![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I have removed content and citation about a fight between two other groups unrelated to Regan Russell. That they (or anyone) are exploiting a person's death to benefit their advocacy by flashing placards at demonstrations as fuel for their squabbles, doesn't have anything to do with Russell herself.
The two groups (At War For Animals and Locals For Carriages) have been fighting for years over horse-drawn carriages. [1] There has been no evidence/content/sources presented that indicate Regan Russell ever had anything to do with that issue. Also, there have been protests at Fearman's slaughterhouse for well over five years (see Anita Krajnc case). Russell's death is not notable in and of itself, and probably happened in an incident just like this stupid stunt at Fearman's street corner [2] where protesters jump in front of the tractor-trailer rig while he is negotiating a tight right-hand turn into a side street, or the earlier part of the video where protesters are seen sticking their arms inside the trailer while the driver waits at a red light. Either way, Russell's death was ruled accidental and as an event is no more notable than any other traffic fatality or pedestrian fatality that happens on a daily basis. Collectively, the Wikipedia community has so far failed to present sources showing that this woman was notable while living and was any different than any other routine activist/protester. The ongoing protesters will continue to exploit Russell's name by flashing placards as long as news coverage keeps mentioning it; but neither their actions, nor mentions of their actions in media, contribute to the notability equation of either Regan Russell or her accidental death.
This entire Wikipedia article is WP:RECENTISM, WP:ADVOCACY and WP:MEMORIAL of a non-notable woman, and an inappropriate use of Wikipedia for non-encyclopedic purposes.
— Normal Op ( talk) 19:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
You are using the logical fallacy of false equivalence. The deaths of the other two people are notable as representative of overreaching or racist police matters, and have become icons of nationwide protests for civil rights involving hundreds of thousands of people, and both cases have ongoing open investigations into the circumstances of the death which may well lead to criminal prosecutions. There's a big difference between those two and this pedestrian death (deemed accidental the following day, investigation closed) at the corner of a non-notable slaughterhouse where a small handful of animal rights activists stand to try to water some pigs. You will also note that the article on Taylor is labelled "Shooting of..." and is all about the incident, the investigation and the aftermath; not so much about the woman herself. For Russell, we don't even have a news article which says how she died, just that it was an accident, leaving us to assume she went under the tires of a heavy truck. Floyd's death spurred protests worldwide (in over 60 countries), including a spontaneous campaign leading to hundreds of Confederate monuments being torn down, universities renaming their Confederate-named buildings, and product brands being renamed away from African-American stereotypical images or names. I don't see any great rash of pig-watering occurring around Canada in the wake of Russell's death. Try as you might, there's not a WP:SNOWBALL's chance that Russell's death will come even close to comparing to a tiny hair on a wart on the little toe of the Floyd–Taylor notability colossus. So drop the false equivalence approach. Normal Op ( talk) 20:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I am late to this discussion, but are there any good arguments not to rename the page? It seems clear that the notability, established through the AfD discussion, is in the event of death. This seems like an uncontroversial case of WP:BLP1E. Renaming has been mentioned by others, but it seems to have been lost in the discussion of notability and other issues. Jmill1806 ( talk) 19:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@ PKT: You have undone this renaming without any discussion on the talk page as far as I can tell. There was lengthy discussion about the notability of the subject outside of WP:BLP1E in the AfD, and you can see the decision about to move the page. Could you please explain your reasoning? Jmill1806 ( talk) 23:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The Death of Regan Russell has been compared to the deaths of other animal rights activists who have been killed as they are protesting or because of their protesting, who do include Jill Phipps, Chico Mendes, Karel Van Noppen, Stuart Fairlie, Mike Hill, and Tom Warby. Different editors have added versions of this context to this one article in a similar way to how these comparisons and related information have been included on other articles under See Also sections or within the body of the said article. One editor continues to remove this information from this article in a manner that I am concerned may be WP:Censor for WP:CRITOFSOC. Russell's death remains controversial and the transport company whose driver hit Russell has been alleging death threats against the company and having fund-raised over $100,000 for driver. This is relevant information of interest to students and researchers. BrikDuk ( talk) 09:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
EDIT: This fact that Jill Phipps keeps getting removed demonstrates a bias. It is essentially the same incident years later. Someone has a problem with reality and I want them off this article.
-Joshua Powell — 104.195.156.43 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17: 04:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC).
Can confirm she was involved with At War for Animals Niagara, at least in the capacity of protesting with them and supporting them on occasion.
Ultimately, this discussion appears to say these advocacy groups are taking advantage of the incident for promotion, and I can clarify some of that.
Regan would absolutely want these groups mentioned, these events mentioned, and for the movements to fight in her name.
The attempt to wipe away the fact that she was a protestor, killed exercising her rights, is disgusting and the editors suppressing that should be ashamed of themselves.
In fact, the Niagara on the Lake incident was directly related to Regan's death. Carriage supporters attempting to upset their opposition and utilize bill 156 to advance their goals dragged Regan's name through the mud and came to the Pig Save protests to antagonize those people and smear Regan's and the incident that lead to her death.
So, out of respect to Regan herself, I would expect an article about her to mention all of this and expose the bigotry her name has endured since her passing.
Pheonix was in LA not Montreal, reading the articles would clarify that for you dipshits. Jesus Christ if you edit Wikipedia read the fucking source material and actually get it right. I can tell from the discussions none of you have read anything, because then the protests and actions taken since her death would be listed as they are relevant and in the fucking articles you have attached over time.
I'll be keeping an eye on this and expect to see some erroneous edits fixed, as well as more information about the struggle to advance the cause she died for as well as the efforts to scrutinize the treatment of her death by the opposition, government, et al.
Essentially all I am asking is for you to read the source material. If you had, you'd know her family has been involved in the interest of supporting the community helping us seek justice. We were at NOTL. Read the damn material, stop making assumptions based on your personal biases and actually make a factual article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.195.156.43 ( talk) 16:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Pardon my above tone, just frustrating to see facts omitted when they are present in the source material. Just very sloppy, clear failure to state the facts in the interest of appearing neutral. Just because the facts make one side look bad, doesn't make them any less factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.195.156.43 ( talk) 17:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Sincerely,
Joshua Powell — 104.195.156.43 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16: 53:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC).
PS: Can we have NormalOP off this article? He seems to have a bias, he has been making most of the edits that clearly are an attempt to diminish the relevance of this article.
Unless he can cite some expertise in this I want him to stop editing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.195.156.43 ( talk) 17:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Finally, the counter protests only started after she died so all information regarding them is relevant to this article. Get the relevant information on this article before I start bother admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.195.156.43 ( talk) 17:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Starting a discussion to hopefully stop the edit war. @ OPP64: Why do you keep removing the information about the July 30 demonstration? — Granger ( talk · contribs) 07:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
the driver was charged with the Highway Traffic Act offence of careless driving causing death, with authorities stating there was no indication of intent or crime in his actionis biased or alludes to the driver being guilty of an offense. On the other hand, they've failed to cite reliable sources to back up their claims that the " driver attention was on the other 6 protestors, he was watching for their safety on right side of trailer" and that " Many tickets were issued to these protestors". The term "illegal" was being added an excessive number of times (it already says that the bill
which prohibits activists interfering with animal transport without the consent of transporter drivers, was granted royal assentthe day before); the word "accident" was being used definitively while the case has yet to be taken up in a court of law; and information that was backed up by reliable sources was removed repeatedly ( because apparently I don't know how to read Canadian sources as I don't live in Canada). Both editors have ignored warnings and requests to back up their claims with reliable sources. Linguist111 talk 17:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Many of your sources are website run by animal activists. They are not credible sources.– so Inside Halton, CBC, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Halton Police, the Union Journal, Giornale del Cliento and In Halton are unreliable sites run by animal rights activists?
Both those documentarys were also made and produced by animal rights activists.– Yes, but they contain footage of the event, and the article says
According to witnesses... authorities stating...
The reason they came was to encourage police to enforce the law and stop these illegal protests.– How is that not indicated by
tried to prevent the activists from giving water to pigs?
This whole wikipedia article is slanted to make driver sound guilty.–
there was no indication of intent or crime in his actionis equal to "the driver probably committed an offense"? And your edits are not making the article slanted to make the driver sound completely innocent?
I do not agree with using the word "vehicular homicide". Or the word "ag gag". Neither of those is even close to fact.– "Traffic fatality" is okay. "Ag-gag" isn't a must as readers have access to the entire bill from the source and can determine what its aims are.
Why is there nothing about the multiple charges laid to these protestors for illegally blocking traffic? And illegally interacting with farm animals?– If there is a reliable source for this claim, please do add it.
The part mentioning which lane the truck was in, isn't relevant either. The truck Stopped on the road because the gateway blocked. Trucks use the left lane because the gateway in narrow and 53ft trailers need to use left lane to make the right turn. Mentioning the lane used for turn is just trying to make it sound like driver was turning from illegal lane, which he wasn't. Trucks can turn from any lane.– The statement about the transporter stopping in the inner lane is to give perspective and context, without which readers may mistakenly assume it simply drove through the entrance without ever having stopped. Not once is it alluded to that the driver stopped there illegally.
the drivers eyes were on the right mirros watching the other 6 people on the right side to make sure the trailer would miss them... trucks were forcefully stopped and illegally held for sometimes close to 10minutes– I haven't found any sources corroborating these claims, and you haven't provided any such sources. Sources need to be provided. Why am I still explaining this? Linguist111 talk 18:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
authorities stating there was no indication of intent or crime in his actionindicates probable guilt. Linguist111 talk 02:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Discussion about sockpuppetry not related to content dispute
|
---|
I already said check the IP and it will prove we aren't the same person and i didn't direct them in anyway. I'm not sure why Posting facts of what happened it so controversial. Maybe whole thing should be deleted until trial is finished
Trucker220 (
talk)
15:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
|
Getting back to the content issue: should this material (sourced to CBC.ca) be included in the article? I would say yes, it seems to be supported by the source, and the source appears to be reliable. Possibly it could be rephrased more clearly or neutrally. Could anyone who opposes including it please explain why, so that we can try to reach a consensus? — Granger ( talk · contribs) 16:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Protestors were yelling back and forth, and people went into the streets, either to give the pigs water or to prevent them from doing so.
When trucks drove up to enter the slaughterhouse, those with the banner would yell for the activists to get away from the trucks, saying "this driver does not want to stop for you."
Some also held signs with derogatory references to Russell.
Activists went up to the trucks to "bear witness" and give water to the pigs inside. At one point, the women tried to use their banner to push someone away from blocking the trucks.
a pig-watering demonstration outside Fearman's Pork Inc. slaughterhouse was interrupted by counter-protesters, who tried to prevent the activists from giving water to pigs and held signs with derogatory references to Russell.
Regan's killer has finally been publicly identified. I added his name to the article with a reference. Another editor removed my edit on the basis that the killer has been accused but not convicted. I believe this was an error on that editor's part because the killer has not been accused of criminal responsibility in Regan's death. He will never be tried for her death (which was mentioned in my cited source). However her death is not in dispute, nor is the fact that he was driving the truck that killed her. I believe it is appropriate for him to be named in the article at this time. If no one argues with my reasoning I will revert the revert soon. 135.23.120.110 ( talk) 13:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
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.Linguist111 ( talk) 21:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, ~linguist1111. I took a break because this is an upsetting topic but it is important and I would like to try again. The criteria are:
> When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed...
The name has been disseminated from two national news desks (CBC and The Star) as well as at least one news wire (The Canadian Press) and a number of local newspapers.
The name has not been intentionally concealed. His lawyers may have made motions to that effect but it was ruled to be of public interest by the court.
If it is still your opinion he shouldn't be named, would it be acceptable to name the employer he was working for at the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.120.110 ( talk) 21:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I have removed content and citation about a fight between two other groups unrelated to Regan Russell. That they (or anyone) are exploiting a person's death to benefit their advocacy by flashing placards at demonstrations as fuel for their squabbles, doesn't have anything to do with Russell herself.
The two groups (At War For Animals and Locals For Carriages) have been fighting for years over horse-drawn carriages. [1] There has been no evidence/content/sources presented that indicate Regan Russell ever had anything to do with that issue. Also, there have been protests at Fearman's slaughterhouse for well over five years (see Anita Krajnc case). Russell's death is not notable in and of itself, and probably happened in an incident just like this stupid stunt at Fearman's street corner [2] where protesters jump in front of the tractor-trailer rig while he is negotiating a tight right-hand turn into a side street, or the earlier part of the video where protesters are seen sticking their arms inside the trailer while the driver waits at a red light. Either way, Russell's death was ruled accidental and as an event is no more notable than any other traffic fatality or pedestrian fatality that happens on a daily basis. Collectively, the Wikipedia community has so far failed to present sources showing that this woman was notable while living and was any different than any other routine activist/protester. The ongoing protesters will continue to exploit Russell's name by flashing placards as long as news coverage keeps mentioning it; but neither their actions, nor mentions of their actions in media, contribute to the notability equation of either Regan Russell or her accidental death.
This entire Wikipedia article is WP:RECENTISM, WP:ADVOCACY and WP:MEMORIAL of a non-notable woman, and an inappropriate use of Wikipedia for non-encyclopedic purposes.
— Normal Op ( talk) 19:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
You are using the logical fallacy of false equivalence. The deaths of the other two people are notable as representative of overreaching or racist police matters, and have become icons of nationwide protests for civil rights involving hundreds of thousands of people, and both cases have ongoing open investigations into the circumstances of the death which may well lead to criminal prosecutions. There's a big difference between those two and this pedestrian death (deemed accidental the following day, investigation closed) at the corner of a non-notable slaughterhouse where a small handful of animal rights activists stand to try to water some pigs. You will also note that the article on Taylor is labelled "Shooting of..." and is all about the incident, the investigation and the aftermath; not so much about the woman herself. For Russell, we don't even have a news article which says how she died, just that it was an accident, leaving us to assume she went under the tires of a heavy truck. Floyd's death spurred protests worldwide (in over 60 countries), including a spontaneous campaign leading to hundreds of Confederate monuments being torn down, universities renaming their Confederate-named buildings, and product brands being renamed away from African-American stereotypical images or names. I don't see any great rash of pig-watering occurring around Canada in the wake of Russell's death. Try as you might, there's not a WP:SNOWBALL's chance that Russell's death will come even close to comparing to a tiny hair on a wart on the little toe of the Floyd–Taylor notability colossus. So drop the false equivalence approach. Normal Op ( talk) 20:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I am late to this discussion, but are there any good arguments not to rename the page? It seems clear that the notability, established through the AfD discussion, is in the event of death. This seems like an uncontroversial case of WP:BLP1E. Renaming has been mentioned by others, but it seems to have been lost in the discussion of notability and other issues. Jmill1806 ( talk) 19:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@ PKT: You have undone this renaming without any discussion on the talk page as far as I can tell. There was lengthy discussion about the notability of the subject outside of WP:BLP1E in the AfD, and you can see the decision about to move the page. Could you please explain your reasoning? Jmill1806 ( talk) 23:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The Death of Regan Russell has been compared to the deaths of other animal rights activists who have been killed as they are protesting or because of their protesting, who do include Jill Phipps, Chico Mendes, Karel Van Noppen, Stuart Fairlie, Mike Hill, and Tom Warby. Different editors have added versions of this context to this one article in a similar way to how these comparisons and related information have been included on other articles under See Also sections or within the body of the said article. One editor continues to remove this information from this article in a manner that I am concerned may be WP:Censor for WP:CRITOFSOC. Russell's death remains controversial and the transport company whose driver hit Russell has been alleging death threats against the company and having fund-raised over $100,000 for driver. This is relevant information of interest to students and researchers. BrikDuk ( talk) 09:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
EDIT: This fact that Jill Phipps keeps getting removed demonstrates a bias. It is essentially the same incident years later. Someone has a problem with reality and I want them off this article.
-Joshua Powell — 104.195.156.43 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17: 04:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC).
Can confirm she was involved with At War for Animals Niagara, at least in the capacity of protesting with them and supporting them on occasion.
Ultimately, this discussion appears to say these advocacy groups are taking advantage of the incident for promotion, and I can clarify some of that.
Regan would absolutely want these groups mentioned, these events mentioned, and for the movements to fight in her name.
The attempt to wipe away the fact that she was a protestor, killed exercising her rights, is disgusting and the editors suppressing that should be ashamed of themselves.
In fact, the Niagara on the Lake incident was directly related to Regan's death. Carriage supporters attempting to upset their opposition and utilize bill 156 to advance their goals dragged Regan's name through the mud and came to the Pig Save protests to antagonize those people and smear Regan's and the incident that lead to her death.
So, out of respect to Regan herself, I would expect an article about her to mention all of this and expose the bigotry her name has endured since her passing.
Pheonix was in LA not Montreal, reading the articles would clarify that for you dipshits. Jesus Christ if you edit Wikipedia read the fucking source material and actually get it right. I can tell from the discussions none of you have read anything, because then the protests and actions taken since her death would be listed as they are relevant and in the fucking articles you have attached over time.
I'll be keeping an eye on this and expect to see some erroneous edits fixed, as well as more information about the struggle to advance the cause she died for as well as the efforts to scrutinize the treatment of her death by the opposition, government, et al.
Essentially all I am asking is for you to read the source material. If you had, you'd know her family has been involved in the interest of supporting the community helping us seek justice. We were at NOTL. Read the damn material, stop making assumptions based on your personal biases and actually make a factual article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.195.156.43 ( talk) 16:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Pardon my above tone, just frustrating to see facts omitted when they are present in the source material. Just very sloppy, clear failure to state the facts in the interest of appearing neutral. Just because the facts make one side look bad, doesn't make them any less factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.195.156.43 ( talk) 17:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Sincerely,
Joshua Powell — 104.195.156.43 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16: 53:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC).
PS: Can we have NormalOP off this article? He seems to have a bias, he has been making most of the edits that clearly are an attempt to diminish the relevance of this article.
Unless he can cite some expertise in this I want him to stop editing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.195.156.43 ( talk) 17:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Finally, the counter protests only started after she died so all information regarding them is relevant to this article. Get the relevant information on this article before I start bother admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.195.156.43 ( talk) 17:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Starting a discussion to hopefully stop the edit war. @ OPP64: Why do you keep removing the information about the July 30 demonstration? — Granger ( talk · contribs) 07:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
the driver was charged with the Highway Traffic Act offence of careless driving causing death, with authorities stating there was no indication of intent or crime in his actionis biased or alludes to the driver being guilty of an offense. On the other hand, they've failed to cite reliable sources to back up their claims that the " driver attention was on the other 6 protestors, he was watching for their safety on right side of trailer" and that " Many tickets were issued to these protestors". The term "illegal" was being added an excessive number of times (it already says that the bill
which prohibits activists interfering with animal transport without the consent of transporter drivers, was granted royal assentthe day before); the word "accident" was being used definitively while the case has yet to be taken up in a court of law; and information that was backed up by reliable sources was removed repeatedly ( because apparently I don't know how to read Canadian sources as I don't live in Canada). Both editors have ignored warnings and requests to back up their claims with reliable sources. Linguist111 talk 17:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Many of your sources are website run by animal activists. They are not credible sources.– so Inside Halton, CBC, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Halton Police, the Union Journal, Giornale del Cliento and In Halton are unreliable sites run by animal rights activists?
Both those documentarys were also made and produced by animal rights activists.– Yes, but they contain footage of the event, and the article says
According to witnesses... authorities stating...
The reason they came was to encourage police to enforce the law and stop these illegal protests.– How is that not indicated by
tried to prevent the activists from giving water to pigs?
This whole wikipedia article is slanted to make driver sound guilty.–
there was no indication of intent or crime in his actionis equal to "the driver probably committed an offense"? And your edits are not making the article slanted to make the driver sound completely innocent?
I do not agree with using the word "vehicular homicide". Or the word "ag gag". Neither of those is even close to fact.– "Traffic fatality" is okay. "Ag-gag" isn't a must as readers have access to the entire bill from the source and can determine what its aims are.
Why is there nothing about the multiple charges laid to these protestors for illegally blocking traffic? And illegally interacting with farm animals?– If there is a reliable source for this claim, please do add it.
The part mentioning which lane the truck was in, isn't relevant either. The truck Stopped on the road because the gateway blocked. Trucks use the left lane because the gateway in narrow and 53ft trailers need to use left lane to make the right turn. Mentioning the lane used for turn is just trying to make it sound like driver was turning from illegal lane, which he wasn't. Trucks can turn from any lane.– The statement about the transporter stopping in the inner lane is to give perspective and context, without which readers may mistakenly assume it simply drove through the entrance without ever having stopped. Not once is it alluded to that the driver stopped there illegally.
the drivers eyes were on the right mirros watching the other 6 people on the right side to make sure the trailer would miss them... trucks were forcefully stopped and illegally held for sometimes close to 10minutes– I haven't found any sources corroborating these claims, and you haven't provided any such sources. Sources need to be provided. Why am I still explaining this? Linguist111 talk 18:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
authorities stating there was no indication of intent or crime in his actionindicates probable guilt. Linguist111 talk 02:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Discussion about sockpuppetry not related to content dispute
|
---|
I already said check the IP and it will prove we aren't the same person and i didn't direct them in anyway. I'm not sure why Posting facts of what happened it so controversial. Maybe whole thing should be deleted until trial is finished
Trucker220 (
talk)
15:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
|
Getting back to the content issue: should this material (sourced to CBC.ca) be included in the article? I would say yes, it seems to be supported by the source, and the source appears to be reliable. Possibly it could be rephrased more clearly or neutrally. Could anyone who opposes including it please explain why, so that we can try to reach a consensus? — Granger ( talk · contribs) 16:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Protestors were yelling back and forth, and people went into the streets, either to give the pigs water or to prevent them from doing so.
When trucks drove up to enter the slaughterhouse, those with the banner would yell for the activists to get away from the trucks, saying "this driver does not want to stop for you."
Some also held signs with derogatory references to Russell.
Activists went up to the trucks to "bear witness" and give water to the pigs inside. At one point, the women tried to use their banner to push someone away from blocking the trucks.
a pig-watering demonstration outside Fearman's Pork Inc. slaughterhouse was interrupted by counter-protesters, who tried to prevent the activists from giving water to pigs and held signs with derogatory references to Russell.
Regan's killer has finally been publicly identified. I added his name to the article with a reference. Another editor removed my edit on the basis that the killer has been accused but not convicted. I believe this was an error on that editor's part because the killer has not been accused of criminal responsibility in Regan's death. He will never be tried for her death (which was mentioned in my cited source). However her death is not in dispute, nor is the fact that he was driving the truck that killed her. I believe it is appropriate for him to be named in the article at this time. If no one argues with my reasoning I will revert the revert soon. 135.23.120.110 ( talk) 13:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
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.Linguist111 ( talk) 21:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, ~linguist1111. I took a break because this is an upsetting topic but it is important and I would like to try again. The criteria are:
> When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed...
The name has been disseminated from two national news desks (CBC and The Star) as well as at least one news wire (The Canadian Press) and a number of local newspapers.
The name has not been intentionally concealed. His lawyers may have made motions to that effect but it was ruled to be of public interest by the court.
If it is still your opinion he shouldn't be named, would it be acceptable to name the employer he was working for at the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.120.110 ( talk) 21:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)