Talk:2025 Anaconda shooting

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Keep article

[edit]

It still gained enough attention to warrant an article and it's the deadliest mass shooting of Montana as far as I know. Endwalker (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may express your opinion at the AFD. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME

[edit]

It is quite unusual that this article would be an exception to the naming of suspects in regards to American crimes when they have been published in reliable sources, widely reported, and there has been no attempt to suppress the identity of the suspect by courts. What is your argument for making this article an exception, @Fram? Raskuly (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy, as linked. And it shouldn't be an exception, it should be the rule. That many US articles (according to you) don't follow this is a problem of those articles, not a reason to make the same mistake here. Feel free to start an RfC to change the policy. Fram (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing That many US articles (according to you) don't follow this: Omitting articles regarding American crimes in which I was a significant contributor to, almost every article going back through 2022 in which there has not been a conviction noted in the article names of the suspect(s). I tried to get every article and if I made any mistakes please correct me. Additionally, in the Death of John O'Keefe article, the accused were named even though they were not convicted. I only realized I should include instances like that at the very end of my search, so there might be more examples.
Are you arguing that all of these articles have not had WP:BLPCRIME applied appropriately? Some of these articles have been heavily contributed to, such as the killing of Iryna Zarutska which if I remember correctly was even locked completely by administrators. Surely admins would've removed the naming of the suspect if it was against WP:BLPCRIME? There was even a discussion regarding that on the Zarutska article at Talk:Killing of Iryna Zarutska/Archive 3#RFC on name inclusion, albeit the Zarutska article is a much higher profile case than this.
Inclusion
Non-inclusion
Raskuly (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Walled gardens of articles not adhering to policies are a common problem, not an excuse to continue with the same after this has been pointed out. Again, feel free to try to change the policy, but until then the names of suspects should generally stay out. Fram (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And some of these don't seem to include the name or names anyway, e.g. 2024 Short North shooting? Anyway, I have corrected a few on this list, including nominating one for speedy deletion where the article named the suspects, stated what they had done, and then went on to say that the case was dismissed... These articles really aren't good examples of what should be done in such cases. Fram (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In 2024 Short North shooting an alleged participant was named in the article, not the person allegedly who pulled the trigger. I'm not arguing that we should continue to repeat the same mistakes, just ensuring that you're aware of these other articles before I started an RfC as I don't believe its good practice to immediately open an RfC as soon as a content dispute begins. I wanted to understand your position and make the reasoning for my position more clear.
At least a handful of the articles have questionable notability and some are of poor quality, but I was just canvassing all the articles I could find in Category:Crimes in the United States by month that were relevant to WP:BLPCRIME and that I hadn't heavily contributed to. I disagree with changing these articles regarding WP:BLPCRIME unless they violate it in another way during this discussion, such as you did at 2025 Montgomery shooting (one I omitted as I was a major contributor), but I won't interfere further. Raskuly (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Fram (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Handling of suspect identification

[edit]

Should the suspect be identified by name within the article? Raskuly (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, I didn't mean an RfC here, but a general one. Anyway, Oppose per WP:BLPSUSPECT. Actually naming the suspect adds no value to the article, just wait until suspects are convicted. Fram (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, are you of the belief that there is absolutely no circumstance in which a suspect should be named in an article, or do you believe that there are certain exceptions? And if there are exceptions, what are those? Raskuly (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A person who was notable otherwise and now gets serious accusations (reliable independent sources and so on) can be named (e.g. politicians charged with corruption). I would be very wary to create other exceptions, no matter how serious the crimes. Fram (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So for instance do you not believe that it is appropriate to name a suspect when reliable sources connect them to the subject, there is no effort by authorities to hide the suspect's identity, there have not been reasonable questions raised about the suspect's involvement in an incident by reliable sources, and there is not an ongoing investigation to determine whether or not the suspect(s) are involved in the first place?
And why do you believe that the identity of the suspect in this instance holds no encyclopedic value? The independent sources that have covered this incident name the suspect and have even gone beyond just naming him and have even delved into the specifics about the suspect.[1]
There is not an ongoing inquiry to determine whether the suspect was involved, but rather what charges the defendant will face. Raskuly (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"there is not an ongoing investigation to determine whether or not the suspect(s) are involved in the first place?" That's what the trial is for. That the police is or isn't investigating further doesn't make much of a difference. As for "no encyclopedic value", it is not as if the reader will have a hard time understanding articles like this one, without the name of the suspect. The very minor added value of the name doesn't outweigh the BLP concerns which have lead to the creation of the WP:BLPSUSPECT section. And instead of determining on every individual article whether we are certain enough to include the names or not (which is basically what you are arguing), the black-and-white "conviction = inclusion, no conviction yet = no inclusion yet" avoids such endless discussions and local consensus issues. From your list above, I yesterday tagged "Shooting of D'Monterrio Gibson" for speedy deletion, as it stated the name of the suspects and their crimes, only for the charges to be dropped and the trial to be dismissed. Does this mean they are innocent? Not necessarily, just like a conviction doesn't mean someone is guilty in all cases, but it's the rule we have chosen, and not having had the names of the suspects in that article prior to the trial (or dismissal of it) would have been a lot better. No judgment calls from us required, a simple "not a previously notable person, not convicted = no name in article" rule for all. Fram (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Readers come to Wikipedia to learn about a subject and a reader might be confused why the suspect is not identified in the article, especially when the cited sources and coverage about the incident do so. I don't see what is so problematic about determining on a case-by-case basis when a suspect should be identified as objections to the current handling of a suspect's identity can be sorted out on the talk page as has been done on other articles and is being done here.
As I wrote above, I just canvassed all articles involving American crimes through 2022 (that I did not heavily contribute to, so I included articles that I believe I may have made a few small edits to) that would be subject to WP:BLPCRIME, in no way did I insinuate that all articles had correctly applied the guideline. I'm not arguing for example that something should be written "X killed ten puppies", but rather "X stands accused of killing ten puppies" as would be done in a reliable source. I do not understand or agree with the sentiment that there is absolutely no room for case-by-case judgement calls, debate, or interpretation of the guideline. Raskuly (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to agree, you just have to follow the policy or get it changed. Fram (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have a reasonable interpretation of the guideline, that I am following it, and there does not need to be a change to it. Raskuly (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I disagree. And it's not a guideline, it's a policy. I have seen no reason why this article should be an exception to the general rule as described in that policy. We have "defense attorneys raised concerns about his mental health. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty " so it's not as if this is at the moment a clear-cut case that a) he did it and b) he can be held responsible for it. Fram (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline vs. policy, I understand its a policy, I just worded it wrong. One of the goals I had with that list was to show to you that this article was being treated as an exception by you, not that I had taken it upon myself to treat the article differently than others or that there was a mix of articles naming suspects or not naming the suspect. I believe the list illustrated that, so it is not an exception on my end even if it is determined that this article and many of those articles are determined to not be following WP:BLPCRIME. I'm open-minded enough to entertain the possibility of being determined to be wrong and to accept it.
Defendants pleading not guilty is not unusual and with an insanity defense it just states that a person should not be held responsible, not that they didn't do it. And as I stated above, there is not reasonable doubt raised about the suspect's involvement by the very same sources we're citing which I believe would be a good reason not to include his identification if there was. Raskuly (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're not making any progress here, let's agree to disagree. Fram (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Others should hopefully give their input soon. Raskuly (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I removed the Rfc header; this fails WP:RFCBEFORE at this page, and is clearly the result of a misunderstanding in the previous section. It is also the wrong venue, as previously stated, and would not receive the proper community input here, thus a WP:CONLEVEL problem here. No prejudice against raising it at the proper venue. Mathglot (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may be an idiot. Raskuly (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Raskuly, not at all, not at all! You are clearly acting in good faith and trying to improve things; that is what we are all trying to do, and nobody could ask for more. If I had to list on my User page all the missteps I have made here, there wouldn't be room for anything else on it. Your contributions are appreciated! Thanks for your volunteer work here, and don't worry about this, it's fine; just keep doing what you're doing. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: WP:SUSPECT states that for individuals who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material, but it does not prohibit inclusion of a suspect's name. In this article, approximately three of the seven paragraphs discuss the suspect, so the argument that the suspect is not significant to the topic is not reflected in the current structure of the article. In reviewing coverage of the 2025 Anaconda shooting, nearly all reliable sources name the alleged suspect. Because the name is already widely published by mainstream sources, including it here does not present additional harm, provided it is handled neutrally and in line with WP:BLPCRIME. Given the amount of content about the suspect and the prevalence of the name in high quality sources, including the suspect's name is permissible so long as it is presented neutrally and with proper attribution. Nemov (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram Courtesy ping, in case you didn't get a notification. I had posted it to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, but there was no response here. Raskuly (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the suspect is significant to the topic is not really a consideration in the policy (well, if they weren´t significant for it they definitely should be excluded, but that doesn´t make the opposite true). What does adding the name of the suspect add that "the suspect" doesn´t? It doesn´t diminish a readers´ understanding of the topic if the name is omitted. Fram (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME doesn't prohibit the inclusion of the name as you have suggested. Given the amount of mainstream coverage this has received, mentioning it in the article is perfectly reasonable. Nemov (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is settled, would it be appropriate for me to re-add the suspect's name in an appropriate manner? Raskuly (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]