Talk:Richardson family murders

Adding daughter's name, as she is now over 18
Her name always should have been included, since it's already available public knowledge. All of the arguments saying that people don't have a right to know her name were irrelevant. People don't have a right to know anything, like the biography of Tycho Brahe for example... and yet it exists on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge. The argument against including her name is reminiscent of the argument against using a photograph of Kim Jong Un. It's a bizarre black-and-white, obsessive interpretation of the letter instead of the spirit of the law which deeply damages Wikipedia. Nevertheless... all of the previous arguments are moot, since the daughter is now a legal adult. I have added her name - please comment if any of my edits are awkward of you disagree with the adding of her name. Thank you.

Bzzzing (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether she is now a legal adult or not is irrelevant. Unless she gives permission for publication it is still against Canadian law to publish her name, and Wikipedia generally follows such restrictions. Per WP:BLPNAME 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. She is clearly identifies as the daughter of the family, so there is is no loss of context in withholding her name. Consensus on this article is clear that her name will not be published, and her name has been revdel'ed repeatedly. I have redacted her name from this thread and I will remove it from the article. Meters (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

,
 * I've read through this talk page fairly thoroughly... and the consensus actually is that her name should be added. I think you should re-read this page.  What you remove, I will re-add.  Bzzzing (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It has also been removed under an OTRS ticket. You are not allowed to just reinsert something that has been removed under WP:OTRS. If you want to contest the OTRS removal then follow the instructions on the linked page. Meters (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * But, as as had already been said, OTRS tickets are not authoritative in any way. I quote, "OTRS agents are not above English Wikipedia policies and do not have any specific editorial control." A request by the Canadian Government to remove the information, which is probably what's in that ticket, possibly mixed with some other remarks or legal threats, has no effect on us, as we exist under US law. So, with all due respect, what Meters has said is demonstrably incorrect. There is no such thing as an "OTRS removal". The closest analogy would be an office action, which can only be carried out by individuals vested with the authority of the WMF. Absent that, the matter is subject to the process of community consensus just like anything else.


 * With that in mind, I would like to ask the administrators who have been monitoring this page to please avoid overusing the revision deletion system. WP:RD2 says that "mere factual statements" are not supposed to be subject to revdel, and I find it hard to believe that a mere name counts as "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material." I fear such actions create a chilling effect on discussion, and on our ability to have a frank discussion on this matter. WP:BLPNAME clearly states that the choice of whether to include a name in an article, assuming it can be reliably sourced, is subject to the consideration and editorial discretion of the community, as opposed to being a hard-and-fast rule.


 * Not having access to the deleted revisions, I cannot know whether they were properly sourced as per the usual policies, so I will go ahead and try to compile such references as I think would be needed. If finding those sources proves trivial, I think it would strongly undermine the case for omitting the information, especially given the passage of time, even if Canadian law does not see eye-to-eye on the subject. If I do add those sources and the name they support, I would kindly request for the administrators not to use revdel to express disagreement, unless someone can point to a documented office action they can claim to be enforcing.--Ipatrol (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Undone. If you want to challenge the OTRS removal, according to an edit by User:Ronhjones at 22:21, February 27, 2014‎ it was removed under OTRS:2014022710014548. I can't give a diff because of revdels. It seems clear to me by the number of removals and the number of revdels that there is indeed consensus not to include this material. Unless the OTRS action is successfully challenged and a new consensus is reached the material should stay out.
 * User:Seraphimblade had intended to start an RFC on the inclusion of this material   but I don't believe it ever happened. Meters (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , first off, you stated something that's false. OTRS has no special authority; none at all, which it even states at WP:OTRS: "OTRS agents are not above English Wikipedia policies and do not have any specific editorial control." OTRS volunteers can still edit, of course, but they do so as regular editors without any authority, and marking an edit as "OTRS" does not privilege it against reversion or further editing in any way. The only thing that is privileged in that way is an office action, and no actions of that type have been done on this article. That being said, yes, I think we do need an RfC if we still find the matter in serious dispute. Canadian law is not any more relevant to what we may publish than Iranian or Chinese law; WMF isn't subject to it (though I would advise Canadians against making the edit, for obvious reasons). I am still readily able to find the name through a ton of reliable sources. It's not private, and it's not illegal for WMF to publish it under any laws having jurisdiction, so I see no reason whatever that it shouldn't be in the article. At this time, however, three editors have disagreed with your reversion, and it looks like thus far only you in support, so hopefully we can come to agreement without needing a formal RfC. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant whether the information is available. BLP, OTRS, and consensus have been cited as reasons for removal, but it was never removed because it couldn't be sourced (as far as I can remember). It's also not a question of it being illegal for WMF to host the information. Multiple editors have removed the content from the article and the talk page, and multiple admins have rev del'ed the information from the article and the talkpage. That looks like consensus to me. As I said before, I don't know what was in the OTRS ticket. User:Bearcat said three years ago in Talk:Richardson_family_murders that we have no way to override the OTRS decision to remove this material. You disagreed and said that you would start an RFC, which you never did. If you want to attempt to establish a consensus to include this material please start an RFC, but I think the OTRS issue will still have to be dealt with. Meters (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

What OTRS issue, and dealt with how? I really am not sure what you would mean by that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no "OTRS issue". As has been said before, communications by OTRS are not binding on us. The only thing they could possibly affect is if they contain private information that has some good reason to affect the disposition of the article. I believe that, on a preponderance of evidence, there is nothing in that OTRS that could affect our decision here even if we were to be privy to its contents. We are not subject to Canadian law, and the United States does not recognize a right to privacy for minors convicted of a crime. Therefore, any request to remove the content by their government should be ignored. Continuing to bring it up in this conversation could be interpreted as a legal threat against fellow editors and the Foundation, and should not be made within the space of the project.


 * You said that you do not recall the name ever being cited. I brought three citations, at least one of them quite reliable, to support the fact. Therefore, it is not appropriate to reference previous consensus as if it were binding, as the circumstances have now changed. I do not think a full-blown RfC is required on this matter, unless you wish to change our policies on the subject.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since no other objections are present, I think it's time to start correcting the rest of the article from the bowdlerized text. Please object shortly if you object to doing so and indicate why. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I clearly objected,and I'm still waiting for you to address my concerns. Perhaps you could reread my comments and actually address what I said instead of misinterpreting everything. I did not say that it had never been cited. I said the exact opposite, that it was never removed because it couldn't be sourced (as far as I can remember). I also did not say that it was illegal for Wikipedia to host this content .Again, I said the exact opposite, that It's also not a question of it being illegal for WMF to host the Threatening me with a WP:NLT violation is complete garbage.
 * So, three years after it was removed under OTRS and you said you would hold an RFC on this you have not done so. The OTRS issue does not disappear  because you refuse to recognize it. WP:OTRS requests that you contact the OTRS editor responsible prior to reverting. Did you or user:Ipatrol  do so? It goes on to say that you may use the normal dispute resolution process. Did either of you do so? You may also contact the OTRS editor directly. Did either of you do so? And finally, If you disagree with the resulting view and would like a second opinion it says you may:
 * Contact another OTRS agent
 * Leave a note on the OTRS noticeboard
 * Contact an OTRS administrator directly
 * Did either of you follow any of those options? Meters (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTRS does not require those things. I already quoted the portion of OTRS policy that states that OTRS edits are not privileged in any way. What further clarification is required? Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We are not required to contact the editor who made a prior change to an article before we make new edits, barring the 3RR and such. OTRS is not an exception to that. What we're doing is something that should have been done a long time ago, and has nothing to do with Jasmine turning 18. I made the edit because I happened to check my watchlist after a long spell of absence and noticed this article and what had been done to it. OTRS should not be used as a veil for imposing decisions by fiat that are in contradiction to the goals of the project.--Ipatrol (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think OTRS is being improperly used to remove this material then it is up to you to contact the OTRS agent responsible, use dispute resolution, or to challenge the OTRS ruling. Since neither of you has done this I have contacted the OTRS agent and asked if he can comment to get this started.
 * As for whether her name should be included, as I previously said, "Per WP:BLPNAME 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. She is clearly identifie s d as the daughter of the family, so there is is no loss of context in withholding her name." Meters (talk) 07:37, 25 lNovember 2017 (UTC)

Alright, let's try again. We don't need to talk to OTRS at all. OTRS edits are not privileged. An OTRS volunteer making an edit is no different, in any way whatsoever, from you or me making it. It is a complete nonissue. Please drop it.

So far as substance, the name has not been withheld and is widely disseminated in highly reliable sources, many of which we use in the article, so BLPNAME is not applicable by the very portion you quoted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment--We, as OTRS agents have no special authority to supercede t/p discussions and gen. consensus of the broader editorial community.The inclusion/exclusion shall be solely decided upon our BLP policy and subject to the sequence of our usual dispute-resolution ladder.The contents of the ticket can be used as a leverage, iff any RFC is launched and the outcome is NC wherein the info can be choosen to be excluded out of courtesy.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 13:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of boyfriend incorrect
A minor cannot consent and therefore cannot have a consensual relationship with an adult. A non-sexual relationship could be considered grooming a sexual relationship would be rape. The use of boyfriend is completely inappropriate. Despite the possibility that this term may be used in original sources we as a society know better than this. I suggest all references to boyfriend be edited to reflect this unless a direct quote, where quotation marks may be acceptable. Sexismcorrector23 (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Where's the reliable source that they were having sexual relations? Meters (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m not stating that there is a source suggesting sexual relations. If the relationship was not sexual a 12 year old girl would be a grooming victim, not a girlfriend. Sexismcorrector23 (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And where is the reliable source that uses that term? Meters (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2021
Change “The murders were planned and committed by the family's 12-year-old daughter Jasmine Richardson and her 23-year-old boyfriend Jeremy Steinke, now going by the name Jackson May.” to “ The murders were planned and committed by the family's 12-year-old daughter Jasmine Richardson and her 23-year-old molester Jeremy Steinke, referred to as her ‘boyfriend’ now going by the name Jackson May.”

This clarifies that the relationship was non consensual given Richardson’s age, which is 4 years below the age of consent in Canada. 90.249.162.82 (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. See discussion above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Dates don't make sense
Under Legal Outcomes, Daughter, in the 3rd paragraph it says she was released from a 10 year sentence in 2011 but crime didn't occur till 2006. MeredithLB (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)