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.

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]

I am at a proper computer now and can give a more detailed contribution.

First, the Hansard link says that there is no consensus on it. There is no ban on using it. The guidance is that statements should be attributed to whoever made them. We already have a sentence in the article, referenced by this BBC link, to say that Colum Eastwood has named Soldier F in Parliament. It seems natural then to state who he named. It can be stated as part of his speech, but that's fine. Indeed, if it were so important to protect Soldier F's identity, then the sentence about Colum Eastwood shouldn't be on there at all.

As for BLP, the guidance explicitly mentions court cases. That seems to be the relevant thing in this case. If it's not for that, I don't see how it would differ from when Ryan Giggs took out a super-injuction to stop mention of his affair in the press in England and Wales, and I don't think that Wikipedia respected that. Looking at the article for 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy, Ryan Giggs was named on there before the use of Parliamentary privilege to reveal his identity on 23rd May 2011.

Colum Eastwood broke his silence on his name because it looked as if the charges would be dropped, but, as you say, they have not been dropped after all - so what I say above might be void now.

Reading the "Privacy of names" section on BLP, a lot of it seems designed to protect unknown people who might be dragged into the spotlight because of a tenuous connection to an article. I personally do not see how Soldier F fits into this category. He seems very central to one of the biggest events in Northern Irish history. Epa101 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, you removed my addition of the Breakingnews.ie report on the new committal trial of Soldier F. Can you restore it, please? It's sourced and relevant to the article. If you want to leave out Soldier F's name, fine, rather than me adding it earlier in the coverage of Soldier F, I'll open a separate RfC on the censorship of his name. Thanks in advance. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: it looks like Primefact didn't remove that part. Could you check again? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers, you're correct! Primefac, my bad, apologies. Don't know how I missed it when I went looking, but I did. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article name "Soldier F", the soldier on trial for several murders on Bloody Sunday, and whose identity is the subject of a British injunction? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes (as creator of the RfC). Soldier F has been named in the UK parliament by Colum Eastwood, MP. That naming was reported widely, and Village Magazine has published a detailed article also naming Soldier F. His name is well known in Derry (and his first name has previously been used on this talk page). There is an active injunction in the UK against naming Soldier F, but Wikipedia is not censored, and Wikipedia is not subject to UK court orders. There is precedent for naming people in articles, despite the existence of such orders. Per Sceptre, in a section above, 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. WP:BLPNAME does not apply. First, it is not a blanket ban on identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. That policy merely states it is often preferable to omit it. Soldier F was central to events, is subject to an ongoing trial, and was not a "private individual" during the events of Bloody Sunday. As has been determined by public inquiry, he was acting as a member of the armed forces, under orders. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No, per WP:BLPNAME:

  "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. 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."

  Soldier F's name has been intentionally concealed and has not been widely disseminated. So far, less than five reliable source news pieces have come up that directly name him. This does not clear the "widely disseminated" bar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Misuse of parliamentary privilege is a very poor excuse to skip WP:BLP and WP:BLPNAME. The Banner talk 17:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: There was no breach of parliamentary privilege, according to the Speaker of the House of Commons. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is way I stated "misuse" instead of "breaching". The Banner talk 17:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Given Eastwood made his comments during the consideration of a bill which would've given Soldier F legal immunity for deliberately shooting unarmed civilians in the back, it didn't even reach the reduced bar of "misuse". Also, we didn't care about "misuse of parliamentary privilege" when it came to superinjunctions. Turns out all Trafigura needed to do was shoot a few unarmed children in the back for the media to care about their anonymity. Sceptre (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Being "creative with the rules" is to my personal opinion a type of misuse. And my vote stands. The Banner talk 19:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Irish republicanism. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC) [reply]
• Yes: Wikipedia is not censored. The anonymity order only applies to the UK, and it's long-standing precedent that Wikipedia does not bow to extraterritorial injunctions (c.f. Ryan Giggs, George Pell, Gylfi Sigurðsson). Additionally, describing Soldier F as a "private individual" is stretching the definition to its limit; he was, after all, acting as an agent of the British state during the course of the killings (which he admitted to doing) in one of the biggest atrocities of the Troubles. I know British society tends to cover up for its war criminals (remember those Marines successfully using the insanity defence to excuse an extrajudicial field execution?), but Wikipedia does not, and should not, bend to those sensitivities. Sceptre (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No, for the time being. NOTCENSORED and whether parliamentary privilege was misused are red herrings. Per Firefangledfeathers, the issue is WP:BLPNAME and whether the name has been used widely in sources. I could find hardly any sources republishing the Hansard report. For me to chnge my mind, those that want to include it need to major on what sources are publishing the name. (By the way, I find Sceptre's argument that a person ceases to be a "private individual" because they were a former soldier in a state's army highly unconvincing. WP:RGW?) DeCausa (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. In context, the policy's use of "private individual" is contrasted with the immediately preceding guidance on "public figures". This isn't a "private vs. government" situation at all. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are two definitions of "private individual" that could apply, and Soldier F meets neither; he was in army fatigues when he took part in an extremely high profile act of unlawful (and unjustifiable) killing. After all, is Tetsuya Yamagami a private individual? Sceptre (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What are the two defitions and where can they be found? I don't see them in the policy. Also, what relevance is Tetsuya Yamagami? He's defintely not someone who's identity has "not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed" - he's all over global media. DeCausa (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The two definitions are "someone who is not a public official" (i.e. "acting in private capacity"), or "someone who is not a public figure". You'd have to be stretching either definition to say that Soldier F – by his own admission, one of the perpetrators of one of the British Army's most infamous post-war atrocities – is either of the two. Yamagami became a public figure when he shot Abe; Soldier F became a public figure when he killed multiple civilians in broad daylight. An anonymity injunction doesn't make him a private individual any more than it made Sigurðsson or Giggs private individuals. Sceptre (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No. While Wikipedia not bound by English law in this respect, the issue is essentially similar to cases where public figures have taken out super-injunctions which editors generally respect, because to ignore them could have ramifications for editors based in England & Wales. If Soldier F is identified here, editors based in E&W may avoid contributing, which could have a detrimental effect on the balance of the article. The fact that the case is sub judice is also a factor. Naming Soldier F really serves no intrinsic purpose at this stage. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In other cases where privacy injunctions have been granted, but extraterritorial RSes have nevertheless published the suppressed information, the community has typically not respected injunctions (unless they had legal effect in San Francisco). We mentioned George Pell's (later overturned) rape convictions in the "cathedral trial" whilst it was temporarily suppressed, and we also mention Gylfi Sigurðsson's current arrest (also for child sex offences). If there is truly any legal liability for editors in this case, WMF Legal will tell us. But they haven't, precisely because despite being sub judice, there is no civil or criminal liability for anyone who publishes extracts from Hansard. Sceptre (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are, however, other super injunctions that are not mentioned on the pages of the people they relate to. There are also cases where someone has been named under Parliamentary Privilege, but the press have avoided quoting Hansard. However, we also come down to the basic issue of what naming Soldier F actually achieves. The trial has yet to start. He may be identified in the course of it, or - in the event of a conviction - at the end. If he is cleared, where does that leave us? It seems that some are keen for Wikipedia to indulge in what amounts to little more than a "we know who you are/where you live" back-alley threat to someone who has yet to be tried. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the British press are (maybe somewhat understandably after Operation Midland) paranoid about breaching anonymity orders – even where they can avail themselves of qualified parliamentary privilege – doesn't mean we have to be.

Additionally, the use of anonymity orders when it comes to prosecuting the atrocities of the Troubles is a controversial issue in Northern Ireland, especially when combined with the attempts over the past few years to grant amnesty for those same atrocities. The naming thus becomes a not-insignificant public interest issue, in that regard. Sceptre (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So we must name him to make sure that this cover up isn't perpetuated. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the "accuse your opponent of being a woke SJW" card, a classic. RGW is one of the most misused snarl words on this encyclopedia, and in any case, doesn't apply; nobody's saying the sources been presented don't pass muster, after all.

Nor is anything that I've said is actually incorrect; the anonymity order was an issue of public interest, as was the use of anonymity orders to ban reporting of toxic waste dumping, as was the use of anonymity orders to ban reporting of celebrities' infidelities. No MP wakes up one morning and thinks "oh, wouldn't it be such a jape to breach a court order today?"

What reason is there to treat this case different from other cases we've dealt with before? I don't think an attempt to remove content in the Gylfi Sigurðsson article related to his arrest for child sex offences would be ultimately successful, even though that naming hasn't been in that many reliable sources either.

Sure, Soldier F's representatives have been diligent in enforcing the court order elsewhere. Other websites can deal with that as they please, but fundamentally, Wikipedia is not censored. Unless and until the WMF step in, we treat this case the same as all the others. Sceptre (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What should determine how we treat Soldier F's identity is the fact that his name has not been widely disseminated [and] has been intentionally concealed" rather he was "an agent of the British state during the course of the killings (which he admitted to doing) in one of the biggest atrocities of the Troubles". Isn't your answer to Canterbury Tail's question below, 'the just exposure of a wrong-doer'? DeCausa (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gylfi Sigurðsson's name "has not been widely disseminated [and] has been intentionally concealed" in connection with child sexual offences. We still mention his arrest for child sex offences.

Soldier F arguably ceased to be a private individual on 30 January 1972, and definitely ceased to be a private individual on 15 July 2010. That his full name wasn't published in reliable sources until recently does not make him a "private individual"; indeed, his identity was well known in Derry for many years before Eastwood's speech.

Additionally, the only suppressible element of his identity is his surname; his forename appears in the report of the Savile inquiry and reliable sources predating Eastwood's speech include it too. Sceptre (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - What does naming the soldier achieve for the article? What does having the name bring to the article that cannot be provided by the "Solder F" pseudonym? What is it we, as an encyclopaedia project, aim to achieve by it? I know it's a piece of factual information, but it's not widely disseminated and therefore the WP:BLPNAME could apply. Lets just be sure we know the goals of naming them here as part of the discussion as I can't see the replacement of a pseudonym with an actual name as being contextually important and it doesn't lose anything. Canterbury Tail talk 21:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]