Talk:Jack Teixeira

April 28 removal
I object to this removal. Nothing in BLP policy directs against content like this, which is appropriately phrased (uncertain or contested statements are attributed in text); appropriate weight (significant aspect of subject's notability), and properly sourced. WP:BLPREMOVE was linked in the edit summary (without any explanation whatsoever), but that section deals with "contentious material" that is "unsourced or poorly sourced"; "self-published"; or an "original interpretation or analysis of a source."

Neither is true here. That the subject was denied a firearms license, and was suspended from school for making threats, are statements of fact, not contested claims. The sources state these facts in their own voice. Moreover, other statements (the ones that may be contentious, and are qualified in sources with "alleged," "according to prosecutors," etc.) are appropriately attributed and cited to strong sources (e.g., Associated Press, Wall Street Journal, or New York Times, and Boston Globe).

This material was written cautiously and dispassionately, and I object to this blithe removal. It also directly counters BLP: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative...." Neutralitytalk 19:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with Neutrality that the additions were cautious and thoughtful.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising it as discussion point. I agree with you @Neutrality. CT55555 (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Neutrality: Court records are not RS, and the fact that reliable sources are parroting them does not change the fact that this is contentious gossip. WP:BLPPRIMARY prohibits their use to support assertions about living people. RAN1 (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate your caution, but from my view, the information is not cited directly to the court records (which previously was an issue before we had a news source directly stating his year of birth), and I think WP:BLPGOSSIP is more applicable to content sourced from e.g. high school classmates and anonymous Discord users, or speculation from political figures. I initially added some basic content about the filings in advance of the April 27 detention hearing because it was widely reported and appears relevant. As Neutrality added further detail, I made some small edits, , ,  based on WP:BLPCRIME and references, to be a little more specific about allegations and the attribution for some of the information. While some further copyediting may be helpful as editing continues to maintain WP:BLPSTYLE, I think based on the presentation of the content and its relevance to a disinterested article about the subject (widely reported developments in a high-profile criminal case), inclusion is supported. Beccaynr (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLPPRIMARY: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. I think that includes reliable sources saying "according to court records". RAN1 (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a bizarre way to interpret that; it is totally unmoored from both consistent practice on Wikipedia and the text of the policy. Obviously, we can (and often must) use reliable secondary sources that cite or report upon primary sources. The section you cite is about primary accounts, not secondary sources. In fact, the section you cite says that even primary sources may be used "where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, ... to augment the secondary source." I also take issue with your unfair characterization of in-depth, widely reported journalistic reporting as "parroting court documents" and "gossip." This isn't Cosmopolitan or People magazine, or anonymous accounts from middle-school classmates. And, again, much of this content (such as the fact of his suspension, or the fact that he obtained a firearms license after initially being denied one, are not "assertions," they are uncontested fact). Neutralitytalk 21:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that this news reporting is more than parroting (or linking, which is a variation we previously discussed above), including because there is secondary context that creates support for the encyclopedic value of the content. Beccaynr (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I've brought this up at WP:BLPN. RAN1 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I commented at the BLPN discussion about my recent edits that condense and move content, and per WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:BLPCRIME, I think a serious encyclopedic need should be established for the inclusion of additional details. While the BLPN discussion is open, it is probably best to continue discussion there. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2023
Should we add dates for short description per WP:SDDATES? 112.204.206.165 (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems good to me; added it. – Iago Qnsi (User talk:IagoQnsi) 06:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

"Ex-airman"
The article suggests he is an airman, but BBC reported that he is a former airman. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66111469

Should we update the article to reflect the BBC's reporting? (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

"chat group" -> "server"
Just taking a look at some of the text, would it make more sense to replace "chat group" with "server", as that is what it actually was? I feel like "chat group" could be confused with a chatgroup, another one of Discord's features. B3251 (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree, this makes sense. WP:BOLDly edited the page myself: I also replaced one mention of "chat group" with the actual name of the server to avoid repetition/confusion - if anyone objects to this feel free to undo that change. Thanks. GnocchiFan (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)