basically, the key point is to establish specific value to including a name in a sensitive context, sufficient to justify the inherent risk of doing so. The standard we use elsewhere of "it's just used in sources a lot" isn't enough here because the sources in question are generally looking at a different balance of risks than we are. (That's the entire reason we needed to create BLP in the first place - otherwise our other policies would be sufficient.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment there is no debate that Karmelo Anthony stabbed Austin Metcalf, its part of his affirmative defense where he admits to killing Metcalf but doing so in a legally justified matter. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Include. Given the number and quality of the reliable sources out there that are reporting this person's name, keeping it in this article meets the standard set at WP:BLPNAME (whether or not {{green|"the name of a private individual has ... been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed}}) and doesn't add harm (edit: beyond that which has already been caused, if that wasn't clear). Not adding harm is, to me, the core intent of BLPCRIME. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Noting that WP:BLPNAME also says {{tq|Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event}} and {{tq|When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories}}. Also noting that WP:BLPCRIME already assumes that the name is being reported. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::I did re-read all of BLPNAME before commenting here. The words "caution", "greater", and "brief appearance" are key. Media reports are given less weight, not none, and I certainly am seeing that those reports use this kid's name more than briefly. Also note that I made a small edit to my comment above to better reflect my intent. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude: per Nat Gertler and Aquillion. While I see the potential value in having it as a redirect, including it in the article as of right now doesn't contribute anything, but could potentially increase the level of harassment aimed at the accused's family. I think it's also important to consider the risk of confusing the accused with a similarly-named athlete who definitely does have a page on wiki. If and when it proceeds to trial, I think it may be more appropriate for inclusion. EllieDellie (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• :This person's name and picture is published by NBC, ABC, FOX, CBS, The Independent and on and on. If you're indeed worried about a basketball's players name, hiding the name from the reader doesn't help. Isn't the reason this project exists to educate readers? Nemov (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Include! Reliable sources use Karmelo Anthony's name and choose not to anonymize. There's a policy somewhere about how we should follow reliable sources. Maybe several policies. Anyhow, I think that's a sensible ideal. JayCubby 00:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude. The considerations I see right now are the following (in no particular order):
• The age of the alleged perpetrator.
• The notability of the alleged perpetrator aside from this crime.
• Whether it's been proven in a court of law or not.
• What value (if any) the name (or details) of the perpetrator adds to this article.
• The potential harm to the alleged perpetrator from publishing their name.
• What information the name provides beyond just naming the alleged perpetrator (ex: if the name was significant in some way).
• So, of those 6 big points, only at most one of them supports inclusion right now. And even then, it's very iffy. The one that I see as maybe supporting inclusion are "what value it adds". And even then, it's very questionable. The value added is that it was another student athlete that allegedly perpetrated this. But that information can be (and is) included in the article without directly naming the alleged perpetrator right now. I'm neutral about age being a factor - if a teenager commits a crime that they should've known better for, their age is no longer protecting them. While yes, teenagers are not fully developed mentally, that does not mean that they should be sheltered from consequences of their actions when they're so significant like this. However, the alleged perpetrator is not notable aside from maybe this event, so that's in favor of exclusion. And there is no value added to this article from naming the alleged perpetrator at all - because there is literally zero information added from their name. Literally zero. Knowing someone's name is not a value added. However, the potential harm to the alleged perpetrator is very, very large. The alleged perpetrator claimed to have taken action in self defense - if they are acquitted (for reason of self defense or otherwise), then publishing their name amounts to slander (even if not legally slander) because they have no criminal record (at that point) yet they are now being plastered over the internet as having killed someone.{{pb}}Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. If the information does not provide any added value to our readers, we should not include that information. Period. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Additionally, this would be a good candidate for PC2 protection in my opinion. However, PC2 hasn't been available on enwp for a long time. I am leery of saying that full protection is a good idea here, because it prevents good edits from non-administrators in the meantime. However, there are relatively many (auto)confirmed and even some extended-confirmed editors re-adding this information to the article while this discussion is ongoing and if it is confirmed through this RfC to be a BLP violation, then theoretically there's a lot of revisions that will be eligible for (and theoretically warrant) BLP revdel. I'm not sure what the proper way to handle this is to be quite honest - but I'd hate for there to be more revisions that require revdel in the future. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• {{strikethrough|Include per Rittenhouse precedent. There is also no "alleged", no "accused", [https://www.fox4news.com/news/karmelo-anthony-frisco-track-meet-stabbing-april-21 the perp has already confessed to the homicide]; the only question is whether BLM will be able to burn enough buildings to the ground this time to intimidate the jury into entertaining Anthony's complete grasping-at-straws nonsense self-defense claim. (In any just world this is an open-and-shut case. The whitewashing, both here and in the media, is sickening.)}} 87.97.84.92 (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Interesting that you choose the word "homicide". Homicides aren't necessarily crimes. The teenager in question is accused, though. He has been accused by the State of Texas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::I agree that homicides aren't necessarily crimes. On that note, do feel free to revert [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf&diff=prev&oldid=1287059746 this edit]; us plebs are locked out of the editing process.
• ::{{redacted|Racist content}}
• ::(If I recall correctly, editors were singing a veeeery different tune in the Rittenhouse case.)
• ::Were the title of the article "Murder of Austin Metcalf", of course, I'd say differently, but the conviction must precede that.
• ::I expect the title change to take longer in this case than the precisely 0.02 picoseconds it took from Chauvin's conviction (of him somehow murdering Floyd both intentionally and unintentionally at the same time) to the title change of the Floyd killing's article, though. 82.131.225.171 (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Include. I am sympathetic to the privacy concerns here, but at this point they would be fundamentally symbolic: we are not causing additional harm to him or his family by including his name. The name is not only public but front-page-everywhere-this-is-discussed public, including in the titles of quite a few of the sources. WP:BLPCRIME says "editors must seriously consider not including material" that implies someone was accused of a crime if they're not otherwise a public figure. I'd call this a presumption in favor of privacy, but not a requirement; if this was mentioned in a small number of sources, I'd argue in favor of excluding even if, absent the BLP concerns, it would obviously be included. That is clearly not the case. We certainly need to be very, very careful to maintain the "presumed innocent" line, but that's a separate matter from naming the accused. Rusalkii (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Right, the names in the article titles are important, not just because it makes it a lot more awkward to scrub Anthony's name from the article, but also because it indicates a certain level of public fame - otherwise we would just have titles along the lines of " "Police report reveals what Texas teen allegedly said". StAnselm (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{tpq|it makes it a lot more awkward to scrub Anthony's name from the article}} FWIW Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Exclusion of a person's name following consensus looks to heading towards a snow-consensus that mentions in the titles and URLs of sources should not be removed just because they include the name of someone we choose not to name. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Include per others, the suspect's name is very well known and appears in every other headline you see in the citation list. Literally- 17 of the 37 citations have his name. Not showing his name is symbolic atp- the name of Derek Chauvin, and Kyle Rittenhouse (who was 17 during Kenosha) were shown without problem when the stories first broke, so i'm struggling to see any reason to not have it here.
• WP:BLPCRIME says, "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. 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." Headlines including his name on national news is not a "brief appearance". - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 20:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Include as has been noted, suspect's name widely reported, is in 17 headlines quoted on the page, so all a reader has to do is scroll to the bottom to see it. Count3D (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Include'. This event is now more than a month old, and the coverage is sustained and every single one of the articles published in reliable sources in the past week that I looked at (around 20) includes the name of the person charged with murder. This includes both articles about the victim/victim's family and articles about the person committing the act and their family. That the latter even exist is further evidence that their name is due for inclusion here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Include. While I understand the concerns, the story has gotten big enough and every single news article mentions the accused by name. TuneyLoon (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Include'. As per Levivich and Thryduulf. This artictle reads bizarrely wihout inclusion of the explicit.Halbared (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Include. At risk of committing a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I would argue that trying to exclude the name of the accused clearly goes against site-wide consensus. Not only do almost all other articles covering similar topics include the accused's name, but this has also very rarely generated controversy. Most notably, one may consider the edit history of the Kenosha unrest shooting article. The accused in that case, Kyle Rittenhouse, is a notable person, but they weren't when the article was originally being written. Despite this, and the fact that the article was highly edited by a wide range of extremely experienced editors, the question of whether or not to include Kyle Rittenhouse's name never occurred. Not once. So is anyone here seriously about to argue that all of the editors who have ever been involved in the editing of that article were completely incompetent regarding BLP-related questions? Are they seriously about to argue that if Kyle Rittenhouse hadn't become an otherwise-notable person after the shooting, then his name should've been stricken?{{pb}}And besides, it is general Wikipedia policy to reflect the standards of reliable sources. Reliable sources include names. 17:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC) Dieknon (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Include, because it would look foolish if this Wikipedia article decided to omit the name when nearly all reliable sources discussing this case refer to Karmelo Anthony by name. His family, IIRC, has not specifically asked the media for privacy and has even created a fundraiser using his name and image, so I doubt they're concerned about public exposure. If there were genuine BLP concerns about naming a minor who is a central figure in this case, then the article should be deleted entirely. Some1 (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude, we might "look foolish" is opinion and not policy. Widely reported doesn't overcome a BLP violation for a private non-notable figure. Koriodan (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :At this point it's very difficult to argue with a straight face that they are a "private non-notable figure" when their name has been in pretty much 100% of the coverage about the incident for the entire month since it happened, and their family are intentionally keeping his name front and centre. Thryduulf (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::According to a court filing his family was moved to "undisclosed location" to ensure their safety which means there are credible threats to his and their safety in the eyes of the courts. Your irresponsible statements, such as suggesting that his family is "intentionally" doing something, only adds fuel to that fire and you should retract it. To the extent that fundraising goes, they legally have to say who and what it's for and can't be vague about that, so any fundraising is in spite and not whatever you are implying with "front and center". Conservative communities are intentionally attributing motive to private individuals, not unlike you, and spreading all kinds of false information.[https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/1jzrimm/family_of_killer_karmelo_anthony_to_buy_new_house] Koriodan (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Regardless of the motive for what the family are doing, the family are doing it. We deal with facts as they exist, not how we want them to exist (see WP:RGW, WP:NPOV, etc). If they wanted to remain low-profile people they would be acting very differently (based on the evidence of how other the families of other minors charged with serious crimes have acted). The facts in this case are that the accused's name is front and centre and the family are part of the reason why it is front and centre. If they wanted privacy they would have asked for privacy, instead they have asked for publicity. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Exactly, any of the people arguing to exclude it at this point aren't arguing in good faith. 24.192.225.176 (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Single edit IP. Koriodan (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Ethan Crumbley, Kyle Rittenhouse (both under 18 when the incidents occured), Bryan Kohberger, etc. were all "private non-notable figure[s]" and were all named in their respective articles from the get-go. What makes this Anthony case different? Some1 (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::No they weren't and I don't care if there are a thousand articles that say someone is a purple alien. They should be fixed too. The "revenge tour" you're advocating is not policy. Policy exists to counter partisan flash mob behavior. Koriodan (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :What "BLP violation"? It's not a BLP violation to include the name (so long as editors seriously consider excluding it, which we are doing). Levivich (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah. It's Karmelo Anthony. His family held a press conference, had a gofundme, and also has a mugshot. Bcom123 (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The name was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1285855193&oldid=1285852223&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf absent from the original version of the article]; it was quickly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1285892359&oldid=1285863589&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf added] but then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1285892894&oldid=1285892620&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf reverted out] and a massive revert-war has continued since then ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1285998827&oldid=1285979357&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1286059775&oldid=1286016951&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1286064112&oldid=1286059775&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1286150649&oldid=1286149857&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1286154059&oldid=1286152595&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1286252307&oldid=1286233279&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1286310897&oldid=1286287417&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1286287417&oldid=1286277584&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1286327129&oldid=1286321318&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1286383029&oldid=1286381166&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1286387027&oldid=1286383029&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1286996152&oldid=1286993471&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1287131687&oldid=1287120536&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1287173208&oldid=1287153243&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1287178523&oldid=1287174191&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1287201374&oldid=1287199796&title=Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf] - given that it's a recent addition, WP:ONUS and WP:BRD both say we should leave it out while discussing, especially given that it is potentially BLP-sensitive, and especially given that the current direction of discussion seems unlikely to produce a consensus for inclusion. Edit-warring something with active BLP concerns into an article isn't appropriate; in a context like this, consensus is needed for inclusion, which isn't present yet. --Aquillion (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:Totally agree, the onus is on though who want to include it to achieve consensus. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::Without a doubt, name shouldn't be included unless and until the RfC concludes otherwise. Levivich (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:I support inclusion, but BLPRESTORE says it should be excluded until a consensus forms for inclusion. R. G. Checkers ^talk 16:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, same here. StAnselm (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have again removed the name from the body of the article, per this discussion. The name remains in the titles and URLs of references, which is a twistier situation. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:There are no BLP concerns here, that's a disingenuous argument. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::Anything we say about a living person is a WP:BLP matter, and in this case we are dealing very much with matters covered by WP:BLPCRIME, which is a portion of the WP:BLP page. And in any case, WP:ONUS is not limited to BLP matters. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Omit name - I support omission of the name of the accused during the RFC and RFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've also removed the name a couple times now. This isn't even a question about this article - the content has been challenged, and per WP:ONUS it should not be readded until a consensus forms to readd it. It doesn't even matter that this is a serious BLP concern - any content that is removed and is being actively discussed on the talkpage should not be readded until and unless a consensus to readd it forms. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:Given the family themselves did a public news conference with their son, and made a public GiveSendGo with his name and photo; it’s very clear that there’s no justification in favor of exclusion. The fact there’s a bias of people voting in favor exclusion at this point is one of the many reasons people who use wikipedia do so with a hefty grain of salt. This has become a joke at this point. 24.192.225.176 (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Exclude per WP:EVENTCRIT, which states, {{tq|"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."}}

:Jury's out, as far as I'm concerned on whether or not this event as a whole deserves a Wikipedia article, but attaching notability to the name of the alleged perpetrator is unnecessary regarldess of its wide reporting, especially when we consider WP:BLPCRIME. That being said, is the alleged perpetrator's name really what WP:BLPCRIME references? Or is it simply the wording surrounding his name that implicantes him as a guilty party? {{tq|editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime."}} Worth considering.

:At the end of the day, however, until WP:CURRENT dies down and this article is up for deletion or deemed notable, leave the boy's name out. It doesn't make Wikipedia look ill-informed, as some editors have suggested; it makes Wikipedia look WP:NEUTRAL. Any reader interested in the sensational, current affairs could find the information they seek readily available via Google: WP:NOTNEWS. Penguino35 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::This is now over a month old and the coverage is sustained, and absolutely all of it includes the killer's name (that he is the killer is undisputed, only whether it was legally justified), what is and is not excluded has been and as is continuing to be seriously considered, but not including the name would be a massive failure of DUE given the presence and prominence in reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|it makes Wikipedia look WP:NEUTRAL}} Disagree. This case has apparently sparked donations for another recent conservative cause célèbre.[https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/shiloh-hendricks-raises-more-than-591k-after-racist-rant-draws-comparison-to-karmelo-anthony-fundraiser-101746335757923.html] There's really no denying that Anthony's name has "enduring significance" IMO. Omitting it is really doing a disservice to the readers and looks like a silly attempt by Wikipedia to right great wrongs. Some1 (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree that every article I've seen on the subject includes the charging of the killer, but at the end of the day, he hasn't been convicted. So we hold off until he's convicted. The policy does NOT say, "In order to protect the identity of charged individuals, editors must seriously consider not including..." It says {{tq|"For individuals who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including..."}}

:::WP:DUE doesn't play into this conversation because WP:BLPCRIME and WP:SENSATIONAL supersedes it (just like WP:DEADNAME supersedes WP:DUE in conversations related to RS-published birth names in BLPs).

:::Some people want to argue that the policy WP:BLPCRIME exists to protect the identity of the citizens. I would argue that while that may be part of it, it's more important to represent the topic as an encyclopedia and less like a newspaper. And that means going slow, waiting until convictions exist, and ensuring the article topics are not sensational.

:::Additionally, the article you've cited is contested for deletion. The question of notability in both cases is certainly up for debate. I'm undetermined, but I definitely see a case to be made for the deletion of both articles. Tricky grounds to navigate for sure, and I appreciate your dialogue. Thanks, Thryduulf. Penguino35 (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No matter how one tries to spin it, BLPCRIME does not say we {{tq|hold off until he's convicted}}. What it says is that we must seriously consider whether to include the name. This RfC is, in fact, that serious consideration. The individual's name is not a sensational detail in this case, it is a central and relevant part of the article. After careful evaluation, it is clear that the name is a crucial detail, and dismissing it as unnecessary is simply not a persuasive argument. Nemov (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The funny thing about the "wait for conviction" argument is that in this case, if he is acquitted, his name will become even more famous and more widely reported, as his self-defense argument will have prevailed. It'll be a real unusual circumstance, where a person prevails on a self defense claim in a high profile criminal trial... and we don't name that person. (This is why BLPCRIME doesn't have hard and fast rules.) Levivich (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Levivich, that's quite humorous. And, to your point, that would certainly give the article the notability I fear is potentially lacking here and be grounds for inclusion.

::::::@Nemov, you also make a fair point. And in my serious consideration, I remain in the camp of exclude, partly per BLPCRIME, partly on a question of notability, partly on event criteria, partly on sensationalism, and partly on not news. Because, for me, as I consider all of those policies together, I feel we should exercise restraint and wait until the chips fall. But, to Levivich's point, perhaps not for a conviction. ;)

::::::All of that being said, I understand the argument for inclusion as well and am glad I'm not making the final call. Essentially, I'm voting, "Not yet." And others are voting, "Yes, now." Penguino35 (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Exclude the name in article text. Just for some restraint here -- do not even need to explicitly point to SENSATION or BLPCRIME, or whether external sources give prominence to a name as the alleged killer -- I can just say there seems no real need or utility in giving a name. So just skip it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :If there was no need or utility in giving the name, it wouldn't be in 100% of articles in reliable sources about the subject. Sure there would be a few mentions in low-quality tabloids and similar, but that's not literally every article in even the most sober of pieces. It's not just several sources giving prominence, it's every source. Thryduulf (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Disagree. A journalist has to give all widely known and cutting edge details on a story to get readers to read their article over others. That's why it's WP:SENSATIONAL. {{tq|"Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopedia. ... Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. ... Even when citing recent news articles as sources, ensure the Wikipedia articles themselves are not news reports: most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style."}} It is expected that we simply take our time. The "Killing of Austin Metcalf" can be fully understood in context without the killer's name. And news sources exist and are linked for those wanting that type of coverage. Penguino35 (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Obviously there are sensational news articles, nobody is disputing that, but there are also news articles that are not sensational and they also include the name, even over a month out in sober reflections. There are articles containing no "cutting edge details" which omit most of the details that were cutting edge at the time, yet they too include the name. You're going to have to explain, without any vague handwaving, how and why including the name is sensational. If the killing of Austin Metcalf could be fully understood in context without the killer's name then why do we see the name included in every reliable source? Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@Markbassett: why is the name of the defendant "sensational"? Levivich (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::User:Levivich] - I said exclude the name solely on 'just show some restraint'. There is no need to litigate as done above over BLPCRIME and SENSATION or suspect being a minor or whether external sources give WEIGHT prominence to a name as the alleged killer when there is no real need or utility in WP giving a name, so just skip the whole idea as a moot point just not worth this level of concern. When there is doubt or concern over news coverage being Sensational with names or gory details or emotional life story or something else, WP can simply look at WP:NOT, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:10YT -- then restrain itself to be more of an Encyclopedia. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't understand your response. What does "news coverage being Sensational with names" mean? When a person is charged with a crime, why would their name be "sensational"? What is your definition of that word? Levivich (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{rfc bottom}}