![]() | 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 would add this, but I am on mobile. https://abc7.com/wi-spa-protest-lapd-alert-wilshire/10894299/ Jon698 ( talk) 03:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
On mobile right now. I want to add this source tomorrow https://theintercept.com/2021/07/18/transphobes-rally-los-angeles-spa-police-attack-counterprotesters/ ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 04:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Another possible source, listing here https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/18/dozens-arrested-in-los-angeles-as-anti-trans-protest-outside-spa-turns-violent ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 12:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Pluma, wanting your feedback regarding the sourcing and wording changes. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 23:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
It should be noted that this statement is unsourced and unsubstantiated: "On June 24, 2021, a cisgender woman claimed that..". We have no evidence at all to suggest this person's gender identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.10.166.120 ( talk) 14:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The article is worded such that a reader unfamiliar with gender critical feminism may unduly associate it with the far right. When actually, most GC feminists, particularly radical feminists, view such issues from a left-wing perspective.
I would suggest the article be reworded to not create this impression, and also to reflect the fact that GC feminists generally consider the problem of males in women's spaces in terms of safeguarding and women's rights, whereas the far right do not.
213.205.242.15 ( talk) 15:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The following is portrayal of how our RS cited aligns the right-wing and trans-exclusive feminists in various ways. Feel free to add excerpts from potential sources for the article to compare or contrast. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 20:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Was pinged. Frankly, I am very much inclined to treat with less weight those outlets which have shown themselves to be less reliable on this matter by pushing a "right-wing hoax" narrative when the facts show that later, police did end up arresting someone in connection with this incident who had a record (keep in mind that in California, merely being a trans woman in the women's changing room is not illegal). Even so, the sources listed here do not justify conflating distinct ideological groups. Crossroads -talk- 20:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I am fine with Crossroads’ recent change. Are we discussing this because someone prefers the old language? Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 21:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if a source is using it; some whom the term is directed at consider it derogatory, nd we shouldn't be using it as a description. If a source says "a Karen" claimed that..." we wouldn't describe the person in question as a "Karen,"(just to give one example of a derogatory term, there are many others). Likewise for TERF--since it's a contested term, it should only reused in that context, not as an "objective" description. Boodlesthecat ( talk)
derogatory, as do trans-exclusionary radical feminists. ~ TNT (she/they • talk) 22:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
some women who wish to have spaces, eg, changing rooms, where they don't have to be confronted by penises") before. You are clearly not attempting to challenge the use of TERF on any basis other than your own point of view. ~ TNT (she/they • talk) 23:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The video had increasingly circulated online on right-wing and far-right sites, as well as trans-excluding feminist (TERF) spaces.? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
trans-excluding feminist (TERF) spaces. However what would be more constructive is, instead of acting in a very pugnacious manner, such as I regrettably see from Boodles, it would be better for those who disagree with the current wording to propose alternate wording. However, in an expression of good faith, I wish to do that labor for all those who wish it changed:
trans-excluding feminists ( a.k.a. gender-critical or TERFs)this option allows us to be more verbose in body, to let readers know, who perhaps are reading material like this for the first time, the terminology refers to the same ideological grouping
The claim attracted significant attention from trans-excluding feminists ( a.k.a. gender-critical feminists or TERFs) onlinethis option allows us to be more verbose in lead and then use the preferred terminology of
trans-excluding feministselsewhere in body
trans-exclusionary radical feminist. –– FormalDude talk 00:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
dogmatic POV" I see being pushed at the moment is yours - do you consider yourself a trans-exclusionary radical feminist per chance, or is that a slur? ~ TNT (she/they • talk) 00:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree that "TERF" is often used as a slur - the feminist online space Ovarit has many, many examples documented here by its users: https://ovarit.com/o/TerfIsASlur. Personally I would advocate the use of "gender critical" instead, not only because it's not a slur, but also it covers feminist women who aren't strictly radical feminists, as well as their ideological allies (e.g. gay men who are concerned about their homosexuality being redefined as same-gender attracted, rather than same-sex). Hope this helps. LayersOfEggs ( talk) 08:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
See https://nypost.com/2021/09/02/charges-filed-against-sex-offender-in-wi-spa-casecharges-filed-against-sex-offender-in-notorious-wi-spa-incident, which states that a <trans woman>* has been charged with indecent exposure regarding this incident. So it wasn't a hoax after all. 213.205.242.252 ( talk) 18:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
* Original terminology is considered insulting and degrading by trans individuals, and has been redacted under WP:RPA. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 23:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The LA Times has covered this news story now. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-02/indecent-exposure-charges-filed-trans-woman-spa "Indecent exposure charges filed against trans woman over L.A. spa incident" — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoKoCorvid ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
"The Intercept claimed that the stabbings were initially believed to be committed by leftist protesters, but video evidence proves they were committed by right-wing protesters."
Citation 19 for reference.
Which video proves it? Could there be a direct citation to the tweet? Given that LAPD are investigating these crimes, is it a good idea to say "proves"? WP:BLPCRIME GenericUsername2702 ( talk) 08:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
provesto
indicatesbecause it is more wiki-voice and in-line with NPOV. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 10:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
From the lede: "trans-excluding feminists (a.k.a. gender-critical feminists or TERFs)"
'trans-excluding feminists' is not a term anyone involved in feminist activism would use to describe themselves, it is only used by other activists who disapprove of their views, meaning it is not NPOV and is contested language (identity).
gender critical feminists is an appropriate term used by some involved parties to self identify, but it is an error to conflate it with 'trans excluding feminists' and with the term TERF. The bulk of gender critical feminists would not consider themselves to be either radical politically or radical feminists, nor would they agree that they fit the new, broad categorization of TERF; again, this is not how most feminist activists would refer to themselves.
It is also beyond the pale to assume, intimate or imply that the women who reported the incident would describe themselves as, or participate in any qualifying activities that placed them in either defined category. We simply don't know if they know about gender critical theory or radical feminism, nobody's asked them, and their reactions and subsequent actions are outside the context of activism.
the overall impression is decidedly against NPOV.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Boodlesthecat (
talk •
contribs) 00:21, September 9, 2021 (UTC) previous unsigned notice was incorrect, should be: — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:189:8201:b000:adce:395a:f792:d39 (
talk) 09:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I attempted to correct that with a good faith edit as follows: Her video of her claim attracted significant attention from right-wing media and activists, leading to violent protests and counter-protests on July 3 and 17, 2021. The claim also sparked extended discussions on some trans-excluding feminist (a.k.a. gender-critical feminist or so-called "TERF") websites. This edit follows the sources sited, eg, the Guardian article: The Wi Spa video from June went viral on rightwing forums, far-right sites and Fox News and led to two major anti-trans protests outside the spa, during which far-right demonstrators fought with trans-rights protesters in the street. No mention of feminists/"TERFs" etc. Yet the Wiki article now makes it sound like feminists and Neo-fascists kicked off the violence.
Once again, a good faith, well sourced edit I've made has been reverted, this time by Gwennie-nyan. Again, not only have good faith, sourced attempts to achieve balance in a rather sloppy article been systematically rebuffed, Gwennie-nyan has gone so far as to open an arbitration case against me for this apparent crime. (I'm tickled that Gwennie-nyan cites as evidence my past crimes 13(!) years ago, when I got in Wikitrouble for battling against a cabal of antisemitic editors who, across Wikipedia, were editing articles with lovely spins such as Jews were responsible for the genocides in Eastern Europe committed against them because of bad behavior by these bad Jews). I see the cabal system is still at work on Wikipedia over a dozen years later. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Boodlesthecat Meow?
We should edit "unknown individual with a penis" to male suspect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.79.89 ( talk) 22:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
On Sept 9,
Gwennie-nyan opened a copiously detailed
arbitration enforcement case against me (and without ever discussing her intent to do so prior to filing it), which used as evidence practically every edit I've made and utterance on this page as "evidence" for my being sanctioned. An admin responded 3 days ago with recommendations, and since
Gwennie-nyan. has made no acknowledgement of that response on this page, I'll share it here, since it contains recommendations for how to proceed with editing this article that addresses some of the issues being discussed here, among them, finding the "TERF" language in the lead "gratuitous" and recs for restructuring the article. I'm happy to proceed with edits accordingly, since the filer of this action (apparently done imo as a form of harassment and intimidation, since it apparently is without merit) hasn't responded to it. Here's the reply of the admin:
*Possibly I need to be re-educated but I find it hard to understand the concerns raised in this request. The lead at Wi Spa controversy currently has a completely gratuitous "( a.k.a. gender-critical feminists or TERFs)" and the argument seems to be about whether "TERF" is an insult or an objective term that can be applied without attribution. My recommendation would be to reword the article to focus more on the facts of the incident and keep third-party's opinions regarding the motivation of the participants for the body of the article. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Earlier, I had added to the article this info about the suspect charged for indecent exposure at Wi Spa: The suspect, who police in 2018 described as someone who police in 2018 described as someone who “claims to be female in order to gain access to women’s locker rooms and showers,”. This is sourced in the
LA Blade, among other places. This edit was then
reverted by
Firefangledfeathers with the explanation source says "The Post quotes an internal L.A. police document saying Merager pretends to be trans in order to gain access to women’s spaces." Without independent review, we are essentially relying on the NY Post for a statement of contentious fact, for which it is unreliable.
However, twice in the article we say that Merager "has denied guilt, claiming harassment over being trans." This statement is also one that originated with the NY Post, in an interview with Merager conducted by
Andy Ngo, a right wing operative with pretty much zero credibility as a journalist and who is hardly reliable as a source.
So it would make sense to either include both the reported LAPD background information that shows police officials claiming prior similar charges and criminal behavior and the NY Post-reported claims of harassment by Merager (which have been repeated by a number of sources relying on the Post interview) or, simply delete both the police info on Merager and Merager's claims from the Post interview, based on
Firefangledfeathers's rationale that info originating with the NY Post is unreliable. It makes no sense to arbitrarily include one and not the other. I lean strongly to keeping both, as they are quite salient bits of info to this story.
Boodlesthecat
Meow? — Preceding
undated comment added 22:58, 9 September 2021
The question of whether we can use information which originated with the NY Post and has been subsequently cited by reliable sources needs to be decided, since we currently;y have such information in the article, (eg, statements from the Posts interview with Merager, the suspect arrested in the case, but in other instances information also orginally deriving from the Post and cited to other sources had been reverted. So either all such bits of info should be allowed, or all such information should be removed. So, the options are:
I'm happy with the second or third option, and would be happy to make the edits. As it currently stands, we are allowing such information and not allowing it at the same time. So we should decide. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
This recent edit by Boodlesthecat refers to the woman in the video by name, which is likely to confuse readers since the name isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. I had assumed we were leaving it out in order to respect the privacy of the individual, but it's not totally clear to me whether this is required/appropriate. WP:BLPNAME seems like the relevant policy here. The name is included in several reliable sources (The Advocate, The Guardian, LA Times), though they treat it as a screen name/pseudonym. e.g. The Guardian writes:
The woman who made the video, who goes by the name ________, has not publicly identified herself and she previously declined to comment to the Guardian.
I think this lessens the privacy concern. I'm inclined to add it to the "Incident" section, if only because it simplifies the prose if we can refer to her by name rather than having to constantly use circumlocutions like "the woman in the video", or "the uploader of the video". But I'd appreciate second opinions from anyone more familiar with BLP policy. Colin M ( talk) 20:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Is there a policy saying the suspect's name should not be used in ongoing criminal cases? Reliable sources are using it, charges were filed and an arrest warrant was issued, so I don't see why it would be a privacy issue. Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 21:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Colin M attempted to remove the section regarding the Spa's policies. I undid so we can discuss this. I feel they merit inclusion given the context of the situation, as the Spa is specifically reported to support access for non-cisgender or gender-variant individuals. I would like to her feedback, thoughts, etc. regarding the merits of inclusion, modification, or removal. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 18:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Wi Spa defended its policy in a statement to Eyewitness News, which reads in part: "Like many other metropolitan areas, Los Angeles contains a transgender population, some of whom enjoy visiting a spa. Wi Spa strives to meet the needs and safety of all of its customers, and does not tolerate harassment or lewd conduct by any customer, regardless of their sex, gender, or other characteristic.". It mentioned the policy but it was not quoted. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 19:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I feel they merit inclusion given the context of the situation, as the Spa is specifically reported to support access for non-cisgender or gender-variant individuals.That's fair, but isn't this fact already conveyed in the § Spa response section? Colin M ( talk) 18:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
false "hoax" narrativeis a bit on-the-nose. We would need to have a conviction before we can rule that out. After all, significant as they are, charges are just formal accusations until a conviction occurs. It isn't us to determine what something is. Regardless regarding the last section, the Post interview which you may be referencing, does not admit that. In fact the interview has the suspect claim the opposite, saying she "was in a jacuzzi in the women’s section when she was accosted". However we are only citing in-article claims from the Post interview which are repeated through third-party RS. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 20:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Where the article had said
was charged by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office with five counts of felony indecent exposure in connection with the incident corresponding to the five individuals—four women and one minor girl—who previously filed reports in July, and an arrest warrant was issued. [1] [2]
Gwennie-nyanchanged that to remove the last part about the arrest warrant to now read
was charged by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office with five counts of felony indecent exposure in connection with the incident corresponding to the five individuals—four women and one minor girl—who previously filed reports in July. [1] [3]
with the explanation, "this bit is superfluous, when you get indicted on criminal charges, arrest warrants being issued is standard practice and doesn't bear specifying."
I believe this to be wrong--my understanding is it is possible to be charged and a arrest warrant to not be issued, so if Gwennie-nyan has proof that can be presented on this talk page, that would help. Regardless, taking out "and an arrest warrant was issued" needless distorts the facts--why take it out? It just waters down the severity of the case. What if a reader doen't know that issuing arrest warrants always follows charges (assuming that's even true--proof needed). Why are we assuming readers understand the minutiae of criminal procedure?
And, it's how the LAPD put it in their ref: the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office charged Merager with five felony counts of indecent exposure and an arrest warrant has been issued
And it's laid out in detail in the Blade ref that we cite
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office has charged 52-year-old Darren Merager, a registered sex offender, with five felony counts of indecent exposure... Speaking to the Los Angeles Blade Thursday via phone, Los Angeles Police Department Public Information Officer Tony Im confirmed that an arrest warrant has been issued for Merager, whose last known residence is in Riverside County East of Los Angeles, but Merager was not in custody as of Thursday evening he said.
So, the "and an arrest warrant was issued" is salient information that brings clarity (otherwise a reader doesn't know the status) and is clearly specified in the sources for a reason. Purposely not including it does nothing but muddle the facts and gives the impression that the case against Merager is less severe than it is. So I'll put it back in. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
So I'll put it back in.isn't how WP:BRD works. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 16:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
References
@ Gwennie-nyan: The woman has not said she identifies that way. Saying something negative about trans people doesn't mean she identifies as cisgender, as you claim. This is your personal opinion, you are violating MOS:GENDERID and WP:VERIFY. MOS:GENDERID says to "reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources". Your claim that we have a reliable source is a misrepresentation as the source does not have her saying she is cisgender. Also, in that edit summary you didn't address that you also reverted this edit that refers to the accused as a trans woman. Your use of the same phrasing elsewhere in the article was previously amended in this edit by @ Volteer1: who cited WP:VOICE. Gwennie-nyan, again you are violating MOS:GENDERID. You also removed an archive reference and disunited the article's date formats. Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 17:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Hatting as potentially offensive. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 22:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Any mention that the LAPD has both described suspect as a male and has not been able to confirm their gender identity keps getting deleted. Why? One explanation given is that the gender is in dispute--so why keep deleting key content that describes exactly why it's in dispute, namely, that the police have stated the suspect to be male? It seems like POV-based whitewashing. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
|
California maintains a "Megan's Law" website (at https://www.meganslaw.ca.gov ), providing simple search tools to find information on registered sex offenders. The NYTimes article states:
"A law passed by California Democrats that went into effect this year replaced the state’s lifetime registration requirement to a tiered system. The law allows lower-tiered sex offenders to petition to be removed from the list. However, Merager is not eligible due to ongoing criminal charges. "
and the inference that the suspect is a 'registered sex offender' has been put into this Wikipedia page, which indicates that the suspect should still be on the Megan's Law database and therefore locatable through the Megan's Law website. Searching for them by any combination of the parts of their name provided by the NYTimes article (and even some slight variations to allow for data entry errors) provides no results, indicating that they are not a 'registered sex offender'. As they are resident in California, it is safe to assume that they would show up on the California Megan's Law web site.
This is therefore demonstrably false information and should be removed from the content.
Noodledoodley ( talk) 22:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
primary sources suggest the secondary sources may be incorrect, what we have is twitter threads (which aren't a source for anything) and original research that doesn't even appear to make sense (the Megan's law website said that not all registered sex offenders appear there). If it was the case that we have to attribute when half of reliable sources state something in their own voice, and the other half say "according to police" but do not cast doubt on the police's statements, articles on high profile alleged crimes would have whole paragraphs and sections where every sentence starts with "according to police" when there's really no reason to doubt it and think the police are lying or something. For the record, I still don't think the sex offender bit needs to live in the lead, it's not adding much beyond the convictions and it's probably fine in the section on the criminal charges. ‑‑ Volteer1 ( talk) 06:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Remark: Just wanting to say,
Thank you everyone for discussing these concerns and doing so constructively!
~Gwennie🐈⦅
💬
📋⦆ 22:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. WanderingWanda🐮👑 ( talk) 02:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
This wiki is very biased and close to being worthless. Many attempts are made to frame the complainant Cubana Angel, considering sections like 'Allegations of hoax', 'LGBTQ reactions' and 'Political campaign by complainant'. It is irrelevant to the story if Cubana Angel is politically active; what matters is: did the incident happen as related by her. Many people and media have had their say including the not-so objective Los Angeles Blade. None of the media ever contacted or tried to contact Cubana Angel to hear her story. She has a point, though, considering cases like these:
And please refrain from qualifications like 'right wing', 'controversial' etc. as in this example:
″In a prominent example of right-wing spread, Ian Miles Cheong, a conservative political commentator, posted two videos about the incident on June 27 via his Twitter account that reached hundreds of thousands of views.[11][14] Andy Ngo, a controversial right-wing journalist, also posted on Twitter about the incident.[11]″ -- Gerard1453 ( talk) 14:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
None of the media ever contacted or tried to contact Cubana Angel to hear her story.This much is not true. See for example this article from The Guardian: "Cubana Angel did not initially respond to repeated interview requests. After publication of this article, she declined to comment and referred the Guardian back to Little, who also declined to comment further." Colin M ( talk) 15:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
People who support trans issues even trans people themselves are being called a terf.. To shut down the conversation... Most people being called trans exclusive feminist are not terf... Gender critical feminist support trans rights but want people to understand there's a difference between gender and sex... Terfs exclude trans people from everything, gender critical feminist want people to understand sex is real... But support trans rights 2600:1000:B112:6777:E9A0:F7AE:2251:D9B1 ( talk) 18:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree. Unless there are objections, I move that the slur “TERF” be removed from article. Hedonistbot4000 ( talk) 07:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Jeremy Lee Quinn and Jason McGahan, 2022. EXCLUSIVE: Transgender Fugitive Who Spurred Wi Spa Riots Bares All: Darren Merager, the just-arrested Angeleno who launched a firestorm from a women’s locker room, spoke with LAMag while on the lam. Los Angeles Magazine, https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/exclusive-transgender-fugitive-who-spurred-wi-spa-riots-bares-all/, 19 December 2022. Rorybowman ( talk) 21:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Currently, the suspect, Darren Merager, is referenced in the article using they/them1 and she/her2 pronouns. If he/him is used then I have missed it. Merager reportedly told a Los Angeles magazine reporter "he/him and she/her pronouns are just fine but [Merager] loathes they/them".
Unless, Merager has later contradicted himself or disputed the accuracy of this reporting elsewhere then the article should not use they/them to refer to Merager except when directly quoting reliable sources. Furthermore, since, according to the LA magazine interview:
Therefore, I propose that the article be edited to consistently use he/him to refer to Darren Merager. This proposal conforms to MOS:GENDERID as I understand it. I want to stress that I don't consider any one of the six factors listed above to be dispositive in terms of deciding which pronouns to use in the article but that taken altogether they weigh strongly in favor of the consistent use of he/him.
Notes:
1
For example, "On December 19, 2022, Los Angeles Magazine published an interview with the suspect in which they repudiate the hoax notion ..." (emphasis added).
2
For example "The suspect also said that they used the women's section of the spa facilities and were in the hot tub when she encountered Cubana Angel ..." (emphasis added).
Mox La Push (
talk) 06:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
On January 26, 2023, I added the suspect's name to the article ( diff). My edits were reverted by an editor citing WP:ACCUSED. I restored the edits, pointing out that "WP:ACCUSED does not prohibit using a suspect's name". My revert was then rolled back by another editor citing WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPRESTORE. Therefore, I am now raising the matter here.
The suspect's name has been known publicly since 2021 and appears in reliable sources already cited in this article including, but not necessarily limited to, The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times, and The Los Angeles Blade. I am aware of no policy that categorically prohibits the mere naming of a criminal suspect.
On the contrary, it seems to me that naming criminal suspects is routine in the case of articles about alleged criminal controversies or incidents. For example, the five police officers charged in the death of Tyre Nichols were not public figures until the media (and Wikipedia) published their names in short order. Likewise, the civilian suspect is named in the lede of the article on the 2022 death of Michelle Go. What is the basis for treating the suspect, Darren Merager, differently in this article? - Mox La Push ( talk) 04:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
CharredShorthand.
talk
;
04:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, 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.(emphasis from original text).
This seemed like an absolutely glaring omission from the article - multiple witnesses testified that the individual in question displayed a visible erection for "30 to 60 minutes" before the complaint was made. Although this has obviously been disputed by their attorney in court, media reports cited that testimony as being the main reason given by the judge why the indecent exposure case could proceed, so it's hard to argue that it isn't critically important. HistoryFightFan ( talk) 08:55, 28 June 2023 (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 would add this, but I am on mobile. https://abc7.com/wi-spa-protest-lapd-alert-wilshire/10894299/ Jon698 ( talk) 03:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
On mobile right now. I want to add this source tomorrow https://theintercept.com/2021/07/18/transphobes-rally-los-angeles-spa-police-attack-counterprotesters/ ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 04:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Another possible source, listing here https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/18/dozens-arrested-in-los-angeles-as-anti-trans-protest-outside-spa-turns-violent ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 12:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Pluma, wanting your feedback regarding the sourcing and wording changes. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 23:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
It should be noted that this statement is unsourced and unsubstantiated: "On June 24, 2021, a cisgender woman claimed that..". We have no evidence at all to suggest this person's gender identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.10.166.120 ( talk) 14:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The article is worded such that a reader unfamiliar with gender critical feminism may unduly associate it with the far right. When actually, most GC feminists, particularly radical feminists, view such issues from a left-wing perspective.
I would suggest the article be reworded to not create this impression, and also to reflect the fact that GC feminists generally consider the problem of males in women's spaces in terms of safeguarding and women's rights, whereas the far right do not.
213.205.242.15 ( talk) 15:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The following is portrayal of how our RS cited aligns the right-wing and trans-exclusive feminists in various ways. Feel free to add excerpts from potential sources for the article to compare or contrast. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 20:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Was pinged. Frankly, I am very much inclined to treat with less weight those outlets which have shown themselves to be less reliable on this matter by pushing a "right-wing hoax" narrative when the facts show that later, police did end up arresting someone in connection with this incident who had a record (keep in mind that in California, merely being a trans woman in the women's changing room is not illegal). Even so, the sources listed here do not justify conflating distinct ideological groups. Crossroads -talk- 20:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I am fine with Crossroads’ recent change. Are we discussing this because someone prefers the old language? Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 21:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if a source is using it; some whom the term is directed at consider it derogatory, nd we shouldn't be using it as a description. If a source says "a Karen" claimed that..." we wouldn't describe the person in question as a "Karen,"(just to give one example of a derogatory term, there are many others). Likewise for TERF--since it's a contested term, it should only reused in that context, not as an "objective" description. Boodlesthecat ( talk)
derogatory, as do trans-exclusionary radical feminists. ~ TNT (she/they • talk) 22:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
some women who wish to have spaces, eg, changing rooms, where they don't have to be confronted by penises") before. You are clearly not attempting to challenge the use of TERF on any basis other than your own point of view. ~ TNT (she/they • talk) 23:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The video had increasingly circulated online on right-wing and far-right sites, as well as trans-excluding feminist (TERF) spaces.? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
trans-excluding feminist (TERF) spaces. However what would be more constructive is, instead of acting in a very pugnacious manner, such as I regrettably see from Boodles, it would be better for those who disagree with the current wording to propose alternate wording. However, in an expression of good faith, I wish to do that labor for all those who wish it changed:
trans-excluding feminists ( a.k.a. gender-critical or TERFs)this option allows us to be more verbose in body, to let readers know, who perhaps are reading material like this for the first time, the terminology refers to the same ideological grouping
The claim attracted significant attention from trans-excluding feminists ( a.k.a. gender-critical feminists or TERFs) onlinethis option allows us to be more verbose in lead and then use the preferred terminology of
trans-excluding feministselsewhere in body
trans-exclusionary radical feminist. –– FormalDude talk 00:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
dogmatic POV" I see being pushed at the moment is yours - do you consider yourself a trans-exclusionary radical feminist per chance, or is that a slur? ~ TNT (she/they • talk) 00:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree that "TERF" is often used as a slur - the feminist online space Ovarit has many, many examples documented here by its users: https://ovarit.com/o/TerfIsASlur. Personally I would advocate the use of "gender critical" instead, not only because it's not a slur, but also it covers feminist women who aren't strictly radical feminists, as well as their ideological allies (e.g. gay men who are concerned about their homosexuality being redefined as same-gender attracted, rather than same-sex). Hope this helps. LayersOfEggs ( talk) 08:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
See https://nypost.com/2021/09/02/charges-filed-against-sex-offender-in-wi-spa-casecharges-filed-against-sex-offender-in-notorious-wi-spa-incident, which states that a <trans woman>* has been charged with indecent exposure regarding this incident. So it wasn't a hoax after all. 213.205.242.252 ( talk) 18:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
* Original terminology is considered insulting and degrading by trans individuals, and has been redacted under WP:RPA. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 23:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The LA Times has covered this news story now. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-02/indecent-exposure-charges-filed-trans-woman-spa "Indecent exposure charges filed against trans woman over L.A. spa incident" — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoKoCorvid ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
"The Intercept claimed that the stabbings were initially believed to be committed by leftist protesters, but video evidence proves they were committed by right-wing protesters."
Citation 19 for reference.
Which video proves it? Could there be a direct citation to the tweet? Given that LAPD are investigating these crimes, is it a good idea to say "proves"? WP:BLPCRIME GenericUsername2702 ( talk) 08:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
provesto
indicatesbecause it is more wiki-voice and in-line with NPOV. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 10:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
From the lede: "trans-excluding feminists (a.k.a. gender-critical feminists or TERFs)"
'trans-excluding feminists' is not a term anyone involved in feminist activism would use to describe themselves, it is only used by other activists who disapprove of their views, meaning it is not NPOV and is contested language (identity).
gender critical feminists is an appropriate term used by some involved parties to self identify, but it is an error to conflate it with 'trans excluding feminists' and with the term TERF. The bulk of gender critical feminists would not consider themselves to be either radical politically or radical feminists, nor would they agree that they fit the new, broad categorization of TERF; again, this is not how most feminist activists would refer to themselves.
It is also beyond the pale to assume, intimate or imply that the women who reported the incident would describe themselves as, or participate in any qualifying activities that placed them in either defined category. We simply don't know if they know about gender critical theory or radical feminism, nobody's asked them, and their reactions and subsequent actions are outside the context of activism.
the overall impression is decidedly against NPOV.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Boodlesthecat (
talk •
contribs) 00:21, September 9, 2021 (UTC) previous unsigned notice was incorrect, should be: — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:189:8201:b000:adce:395a:f792:d39 (
talk) 09:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I attempted to correct that with a good faith edit as follows: Her video of her claim attracted significant attention from right-wing media and activists, leading to violent protests and counter-protests on July 3 and 17, 2021. The claim also sparked extended discussions on some trans-excluding feminist (a.k.a. gender-critical feminist or so-called "TERF") websites. This edit follows the sources sited, eg, the Guardian article: The Wi Spa video from June went viral on rightwing forums, far-right sites and Fox News and led to two major anti-trans protests outside the spa, during which far-right demonstrators fought with trans-rights protesters in the street. No mention of feminists/"TERFs" etc. Yet the Wiki article now makes it sound like feminists and Neo-fascists kicked off the violence.
Once again, a good faith, well sourced edit I've made has been reverted, this time by Gwennie-nyan. Again, not only have good faith, sourced attempts to achieve balance in a rather sloppy article been systematically rebuffed, Gwennie-nyan has gone so far as to open an arbitration case against me for this apparent crime. (I'm tickled that Gwennie-nyan cites as evidence my past crimes 13(!) years ago, when I got in Wikitrouble for battling against a cabal of antisemitic editors who, across Wikipedia, were editing articles with lovely spins such as Jews were responsible for the genocides in Eastern Europe committed against them because of bad behavior by these bad Jews). I see the cabal system is still at work on Wikipedia over a dozen years later. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Boodlesthecat Meow?
We should edit "unknown individual with a penis" to male suspect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.79.89 ( talk) 22:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
On Sept 9,
Gwennie-nyan opened a copiously detailed
arbitration enforcement case against me (and without ever discussing her intent to do so prior to filing it), which used as evidence practically every edit I've made and utterance on this page as "evidence" for my being sanctioned. An admin responded 3 days ago with recommendations, and since
Gwennie-nyan. has made no acknowledgement of that response on this page, I'll share it here, since it contains recommendations for how to proceed with editing this article that addresses some of the issues being discussed here, among them, finding the "TERF" language in the lead "gratuitous" and recs for restructuring the article. I'm happy to proceed with edits accordingly, since the filer of this action (apparently done imo as a form of harassment and intimidation, since it apparently is without merit) hasn't responded to it. Here's the reply of the admin:
*Possibly I need to be re-educated but I find it hard to understand the concerns raised in this request. The lead at Wi Spa controversy currently has a completely gratuitous "( a.k.a. gender-critical feminists or TERFs)" and the argument seems to be about whether "TERF" is an insult or an objective term that can be applied without attribution. My recommendation would be to reword the article to focus more on the facts of the incident and keep third-party's opinions regarding the motivation of the participants for the body of the article. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Earlier, I had added to the article this info about the suspect charged for indecent exposure at Wi Spa: The suspect, who police in 2018 described as someone who police in 2018 described as someone who “claims to be female in order to gain access to women’s locker rooms and showers,”. This is sourced in the
LA Blade, among other places. This edit was then
reverted by
Firefangledfeathers with the explanation source says "The Post quotes an internal L.A. police document saying Merager pretends to be trans in order to gain access to women’s spaces." Without independent review, we are essentially relying on the NY Post for a statement of contentious fact, for which it is unreliable.
However, twice in the article we say that Merager "has denied guilt, claiming harassment over being trans." This statement is also one that originated with the NY Post, in an interview with Merager conducted by
Andy Ngo, a right wing operative with pretty much zero credibility as a journalist and who is hardly reliable as a source.
So it would make sense to either include both the reported LAPD background information that shows police officials claiming prior similar charges and criminal behavior and the NY Post-reported claims of harassment by Merager (which have been repeated by a number of sources relying on the Post interview) or, simply delete both the police info on Merager and Merager's claims from the Post interview, based on
Firefangledfeathers's rationale that info originating with the NY Post is unreliable. It makes no sense to arbitrarily include one and not the other. I lean strongly to keeping both, as they are quite salient bits of info to this story.
Boodlesthecat
Meow? — Preceding
undated comment added 22:58, 9 September 2021
The question of whether we can use information which originated with the NY Post and has been subsequently cited by reliable sources needs to be decided, since we currently;y have such information in the article, (eg, statements from the Posts interview with Merager, the suspect arrested in the case, but in other instances information also orginally deriving from the Post and cited to other sources had been reverted. So either all such bits of info should be allowed, or all such information should be removed. So, the options are:
I'm happy with the second or third option, and would be happy to make the edits. As it currently stands, we are allowing such information and not allowing it at the same time. So we should decide. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
This recent edit by Boodlesthecat refers to the woman in the video by name, which is likely to confuse readers since the name isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. I had assumed we were leaving it out in order to respect the privacy of the individual, but it's not totally clear to me whether this is required/appropriate. WP:BLPNAME seems like the relevant policy here. The name is included in several reliable sources (The Advocate, The Guardian, LA Times), though they treat it as a screen name/pseudonym. e.g. The Guardian writes:
The woman who made the video, who goes by the name ________, has not publicly identified herself and she previously declined to comment to the Guardian.
I think this lessens the privacy concern. I'm inclined to add it to the "Incident" section, if only because it simplifies the prose if we can refer to her by name rather than having to constantly use circumlocutions like "the woman in the video", or "the uploader of the video". But I'd appreciate second opinions from anyone more familiar with BLP policy. Colin M ( talk) 20:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Is there a policy saying the suspect's name should not be used in ongoing criminal cases? Reliable sources are using it, charges were filed and an arrest warrant was issued, so I don't see why it would be a privacy issue. Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 21:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Colin M attempted to remove the section regarding the Spa's policies. I undid so we can discuss this. I feel they merit inclusion given the context of the situation, as the Spa is specifically reported to support access for non-cisgender or gender-variant individuals. I would like to her feedback, thoughts, etc. regarding the merits of inclusion, modification, or removal. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 18:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Wi Spa defended its policy in a statement to Eyewitness News, which reads in part: "Like many other metropolitan areas, Los Angeles contains a transgender population, some of whom enjoy visiting a spa. Wi Spa strives to meet the needs and safety of all of its customers, and does not tolerate harassment or lewd conduct by any customer, regardless of their sex, gender, or other characteristic.". It mentioned the policy but it was not quoted. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 19:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I feel they merit inclusion given the context of the situation, as the Spa is specifically reported to support access for non-cisgender or gender-variant individuals.That's fair, but isn't this fact already conveyed in the § Spa response section? Colin M ( talk) 18:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
false "hoax" narrativeis a bit on-the-nose. We would need to have a conviction before we can rule that out. After all, significant as they are, charges are just formal accusations until a conviction occurs. It isn't us to determine what something is. Regardless regarding the last section, the Post interview which you may be referencing, does not admit that. In fact the interview has the suspect claim the opposite, saying she "was in a jacuzzi in the women’s section when she was accosted". However we are only citing in-article claims from the Post interview which are repeated through third-party RS. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 20:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Where the article had said
was charged by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office with five counts of felony indecent exposure in connection with the incident corresponding to the five individuals—four women and one minor girl—who previously filed reports in July, and an arrest warrant was issued. [1] [2]
Gwennie-nyanchanged that to remove the last part about the arrest warrant to now read
was charged by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office with five counts of felony indecent exposure in connection with the incident corresponding to the five individuals—four women and one minor girl—who previously filed reports in July. [1] [3]
with the explanation, "this bit is superfluous, when you get indicted on criminal charges, arrest warrants being issued is standard practice and doesn't bear specifying."
I believe this to be wrong--my understanding is it is possible to be charged and a arrest warrant to not be issued, so if Gwennie-nyan has proof that can be presented on this talk page, that would help. Regardless, taking out "and an arrest warrant was issued" needless distorts the facts--why take it out? It just waters down the severity of the case. What if a reader doen't know that issuing arrest warrants always follows charges (assuming that's even true--proof needed). Why are we assuming readers understand the minutiae of criminal procedure?
And, it's how the LAPD put it in their ref: the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office charged Merager with five felony counts of indecent exposure and an arrest warrant has been issued
And it's laid out in detail in the Blade ref that we cite
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office has charged 52-year-old Darren Merager, a registered sex offender, with five felony counts of indecent exposure... Speaking to the Los Angeles Blade Thursday via phone, Los Angeles Police Department Public Information Officer Tony Im confirmed that an arrest warrant has been issued for Merager, whose last known residence is in Riverside County East of Los Angeles, but Merager was not in custody as of Thursday evening he said.
So, the "and an arrest warrant was issued" is salient information that brings clarity (otherwise a reader doesn't know the status) and is clearly specified in the sources for a reason. Purposely not including it does nothing but muddle the facts and gives the impression that the case against Merager is less severe than it is. So I'll put it back in. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
So I'll put it back in.isn't how WP:BRD works. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 16:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
References
@ Gwennie-nyan: The woman has not said she identifies that way. Saying something negative about trans people doesn't mean she identifies as cisgender, as you claim. This is your personal opinion, you are violating MOS:GENDERID and WP:VERIFY. MOS:GENDERID says to "reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources". Your claim that we have a reliable source is a misrepresentation as the source does not have her saying she is cisgender. Also, in that edit summary you didn't address that you also reverted this edit that refers to the accused as a trans woman. Your use of the same phrasing elsewhere in the article was previously amended in this edit by @ Volteer1: who cited WP:VOICE. Gwennie-nyan, again you are violating MOS:GENDERID. You also removed an archive reference and disunited the article's date formats. Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 17:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Hatting as potentially offensive. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 22:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Any mention that the LAPD has both described suspect as a male and has not been able to confirm their gender identity keps getting deleted. Why? One explanation given is that the gender is in dispute--so why keep deleting key content that describes exactly why it's in dispute, namely, that the police have stated the suspect to be male? It seems like POV-based whitewashing. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
|
California maintains a "Megan's Law" website (at https://www.meganslaw.ca.gov ), providing simple search tools to find information on registered sex offenders. The NYTimes article states:
"A law passed by California Democrats that went into effect this year replaced the state’s lifetime registration requirement to a tiered system. The law allows lower-tiered sex offenders to petition to be removed from the list. However, Merager is not eligible due to ongoing criminal charges. "
and the inference that the suspect is a 'registered sex offender' has been put into this Wikipedia page, which indicates that the suspect should still be on the Megan's Law database and therefore locatable through the Megan's Law website. Searching for them by any combination of the parts of their name provided by the NYTimes article (and even some slight variations to allow for data entry errors) provides no results, indicating that they are not a 'registered sex offender'. As they are resident in California, it is safe to assume that they would show up on the California Megan's Law web site.
This is therefore demonstrably false information and should be removed from the content.
Noodledoodley ( talk) 22:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
primary sources suggest the secondary sources may be incorrect, what we have is twitter threads (which aren't a source for anything) and original research that doesn't even appear to make sense (the Megan's law website said that not all registered sex offenders appear there). If it was the case that we have to attribute when half of reliable sources state something in their own voice, and the other half say "according to police" but do not cast doubt on the police's statements, articles on high profile alleged crimes would have whole paragraphs and sections where every sentence starts with "according to police" when there's really no reason to doubt it and think the police are lying or something. For the record, I still don't think the sex offender bit needs to live in the lead, it's not adding much beyond the convictions and it's probably fine in the section on the criminal charges. ‑‑ Volteer1 ( talk) 06:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Remark: Just wanting to say,
Thank you everyone for discussing these concerns and doing so constructively!
~Gwennie🐈⦅
💬
📋⦆ 22:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. WanderingWanda🐮👑 ( talk) 02:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
This wiki is very biased and close to being worthless. Many attempts are made to frame the complainant Cubana Angel, considering sections like 'Allegations of hoax', 'LGBTQ reactions' and 'Political campaign by complainant'. It is irrelevant to the story if Cubana Angel is politically active; what matters is: did the incident happen as related by her. Many people and media have had their say including the not-so objective Los Angeles Blade. None of the media ever contacted or tried to contact Cubana Angel to hear her story. She has a point, though, considering cases like these:
And please refrain from qualifications like 'right wing', 'controversial' etc. as in this example:
″In a prominent example of right-wing spread, Ian Miles Cheong, a conservative political commentator, posted two videos about the incident on June 27 via his Twitter account that reached hundreds of thousands of views.[11][14] Andy Ngo, a controversial right-wing journalist, also posted on Twitter about the incident.[11]″ -- Gerard1453 ( talk) 14:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
None of the media ever contacted or tried to contact Cubana Angel to hear her story.This much is not true. See for example this article from The Guardian: "Cubana Angel did not initially respond to repeated interview requests. After publication of this article, she declined to comment and referred the Guardian back to Little, who also declined to comment further." Colin M ( talk) 15:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
People who support trans issues even trans people themselves are being called a terf.. To shut down the conversation... Most people being called trans exclusive feminist are not terf... Gender critical feminist support trans rights but want people to understand there's a difference between gender and sex... Terfs exclude trans people from everything, gender critical feminist want people to understand sex is real... But support trans rights 2600:1000:B112:6777:E9A0:F7AE:2251:D9B1 ( talk) 18:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree. Unless there are objections, I move that the slur “TERF” be removed from article. Hedonistbot4000 ( talk) 07:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Jeremy Lee Quinn and Jason McGahan, 2022. EXCLUSIVE: Transgender Fugitive Who Spurred Wi Spa Riots Bares All: Darren Merager, the just-arrested Angeleno who launched a firestorm from a women’s locker room, spoke with LAMag while on the lam. Los Angeles Magazine, https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/exclusive-transgender-fugitive-who-spurred-wi-spa-riots-bares-all/, 19 December 2022. Rorybowman ( talk) 21:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Currently, the suspect, Darren Merager, is referenced in the article using they/them1 and she/her2 pronouns. If he/him is used then I have missed it. Merager reportedly told a Los Angeles magazine reporter "he/him and she/her pronouns are just fine but [Merager] loathes they/them".
Unless, Merager has later contradicted himself or disputed the accuracy of this reporting elsewhere then the article should not use they/them to refer to Merager except when directly quoting reliable sources. Furthermore, since, according to the LA magazine interview:
Therefore, I propose that the article be edited to consistently use he/him to refer to Darren Merager. This proposal conforms to MOS:GENDERID as I understand it. I want to stress that I don't consider any one of the six factors listed above to be dispositive in terms of deciding which pronouns to use in the article but that taken altogether they weigh strongly in favor of the consistent use of he/him.
Notes:
1
For example, "On December 19, 2022, Los Angeles Magazine published an interview with the suspect in which they repudiate the hoax notion ..." (emphasis added).
2
For example "The suspect also said that they used the women's section of the spa facilities and were in the hot tub when she encountered Cubana Angel ..." (emphasis added).
Mox La Push (
talk) 06:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
On January 26, 2023, I added the suspect's name to the article ( diff). My edits were reverted by an editor citing WP:ACCUSED. I restored the edits, pointing out that "WP:ACCUSED does not prohibit using a suspect's name". My revert was then rolled back by another editor citing WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPRESTORE. Therefore, I am now raising the matter here.
The suspect's name has been known publicly since 2021 and appears in reliable sources already cited in this article including, but not necessarily limited to, The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times, and The Los Angeles Blade. I am aware of no policy that categorically prohibits the mere naming of a criminal suspect.
On the contrary, it seems to me that naming criminal suspects is routine in the case of articles about alleged criminal controversies or incidents. For example, the five police officers charged in the death of Tyre Nichols were not public figures until the media (and Wikipedia) published their names in short order. Likewise, the civilian suspect is named in the lede of the article on the 2022 death of Michelle Go. What is the basis for treating the suspect, Darren Merager, differently in this article? - Mox La Push ( talk) 04:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
CharredShorthand.
talk
;
04:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, 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.(emphasis from original text).
This seemed like an absolutely glaring omission from the article - multiple witnesses testified that the individual in question displayed a visible erection for "30 to 60 minutes" before the complaint was made. Although this has obviously been disputed by their attorney in court, media reports cited that testimony as being the main reason given by the judge why the indecent exposure case could proceed, so it's hard to argue that it isn't critically important. HistoryFightFan ( talk) 08:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)