This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

British crime (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Irish republicanism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Ireland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force Northern Ireland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

It appears that Village Magazine has reported Soldier F’s real name. Whether or not this changes the direction of the archived BLP discussion, I feel like it is worth mentioning. 50.24.63.63 (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it does, thanks for providing the reference. Mztourist (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of a reference was only one part of the discussion at BLPN, there's also WP:BLPNAME. FDW777 (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FDW777 absolutely it was agreed at [[1]] that reference could be made to Colum Eastwood revealing Soldier F's name in Parliament but without actually stating the name. If you hadn't deleted and suppressed everything you could see what I actually wrote. So please reinstate that sentence now. In that same discussion you asked "Where are the secondary references reporting on this story that actually include the name?" in satisfaction of WP:BLPNAME, well there it is, the Village is a reliable source so please reinstate that sentence as well. Mztourist (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPNAME says Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. A single reference doesn't satisfy that, far from it. The detail you asked me to restore that doesn't actually mention the name has previously been removed, by someone else, as unnecessary detail. FDW777 (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated everything but Soldier F's name as that still seems to be the contentious issue here. The Village is a reliable source and as that article notes Soldier F's name is widely disseminated, so in my view WP:BLPNAME is satisfied, but you say that one source is not enough. So tell us how many sources are enough? Mztourist (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC) If you look at this Spectator story: [2] you will see that it states: "Unusually, F’s first name is in the public domain. It is ‘Dave’. It is public because a number of witnesses heard it shouted. One wounded civilian lying on the ground heard the brick of four soldiers calling to each other. ‘I’ve got another one’ shouted one. And then, ‘We’re pulling out, Dave.’". His name is widely known in Northern Ireland as shown by this story: [3] Mztourist (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Spectator and Irish News sources are both avoiding publishing the name. "How many sources are enough?" I think policy requires the number to be high, as the "widely disseminated" needs to be wide enough to counter the "intentionally concealed". I have personal reasons to want us to publish the name, so I'd be satisfied with 2 high profile sources/newspapers of record, but I know my personal satisfaction is not a controlling part of policy. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Spectator is a UK publication so presumably bound by the UK court order, however as noted in their story above, Soldier F's first name of Dave is in the public domain. Irish News is a Belfast newspaper so also bound by the UK court order, the point of that story is that it confirms that Soldier F's name is widely disseminated in Northern Ireland. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is widely disseminated (which it isn't), there's still the "intentionally concealed" part of BLPNAME that hasn't been overcome. FDW777 (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"often preferable". The ongoing concealment of Soldier F's name has been a newsworthy issue in Ireland for a considerable time now. Mztourist (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone in Derry knows his name is Dave/David. This is a well documented fact. As far as his full name being well documented in reliable sources, it seems the Village source is the only source we currently have. I at least feel this means that we shouldn’t be as purge happy over it on talk pages, holes are being made in the discussions because of it. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that the removal in the first place was going against prior instances where parliamentary privilege was used to nullify court orders, where the utterance of suppressed information in Parliament was good enough for inclusion (and, as I should point out again, reporting extracts from Parliament is immune from any and all criminal or civil action). As far as "how many [secondary] sources do we need?" goes: we only needed just the one source for Ryan Giggs, and we only need the one in this case. Sceptre (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the name has been neither widely disseminated nor intentionally concealed, it still remains a WP:BLPNAME violation. FDW777 (talk) 06:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also your legal interpretation is incorrect. Your publication would be under the "extracts" part, so the burden would shift to you to show your publication was correct (since you appear to be subject to the court's jurisdiction). FDW777 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPNAME is meant to head off another Christopher Jefferies-style affair happening on Wikipedia, and I should point out in that case Jefferies' name was included once RSes stated he was arrested for her murder. It should not be used to suppress the name of a former soldier (i.e. not a private individual) accused of a serious crime that was reported in reliable sources where the suppression of the name in itself is a matter of public interest.

In any case, Eastwood was cleared of breaking Parliament's sub judice rules, so at this point it's just a normal anonymity order. I see no reason to deviate from precedent that Hansard in itself was all that was needed, and the secondary source only bolsters my view. Sceptre (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears an RfC might be in order. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Jefferies is doubly irrelevant. His name was widely disseminated, and it was not intentionally concealed as Soldier F's has been for almost 50 years. FDW777 (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if TheresNoTime is not willing to remove their oversight edit(s), we should proceed to an RfC, per discussion in this section and the 'Recent oversight use' section below. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - in wishing to be transparent as possible, I have recently oversighted two revisions from this talk page per OSPOL#2. This is in reference to VRTS ticket # 2021100910000219. Many thanks ~TNT (she/her • talk) 17:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the above was in regards to a redirect. As it stands, mentions of Soldier F's name will be oversighted per WP:BLPNAME, likely until such a time that the individual's name is included "in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized expert" - so far, I count one news outlet. I would strongly recommend omitting the name until multiple reliable sources are reporting it, and at that point open a request for comment ~TNT (she/her • talk) 18:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheresNoTime: I'm rather interested as to how OSPOL2 applies in this case, given that Soldier F admitted to the killings in a public inquiry nearly twenty years ago. Sure, there's a privacy injunction (limited to the UK) that grants him anonymity, but various parts of his identity were already part of the public record even before Eastwood named him in Parliament, and OSPOL2 isn't about privacy, and I don't think it's clear there is "no editorial reason" for its inclusion at all. The alternative is, of course, that this was done under advice of WMF's counsel, but the use of oversight to enforce extraterritorial injunctions would be a stark departure from over a decade of precedent (for example, the article for Trafigura has never not mentioned the waste dumping scandal, despite the infamous superinjunction, and as recent as December 2018, we included information about George Pell's conviction in the "cathedral trial" whilst it was still suppressed in Australia), and the community should've been at least informed of this change.

In any case, that Soldier F's representatives have been incredibly zealous in ensuring the injunction's enforcement isn't beyond doubt – Lumen shows Google removed a lot of links the week Eastwood named him, and I know of several people who have been given Twitter lock-outs for tweeting the video of Eastwood naming him in Parliament – but I'm very concerned about this article making such a change with how we deal with reliably sourced material subject to non-US injunctions... Sceptre (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sceptre: Many thanks for the ping - this was not done on the advice of WMF counsel. This was requested in VRTS ticket # 2021100910000219, and on reviewing the history of this page I found another similar use of oversight by Primefac. This, paired with the very public injunction and the provisions of WP:BLPNAME leads me to believe that the use of oversight is appropriate and required. For the record, I have no opinion in if this should be included or not - if it turns out that it should, I will be more than happy to revert my use of oversight. As I normally do when my use of oversight has been queried, I will raise this for review with the team ~TNT (she/her • talk) 22:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where will you be doing that, and can other editors comment? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OS team have an email list where we discuss private matters such as this. Primefac (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, bear in mind that Soldier F's first name is mentioned here, and of course his full name is given in Hansard, here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Soldier F's identity is firmly in "open knowledge but the UK press are abiding by the injunction" territory. For a similar case, the article on Gylfi Sigurðsson mentions his arrest for child sex offences, despite that information being suppressed in the UK. During the superinjunctions affair, we were pretty firm that as soon as one reliable source not subject to a court injunction mentioned suppressed information — like the Sunday Herald was in the case of Ryan Giggs — then inclusion on Wikipedia was permissible. The Pell and Sigurðsson cases indicates that this precedent still applies.

There still is an argument about the applicability of BLPNAME, mind you, and for what it's worth, as he was a member of the Armed Forces who committed the killings in the course of his duties (by his own admission), I really don't think that he can be considered to be a "private individual". That the suppression of the name in this case is a matter of public interest, to me, also tips the scale in favour of inclusion. Wikipedia is not censored, after all, and if the BLP policy was construed to direct the removal of reliably sourced but unflattering material, then many articles would be worse for wear. Sceptre (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why Soldier F is being given such special treatment in this regard, but I don’t think said special treatment can be denied given the mountain of precedent. Paragon Deku (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What precedent is being claimed? What other person who doesn't have a Wikipedia article whose name hasn't been widely disseminated and has been intentionally concealed has created a precendent? It also takes some serious brass neck to claim Soldier F isn't a private individual, considering his identity has been suppressed for almost 50 years and practically zero information is available about him. He's a poster boy for "private individual". FDW777 (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"poster boy for "private individual""? Please. His identity has been concealed by the British government, but is well-known in Ireland. Mztourist (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as Soldier F was — as I repeat myself — a member of the Armed Forces who committed the killings in the course of his duties, there's a strong argument that he's a poster boy for who can not be considered a private individual. As a point of comparison, consider the case of former Nazi concentration/extermination camp staff: in Germany, these people have the legal right to resozialisierung, which generally includes the (partial) suppression of their identities. The German Wikipedia's policies generally gives latitude to this principle, but even so, dewiki still doesn't suppress the surnames in the case of, say, Bruno Dey (convicted) or Johann Rehbogen (case dropped due to inability to stand trial). Interestingly, our article about the right to be forgotten even names a convicted murderer who won a case before the German constitutional court that he still retains that legal right (but is still identified in reliable sources). Sceptre (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow the British government gridlocking any relevant outlet from reporting on him for decades still hasn’t kept him from being a household name to thousands of people while being mentioned by name in parliament and Irish outlets. Paragon Deku (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His name was published in Hansard, which reports on the British Parliament. If Hansard is not a reliable source, I don't know what is. This was published after the charges against him were abandoned. Whilst the charges were still pending, I could understand not naming him. Now that they've been dropped, I see no reason for Wikipedia to keep the anonymity. It seems a violation of the Wikipedia is not censored policy. Epa101 (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except, as pointed out in an earlier discussion, WP:NOTCENSORED actually says Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons so it's not a way round WP:BLPNAME. FDW777 (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except, WP:BLPNAME doesn't apply - Dave was central to events, and there are multiple secondary references. I think we're into RfC territory, here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except it does if you read it. In particular the part about its publication in secondary sources other than news media, since there is one news reference and nothing else except Hansard which isn't secondary. FDW777 (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Hansard a primary source? I'm so sure on that. It's not a personal opinion. It's a third party taking down what others say. It seems akin to a newspaper to me, albeit a particularly accurate one. I also don't see how it violates BLP now that charges have been dropped. If we take other cases of media black-outs on a name (e.g. Ryan Giggs and his super-injunction over his affair), has BLP been applied in the same way there? Epa101 (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure on that*. Sorry, when you're on a phone, it's hard to correct your mistakes like that. Epa101 (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Hansard, it's most definitely primary. FDW777 (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also per yesterday's news the decision to drop charges has been quashed by the High Court, not that a discontinued case affects policy application in the first place. FDW777 (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, "This article is part of the Serial Killer Task Force, a work group of WikiProject Crime. It is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on serial killers, mass murders, spree killers and related topics on Wikipedia." The so-called "task force" appears to have arbitrarily decided that any killing of two or more people can warrant inclusion in their "task force" (why single killings aren't worthy of a "task force" dedicated to them is unclear). I am strongly of the opinion that the "Serial Killer" "task force" should stick to dealing with serial killers, and that inclusion of Troubles-related articles, including this one and, e.g., Omagh bombing, is problematic, to say the least. I therefore propose removal, unless consensus decides otherwise. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed per discussion here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is clearly contradicted by the preceding section. In addition the BBC reference cited as a source has been corrected to reflect the Saville enquiry conclusion that John Johnson's subsequent death, from a brain tumour, was "not the result of any of the wounds he sustained on Bloody Sunday." JF42 (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is contradictory in the preceding section? By all means, update the article to reflect the updated BBC article; just be sure to include, per the CAIN and BBC references, that his family maintain that his death was the result of head injuries received on the day. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Contradicted' not contradictory. The previous section is cautious in stating John Johnson's later death was 'attributed' to his wound. The next section states this as unequivocal fact, which is then contradicted by the cited source. JF42 (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]