This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The result of the move request was: Moved to Death of Grace Millane. Nixinova T C 20:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Grace Millane →
Death of Grace Millane – Per
WP:BIO1E and
WP:VICTIM. (If the accused party is subsequently convicted of murder, then title could be renamed "Murder of" per
WP:BIO.)
Plinuckment (
talk)
12:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The suspect was granted 20 day name supression but British media is publishing his name. Should it be used in this article? Nixinova T C 21:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Articles which use his name: [1] [2] [3] [4] • Articles about his name supression/warning the public not to use his name: [5] [6] / [7]. Nixinova T C 21:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
It only took a few moments to find the name with a search engine so it's not a well-kept secret. Leaving it out of the article is fine but there's no need to go crazy redacting links to news media. 173.228.123.166 ( talk) 08:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not very comfortable with including this among our references. There are various news items which refer to the schools and church she attended, we could use those instead if desired. Exact dates of school attendance are not important. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 00:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I removed the sentence in the reaction section that said there was an "unusually strong reaction" to the death, this was not qualified by the source. This seems to be "reading between the lines" of the Guardian source. The Guardian source does mention reactions and tributes, but doesn't say in any way I can read that this was "unusual". For something to be unusual it would have to be by comparison to previous events, and that isn't mentioned. Thanks. 79.74.171.61 ( talk) 17:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Grace Millane was born on 2 December 1996 in Britain. The article correctly says she died on the 1st or 2nd of December 2018 but this is NZDT, 13 hours ahead of UTC. If she died in the small hours of the 2nd (NZDT), it would still have been only the 1st in Britain. Therefore, based on time elapsed from her birth, she had not attained 22 years of age yet. Is it wrong to show her age as "21 or 22"? Should we change it to just 21? Akld guy ( talk) 20:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion the article would be better without the infobox and the photo (taken from her facebook apparently). It should be treated as an article about the event, rather than a biography of Grace Millane. Compare for example Murder of Amanda Duffy, an article I did a bit of work on. There is a well known picture of her that is likely public domain, but nobody seems to think it necessary to include it in the article, to create an infobox or even to include much biographical information about Amanda Duffy. And this is as it should be. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 23:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Treating this as article on a crime rather than a biography would also hopefully allay the concerns expressed by the people who say they are members of her family. They are of course not following correct wikipedia procedures, but I definitely don't want any nastiness with them, they are going through all sorts of pain and grief. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 01:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
RS or not, I'm very reluctant to add details of the trial to this article. I suspect some details have been suppressed. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 04:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
In the video shown on this NZ Herald website, how is it that the camera tracks the couple while they are walking through buildings? It's not like they have been zoomed in on from a wide angle fixed-position camera – in the video the camera is being panned from side to side and following them. How is this possible? Akld guy ( talk) 04:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change this sentence: "Millane's post-mortem blood-alcohol level was measured at 106 milligrams per decilitre of blood, just over twice the legal driving limit of 50 mg/dL."
To read: "Millane's post-mortem blood-alcohol level was measured at 106 milligrams per millilitres of blood, just over twice the legal driving limit of 50 mg/mL." Changes highlighted in bold. AngelaHarseldorf ( talk) 21:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC) AngelaHarseldorf ( talk) 21:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Not only is the name of the guy who killed her on reliable sources, the issue of his name affecting the court verdict is now irrelevant as he's been convicted. There is no need for wikipedia to suppress names based on NZ law (or the law of any other nation) as he been discussed in numerous other articles. We don't censor the Tiananmen Sqaure article just because of Chinese law, so there is no reason to do so here. There is zero consensus for withholding the name of a convicted murderer on a wikipedia article. Also, claims of broken sources are probably caused by geoblocks in NZ - the source is fine, try a VPN if you can't see it. Obscure Lobotomy ( talk) 11:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
If this was an article adding something that was illegal in a less politically correct nation than New Zealand, people would be crying about censorship - but New Zealand is a nice place, so double standards are in play. And yes, the reason for excluding it no longer matters - but people would prefer to jump in with reverts, insinuations and threats of blocks than contribute to the discussion that I started. I would link to some more source, but that would probably be seen as linking to his identity and get me blocked as people seem to be out for blood right now. Obscure Lobotomy ( talk) 17:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
There are a few. The one which seems like the most reliable (or at least the source I would trust the most) is the Indepenent. Obscure Lobotomy ( talk) 18:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
CAN YOU ALL JUST HOLD YOUR HORSES PLEASE?. He is due to be sentenced today. Name suppressions typically lapse at this point. Then we can stop having pointless arguments and inflammatory discussions about how "politically correct" (GOD I FUCKING HATE THAT TERM!) NZ allegedly is. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 18:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
He should be named Erzan ( talk) 04:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
One final comment before I probably leave this until there are new developments. I have no legal background and the only specifics I know about this case nearly all come from NZ media reports. (With tiny bits read e.g. on this talk page and forums.) In case it isn't clear, my comments above are all based on my limited understanding based on observation and stuff I've read about the law (including occasionally the actually law). I didn't read the story mention by zzuuzz but what was highlighted here seems to tally with what I expected.
For BLP and other reasons, I've avoided saying the obvious. But I was hoping others would also read between the lines and consider the obvious, since it may affect how we go from here, as people were saying it no longer matters etc, which is very weird if the obvious reason is correct. I've also felt it best to correct what are IMO likely misunderstanding of the situation where these arose since I fear that will confusion discussion over what to do here.
Of course, we shouldn't actually be speculating here. But the thing, so far no one has said mentioned any sources which provide any real detail. The best was zzuuzz, which while helpful as confirmation, was also easy to guess. Meanwhile some media may have reported the name, but that seems to be all. So whatever you may think of the NZ law, it seems likely it has had a serious effect on what has been reported, even if it didn't stop the name being public.
For some people, maybe this doesn't matter and we should just mention the name since there are some sources. (Although I'm still unconvinced there are enough compared to the level of coverage, but I haven't looked.) For others, maybe it does matter that there may be something here we don't know about and we can only guess what it is since sources are not covering it, so I hope they seriously consider where we are at now.
It’s now 2020 and we’re well into the age of the internet, in which, in the majority of countries, there is no internet censorship. We are all of us a part of this, like it or not. That the name suppression within NZ continues post-sentencing is strange. It took me about 30 seconds to find it. And then there is the contention by the OP in the OP, Obscure Lobotomy, that the argument for or against name suppression has come up many times, with continual suppression here on WP continually failing. So I can’t see any reason to withhold it here any longer. We’re now post verdict, post sentencing. Wake up there down the back! Boscaswell talk 08:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The Independent can be used as a source. Also, how about Metro? is that a reliable source? Obscure Lobotomy ( talk) 08:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Don't name. Reading between the lines etc it seems likely that he's facing some serious but unrelated criminal charges which could see him getting a few more years slapped on to his already hefty prison sentence. It would be difficult to find a fair and impartial jury if they all knew him as "the piece of shit who murdered Grace Millane", therefore the courts have decided not to publicise his name for the time being. The majority of people are not on Twitter or wherever else his name is being plastered. Sure if you live in New Zealand you can find out his name if you really want to, but you have to actively seek it out. The majority won't do that. Because really, why do they need to know his name? What does his name mean to you? The current situation in New Zealand is that the majority of us don't know his name, and this is for the best. If you hate the guy as much as I do, how about keeping his name out of the article until whatever other legal issues involving him are resolved? How about respecting another reasonably civilised country's court system? Why is it so important to you guys that his name be in the article anyway? MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 16:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me. It matters to the credibility of an encyclopedia. Obscure Lobotomy ( talk) 02:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
"Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. 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"(emphasis added). And even WP:NOTCENSORED says
"Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons". So, you need to show that inclusion of the convicted party's name outweighs those BLP caveats. Muzilon ( talk) 08:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
As per WP:BLPNAME "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." - now what do you think? Is the murderer of Grace Millane directly involved in the Murder of Grace Millane article's topic? LOL. The answer is obvious, so there is no reason to withhold the name. Obscure Lobotomy ( talk) 22:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
There are reliable sources mentioning Ramsden Bellhouse as her home village. It's very close to Wickford and Wickford is well known so media reports typically say she was from Wickford rather than "Ramsden Bellhouse near Wickford". It would be ok to use either in the article. It's not actually her birth place though, her family moved there when she was about 10 according to the NZH. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 18:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia should not follow NZ law and censor the killers name. Goes agianst WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BLPNAME.
Articles using name
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/grace-millane-killer-anonymity-new-zealand-a4367871.html
LoganBlade ( talk) 11:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
"When the name of a private individual... has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases... it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."Muzilon ( talk) 06:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
"As Wikipedia has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and since Wikipedia articles tend to be permanent, it is important to use sensitivity and good judgment in determining whether a piece of information should be recorded for posterity."As the case is currently before the courts, I think Wikipedia should err on the side of caution, yes. (And I've corrected your signature for the 3rd or 4th time – it's displaying your username as "Thanks", which is "unnecessarily confusing" per WP:SIGPROB.) Muzilon ( talk) 07:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
when the name has not been widely disseminated- according to reliable sources already used in this article - despite the suppression order, in the hours and days after the verdict, overseas media ( WP:RS listed above) and social media users - including in New Zealand - published the killer's name, so he has already been "outed" (aka widely disseminated), including in New Zealand. WP:BLPNAME goes on to say
consider whether the inclusion of names who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.The person convicted of the murder of Grace Millane (the article's topic) is directly involved, as evidenced by the amount of detail already given in the article about the individual. So I have justified my argument for inclusion of the name, because my argument does follow WP:BLPNAME, and is also compliant with one of our core policies that his name is verifiable. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
"In cases where names are removed from an article to protect the privacy of a semi-notable individual, this should be discussed on the article's talk page. There is a presumption in favour of privacy, and as such, in most cases, the names should not be restored unless there is a definite consensus to do so. In some such cases, editors should avoid quoting the names themselves (or other contested biographical information) on talk pages during the discussion; it should be remembered that talk pages are public space, and that information discussed there is available to readers. "Pinging admins Drmies and zzuuzz, who I see have commented here on this issue previously. Muzilon ( talk) 02:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
seems at this time there is a local consensus to leave it out- exists in this RfC is dubious at best, and a !supervote at worst. If an admin wants to exercise their discretion in enforcing WP policies and guidelines, and explicitly state leave his name off this talk page, that's fine, I'm OK with that, but I don't appreciate being one of two accused of edit-warring when there were other editors involved as well, and no discussion/consensus established to exclude his name from the RfC/talk page in the first place. Thank you. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Isaidnowaylobbying to "out" the parties with NZ name suppression in Queenstown suppressed indecency case or Larnoch Road murders. Why the focus on this case? Muzilon ( talk) 00:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
zzuuzzhas linked to a number of possible reasons why name suppression may be imposed. (Curious that the European tabloids were willing to disclose the name but not the reasons for the ongoing suppression.) And although Wikipedia as a U.S. website is not subject to NZ law as such, the clause in WP:BLPNAME about giving weight to court name-suppression does not specify that it only applies to U.S. court cases. As I mentioned, WP has articles about other NZ court cases involving name suppression; it might be possible to "out" those parties with the excuse that "it's OK because I found a reliable/verifiable source, and as I don't live in NZ, I don't have to consider the legal or ethical ramifications of divulging those names". Muzilon ( talk) 22:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
how is the reader informed by knowing the perpetrator is Jack Sproggs, aged XY, originally from Hicksville? Essentially it's trivia to 99.9% of readers.I merely answered that speculation with examples of how the reader is informed by knowing the names of convicted criminals and that info is not trivial, and in my follow-up reply to your comment, provided a reliably sourced example of the public being vulnerable to these unidentified criminals being able to do it again. There's certainly not anything wrong or suspicious about a rebuttal to a comment (speculation) in this discussion, as evidenced by your rebuttals. I haven't accused you of being an activist or any other WP label, I'd appreciate the same good faith. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
As name suppression has now been lifted I guess this RfC is now entirely redundant. Would an admin care to close it off? Muzilon ( talk) 01:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
On 7 February 2020, Auckland businessman Leo Molloy was identified as the individual who had breached the suppression order preventing the name of Millane's murderer from being made public.
Problems here – the wording seems to imply that Molloy was solely responsible for all the leaks, when the two sources cited don't appear to specify that was so. (He may have been just one of several parties.) Also, Molloy hasn't yet been sentenced and is applying for discharge without conviction, so his case is still technically sub judice. [17] Muzilon ( talk) 02:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address a redirect pointing to this article. The discussion will occur at RfD September 8 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Anyone accused of a crime is entitled to representation in NZ law (and in any other civilized country too), and for those without the means to pay for a lawyer legal aid is considered a right, not a privilege, right up to the appeal stage. Civics 101. The whole "Taxpayers coughed up $400k" thing is POV and pandering to the Newstalk ZB talkback redneck crowd. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 07:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
BBC has officially lifted the banned on Jesse Kempson .
Jesse Kempson, 28, can now be named after a court order banning his identification was lifted.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-55346213
-- Wisdood ( talk) 10:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Do we really need them? I removed them on the basis that this is an article about a murder, not a biography of Grace Millane. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 17:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The result of the move request was: Moved to Death of Grace Millane. Nixinova T C 20:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Grace Millane →
Death of Grace Millane – Per
WP:BIO1E and
WP:VICTIM. (If the accused party is subsequently convicted of murder, then title could be renamed "Murder of" per
WP:BIO.)
Plinuckment (
talk)
12:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The suspect was granted 20 day name supression but British media is publishing his name. Should it be used in this article? Nixinova T C 21:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Articles which use his name: [1] [2] [3] [4] • Articles about his name supression/warning the public not to use his name: [5] [6] / [7]. Nixinova T C 21:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
It only took a few moments to find the name with a search engine so it's not a well-kept secret. Leaving it out of the article is fine but there's no need to go crazy redacting links to news media. 173.228.123.166 ( talk) 08:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not very comfortable with including this among our references. There are various news items which refer to the schools and church she attended, we could use those instead if desired. Exact dates of school attendance are not important. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 00:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I removed the sentence in the reaction section that said there was an "unusually strong reaction" to the death, this was not qualified by the source. This seems to be "reading between the lines" of the Guardian source. The Guardian source does mention reactions and tributes, but doesn't say in any way I can read that this was "unusual". For something to be unusual it would have to be by comparison to previous events, and that isn't mentioned. Thanks. 79.74.171.61 ( talk) 17:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Grace Millane was born on 2 December 1996 in Britain. The article correctly says she died on the 1st or 2nd of December 2018 but this is NZDT, 13 hours ahead of UTC. If she died in the small hours of the 2nd (NZDT), it would still have been only the 1st in Britain. Therefore, based on time elapsed from her birth, she had not attained 22 years of age yet. Is it wrong to show her age as "21 or 22"? Should we change it to just 21? Akld guy ( talk) 20:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion the article would be better without the infobox and the photo (taken from her facebook apparently). It should be treated as an article about the event, rather than a biography of Grace Millane. Compare for example Murder of Amanda Duffy, an article I did a bit of work on. There is a well known picture of her that is likely public domain, but nobody seems to think it necessary to include it in the article, to create an infobox or even to include much biographical information about Amanda Duffy. And this is as it should be. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 23:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Treating this as article on a crime rather than a biography would also hopefully allay the concerns expressed by the people who say they are members of her family. They are of course not following correct wikipedia procedures, but I definitely don't want any nastiness with them, they are going through all sorts of pain and grief. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 01:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
RS or not, I'm very reluctant to add details of the trial to this article. I suspect some details have been suppressed. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 04:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
In the video shown on this NZ Herald website, how is it that the camera tracks the couple while they are walking through buildings? It's not like they have been zoomed in on from a wide angle fixed-position camera – in the video the camera is being panned from side to side and following them. How is this possible? Akld guy ( talk) 04:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change this sentence: "Millane's post-mortem blood-alcohol level was measured at 106 milligrams per decilitre of blood, just over twice the legal driving limit of 50 mg/dL."
To read: "Millane's post-mortem blood-alcohol level was measured at 106 milligrams per millilitres of blood, just over twice the legal driving limit of 50 mg/mL." Changes highlighted in bold. AngelaHarseldorf ( talk) 21:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC) AngelaHarseldorf ( talk) 21:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Not only is the name of the guy who killed her on reliable sources, the issue of his name affecting the court verdict is now irrelevant as he's been convicted. There is no need for wikipedia to suppress names based on NZ law (or the law of any other nation) as he been discussed in numerous other articles. We don't censor the Tiananmen Sqaure article just because of Chinese law, so there is no reason to do so here. There is zero consensus for withholding the name of a convicted murderer on a wikipedia article. Also, claims of broken sources are probably caused by geoblocks in NZ - the source is fine, try a VPN if you can't see it. Obscure Lobotomy ( talk) 11:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
If this was an article adding something that was illegal in a less politically correct nation than New Zealand, people would be crying about censorship - but New Zealand is a nice place, so double standards are in play. And yes, the reason for excluding it no longer matters - but people would prefer to jump in with reverts, insinuations and threats of blocks than contribute to the discussion that I started. I would link to some more source, but that would probably be seen as linking to his identity and get me blocked as people seem to be out for blood right now. Obscure Lobotomy ( talk) 17:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
There are a few. The one which seems like the most reliable (or at least the source I would trust the most) is the Indepenent. Obscure Lobotomy ( talk) 18:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
CAN YOU ALL JUST HOLD YOUR HORSES PLEASE?. He is due to be sentenced today. Name suppressions typically lapse at this point. Then we can stop having pointless arguments and inflammatory discussions about how "politically correct" (GOD I FUCKING HATE THAT TERM!) NZ allegedly is. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 18:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
He should be named Erzan ( talk) 04:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
One final comment before I probably leave this until there are new developments. I have no legal background and the only specifics I know about this case nearly all come from NZ media reports. (With tiny bits read e.g. on this talk page and forums.) In case it isn't clear, my comments above are all based on my limited understanding based on observation and stuff I've read about the law (including occasionally the actually law). I didn't read the story mention by zzuuzz but what was highlighted here seems to tally with what I expected.
For BLP and other reasons, I've avoided saying the obvious. But I was hoping others would also read between the lines and consider the obvious, since it may affect how we go from here, as people were saying it no longer matters etc, which is very weird if the obvious reason is correct. I've also felt it best to correct what are IMO likely misunderstanding of the situation where these arose since I fear that will confusion discussion over what to do here.
Of course, we shouldn't actually be speculating here. But the thing, so far no one has said mentioned any sources which provide any real detail. The best was zzuuzz, which while helpful as confirmation, was also easy to guess. Meanwhile some media may have reported the name, but that seems to be all. So whatever you may think of the NZ law, it seems likely it has had a serious effect on what has been reported, even if it didn't stop the name being public.
For some people, maybe this doesn't matter and we should just mention the name since there are some sources. (Although I'm still unconvinced there are enough compared to the level of coverage, but I haven't looked.) For others, maybe it does matter that there may be something here we don't know about and we can only guess what it is since sources are not covering it, so I hope they seriously consider where we are at now.
It’s now 2020 and we’re well into the age of the internet, in which, in the majority of countries, there is no internet censorship. We are all of us a part of this, like it or not. That the name suppression within NZ continues post-sentencing is strange. It took me about 30 seconds to find it. And then there is the contention by the OP in the OP, Obscure Lobotomy, that the argument for or against name suppression has come up many times, with continual suppression here on WP continually failing. So I can’t see any reason to withhold it here any longer. We’re now post verdict, post sentencing. Wake up there down the back! Boscaswell talk 08:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The Independent can be used as a source. Also, how about Metro? is that a reliable source? Obscure Lobotomy ( talk) 08:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Don't name. Reading between the lines etc it seems likely that he's facing some serious but unrelated criminal charges which could see him getting a few more years slapped on to his already hefty prison sentence. It would be difficult to find a fair and impartial jury if they all knew him as "the piece of shit who murdered Grace Millane", therefore the courts have decided not to publicise his name for the time being. The majority of people are not on Twitter or wherever else his name is being plastered. Sure if you live in New Zealand you can find out his name if you really want to, but you have to actively seek it out. The majority won't do that. Because really, why do they need to know his name? What does his name mean to you? The current situation in New Zealand is that the majority of us don't know his name, and this is for the best. If you hate the guy as much as I do, how about keeping his name out of the article until whatever other legal issues involving him are resolved? How about respecting another reasonably civilised country's court system? Why is it so important to you guys that his name be in the article anyway? MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 16:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me. It matters to the credibility of an encyclopedia. Obscure Lobotomy ( talk) 02:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
"Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. 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"(emphasis added). And even WP:NOTCENSORED says
"Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons". So, you need to show that inclusion of the convicted party's name outweighs those BLP caveats. Muzilon ( talk) 08:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
As per WP:BLPNAME "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." - now what do you think? Is the murderer of Grace Millane directly involved in the Murder of Grace Millane article's topic? LOL. The answer is obvious, so there is no reason to withhold the name. Obscure Lobotomy ( talk) 22:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
There are reliable sources mentioning Ramsden Bellhouse as her home village. It's very close to Wickford and Wickford is well known so media reports typically say she was from Wickford rather than "Ramsden Bellhouse near Wickford". It would be ok to use either in the article. It's not actually her birth place though, her family moved there when she was about 10 according to the NZH. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 18:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia should not follow NZ law and censor the killers name. Goes agianst WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BLPNAME.
Articles using name
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/grace-millane-killer-anonymity-new-zealand-a4367871.html
LoganBlade ( talk) 11:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
"When the name of a private individual... has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases... it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."Muzilon ( talk) 06:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
"As Wikipedia has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and since Wikipedia articles tend to be permanent, it is important to use sensitivity and good judgment in determining whether a piece of information should be recorded for posterity."As the case is currently before the courts, I think Wikipedia should err on the side of caution, yes. (And I've corrected your signature for the 3rd or 4th time – it's displaying your username as "Thanks", which is "unnecessarily confusing" per WP:SIGPROB.) Muzilon ( talk) 07:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
when the name has not been widely disseminated- according to reliable sources already used in this article - despite the suppression order, in the hours and days after the verdict, overseas media ( WP:RS listed above) and social media users - including in New Zealand - published the killer's name, so he has already been "outed" (aka widely disseminated), including in New Zealand. WP:BLPNAME goes on to say
consider whether the inclusion of names who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.The person convicted of the murder of Grace Millane (the article's topic) is directly involved, as evidenced by the amount of detail already given in the article about the individual. So I have justified my argument for inclusion of the name, because my argument does follow WP:BLPNAME, and is also compliant with one of our core policies that his name is verifiable. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
"In cases where names are removed from an article to protect the privacy of a semi-notable individual, this should be discussed on the article's talk page. There is a presumption in favour of privacy, and as such, in most cases, the names should not be restored unless there is a definite consensus to do so. In some such cases, editors should avoid quoting the names themselves (or other contested biographical information) on talk pages during the discussion; it should be remembered that talk pages are public space, and that information discussed there is available to readers. "Pinging admins Drmies and zzuuzz, who I see have commented here on this issue previously. Muzilon ( talk) 02:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
seems at this time there is a local consensus to leave it out- exists in this RfC is dubious at best, and a !supervote at worst. If an admin wants to exercise their discretion in enforcing WP policies and guidelines, and explicitly state leave his name off this talk page, that's fine, I'm OK with that, but I don't appreciate being one of two accused of edit-warring when there were other editors involved as well, and no discussion/consensus established to exclude his name from the RfC/talk page in the first place. Thank you. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Isaidnowaylobbying to "out" the parties with NZ name suppression in Queenstown suppressed indecency case or Larnoch Road murders. Why the focus on this case? Muzilon ( talk) 00:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
zzuuzzhas linked to a number of possible reasons why name suppression may be imposed. (Curious that the European tabloids were willing to disclose the name but not the reasons for the ongoing suppression.) And although Wikipedia as a U.S. website is not subject to NZ law as such, the clause in WP:BLPNAME about giving weight to court name-suppression does not specify that it only applies to U.S. court cases. As I mentioned, WP has articles about other NZ court cases involving name suppression; it might be possible to "out" those parties with the excuse that "it's OK because I found a reliable/verifiable source, and as I don't live in NZ, I don't have to consider the legal or ethical ramifications of divulging those names". Muzilon ( talk) 22:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
how is the reader informed by knowing the perpetrator is Jack Sproggs, aged XY, originally from Hicksville? Essentially it's trivia to 99.9% of readers.I merely answered that speculation with examples of how the reader is informed by knowing the names of convicted criminals and that info is not trivial, and in my follow-up reply to your comment, provided a reliably sourced example of the public being vulnerable to these unidentified criminals being able to do it again. There's certainly not anything wrong or suspicious about a rebuttal to a comment (speculation) in this discussion, as evidenced by your rebuttals. I haven't accused you of being an activist or any other WP label, I'd appreciate the same good faith. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
As name suppression has now been lifted I guess this RfC is now entirely redundant. Would an admin care to close it off? Muzilon ( talk) 01:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
On 7 February 2020, Auckland businessman Leo Molloy was identified as the individual who had breached the suppression order preventing the name of Millane's murderer from being made public.
Problems here – the wording seems to imply that Molloy was solely responsible for all the leaks, when the two sources cited don't appear to specify that was so. (He may have been just one of several parties.) Also, Molloy hasn't yet been sentenced and is applying for discharge without conviction, so his case is still technically sub judice. [17] Muzilon ( talk) 02:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address a redirect pointing to this article. The discussion will occur at RfD September 8 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Anyone accused of a crime is entitled to representation in NZ law (and in any other civilized country too), and for those without the means to pay for a lawyer legal aid is considered a right, not a privilege, right up to the appeal stage. Civics 101. The whole "Taxpayers coughed up $400k" thing is POV and pandering to the Newstalk ZB talkback redneck crowd. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 07:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
BBC has officially lifted the banned on Jesse Kempson .
Jesse Kempson, 28, can now be named after a court order banning his identification was lifted.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-55346213
-- Wisdood ( talk) 10:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Do we really need them? I removed them on the basis that this is an article about a murder, not a biography of Grace Millane. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 17:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)