This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Enforcement Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Washington Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Is that really the right way to be referring to the suspects? My reading of the policy suggests that their chosen names/gender identity should be used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Gender_identity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:1E7C:B810:CC6F:2CB2:C10:5DA6 (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now edited to refer to Ophelia Bauckholt by her chosen name and pronouns. Some secondhand claims online suggest that Teresa at one point went by Milo but no longer does so (such that the current usage in the article reflects MOS:GIDINFO), but I don't know of any reliable sources that express an opinion one way or the other on the matter (as opposed to Ophelia's case, where we do have confirmation). RavenclawPrefect (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

zizians.info suggests that all four people arrested as well as Ziz themselves are transsexual and that the cult actively targets transsexual people for recruitment. Jpatokal (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

zizians.info is referring to an incident in 2019. It doesn't mention Youngblut, Bauckholt or Snyder at all and contains no information on recent events.

https://www.sonomanews.com/article/news/authorities-id-four-arrested-in-westminster-woods-protest/ Patternbuffered (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Also killed in the shootout was Ophelia Bauckholt, a German national who Border Patrol agents mistakenly thought was in the country illegally. Bauckholt was transfeminine, and federal authorities have been using Bauckholt's male birth name in court documents. Federal officials in a court filing also acknowledged that Bauckholt used the name Ophelia." https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/02/06/grand-jury-indicts-woman-accused-in-vermont-border-patrol-shooting/78300819007/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:c0:df1e:7b00:d555:576a:f0a4:b982 (talk • contribs)

i'm more puzzled over the deadnaming of lasota...who wasn't even involved in this!

does she still go by "jack", even as a trans female?! 2601:18A:807C:1C40:5592:F4A4:D077:2010 (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably she goes by Ziz. It is tricky, though, because as the zizians.info website says, members of this group tend to view each hemisphere of the brain as a separate person, and thus they can and do sometimes use a different name for each one (and possibly a third name for the combination of the two). The two hemispheres can be different genders, too.

There really isn’t a precedent on Wikipedia for how to refer to people who self-identify as multiple, whether due to a quasi-religious belief system (in this case) or due to dissociative identity disorder. If Ziz really didn’t want anyone ever using the name Jack, she could presumably have had it legally changed at some point. But she never did.

In any case, I don’t think the courts would ever allow someone to legally register themself as two different people with different names, though. Just because the Zizians hold this belief, mainstream US society doesn’t and probably never will. After all, it could be easily exploited to avoid the law (“it’s not fair if you put both our hemispheres in jail, since only our left hemisphere was involved in committing this crime”)! 174.229.180.132 (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh, yeah, "ziz". i sort of brushed that aside as the "cult leader" name.

just wondering if there was some "trans-female" name (e.g. cathy, jane, mary...) before/aside from founding the cult. article implies that her POST-transition name is/was "jack". 2601:18A:807C:1C40:61AD:7B8E:DB2A:B686 (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign citizens regularly attempt to use this multiple persona approach legally with uniform failure, as far as I am aware. There have been a few isolated successes with using dissociative identity disorder as a legal defence, though as an insanity plea, rather than blaming the "other" occupant. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

If Ziz really didn’t want anyone ever using the name Jack, she could presumably have had it legally changed at some point. But she never did.

Changing your legal name outside of marriage can be a lengthy and expensive process. There's a good reason why MOS:DEADNAME says to use the name that the subject prefers, even if they haven't had their name legally changed. In this case, it seems clear that the name Lasota prefers is Ziz, and she didn't become notable until after she began using it. Given that this is a BLP issue, I don't think we should include her deadname unless there's overwhelming consensus to do so. – MW_(t•c) 17:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from MOS:DEADNAME: If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), the former name should not be included in any page [snip], even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Polygnotus (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently named after a single killing, but the investigation has now been expanded to at least four killings with at least two alleged perpetrators, all tied to the Zizian movement. It's going to be tricky to come up with an accurate yet NPOV name. Jpatokal (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the easiest solution is just wait to see what major sources write about these killings, assuming they are all indeed related, and see what name they use. The lead mentions Lind and the Zajkos, but the article currently focuses on and is named after Maland. If somebody wants to write an article about the killing of Lind or the Zajkos, that can be a separate article with it's own title, and when there's a concrete connection established in a reputable source, those articles can be merged into one, and by then there may be a suitable name for that article. Truthnope (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe new information is coming out that links these murders together. I came across an Associated Press article last night that corroborated some of the events: https://apnews.com/article/vermont-border-patrol-shooting-youngblut-lasota-zizians-6541ebcefc2806efd105d7db99a24aaf

Let me know if this helps!

Middle Mac CJM (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring the article along the lines of Manson Family should work. "Zizian movement", perhaps? Jpatokal (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They called themselves the Zizians (and so do the sources) so lets just use that.

https://apnews.com/article/vermont-border-patrol-shooting-youngblut-lasota-zizians-c37e931e1d4c8cbbe31dbf438684f4a4

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/15/zizian-group-killings

https://apnews.com/article/vermont-border-patrol-shooting-youngblut-lasota-zizians-6541ebcefc2806efd105d7db99a24aaf

I don't think it is or was a movement. Polygnotus (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support it makes sense to refocus around the movement, similar to the Manson Family article.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all support a rename, now we just gotta figure out what name is best. Polygnotus (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would renaming it not have some sort of BLP issue because we’re tying it further to living people not convicted of crimes? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that problem is everywhere on Wikipedia. For example, on the article about a soccer team we mention the awful things hooligans do, including murder. Polygnotus (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about just Zizian group?

Re: BLP concerns, we can describe the Zizian group's origin and beliefs, then note that many of its members have been charged with various crimes. Jpatokal (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well it’s named after one of them and they really haven’t done anything but crimes. At least the perpetrator of this specific one is dead. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to rename it after the group (I have concerns over BLP issues) it should be Zizians. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't rename this article. I would leave it about Maland's murder and create a separate article about the Zizian cult. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know a motive for shooting at Maland? This says Multiple uniformed Border Patrol Agents were present at the stop in three USBP vehicles with emergency lights illuminated so I don't see what they were hoping to gain by shooting at Maland. Polygnotus (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like they were hoping to gain anything. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a very weird part of the story? For a criminal it might make sense to shoot a cop so they can get away, but if I understand the story correctly there was zero chance of escape (2015 Toyota Prius on an interstate vs 3 USBP vehicles with near-infinite backup). Getaway cars usually don't have great fuel efficiency. Of course I understand that not all decisions are taken rationally. I haven't been able to find any motive in the sources so far. Polygnotus (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per zizians.info, part of the group's ideology involves maximum escalation in any conflict. Rational(istical)ly, if you're convinced by the correctness and vital importance of your end goal, any means are justified. Jpatokal (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I am convinced by the correctness and vital importance of my personal goals, but there are many means that are not justified or justifiable. If a reliable source reports on this it may be worth including in the article. Thanks. Polygnotus (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the same website, "Zizians do not think it is ever valid to surrender. The reasoning goes that if someone is trying to extract a surrender from you, giving in is choosing a strategy that gets coerced into surrender. If you fight bitterly you prevent the coercion in the first place by making it too costly to fight you" Trumpetrep (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they proved that that was a bad idea. Polygnotus (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Links to these claims, please. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Links to which claims? zizians.info was already mentioned above, which is where the quotes are from. Polygnotus (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Links for the Zizians:

• Sinceriously - Jack LaSota's blog, which seems to be the hub of the cult. It went dark in 2023. The url was bought and briefly used as spam.
• Zizians.info - A website warning people away from the Zizian cult.

It seems this was a very small group of people doing really cruel things to anyone who prevented them from doing what they wanted. The cult itself doesn't seem organized enough to merit an article. Their crime spree does.Trumpetrep (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we have an article about their crime spree then the best article title would be "Zizians" right? And if we do, then we don't need a separate article for David Maland. So I think it would be best to rename this article to "Zizians" and then shift its focus. Polygnotus (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so. The Maland murder is significant enough for an article of its own, in my view. See for examples of similar articles. Sometimes these crimes are high-profile enough or have enough material to merit their own article.

This article's problem now is that it has sprawled well beyond Maland's death. I don't think there's a single correct approach. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a single correct approach. Wikipedia's new motto! Polygnotus (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the Zizians were being kept under the eye of the FBI’s watch list for a while, long before this article was made. And the cult is tied to at least five other murders, including David Maland. For example, they killed an elderly couple under horrible circumstances in Delaware County, PA back in 2022. What is pretty clear is the pattern of their victims; white, straight (or cis) men or women at any age and are possibly Border Patrol agents and/or hold conservative values, Anthonysici27 (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should add the pattern is alleged before someone yells at me. Anthonysici27 (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see anything here about the victims' political beliefs or "values"? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonysici27, looking through your Contribution history, I don't see any instance where you have ever provided a source for any of the claims you make on article talk pages. Could you start doing this? It's what makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia and not a discussion forum. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all. I noticed this article has been placed under the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, and was wondering why. I see the article mentions that "Zizians hold anarchist beliefs", as cited to AP News, but it doesn't seem to go into much depth about this. The AP News source doesn't elaborate on what these "anarchist beliefs" were and I can't find any other sources going into this; from what I've seen, this cult is very closely associated with rationalism and militant veganism more so than anarchism. If anyone can provide more in-depth sourcing on this claim, I'd be interested to take a look at it. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only other detail I could find from the AP is

LaSota began promoting an extreme mix of rationalism, ethical veganism, anarchism and other value systems, said Jessica Taylor, an AI researcher who met LaSota both in person and online through the rationalist community and knew her as Ziz.

From The Independent:

What links these cases, according to prosecutors, public evidence, interviews, and media reports, is a small group of ideologically radical young people — most of whom are trans or non-binary — who appear to follow a left-wing anarchist offshoot of rationalist philosophy. ... Ultimately, her creed was anarchist and vegan. ... "There's no organization. There's no centralization. We're just a bunch of anarchist trans leftists that are trying to exist in current year in this world," said self-declared Zizian Octavia Nouzen

From the sources, I don't see a defining connection between anarchism and the killing of David Maland, but there would potentially be a defining link between Zizians (if split to a standalone article) and anarchism. czar 00:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To call Zizian beliefs half-baked would be dressing them up considerably. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Background section, Zizians are referred to as "a radical offshoot of the rationalist community.", which link leads to the article about the Center for Applied Rationality. Call me old fashioned, but the "rationalist community" used to be exemplified by people who subscribe to The American Rationalist, or members of The Rationalist Association in the UK, aligned with the secular humanist/secularist/skeptic/freethought movements. CFAR itself seems like an offshoot. Better wording would be simply "Zizians are a radical offshoot of the Center for Applied Rationality". Assambrew (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That suggests the Zizians are/were members of CFAR, which is AFAIK is not the case. Jpatokal (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well if they aren't an offshoot of CFAR, in what way are they connected to rationalism at all? Assambrew (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be strongly influenced by LessWrong, notably Roko's basilisk. Jpatokal (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of dancing around the CFAR-MIRI-LessWrong-EA-longtermism circle, should the article just name the person at the center of the circle. Yudkowskyists certainly seems like a better way to refer to this community than rationalists. Eigenbra (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yudkowsky may be a core factor behind the existence of the community but it really spreads far beyond that.

I would say there needs to be a new article on Rationality community (or Rationalist community), about the community which emerged in the 2000s on the internet- I'm amazed that doesn't currently exist, with content instead being scattered around articles like effective altruism, longtermism, LessWrong, Eliezer Yudkowsky, etc. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link has been changed to TESCREAL. I'd note that rationality community is a redirect to LessWrong while rationalist community is nothing. I feel in the absence of a specific article, LessWrong is probably the best link for both since while not all members of the community may be part of that forum and it arguably didn't originate there it seems to be the closest thing we have to an article on the community. Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an article, and pointed the link to it. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 10:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LessWrongism/"Rationalism" is more comparable to the Human Potential Movement/Dianetics/Werner Erhard et al. than rationalism in the classical sense. But we do not have an article on the broad movement. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As reminded at the top of this very page, WP:NOTFORUM. This also goes for Eigenbra. 2A01:E0A:285:4F0:14B2:D99A:3290:FD60 (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying my best to WP:DISENGAGE so would appreciate it if you stop tagging me. Question for the logged-in editors: would it be COI for members of the rationality community to be editing this page? Not sure to be honest, and not looking to get into a new discussion. But if others think it is, might need to put in protections on this article. Eigenbra (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

notforum is irrelevant because we are discussing the fact that the redirect target in question is misleading and does not explain the wider community these people are part of. There is really no article that gives proper context. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalist community already redirect to LessWrong. There is no need for you two to bring up your personal dislike for them in the talk page, call to make up new WP:OR names for them (referring to a living person nonetheless), constantly antagonize other editors over insinuations regarding membership, and leave a trail of poorly-sourced POV edits. 2A01:E0A:285:4F0:14B2:D99A:3290:FD60 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I done that, exactly? And the LessWrong article explicitly differentiates the "rationalist community" from itself (e.g. "In 2013, a significant portion of the rationalist community shifted focus to Scott Alexander's Slate Star Codex.") and doesn't give context as to what the "rationalist community" actually is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sentence fragment and should be joined to another sentence with a comma: "Described as a "death cult" and fringe group by SFGate." 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:DCF2:CDF7:FC1F:D3F (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, user Eigenbra fixed it. Polygnotus (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dug up the high-res version and uploaded it, available at File:Agent David Maland with service dog.jpg. The metadata of that image states the picture was taken in 2022. Would it be acceptable to date the picture, or do we require a third party to figure the same thing out before we remove 'undated'? JayCubby 02:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to replace the current photo with one cropped closer to Maland's face, since the dog isn't relevant to this page and the current photo takes up a lot of vertical space, especially on mobile. That was immediately reverted, though. Apocheir (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Apocheir, that's a fair point. I thought that the dog (dog pictures are always a plus) reminded the reader he was a Border Patrol agent more than a cropped headshot. JayCubby 03:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally pro-dog, but there are three patches on his uniform that say "BORDER PATROL", and they're more noticeable in the close-up. Apocheir (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about a spurt of recent edits and reversion by editor MatriceJacobine. This editor is attempting to introduce a lot of self-published sources, authored by the LW community, and injecting the POV of said community into the article. Eigenbra (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI to those not familiar with the jargon here, "LW" seems to refer to the LessWrong blog/forum/website. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? What POV? All of those claims are entirely in line with all other reliable sources. MatriceJacobine (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MatriceJacobine: Yes, they are serious. The POV of the LW community. Would you please be so kind to respond over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#MatriceJacobine? Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provide diffs to support your accusations then. MatriceJacobine (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MatriceJacobine: What accusations? I am not Eigenbra, that is someone else. I am Polygnotus. Polygnotus (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations you yourself just repeated by claiming "they are serious" and talking nonsense about "the POV of the LW community" (who? which claims? nobody knows). But thanks for confirming (Personal attack removed). MatriceJacobine (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

they are serious is not an accusation, it is a neutral description of a fact. And they wrote the POV of said community which refers back to the LW community and me answering your questions does not turn me into the author of those statements. Obviously. But you already knew that. Polygnotus (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And how would you know Eigenbra is being serious if you're not approving and repeating your accusations? MatriceJacobine (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-S7hjniQD8 Polygnotus (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am serious. I commend you for being WP:BOLD, but I think your edits as a whole are making this article less encyclopedic and putting undue weight on incidents and history far removed from the four fatal incidents that make the subject of the article notable. My suspicions of a LW POV stem from your repeatedly inserting claims with citations to rationalist bloggers. Eigenbra (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which "rationalist bloggers"? The secondary sources of all major US newspapers and an independent filmmaker? Or the primary sources of the subjects of the article themselves? MatriceJacobine (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

another e.g. citing a jessi_cata tweet https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zizians&diff=1277805251&oldid=1277804471 Eigenbra (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a primary source cited by a secondary source. MatriceJacobine (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

one more citing LW post https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zizians&diff=1277794540&oldid=1277791219 Eigenbra (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cited by the WIRED article. Do you really need a crash course on primary v. secondary sources and why one need to cite the other? MatriceJacobine (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that primary sources can be used here if a secondary source has cited them somewhere else? That's not how it works, use the secondary source that cited it. Jamedeus (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One is supposed to put both the citing secondary source and the cited primary source if possible. Else there wouldn't be primary sources in the first place. MatriceJacobine (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In both of the diffs linked above you only included a primary source. But in any case, that's not how sources work here. If there's a secondary source referring to a tweet you just need the secondary source. Jamedeus (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point for the LW post (I planned to get to the WIRED article later), but the tweet by Jessica Taylor is quoted in Ken Jones' investigative work. MatriceJacobine (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By Ken Jones' investigative work you mean the google doc that has been repeatedly removed? That's WP:UGC, not a reliable secondary source. Even if it was you didn't cite it in that diff, so you still just have a BLP claim cited to a single tweet. Jamedeus (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did. MatriceJacobine (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, it's unlikely you should ever be citing the Google Docs document. If it cites a reliable secondary source then confirm the RSS supports what you want to add and cite the other source directly. If it cites a primary source or unreliable secondary source then you either need to find a reliable secondary source yourself or leave it out. There's a fair chance a lot in that document cannot be added to our article because it lacks a suitable source. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks like the best way to deal with this is to revert back to a revision before the article got derailed with overly detailed explanations of concepts used by the group. Polygnotus (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I think I agree Eigenbra (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to prove a "LW POV", you would need to give an example of specific claims which are the POV of "LW" and not other observers (who?). Considering how distant from LW the secondary sources are, and how the primary sources are just the primary sources, this border on conspiracy thinking. MatriceJacobine (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The history should be at the top right? And the beliefs and members below that, not necessarily in that order. Polygnotus (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This source may not have any info not already present in this article, but I thought I'd put this here since it isn't already in the article as a source. https://www.wsj.com/us-news/zizians-group-jack-lasota-killings-6f3aa40a ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe other editors can offer their opinions on the order of subjects that this article covers. I put the "Associated murders" section first because that is what this "group" of people is known for, and is covered in MULTIPLE sources. So far only a very few sources talk about their beliefs, and go into detail about their history. So, per WP:DUE, we should spend most article text covering the subject as the sources do. Had these murders not occurred, no one would be talking about this group. A more appropriate title for this article might be "Zizian group murders" ---Avatar317^(talk) 07:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE is about giving proportionate representation to different viewpoints, as a corollary of WP:NPOV, not completely breaking the normal encyclopedic order of an article because you heard about one part of it first wtf. Pretty much every article on this website about any individual or organization tell its history from beginning to end, not from most notable to least notable. MatriceJacobine (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The order seems like a MOS question and per MOS:SNO the only real guideline is to follow the precedent in similar articles. I'm inclined to agree with putting history first based on other recent fringe movements (NXIVM, Rajneesh movement, The Satanic Temple, Love Has Won, Peoples Temple). The lead should focus on the source of notability (the murders) but I think a (reasonable length) history section after that could make this easier to follow for readers who aren't familiar with all the individuals.

Separately, I do agree that the current article gives WP:UNDUE weight to the history section and past versions have given undue weight to other alleged members of the group. The detail and length of text should be proportional to coverage in reliable sources, so things like the rationalist fleet really don't need more than a paragraph at most, and I'm not convinced alternate names like "Good Group" need to be mentioned at all (maybe a brief mention of alternate names, but not in the lead). The length of the beliefs section seems about right IF more sources can be added, otherwise I think it should be edited down too. Jamedeus (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, do we cover it like that usually? With these group actions the whole background is going to be the group. How do similar articles treat it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most seem to be group first. E.g. Manson Family not Manson family murders, Heaven's Gate (religious group) not Heaven's gate suicides. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if it's an article on the group, we should start with background on the group before we go into what members did or allegedly did. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article just starts talking about this person with no explanation who they are or their full name. 50.82.93.206 (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP Editor, Youngblut is Teresa Youngblut. I have fixed it so she is mentioned (first name and last name) at the start. The information for her is at the bottom. Sorry for any confusion! This page has had a lot of edits, so things may not be as refined. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 02:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

| Beliefs seem to be deemphasized compared to older revisions The current article seems to give the impression this is a band of murderers before prosecutors have given a theory of the case as to their motives.

It might be worth reviewing the changes to the article over time and seeing what was in old edits that may still be relevant to the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zizians&oldid=1277827835
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zizians&oldid=1277341728
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zizians&oldid=1277939507
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zizians&oldid=1278048984
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zizians&oldid=1277861384
47.157.95.50 (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC) 47.157.95.50 (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Note that reliable sources also don't bother to go into detail on their belief system. The reason of their notability is the murders, and we got plenty of sources about those, not their belief system. A notable murderer is not necessarily also a notable philosopher and vice versa. No one outside their circle paid any attention to their ideas until they started killing. Polygnotus (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is that how Wikipedia works for you? This seems to be a group of people founded on an idea, that is also suspected of murdering others. You haven't been paying attention to my argument, which does say they have only been charged with crimes at this point of time. As for notability being imposed by pop culture awareness, that's just, what? Maybe you'd rather the article be renamed to Zizian crimes? Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Illegal_conduct I'd say you're uninformed about Wikipedia policy, please consult notability rules before speaking again on the matter. 47.157.95.50 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You remind me of someone else. Polygnotus (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't respond to me again, you're obviously acting in bad faith and are deliberately ignoring any points I make repeatedly. 47.157.95.50 (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know: Polygnotus is talking behind your back to an admin (The Bushranger) about the accusations they are insinuating here. They have also deleted their own identical yet separate accusations. I'm inclined to agree that they are WP:NOTHERE. 79.95.87.37 (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with me. Polygnotus (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do know that continuously making those snide insults toward anyone disagreeing with your stance of keeping the statu quo (regardless of whether they're more inclusionist than you or more deletionist than you), without participating at any point in the relevant discussion except to insult someone (and quickly remove that insult once it's done its effect), won't do your case any favor. 79.95.87.37 (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather novel theory of notability. Murders famously require a means, a motive and an opportunity, and the bizarre motive (read: their philosophy) is a large part of why the alleged crimes of the Zizians have drawn so much attention. As an example, NXIVM has a lengthy section on their "Beliefs and Practices". Jpatokal (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Some discussion of Zizian beliefs (e.g. anarchotranshumanism, veganism, timeless decision theory, AGI risk, and their grievances against the rationality community establishment) is warranted. Of course, any such discussion should be based on RS, not UGC, should be limited to the due weight reflected in such sources, and avoid the tone and terminology of a LW post (rat-speak). Eigenbra (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, who is LW? WP:LW doesn't seem to lead to anything relevant here. Is this a group member that isn't mentioned in the article? And what do this have to do with rodents? (I hope this isn't a dehumanizing reference to anyone?)

Okay, I'm tired, you meant "LessWrong" and "rationalist-speak". In which case, it is the case that the suspects come from that community, and most of the critics of the suspects used as primary sources by (secondary) WP:RS for describing their ideology are also from that community. Obviously the article should maintain WP:NPOV and not support the beliefs of the group, but it is to be expected that (pending moving back to "Death of David Maland", as I suggested below in case making an encyclopedic article about the group is untractable) it would explain the terminology in their own terms, as is standard when describing WP:FRINGE (Jpatokal mentioned NXIVM, 47.157.95.50 mentioned Symbionese Liberation Army). You could try to specifically look for mainstream analytic philosophers talking about and criticizing their beliefs if there are any, but I suspect that would be WP:UNDUE? (as of the current coverage of the article's subject matter at least) 79.95.87.37 (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NXIVM had a whole cult procedure and process, with documented rituals, (the branding) etc. I have seen no sources talking about this group having those, or even any sources saying that this was a cohesive GROUP at all with individuals specifically "in" or "out" of the group. The sources all talk of "people associated with LaSota".

Philosophy: so far, the murders they are accused of don't correlate with their philosophies. Their actions seem more like a "lash out at those who they have issues with".

So unless MULTIPLE sources start giving DEPTH to the mentions of their philosophies, I don't think they deserve more than a mere mention here. (The only source I've seen that deep-dives into this is Wired, but they have an audience that would likely be interested in reading that type of stuff.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confused about wiki policy regarding sources. Multiple sources are required to establish the notability of a subject, not for including any given information about a subject already notable. There being a lot of small-scale sources talking about the crimes, and then a few more in-depth sources talking about the alleged motivations for them, is, frankly, expected in such a situation. Speaking of which, your deletionism regarding this information is a stark contrast considering your nonchalance regarding WP:NPOV and WP:BLPCRIME in the discussion below. I don't know which attitude is the best to follow between 1/ considering the group is notable, and making an article about the group while remarking they have been accused of crimes, or 2/ considering the group is not notable, and making an article about the crimes while remarking that the prosecution's theory is to attribute it to a group (though I do lean toward the latter), but the statu quo of the page as is is in-between in a way that is clearly unencyclopedic. 79.95.87.37 (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, I don't think this is accurate at all. I knew nothing about any of this before January 20th, but I've been following coverage since. Nearly every major article by a reputable source I've seen since early February clearly considers their "belief system" notable and indeed often implies as much in the headline, before going into more detail in the text. Some examples below.

I don't see how you can have a Wikipedia article about the Zizians that doesn't say what the Zizians are about. Just my two cents.

Rolling Stone

February 25, 2025

6 deaths, 3 states and the radical breakaway ‘rationalists’ at the center of the nightmare

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ziz-silicon-valley-rationalist-deaths-1235278765/

Los Angeles Times

February 23, 2025

Vegan computer savants with Bay Area ties linked to deaths across U.S., authorities say

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-02-23/vegan-computer-savant-zizians-linked-to-deaths-across-u-s

Wall Street Journal

February 22, 2025

A Silicon Valley Intellectual Society Kicked Them Out. Now They’re Tied to a Killing Spree.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/zizians-group-jack-lasota-killings-6f3aa40a

Wired

February 21, 2025

The Delirious, Violent, Impossible True Story of the Zizians

https://www.wired.com/story/delirious-violent-impossible-true-story-zizians/

Washington Post

February 18, 2025

Leader of cultlike, violent ‘Zizian’ group arrested in Maryland

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/02/18/zizian-lasota-arrested-maryland/

Baltimore Banner

February 17, 2025

3 members of violent, cultlike Zizian group arrested in Western Maryland

https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/politics-power/national-politics/jack-lasota-zizian-cult-border-patrol-XYT7QCHZV5HEBAFPLLOBFOHZMI/

Associated Press

February 15, 2025

A Vermont border agent’s death was the latest violence linked to the cultlike Zizian group

https://apnews.com/article/vermont-border-patrol-shooting-youngblut-lasota-zizians-6541ebcefc2806efd105d7db99a24aaf

Boston Globe

February 11, 2025

Inside the Zizians, a radical California-based vegan cult now linked to 6 violent deaths

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/02/11/metro/6-violent-deaths-tied-to-radical-vegan-cult-based-in-california/

NBC

February 8, 2025

How did a German math genius get drawn into a 'cult' accused in coast-to-coast killings?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/german-math-genius-get-drawn-cult-accused-coast-coast-killings-rcna189309

San Francisco Chronicle

February 6, 2025

‘Rationalist Fleet’: Before killings linked to fringe group, ‘Ziz’ led fateful tugboat voyage to California

https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/ziz-rationalist-killings-tugboat-20138991.php Patternbuffered (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree there should be at least a paragraph dedicated to their beliefs, last I checked it was one and a half sentences. The Symbionese Liberation Army is a good example of how to treat this topic. 47.157.95.50 (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one said it should not be mentioned at all. And looking at those sources, they indeed do not go in-depth. At least not even close to how in-depth the article was trying to be at some point. So yes, it should be mentioned, but not in excruciating detail. If a carpenter is the alleged son of god we don't focus on the furniture. Polygnotus (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not suggesting excruciating detail, or trying to go where the article was heading before. I think @Jpatokal has the correct take regarding notability, and @Eigenbra has the right overall approach, including that due weight in the article should reflect that given to the subject by reliable sources in their coverage. Seems like a good barometer. Patternbuffered (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We don't have an article on Wolverine Watchmen (a group which was reportedly an offshoot of the Michigan Militia) but there is a large article on Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot.---Avatar317^(talk) 00:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Avatar317 Respectfully, that article is bad. I would much prefer an article on the group as well instead of the bizarre list disjointed from the rest. Would not pass GA in that state. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to mention that this X article has one million views. It seems there is some desire to know about they are about. Zizian Murdercult summary, for those out of the loop 47.157.95.50 (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its name is a WP:BLPCRIME violation. The article is titled after a living person accused but not convicted of a crime, we have a heading titled "Murders", and the vast majority of content is about these killings, when no one has been convicted. At this stage the majority of the content in this article is a BLP violation, and if you removed it there would be nothing less. We are accusing named people of murders that they have not been convicted of. And there's no other content in the article! Short of AfDing the whole article I'm really not sure what we're supposed to be doing here. None of these people are high profile. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If WE are accusing people of murder that means the text needs to be re-written. There are plenty of sources which talk about these people as SUSPECTS, and if we phrase this properly, that's what we should say about them also.

Can you point to anywhere in this article that we DON'T do this? ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Until just now the section heading was murder saying that a murder has been committed. Even now it is related deaths. The entire sections, which name these people at length and tie them to crimes which they have not been convicted of? Per WP:BLPCRIME we assume innocence, which this article is not doing. We probably shouldn't name any of these people except Bauckholt. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say we can't name people?

How is "Prosecutors charged 22-year-old data scientist Maximilian Snyder, with Lind's murder" a BLP violation? ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider notincluding material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime."

We are saying someone is accused of a crime who is not, in any way or form, a public figure, who has not been convicted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Separately: The title that was "Murders" and now "Related deaths" - *I* had originally titled that as "Associated deaths" but was reverted by an editor who is now blocked. Personally I'd prefer "Associated deaths" because that is how I think most sources call it. They also mean deaths connected to persons ASSOCIATED with the Zizians.

Reply to above: yes, I know that, we must "seriously consider not including material" - that's not a ban on it. But we can discuss. I'm open to thinking about it. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Associated is still an issue, IMO. Making crime articles pre conviction is always a clusterfuck. Much more when it involves strange groups.

"Seriously consider" is the vaguest thing in the whole policy, but considering it here I think it would be most in line with the spirit of the policy to not name anyone given how this deals with loose group affiliations. I have seen it interpreted in near identical situations to mean anywhere from the accused's name is revdelled (as was suggested by another user earlier about this page, after I patrolled it without censoring the name of one of the people involved) to just naming them, or not, it's a mess. At this point, I do not think it is possible to have this article without violating the spirit of BLPCRIME. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should apply this standard differently based on the crime they are being accused of.

Police many times arrest someone for minor charges which get dismissed later, and for these types of charges I agree it would be better to not mention the person's name because many times the charges are dropped/dismissed/reduced.

BUT - the police don't lightly charge people with murder without solid evidence. The child of the murdered couple is only stated to be a "person of interest" and it has been two years since the murder - this is vastly different for Snyder, for example, who is CHARGED with Lind's murder. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The one about the accused person's name being revdelled was the Delphi murders. A very, very serious crime, probably more serious than the one at hand here. But we couldn't even name him until he got convicted. It is frustratingly inconsistent between pages, but again, due to the aspects of the group affiliation and how confused the relationships between these people are, I would say that is another reason to not include.

And that is not true, there are constant mistakes in criminal charges by authorities, many are done without solid evidence - and further it's not on us to decide! PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well "But we couldn't even name him until he got convicted." is clearly not consensus across Wikipedia, or that BLPCRIME policy would be different.

I still stand by my statements above; police generally make LESS errors when they charge for more severe crimes; if they get sued the libel costs are higher when they are wrong. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is often what happens.

Okay? That doesn't change that our policy is innocent until proven guilty, including for murder, and since the consensus is to have the article on the group, but to only cover them in relation to the crimes, this is an issue. BLP also applies to small groups PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've nominated the article for deletion for the time being. Withdrawn. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 01:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering about this for a few days but was waiting for the text to stabilize before really forming an opinion. I had planned to change the "Murders" section to "Alleged" but think Avatar makes a good point about "Associated deaths" being more common in RS (and more neutral).

For naming individuals, I think we need to look at this on a case-by-case basis:

1. Bauckholt and Youngblut: These have the strongest case for inclusion to me, given that the murder of a border patrol agent is exceedingly rare and received by far the most coverage. We have entire articles for people like Thomas Matthew Crooks who were accused but not convicted - obviously that's a more extreme example, but I don't think naming them in a separate article is going too far here. There doesn't seem to be an objection to naming Bauckholt (who AFAIK is only accused of reaching for a gun), and I don't see how we name her without also naming the person who was driving her car and is federally charged with the killing.
2. Killing of Curtis Lind: This is a much more run of the mill case where we should be more cautious. A tenant killing a landlord wouldn't be notable without the connections to the other case, which are speculative. There are no witnesses so everything is based on the indictment. Things like the alleged assailant reporting Ziz's faked drowning could easily be covered without naming her. Unless some kind of conspiracy connecting it to the other case emerges or someone is convicted I'm not seeing a reason to name anyone.
3. Richard and Rita Zajko: The weakest case, nobody has even been charged and we just have a person of interest. The connections to the notable case are thin (lots of people buy lots of guns in America). Honestly we would probably need more than just a conviction here (ie some kind of Zizian ideology as a proven motive). Naming the person of interest seems like a clear BLPCRIME violation to me.

Ziz herself is in a different category and I think meets GNG on her own at this point (we seem to have consensus on this from the move discussion). As long as we aren't implying that she directed any of the crimes I don't see a BLPCRIME issue there.

Curious to hear what others think. Jamedeus (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity are you referring to inclusion solely of the allegations or the names of the people accused? It's perfectly possible to mention the allegations without naming the non-notable people as we did with Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German until there was a conviction. I don't think Thomas Matthew Crooks is a great example because while true BLP did and arguably still does apply, there was never any possibility of a conviction so ultimately we were always going to be relying on what was reported about investigations. Nil Einne (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention I don't see any way we can exclude mention of the name of the founder. However I don't think this is a significant BLP issue provided we take care in not linking her to the actions of members the group unless it's well supported. Founding a group doesn't make you automatically responsible for their action. Nil Einne (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just talking about the individual names, not the allegations. I agree that Crooks isn't a particularly similar case, I'm just using it as an example of an exceptional crime where a non-convicted individual is named. This is nowhere near that level but still an extremely rare and notable crime. Jamedeus (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But what do their names add to the article? Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we want to not name them we would have to delete it because their name is in the title. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean one of the redirects? It's reasonable to delete them if we remove the names from this article. At the moment this article is named Zizians after the group which is named from their founder not after anyone accused of any crime. Nil Einne (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ziz is being accused of crimes by proxy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. I know of no country with a well respected legal system where someone is responsible for what their followers did when they did not in any way attempt to inspire or encourage said followers into these actions. And our article does not in anyway claim she did so. So I'm not seeing it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, while I initially felt it strange after more consideration I think it's fine to exclude any mention of Ziz the person from this article including her full name. If absolutely necessary I guess we could mention the name comes from their founder without naming her. There is precedence for this e.g. Kiwi Farms mentions the previous name CWCki Forums and how it came from an artist but doesn't actually give the name anywhere. (Parts of it are given in titles of sources.) Ultimately if the group is considered to be notable enough for an article because of the crimes associated with some members of the group, and it's the only name for them we cannot reasonably exclude the name of the group. But we can exclude mention of any living person not considered significant enough to be mentioned. However I'd also note that what I said doesn't really apply to Ziz. With Ziz, what's added to the article by mentioning her name is to explain why people call the group Zizians. As I mentioned we could mention this without fully naming her, so that's definitely one thing we should consider. However I still don't see what's added to the article by naming the other people as their names don't seem to be what the group is named after; nor is their anything else which their names seem to add. If one of them was named "ILZAWMPFH" and it's alleged this came from "I love Ziz and will murder people for her" then sure this name does add something to the article but that isn't the case here. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we're at the point of arguing that Ziz, the founder, leader, and ideologue of the group, shouldn't be mentioned by name herself, then it might be better to just revert back the move from "Killing of David Maland" (though that name is probably itself problematic from a WP:NPOV and WP:BLPCRIME perspective), and only mention the related alleged crimes in passing. 79.95.87.37 (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is more severe because Ziz is the name. CWC is initials, and furthermore not the title of the article. It would still be identifiable information here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bauckholt is dead, as was Crooks. BLP applies to recently deceased persons, but how we define recently depends on the case, e.g. if sources are uncertain may be best to wait. There seems to be little doubt of Bauckholt's involvement and their name is widely spread. So I have no issue.

Honestly, I see more of an issue with the inclusion of Ziz's name than any of the others. Their involvement in the orchestration of the crimes is unclear. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies re your revert: while we haven't come anywhere close to a consensus over what to do with the article as a whole, I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with Jamedeus that the mention of the Zajkos is the flimsiest on WP:BLPCRIME grounds? (i.e. nobody has been charged with anything) 79.95.87.37 (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the obvious first step is to consider how we normally handle cases like this. It's not like it's rare for us to have articles on extremely high profile killings before there's a conviction. However we don't generally refer to them as murders unless there has been a conviction per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). Note that while that relates to the title, this is one case where the title generally affects what we do in the article. We say it a killing of X because we refer to it as a killing etc in the article rather than a murder. The only time we mention murder is generally in the titles of sources and in any charges etc as well as direct quotes. For that reason, I took a stab at removing all mentions of murder which aren't about a charge. I hit a snag on what we should do with person of interest. I left it at murder for now since they're a person of interest in the murder but perhaps there is a better solution. There is also "but was killed two years later by another person associated with the group". Is it undisputed that he was killed by these people? I suspect it isn't so I think we need to reword it perhaps to alleged or something. To be clear, I'm fairly sure it's undisputed that Curtis Land was killed, but who killed him is likely to be considered in dispute given the absence of a conviction and since this isn't like the border patrol case where the circumstances mean it's I think it's undisputed the agent was killed in a shootout with those people. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is not rare to have articles on big crime cases before a conviction - however, it is a clusterfuck every time esp. when it comes to BLP issues, and as someone who likes to go in and rewrite the articles after the breaking news spate has ended, rewriting it to not suck later basically amounts to TNT'ing the whole thing.

Another problem is what is this article trying to be on??? Is it a group article - named that way, but not really, since there is a consensus above to not include material on the group since it is not relevant to their notability. But then, this article is on a dubiously connected string of deaths that we have no convictions for. And we cannot rename it on the crime spree, because that the crime spree is connected at all is a criminal accusation against a small group. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "what is this article trying to be on???" is the main problem here, but I'm not sure which consensus you are talking about. In the above discussion (which do not appear to be over, with comments still being posted in the past hours) I can count:

• 47.157.95.50, Jpatokal, Patternbuffered supporting the article being about the group as a whole, its ideology, history, etc.
• Avatar317 and Polygnotus supporting it being about the alleged crimes specifically
• Eigenbra and yourself (?) more ambivalent

79.83.33.123 (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the consensus to not have material on the group? I don't see it. Frankly, I'm not sure there has been consensus for anything except to rename the article? I do see suggestions above, perhaps some very limited consensus to only include limited discussion on the groups beliefs etc, but that's different from not including any material on the group besides the killings. Nil Einne (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1. If anything, there is consensus to have material about the group, but with appropriate weight: we need to cover the basics (hemispheres etc) but don't need a full dissertation on the topic. Jpatokal (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the edit that de-emphasized the group's beliefs and pre-alleged-murders history, sparking 47.157.95.50's question above (and to some extent the current situation regarding WP:BLPCRIME violations) is this one by LunaEclipse citing:

• an earlier discussion about (ironically enough) BLP violations and possible POV issues, but most of the discussion appear to be about an even older version of the page's use of WP:UGC against wiki rules, which is not the case in the version 47.157.95.50 linked to. I presume the one part of the discussion that LunaEclipse intended to be citing is a small subthread by Polygnotus and Eigenbra calling to "revert back to a revision before the article got derailed with overly detailed explanations of concepts used by the group".
• ANI thread against MatriceJacobine. That editor eventually defended themselves by claiming they'll WP:CONCEDE to not use that WP:UGC and focus on the WIRED article as WP:RS, but they were indeffed by The Bushranger regardless.

So unless PARAKANYAA has more information on what they meant by that, I presume those two threads are what they meant by "consensus above to not include material on the group", per the editor who did the revert's own summary. But Nil Einne took part in both threads and do not appear to agree with that interpretation, so IDK. 79.95.87.37 (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I took those discussions as reflecting a consensus that there was an overemphasis on the non-murder elements of the group. Which makes the BLP issues worse. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surely making an article about the Zizians wholly about murders is worse for WP:BLPCRIME purposes than making an article about the Zizians as a whole mentioning in the latter half of their history they are accused of committing crimes? I interpreted your "what is this article trying to be on???" remark as referring to this in fact. (I'm not making a judgement about whether the former is realistically doable in an encyclopedic manner with the current state of WP:RS coverage, let alone the validity of previous versions attempting this. In fact, as I said before, I lean towards moving back to "Killing of David Maland", or, better yet, "Death of David Maland".) 79.95.87.37 (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's what I'm saying. Making it wholly about the murders made the BLP issues worse, sorry for the ambiguity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I contend. I just went through the article adding some cleanup templates and it's really, really bad. There is an entire section which is just uncritically repeating the prosecution's case, which could be a serious legal liability. I frankly don't know how to salvage this article, especially if nobody seems to agree about what the article should be about. 79.83.33.123 (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused by the article's references to the group in the present tense. Outside of this handful of people named in the article and the in the media, are there actually any more "Zizians"?

I checked the Manson Family article and it speaks of that group in the past tense. Unless there is any evidence that there is an active group identifying themselves as "Zizians", shouldn't we refer to the group in the past tense? Everything associated with the term happened in the past. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Manson Family effectively ceased to exist over 50 years ago in 1970, when they were all arrested. The fate of the Zizians remains to be seen. Jpatokal (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like most or possibly all of the people associated with this group have been arrested. In what sense is this loose "cult" still active? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I'm not familiar with if there is a specific wiki guideline for this, but I think it's too early (and may count as WP:OR or something) to decide that. None of them have been convicted, they may still eventually get released, continue activities in prison or after their term is served, recruit more members, etc. 79.95.87.37 (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but what are the "activities" they're going to continue in prison? Thinking about Rationalist ideas in an unorthodox way? I don't think Squeaky Fromme has ever given up her loyalty to Charles Manson and Manson didn't renounce his ideas in prison, so is the Manson Family still active? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming they will be sent to prison, but this is not certain, particularly for Ziz who has not been charged with any major crimes yet. Jpatokal (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to the IP's conjecture that they might "continue activities in prison". I'm trying to determine what are these activities that they do to make this an active enterprise as opposed to a defunct one? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, yeah, why not? Prison newspapers are a thing for example. There are an infinite amount of conjectures one could make about this group's future, and it would be WP:OR (and plain premature) to just say they have been disestablished forever. 79.95.87.37 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is filled to the brim with WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLP1E, WP:CRIME, and WP:VICTIM violations. Almost none of these people are notable for anything other than being involved with this organization, and almost all of them should be unnamed. guninvalid (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: @Closed Limelike Curves guninvalid (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to be a bit more specific about what, precisely, you're objecting to. On a general level:

• WP:BLPNAME is about not naming people only tangentially connected to notable events. Does not apply here.
• WP:BLP1E is about the notability of people known for only one event. However, this article is not about a single person or a single event, but a series of connected deaths.
• WP:CRIME and WP:VICTIM are about not having separate articles for perps/victims of crime (does not apply here), as well as general guidelines for what types of crime are notable (it has previously been well established that these events are notable).

Jpatokal (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then we will have to delete the article because they’re named in the title, and the entire notable thing about this crime is the people involved. Also as stated above the only policy that really applies here is BLPCRIME, the rest are notability issues, they are not at stake here, BLP1E/CRIME/VICTIM are not relevant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And we were discussing this above, I don’t know why you started a second discussion. It’s not strictly forbidden to name people not convicted of a crime, but we must “seriously consider”, the problem is there’s a bunch of people with varying levels of involvement. It is impossible to name the organization without discussing the individuals because it isn’t really a formal group, it’s just a bunch of weird rationalist associates. So if these are overriding issues then they cannot be fixed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this seems redundant. The impetus for starting a second discussion seems to have originated here, with neither editor having first participated in any discussion on this page.

And now neither are responding, despite activity by both elsewhere on Wikipedia. Patternbuffered (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I seem to have been still drafting my comment when the RM was withdrawn by the nominator. Here is what I was writing: Oppose: The killing of David Maland is just one of several different notable topics described in the article, and AFAIK Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not say that Wikipedia articles cannot discuss people/groups that have been accused of crimes unless they have been convicted. The killing of David Maland was not necessarily much more notable than the killing of Curtis Lind or the killing of Richard and Rita Zajko. And at this point Ziz LaSota may also be notable, even though she has not been accused of any of these killings. These notable topics have a connection to each other, and that connection is that they have some relationship to a group of people known as the Zizians. I'm not sure the current article title is ideal, but it is better than the proposed one, since that title would imply that the killing of David Maland is much more notable than the other killings and related topics that are discussed in the article (and will seemingly continue to be discussed in the article). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added an external link to a web page that is as close as possible to a Zizian official website (the blog of Ziz). It was deleted because blogs aren't allowed as a source, even though it wasn't a reference, but an external link. My revision 47.157.95.50 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, such an external link seems allowable per WP:ELYES and perhaps WP:ABOUTSELF. External links are not always required to be reliable sources. I also notice that several independent reliable sources refer to the blog, confirming that it is notable. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, WP:ELYES does not mean we should provide external links to all random sites where any random person wants to comment about a subject. See also WP:ELNO. Linking to files on Google docs and Google drive seems especially dubious – Wikipedia is not a forum through which to publish original work. What is the justification for adding external links to blogs by "Apollo Mojave", "Ken Jones" and Aella? Are those people "Zizians" or recognized experts on Zizians? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if the edit war over external links excludes anyone who participated in this discussion. A blog by Ziz should be the limit, otherwise there is no context. 47.157.95.50 (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a consensus having been achieved (under the discussions above started by PARAKANYAA and guninvalid) that the article as is is a major WP:BLPCRIME violation due to overly focusing on the alleged crimes, and due to LunaEclipse speedy-closing her own request for moving to Killing of David Maland at ColdestWinterChill and Jpatokal's request, I made a draft based on the version of this article before the mass revert 79.95.87.37 referred to above. I would recommend going through the various sources and writing an encyclopedic article solving the various problems in both that earlier version and the current version as soon as possible, we don't have much room for eventualism in a WP:BLPCRIME situation unfortunately. 2A01:E0A:285:4F0:14B2:D99A:3290:FD60 (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— 2A01:E0A:285:4F0:14B2:D99A:3290:FD60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP, the issue is that version of the article is 10 times worse than what we have now. That would be adding more fuel to the fire. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I put it in a draft and am calling for people to solve those problems before publishing it back to mainspace, though I fail to see how unencyclopedic tone or too closely paraphrasing a RS is "10 times worse" than WP:BLPCRIME violations (which can be a serious legal liability for the WMF). 2A01:E0A:285:4F0:14B2:D99A:3290:FD60 (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, we actually do not have anything approaching consensus that "the article is a major WP:BLPCRIME violation", much less that it is "overly focusing on the alleged crimes". We need to tread carefully, but it is a simple matter of fact that being linked in federal court to four murders is more notable and more important than living on a boat or protesting outside a CFAR meeting, topics to which your draft now gives approximately equal weight. Jpatokal (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpatokal How does this not violate BLPCRIME? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: if Ziz is a public figure and Zizian philosophy is notable, BLPCRIME does not apply. Also, BLPCRIME is not an absolute prohibition, only a request to "seriously consider" whether naming is necessary. Jpatokal (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Zizians is not a label they use for themselves. These people reject the idea that they are led by Ziz. It is what other people call them. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what your viewpoint is: you think "Zizian philosophy is notable", but their history before the (alleged) murders isn't? 2A01:E0A:285:4F0:7922:B129:F63D:4729 (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpatokal Ziz is not a public figure per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Being a public figure is a very specific thing and more than being "notable". If we cannot have an article on a notable topic without violating BLP policies we delete it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"A public figure is a person who has achieved fame, prominence or notoriety within a society." Ziz has quite clearly achieved notoriety: the cult is named after her, after all. Jpatokal (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpatokal Not per WP:LOWPROFILE which is the best guidance we have on this. Ziz hits basically none of these, at least not voluntarily (I assume being charged with crimes was not voluntary) PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOWPROFILE is an explanatory essay (not a policy) specifically scoped to WP:BLP1E, but this article is not about "one event", but at least four. Also, becoming notorious is rarely "voluntary".

Finally, you keep repeating that the only way to solve BLP concerns is to delete the entire article. There is no basis whatsoever for this assertion: the topic, whatever we choose to call it, trivially passes WP:GNG and thus belongs on Wikipedia. If you disagree, you're welcome to try your luck with an AfD, but I suspect you'd be looking at a speedy close. Jpatokal (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpatokal Yes, but WP:BLP is a policy, and a brief burst of news coverage does not make someone a public figure - to explain what a public figure is, BLP, the policy, links that essay as suggestion.

As no one here is a public figure, we are doing a poor job of "seriously consider[ing] 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 for that crime." Hence, BLPCRIME violation.

If it is impossible for an article to not violate our polices, we delete them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, I haven't nominated it for deletion because I do think this is fixable, but what we are doing now is not working. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOWPROFILE is for WP:BLP1E (not WP:BLP) and is written for the specific purpose of determining whether people are separately notable from an event or not. I don't believe even you dispute that Ziz and the Zizians are notable.

You assert that Ziz is not a public figure, I assert they are through notoriety. I also assert that we have "seriously considered" the issue right here on this exceedingly lengthy Talk page and come to the conclusion that, since it's impossible to use the agreed WP:COMMONNAME "Zizians" without mentioning "Ziz", this would be an acceptable exception even if Ziz was not a public figure. Jpatokal (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP links to it to explain what a public figure is, so it is quite clearly for that as well. Notability is trumped by the fact that this violates our policies. If an article is notable but is copyvio from its first revision we delete it. If it is a BLPCRIME violation and we cannot make it not one then we delete it. No, they are not a public figure, because not everyone whose name makes the news for two weeks is. And of all the serious considering done on this page I do not think there is much consensus in any direction/ PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They've been in the news for six weeks not two, and especially with six of them having upcoming court appearances this month that can be expected to continue.

I also assert they are public figures. Honest question: is there a flaw in my reasoning below?

1) BLPCRIME explicitly states it does not apply to public figures when it comes to considering material that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime.

2)The persons in the article are (involuntary) public figures per BLPPUBLIC which uses the definition at Public figure:

"a involuntary public figure, is an individual who has become a public figure as a result of publicity, although they may or may not have voluntarily sought it out. This can include victims of crime, as well as those who commit crimes or are accused of it." which cites:

^[1]

^[2]
Patternbuffered (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of us are lawyers, but defamation depends on the state for which it occurs, which in this case is either Vermont or California, which may be subject to additional precedents. 47.157.95.50 (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion, I did not intend to shift the discussion to defamation by linking to that external article. I was trying to establish, are they public figures as defined by WP:BLPCRIME? Yes, from what I can see. Patternbuffered (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It uses WP:LOWPROFILE for determining what a public figure is - not our poorly cited article on it, under which they are not. By your logic, every criminal would be, so BLPCRIME is basically pointless. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. WP:BLPCRIME uses what I said it uses. There's a See also: link to WP:LOWPROFILE, but as that page clearly states it only applies to WP:BLP1E and "is often misapplied in deletion discussions". Jpatokal already explained this above, perhaps you misunderstood? Patternbuffered (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not state, at any point, that it only applies to that section. Notability for our purposes is not being famous, or everyone we cover would be and there would be no need to make a distinction between non-famous notable people and famous notable people. None of the people here are famous. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For further context I would recommend reading the protracted discussions on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons on what exactly "public figure" entails. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't known about the idea of INVOLUNTARY notoriety, but after reading that I agree with Patternbuffered and Jpatokal here that these people (especially Ziz) are now public figures because of the INTERNATIONAL news coverage they have received (the death of a German citizen in the US along with the bizarre story involved; similar international coverage to the Neuschwanstein murder ). ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the only person in the above discussion who supported the article's handling of WP:BLPCRIME is Avatar317 (and perhaps Polygnotus, but he only intervened to insult someone only to remove his own insult shortly after), everyone else (including you (?)) agreed there was a problem, and the debate was mostly before whether to expand the article, to delete it (suggested by LunaEclipse, AfD withdrawn), or to move back to "Killing of David Maland" (suggested by 79.95.87.37, speedily closed). 2A01:E0A:285:4F0:14B2:D99A:3290:FD60 (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any serious BLP problem here. As far as I notice, the article doesn't say anything that is not already reported in every major news publication in the United States. The article is primarily about some high-profile alleged crimes that have been very widely reported and are clearly notable. Articles about notable alleged crimes often identify who has been arrested and accused of them. The article is merely providing information that is very publicly available in independent reliable sources. I do not see any clear assertion of guilt expressed in Wikivoice or any editors trying to create such a presumption of guilt. In fact I am somewhat surprised that some other information is not included in the article, such as the names of those accused of felony murder for the first attack on Curtis Lind. In addition to those, there are also at least two other associated people who are named in Draft:Zizians who are not named in this article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved quite a bit since the requested move's speedy-close, until very recently it did include clear assertions of guilt expressed in Wikivoice. You yourself took part in improving it by renaming one of the sections. OTOH obviously there is no issue if you want to expand the article to include that "some other information" if it is done respecting WP:RS and WP:BLPCRIME, considering we have achieved consensus that neither deleting the article nor renaming it back is the way to go. 2A01:E0A:285:4F0:14B2:D99A:3290:FD60 (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging that there has been good-faith effort to improve the article. I haven't made up my mind yet about adding the other information that I referred to. Also, thank you for including edit summaries with your most recent edits. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]