Talk:Murder of Brianna Ghey

Trial update

Just to give editors a heads up, it is expected that the trial will begin this coming Monday, 27 November. There was a pre-trial hearing that dealt with administrative matters, however UK court reporting restrictions prevent the media from releasing any details.

Reporting restrictions for cases that involve minors is not unusual in the UK. It's possible, if not likely, that the trial will also be subject to reporting restrictions. If that is the case, then there won't be much, if any, content to add to the article until the trial concludes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Edits during the trial 27 November 2023

There is a discussion about these edits going on at Snokalok’s Talk page. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me making a request for Snokalok to self-revert, pending a wider discussion here. I'll copy over and tidy up some of my thoughts over here shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I want to start by thanking Snokalok for self-reverting the addition, pending a discussion here. The content that was self-reverted can be seen in this edit.

So the trial began this afternoon, with the prosecution opening their case against the accused. As I said on Snokalok's talk page, I'm uneasy with including direct quotes and summaries of what prosecutors and defence teams are saying during the proceedings on BLP grounds. While the names of the accused are subject to reporting restrictions, they are nonetheless identifiable individuals. At this time, we don't know what arguments made by either side of the case the jury will find convincing and proven. With regards to the particulars, I believe it would be much safer to wait for a judgement to be issued, and for it to be analysed and reported on by reliable sources once the trial concludes. We're only on day 1 of a 4 week long trial, and much will be said by all of the barristers involved as their cases progress. With regards to reporting by reliable sources, particularly like The Telegraph live feed article that was used in the self-reverted edit, I would argue that these are primary sources, and that WP:BLPPRIMARY applies.

That's not to say we can't include any content here. I think we can certainly report that the trial began, with the prosecution opening its case. We can also report that reporting restrictions have also been extended to other children, whom may be identified during the proceedings, and that all of those individuals will be referred to by letters (see The Bolton News coverage, at 10:51 am). We can also report that the accused girl and boy are being referred to as X and Y respectively (see Telegraph coverage at 3:28PM). And we can report on the names of barristers and judge involved. As the trial progresses we can also report on other incidentals, like when the prosecution and defence conclude their cases, how long jury deliberations take, or if either or both of the accused decide to change their pleas.

But for now, particularly given the nature of the crime that these two individuals have been accused of, and that they are both teens, we should strongly err on the side of caution with how we cover the trial while it is in progress. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Sideswipe’s approach regarding reporting of the trial. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Right, well I'm going to repeat my bottom line point here that - in regards to what a jury might find convincing or proven - the government being able to convince 12 people of something, is not a determinant of objective truth. It is only a determinant of whether the government was able to convince 12 randomly selected people. And that is of course, a very important, even central detail, to writing the article of any trial, but it's not the only detail and - as we see in the Wikipedia article for the OJ Simpson trial - the arguments given by the prosecution and defense, whatever the jury might think, are absolutely worth recording for a trial of sufficient notability, which this one clearly meets. OJ Simpson was ruled innocent, and a jury was reasonably convinced that the evidence handled by a neo-Nazi who worked for the LAPD wasn't sufficient to convict. That's fair, and worth recording. But it's also worth recording the ways in which the evidence was still fairly overwhelming, even when accounting for all factors.

If it was a matter of searching through court logs for specific details that no one remembers or something to that effect, I'd of course say WP:OR. But if it's a detail that countless WP:RSP sources have seen fit to make due note of and report accordingly, then that becomes something with a strong case for inclusion. Snokalok (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

the government being able to convince 12 people of something, is not a determinant of objective truth That's not quite accurate, at least with regards to criminal trials. What's been happening for the last couple of days at Manchester crown court is the prosecution setting out its case. It's laying out what was found during the police investigation. Some of what was found may be ruled admissible, and some may not.

At this stage, the defence doesn't really do much, and we've only heard from the prosecuting KC. The prosecution is allowed to lay out its case fairly uninterrupted. Once the prosecution concludes, which from what was said on day 1 is expected to take 8 or so days, then the defence will be allowed to lay out their case. It may be that the defence has evidence or testimony that contradicts what the prosecution has set out thus far. However as with the prosecution, the defence are allowed to set out their case fairly uninterrupted. Right now we're only hearing one side of the trial, and we don't know how the defence is going to respond to what is being presented.

I'm going to couch what I say next by saying that this is not a legal threat. I'm not saying that any editor has done anything wrong, nor am I saying anything could or should be reported. I'm just giving some information on some of the peculiarities of English criminal trial law, that are likely unfamiliar to editors from other countries with very different rules surrounding court reporting. England has some of the strictest rules surrounding reporting restrictions during civil and criminal trials, especially while proceedings are in progress. You may even notice this when reading about the proceedings, as media sources that are covering the trial are providing no interpretation of what is being said by the prosecuting KC.

Accordingly, we have to be exceptionally careful with any content that we add to the article, relating to the trial, while the trial is in progress, even if it is reliably sourced. This is because, if we get it wrong, not only can this result in contempt of court findings, it has in the recent past resulted in trials being suspended. And yes, while Wikipedia is nominally subject to Californian laws, the UK courts have nonetheless used posts and comments by non-UK residents on non-UK websites when declaring contempt and mistrials.

As an example that happened as I was typing this reply, I just reverted an edit where an editor said "the killers". That is, I'm afraid, prejudicial, as it remains to be seen if the accused will be convicted. That is something we cannot say while the trial is in progress.

Now when the trial concludes, the structure of the Murder trial of O. J. Simpson article is one way we could look at presenting the information. I do like the clear separation in that article between prosecution and defence cases. Of course that particular case is one of the most widely known, both nationally and internationally, murder trials in the last few decades, and it has been extensively written about by reliable scholarly sources. Now the exact nature of what we can write here, and how much detail we can go into, once the trial concludes, will depend on what reliable sources state at that time. But it is, nonetheless, a good example for how we could write about this, at the conclusion of the trial.

Finally, keeping notes of what reliable sources are covering, as the trial proceeds, is likely a good idea. That will be useful when secondary sources containing an analysis of the case and its proceedings are published. Where this would perhaps be most useful would be if a secondary source is summarising key facts, and there is perhaps a quotation during the earlier reporting that more clearly demonstrates what was said than a more general summary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Based on what's been said here so far, I've installed a trial section into the article. It covers the basics that the trial is in progress, that reporting restrictions have been placed on the anonymity of the defendants and any other children mentioned during the proceedings, the letters being used to refer to the defendants, the names of the judge and barristers involved, and the expected duration of the trial as a whole as well as the prosecution case. That's about as much as I'd be comfortable putting into the article, while the trial is in progress.

I've also taken the opportunity to trim some outdated content, now that the trial has begun. There's a few other passages in the article that we might want to rephrase. In particular, in the lead we state that "a motive has not been established" in the future tense. I'm not sure that we have any sources on police actually establishing a motive prior to the trial, but seeing as the trial is now in progress and investigations are presumably at an end we may want to rephrase that somewhat, or excise it entirely until a motive is established after the conclusion of the trial? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Sideswipe for her recent edits tidying up this article. Regarding the comment that the motive has not been established – this is still the case, but I think that at this stage we should change ‘police are investigating’ in the lead to ‘the police said that they were investigating’. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I have now made this change. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe 9th's suggestion that motive be excised would be better at this stage. Within a murder trial, it is not necessary for the motive to be established, merely causation and intent. Several motives were put within proceedings and bpov may in due course mean that all are outlined.

I think that links in the "see also " links to joint enterprise and cutthroat defence may be helpful as this has featured heavily, regardless of the eventual outcome. 95.147.62.233 (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Texts shown in court revealed that X had a obsession with Ghey. The two plotted on how to kill her and took inspiration from Sweeny todd, with his sharp blade, and the night stalker, with how he killed his victims. Should we include what happened before the killing in the article? Melofy (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Melofy: I hope you don't mind, I've merged your new discussion section in with the existing discussion on this issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Sideswipe9th Melofy (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

With regards to your edit that I reverted, that is, I'm afraid, something we cannot say while the trial is in progress. We cannot describe the accused as killers, because that has not yet been found by the court. Not only is there a presumption of innocence in UK law, as I said in my lengthy reply above there are some rather strict rules surrounding reporting of live criminal or civil proceedings within the England, that may not be familiar to editors from outside the UK. As such we have to be exceptionally careful about any content we add to the article at this time.

We can however say that the trial commenced on 27 November, with the prosecution opening its case that afternoon. There is also some other non-controversial content we can add, detailed in my reply from Monday. I'll try and draft something later this evening when I have more free time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey so it has been accepted by the court that the knife is what has killed her and the knife was owned by Boy Y https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-67614882 Melofy (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

So that's almost certainly a detail we can, but I think we should wait until the conclusion of the trial. As I've said previously, we should wait until the trial concludes and a judgement is issued before adding details such as this. At that time we can add a more comprehensive and detailed summary of the court's findings in relation to the killing. We shouldn't add piecemeal details about the killing based on primary live reporting.

Additionally, as with the proceedings last week, we're still only hearing the prosecution's case. Neither of the defence cases for X or Y have been presented. We don't know yet how the defence barristers are going to react to this, if at all. Again we need to be exceptionally careful with any content we add at this time, because of the strict UK regulations surrounding reporting on live trials. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

To hopefully try and prevent this happening again, I've added a hidden note to the trial section, asking editors not to add details relating to the prosecution or defence arguments while the trial is in progress. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate section(s)?

Given that the trial is currently underway and that no motive has been proven, the section alleging that transgender issues are in some way responsible for Ghey's death (for example, "American magazine Vogue connected the killing to online transphobia") are totally inappropriate. The alleged murderers had a list of five potential targets, of which Brianna was only one and her regrettable death is not necessarily the result of transphobia. Indeed, one of the suspects, girl X, appears to have consistently used Ghey's preferred pronoun in private communications. JezGrove (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The Vogue article, along with the others in the reactions section were all written shortly after the killing back in February. They are not commenting on the trial in any manner. The criticism of UK media subsection documents a not insubstantial amount of transphobia colouring the initial reporting of the killing by UK media.

Now I don't want to get into speculating on the motives of X or Y, as that's wholly inappropriate while the trial is in progress. We will hopefully, by the end of the trial, have an established motive behind the killing, and we should wait for that to be published and analysed by reliable sources. I will say however that, generally speaking, it is entirely possible for one to be transphobic, while also using the name and pronouns of any individual trans or non-binary person. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

But the pre-trial coverage suggests a motivation, or a background, that hasn't been established and is inappropriate, surely? JezGrove (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Having quickly re-skimmed the article, the closest we maybe get to that is the last paragraph of the Criticism of UK media section, but only if you're reading it out of context. Unless I've missed something obvious, and if I have could you quote the start of the relevant sentence please?

We could maybe phrase the bit before we quote from Vogue slightly better though. In the context of that source, it seems to be talking about transphobia in unregulated social media discourse, and about the constant questioning of trans rights and demonising of trans and non-binary people by denying their identities within online sources. But, I'm also not seeing anything in that source that's directly connecting it to the criticism of the UK media covered in our article. So we could just excise that quote, and end the section with the summary of the NBC News report. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The final paragraph of the section Criticism of UK media has nothing directly to do with the subject of this article, and, weirdly, seems to imply that the BBC is responsible for the death. It should be deleted entirely. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The final paragraph of the section Criticism of UK media is a report on of the articles "What We Know About the Murder of Brianna Ghey", and "Transgender community mourns death of British teen found stabbed to death". I find it bewildering to suggest these have nothing to do with the subject "Killing of Brianna Ghey". As for the assertion that it implies the BBC is responsible for the death, while I agree the writing could be improved, it pretty non-ambiguously conveys that the NBC News article connects a transphobic UK climate to Brianna's killing, and that NBC only cites the BBC article as one example of the UK media's alleged role in fostering and contributing to this climate.

Given how high-profile this killing has been in the public eye and in news media, it is appropriate to cover how media outlets were/are reporting on the events. GorfTab (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The final paragraph is just idle speculation by American publications on a supposed connection between coverage in the UK media which they perceive as biased against transgender people, and a killing where the motive has not even been established. It tells us something about the irresponsibility of the American media, and it tells us nothing about the killing of Brianna Ghey. The final para should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The Vogue article may not be commenting on the trial but it is commenting not only on the motive but also the cause of that motive: online transphobia, despite them saying that we shouldn't. How does that even fit in with "Criticism of UK media" when the article does not once mention the UK media and is actually referring to "Unregulated online discourse" (the UK media is regulated and isn't a discourse, it is a one way communication channel) and explicitly singles out Twitter, which last time I checked was owned by an American. I don't think it belongs on this page. The ramblings (and they are explicitly admitted to as ramblings) of a fashion magazine writer in the immediate aftermath of the killing are not encyclopaedic.

The NBC claims are also weak imo. Calling it a "report" that "concluded..." makes it sound like NBC hired a committee to investigate something rather than it actually being a news report where one individual reporter realised they hadn't reached their required word-count and padded the story. There is zero reason to mention the BBC "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women" in this article. Really, what on earth has that got to do with this? Should we blame JK Rowling along with the BBC for her death, because the NBC "report" singles them out equally. -- Colin°^Talk 15:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I had a deja vu feeling about this and it was previously discussed Talk:Killing of Brianna Ghey/Archive 1#Criticism of UK media. Oh and we did previously blame JK Rowling. This is why we have courts rather than fashion magazine writers deciding who is to fault. I continue to think this is embarrassingly weak stuff and the issue of UK Media transphobia can be dealt with in articles separate from (and linked from) this sad event. It makes the article weaker when it is filled with this kind of stuff-found-on-the-internet, and they deserve a strong article. -- Colin°^Talk 17:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any issue removing the Vogue article, as I said above. And back in February (thanks Colin)!

On the NBC article, unfortunately the English language doesn't really have a single word that encompass a piece of investigative journalism other than report. We could say investigative report, but some might find that redundant. I think you're also perhaps framing what they said about Rowling incorrectly. The article isn't blaming Rowling for Ghey's death, instead it's saying that she is one of the more prominent voices contributing to the general hostile environment trans and non-binary people face within the UK right now. Of course that distinction is somewhat immaterial to us, as we're not mentioning Rowling in the content in this article.

I think it's still important to keep the NBC piece, as it provides an outside prospective on the UK media from within the Anglosphere. What do we think about rephrasing the content, as originally suggested by Ward20 back in February, to: A report by NBC News on the killing concluded that "the climate in the U.K. has grown increasingly hostile for trans people over the last few years", noting that advocates within the LGBTQ community have often criticized the UK media in the last few years over publishing articles embracing anti-transgender sentiments.

This ties it in more directly with the rest of the content in that section. At the same time, we could also move that sentence after the sentence in the previous paragraph on The Mary Sue's condemnation, as I suggested in February. With the excising of the Vogue piece, this would leave that subsection with two paragraphs, focused entirely on contextually relevant criticism of UK media reporting. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather "An article on NBC News commented that". It is just a news article with a bit of personal commentary interspersed. It certainly isn't investigative journalism and using the word "concluded" is way way too much like "The jury has given their verdict" rather than "random journalist at NBC News thinks..." But overall I much prefer the broad comment you suggest, rather than pulling out specifics like we previously did with JK Rowling and continue to do with the BBC. There's not really any good reason to mention those specifics other than to cast aspersions. -- Colin°^Talk 18:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think it might flow better like this An article by NBC News on the killing commented that "the climate in the U.K. has grown increasingly hostile for trans people over the last few years", noting that advocates within the LGBTQ community have often criticized the UK media in the last few years over publishing articles embracing anti-transgender sentiments.? I prefer "by" rather than "on" for attributing who wrote the piece. And specifying that it was an article on the killing helps prevent questions like "why are we citing a random NBC News piece? Is it actually connected to the topic of this article?" Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that Sideswipe’s latest suggested wording is a considerable improvement on the current para (though I would still prefer to have the entire final para removed). Sweet6970 (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Tweaked the wording a bit to not repeat the time period. Ward20 (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand the revert. I'll think about a wording change that means the same if it seems to be an improvement.Ward20 (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I've undone it, seemingly at the same time you posted. It's not redundant, the criticism that UK media has an anti-trans bias is relatively recent. From other sources that I'm aware of, it only started in earnest in the 2010s, shortly after the Leveson Inquiry. Can't actually use those sources here though, because they significantly predate the subject of this article, and WP:SYNTH. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Helper201: As you say in your edit summary, your addition is about ‘the British media’s attitude to transgender people’ – it is not about the killing of Brianna Ghey, which is the subject of this article, as I pointed out in my edit summary when I reverted you. Please self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Sweet6970, it provides relevant context to the preceding sentence and the general topic of that paragraph. The paragraph of which is interconnected to this topic. Not having a direct connection to the article topic I can understand why you may see it as an issue, but it helps resolve a vague time issue of quote "a few years", which would otherwise need tagging with templates such as Template:When and/or Template:Vague. This solves that issue. It does more good than it does harm by solving an issue with the preceding sentence. Helper201 (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no need to make ‘a few years’ more definite – this is not a vital part of the article. But what you have added has nothing to do with the subject of the article. It does not clarify anything to do with the killing, and it should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk)

I'd certainly argue there is, as I for one (like others too) would not define 7 years as "a few years". This wording makes 7 years sound like 2 or 3. Helper201 (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Why no details from the trial?

I just read an article in the Guardian about the ongoing trial, and virtually none of the background details in the article are included here.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/11/accused-tells-court-she-saw-boy-stab-brianna-ghey-about-five-times

What about the invented drug dealer, the one way bus ticket, the Girl X's original false statements to the police, the plans/discussions X and Y had made about harming another child who was a 'nonce'? These are all relevant to the big picture. 174.160.244.174 (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Short version, because the trial is ongoing. We don't yet know what parts of the prosecution case will be found proven, nor impactful by the jury. All of the sourcing currently available is primary court reporting, and by policy we have to be exceptionally careful when using primary sources in relation to living people. We're waiting until the judgement is issued, and secondary reporting of the case is published by reliable sources.

Long version; see this discussion above. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Why haven't junior counsel been listed?

It is customary for King's Counsel to appear with junior counsel in murder trials as is the case in this trial. The article only lists leading counsel and therefore should carry the names of junior counsel for all parties. 46.69.151.93 (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

There's no reason we can't include the name of junior counsel, however neither of the sources we have named them. Could you please link any reliable sources that have the names of the other counsel? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Deanna Heer KC is leading Cheryl Mottram, Richard Pratt KC and Sarah Holt represent A and Richard Littler KC and Steven Swift represent Y. Live updates are supplied by various local online media including manchestereveningnews.co.uk. 46.69.151.93 (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately without a link to one or more reliable sources that mention these names, we cannot add it to the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Noted. 46.69.151.93 (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, Sideswipe9th I haven't learnt to link otherwise I would have found the relevant page. 46.69.151.93 (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/live-brianna-ghey-murder-trial-28235699 95.147.62.233 (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Trial

If this section is to await finalising at the conclusion of the trial , can I ask whether thought is being given as to whether each day's evidence is to be summarised at the end of the trial(we are currently into day 11), or laid out as a subsection on Prosecution case, Girl X's defence, Boy Y's defence then verdict . I suggest that order would be logical as it follows the sequence that the trial is being conducted.

I understand the editors wish not to amend the sections piecemeal however given that we have now entered the defence stage ,reference to when the prosecution was expected to close is redundant and could be removed? I note that a suggestion regarding the agreed fact concerning Boy X,s knife was deemed inappropriate at this stage. This was part of a longer schedule of agreed facts including that neither Defendant had previous convictions or cautions

Nothing has been mentioned in the article about the Defendants ' autism or adhd although this has been something that the jury have been directed upon at various times.

Where I appreciate that it has been outlined that X and Y could attend in person or by video ,X elected not remain in court while the prosecution pathologist have evidence. He instead had a conference with his junior and the jury were directed not to draw adverse conclusions from the absence.I

Apologies for lack of succinctness. 46.69.151.93 (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not for us to summarise the evidence. During the defence, some of the evidence presented by the prosecution may be refuted. Towards the end of the trial, the judge will sum up both sides in order to aid the jury. Until the jury has delivered its verdict, all we should say is that the trial continues. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I note the approach of treating the trial section as a paused work in progress. Upon reflection your methodology works better since this subject will eventually be googled as an historic past event and readers like myself who are interested in the trial as an ongoing event have a better qualitative source by reading reports from various local media sources who are reporting from the court in real time.. This article is at present more of a stub;intended sometime in the future to be a conglomeration of archived source material and not real time reportage.. 46.69.151.93 (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath Section:Legacy

It appears that very little or no specific information was given as to Esther Ghey's fundraising for the Peace in Mind charity. Given that this was instituted by the victim's family why not make specific mention of this ?

The Gheys' support of mental health charity is mentioned almost as an aside . Mention is made of gender affirmative pressure groups like Mermaid however Esther Ghey's main fundraising efforts have gone to Peace in Mind a charity promoting mindfulness and mental Health.

The Times appears to be singled out as gender critical or transphobic , using America as a source, but no mention is made of British newspapers such as the I or Metro who criticised dead naming or took a more affirmative approach. . 46.69.151.93 (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Esther Ghey's fundraising activities is certainly something we could add. Could you please link any reliable sources that are discussing this content? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you , Sideswipe. My source was https: www.warringtonguardian.co.uk Brianna Ghey Charity fundraiser raises over £25,000. (dated 2 December 2023) 46.69.151.93 (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/23961270.brianna-ghey-charity-fundraiser-raises-25-000/ 95.147.62.233 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Killing

I suggest that the tense should be changed to read along the lines that " a post mortem WAS ordered ", instead of the current sentence ,"has been ordered "which reads as if a post mortem is still to take place some time in the future and unconcluded. The citation still stands.

The final line stating the date of the funeral might be more relevant in the aftermath section, especially since that carries photos of vigil and commemorative events?

It certainly doesn't belong in a paragraph headed to describe circumstances of the killing.. The line about the funeral could perhaps be fleshed out or more information given as to the order of service. 46.69.151.93 (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Accused

Shouldn't the line that the police didn't view the matter as a hate crime be supported by proper reference to the official statement. Citation needed in other words. This was a fast moving investigation and care should be taken not to create a narrative that the police were initially ruling out hate crime then changing their minds. Rather they were asked a specific question at a fixed point in time in a press conference and replied that there was no evidence of hate crime at THAT time whilst appealing for evidence and of course had not identified, arrested or interviewed the suspects whose phones would reveal transphobic content . 46.69.151.93 (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Please cite the primary source in support of the sentence " they initially said there was no evidence to support it was a hate crime" or clarify/ it. The sentence doesn't inform WHEN the alleged statement was made and could imply the police changing stance when in reality they were giving a press status report in a fast flowing investigation where they were appealing for information.. 46.69.151.93 (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@46.69.151.93. Secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. See WP:RSPRIMARY. The killing was the 11th, the BBC cited source about no evidence was on the 13th and on the 14th the police stated they were considering whether it was a possible hate crime. The article simply shows a continuum of events. I don't see where the article implies a change of stance. IMO 'initially' is sufficient for the event since it mirrors the source published two days after the killing. Also, the burden is on the editor to demonstrate verifiability for the point of view expounded above. Ward20 (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If you say so, then. I remain unconvinced especially since the whole article takes aim at the deceased's school, the British Media and the police( with op eds cited that were critical of the police that the crime wasn't categorised as a hate crime from the word go. It appears as a somewhat unbalanced pov stub. I note that the Media are castigated for misgendering/ transphobia and this even extends to the trial judge informing the jury that Brianna was born a natal female. The media are criticised for reporting the words used in the trial proceedings, as if the prosecution counsel and judge are themselves transphobic or disrespectful when outlining historical fact. It is not bigotry to state fact. 46.69.151.93 (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

sorry, I meant to say the judge informed the jury of Brianna' natal sex and dead named her. Given that some transsexuals detransition, I do not hold with a poverty that m2female must be so for life. Respectfully 46.69.151.93 (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Background:Bullying at school and NPOV

A statement was released by the school's headmistress which was approved by Esther Ghey, denying that Brianna had been bullied at school,(sorry, I can't currently link to it which weakens my assertion from an editorial sourcing )so there was a counter narrative as to the existence of whether Brianna had been bullied at school. Brianna's friends say she was, the school WITH the weight of Esther Ghey's endorsement released the Headmistresses's statement saying she wasn't. No school would want to admit to bullying occurring within its premises because of reputational damage, however one should be careful not to treat allegations as facts. If this is merely original research without the citation to source it, I apologise but it is in the public domain and worthy of discussion . 95.147.62.233 (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

"Schoolgirl was 'not bullied' at Birchwood High" Warringtonguardian.co/news/2341147 24 March. Ms Mills released a statement on Twitter which said , "I spoke to Brianna's mum who confirmed Brianna was not bullied at Birchwood." The article contains a lengthier tweet which gently criticised online misinformation causing distress. 95.147.62.233 (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/23411477.brianna-ghey-schoolgirl-not-bullied-birchwood-high/ 95.147.62.233 (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Added. The school has a right of reply to allegations made against it, as with all people and bodies. I have added the head's statement without any detail on whether it and the mother's endorsement is "true" or not, but it has to be there for balance. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The “gang beaten” bit in the background section also does not appear in any of the sources that it’s attributed to. 86.5.155.122 (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the PinkNews source. (It in turn references the original source of the claim, The Sun). I do not think it is within the purview of WP to rule on the authority of Brianna's peers vs her headmistress. Consequently, I side with the view that we should report on all (well sourced) reported claims regarding her alleged bullying. GorfTab (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

GorfTab The Sun is by no means regarded as a reliable source to use on Wikipedia. Please see WP:THESUN. Helper201 (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A Rolling Stone article stated they interviewed three of her friends and they mentioned that Ghey said she had been bullied. Ward20 (talk) 07:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Trigger warning?

At what stage should consideration be given to warnings about the content of the article, perhaps by placing a warning above the preamble because either it may contain graphic account of the murder or exchanges between the defendants or even reaction in the aftermath of trial may be painful. There is a report that the school contemporaries of Brianna are struggling to get counselling help , so perhaps care should be taken to be sensitive? 95.147.62.233 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do trigger warnings or content wrappers at all, I'm afraid. It's an encyclopedia, and covers all sorts of events that could be triggering to all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-12-14/nonsense-bureaucracy-stopping-classmates-of-brianna-ghey-from-getting-support 95.147.62.233 (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you 95.147.62.233 (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Trigger warnings - it's a (somewhat poorly written!) essay explaining why WP doesn't do them. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No need to be crude but this is an article about a child who is widely known to have been killed, it's not going to be nice to read. If they want to avoid the subject, they have the freedom not to read the page. I know that on TV they give a content warning so you can turn the channel if you are affected by an upcoming programme; that is helpful and I support that. That's different to searching up something specifically. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to go into detail in the lede section and people can use that to help them decide whether to read the rest of the article. DanielRigal (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're not happy with an essay, there is Wikipedia:No disclaimers, which is a content guideline. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Trial has ended

The two teenagers have been convicted. I've made some basic updates to the introduction of the article but there is a lot of updating to do Furbybrain (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yup, that news broke while I was out of my house. I suggest we take a cautious approach here. At the moment, most of the coverage seems to be live update threads, with little analysis of the trial and the facts presented. For example, the BBC's live page is replete with quotations from the trial, but little substantive analysis of the arguments made by the prosecution and defence teams. It'll likely take a few days for any indepth analysis to be published, though we might see some early stuff later this evening. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

To assist us all, I'm going to take a look and see what sourcing is now available. I'll make a list in a subsection below, separated between live pages, and more substantive articles, as and when I find them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've found all of the major sources published so far.

While searching I came across an article on the CPS website. As the content there is released under the Open Government License v3, and is compatible with Commons, I've uploaded the photos of Girl X's 'murder plan' and Boy Y's hunting knife so that we can use them in the article as we expand the trial section. I'm certain there are higher quality images available somewhere, as I've seen them used in many of the articles linked below. If I can find a higher quality image that's attributable to the CPS, I'll update the copies on Commons. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, so I think we have four broad sections that need expanding: Murder, Investigation, Trial, and Reactions.

Starting with the simplest one, reactions, I think it would be beneficial to add a post-trial reactions subsection. There's statements from Ghey's parents, Cheshire Police including the senior officer in charge of the investigation, and a few others we can add.

My question for the other sections is, keeping WP:GRATUITOUS, WP:BLP, and WP:BLPPRIMARY in mind how much detail do we want to go into here? As several of the sources below state in their headlines, this was a particularly "frenzied and ferocious" murder. For example, it was reported that Ghey was stabbed 28 times. Some sources, like the Warrington Guardian have gone into detail about where she was stabbed, and some live thread coverage during the trial went so far as to describe the depth of some of the wounds inflicted. Should we simply state that she was stabbed 28 times? Should we also include the detail on where she was stabbed? And should we go so far as to describe the depths of some of the wounds? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Personally, for the example, I'd be minded to only include details of how many times she was stabbed, and the approximate locations. I don't think we need to cover in detail how deep some of the individual wounds were, though we might cover it in aggregate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

We should make full details of the pathologist 's evidence available. If this article is to be encyclopaedic it should lay out the pathologist's unchallenged findings  : stabbed 28 times and the locations. Dr Armour's evidence was barely contested. The references to defensive injuries and location will be relevant to sentence because one of the aggravating factors which increases tariff under the relevant sentencing legislation is the suffering of the victim. I will link to the BBC report of the participant's evidence. 95.147.62.233 (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

[1]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-67631342.amp 95.147.62.233 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

With regards to articles published prior to verdict being issued today, WP:BLPPRIMARY would apply. Sources published prior to the verdict, because of UK court reporting restrictions, contained no analysis of what was presented. Primary sources are not good indicators of due weight. Have any sources published after the verdict included the information that the Home Office pathologist presented? How much detail did they go into? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

To answer my own question, I've done a Google search and can't find any. That may change in the coming days of course, but right now it looks like we only have primary sources from live court reporting in relation to this level of detail. There is substantial secondary sourcing published after the verdict however on the number of stab wounds, and their approximate locations. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe 9th , the BBC reported the pathologist's evidence and it is a reliable concise secondary source. We know that Dr Armour stated that the wound to the carotid was enough to kill, but that she couldn't give the jury any assistance as to the sequence in which the wounds were inflicted. 95.147.62.233 (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that article is not a secondary source. It's a primary source, as it contains no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of what the pathologist said on that day. See the WP:PRIMARYNEWS essay for the distinction. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that it contains a synthesis of the facts of the pathologist's examination in chief by a court reporter and is not direct speech therefore IS a secondary source .The pathologist when giving evidence said..according to the BBC reporter. 95.147.62.233 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a summary of what she said and the facts she presented, but a summary is not a synthesis. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Upon reflection, it may well be the case that Mrs Justice Yipp comments upon the injuries suffered including the fact that some were defensive as an aggravating feature under the relevant sentencing law applying to juveniles who commit murder . It may have been premature on my part to suggest detailed publication of the post mortem related evidence within the trial until utilised by the judge during sentencing and thereafter commented upon by secondary sources. 95.147.62.233 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Another question, what language do we now want to use to describe X and Y. During the trial we primarily referred to them as the accused. However now there is a conviction and we're adding content we have a few choices; defendant, perpetrator, killer, murderer. There's no real consistency in how sources are referring to X and Y as of yet, so this seems very much a choice for editorial discretion. I'm somewhat minded to use perpetrator, as that seems to have some common use in other murder articles. But what do you all think? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Perpetrator ,shortened to 'perp'would give a more Americanized nomenclature and since this was on British soil, I think killers or murderers is more appropriate and has the advantage of saying succinctly the homicide was without lawful excuse or defence, whereas killers leaves open to the reader a degree of ambiguity ? 95.147.62.233 (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I've added some content relating to the trial, as well as some structure to the trial section based on the layout of the Murder trial of O. J. Simpson article. I've added a little more detail on the diagnoses that both X and Y received, as well as the reasonable accommodations that Justice Yip put in place for them. I'm not quite sure how to approach expanding the prosecution and defence subsections yet, those are pretty big and I've got a little blank page anxiety over where to start. Hopefully there's a decent foundation though between the structure there, and the sources below that someone else might be able to build upon while I continue to ponder. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources - Trial Ended

Live update pages:

• Warrington Guardian
• BBC News
• Manchester Evening News
• Liverpool Echo
• The Independent

Substantial local articles:

• Warrington Guardian Killing to conviction: How Brianna's killers were brought to justice
• Warrington Guardian How Brianna Ghey's killers reacted in the dock when verdicts revealed
• Warrington Guardian Cheshire Police calls Brianna Ghey's killers 'arrogant and cowardly'
• Warrington Guardian Boy and girl both found GUILTY by jury of murdering of Brianna Ghey
• ITV News Grananda Brianna Ghey: A psychologist's look at how two 15-year-olds became killers
• ITV News Granada Brianna Ghey: Teenage killers turned 'dark fantasies about murder into reality'
• ITV News Granada Teenagers found guilty of murdering Brianna Ghey in Warrington park
• ITV News Granada A kill list and torture obsessions among horrifying details behind murder of Brianna Ghey
• The Bolton News Brianna Ghey: Teen pair found guilty of 'frenzied murder'
• Manchester Evening News Girl X and Boy Y found guilty of killing Brianna Ghey
• Manchester Evening News The knife bought on a family holiday used to kill Brianna Ghey
• Manchester Evening News 'I have to impose a life sentence' - What judge told Brianna Ghey killers after they were found guilty of brutal murder
• Manchester Evening News The murder of Brianna Ghey: How an idyllic country park became the unlikely setting for one of the most brutal and chilling killings of recent times
• Liverpool Echo Callous, cold and planned: Brianna Ghey's murder leaves detectives with questions as well as answers
• Liverpool Echo Girl X and Boy Y found guilty of Brianna Ghey murder
• Liverpool Echo Disturbing WhatsApp messages of Brianna Ghey's killers as they plotted to kill six children

Substantial national articles:

• The Guardian Brianna Ghey: two 16-year-olds found guilty of transgender girl's murder
• The Guardian Thousands of messages reveal how teenagers plotted murder of Brianna Ghey
• The Guardian Why Brianna Ghey police quickly ruled out transphobia as motive
• The Independent Brianna Ghey trial verdict: Teenagers found guilty of murder
• The Independent Kills Lists, Sweeney Todd and the Dark Web: How torture-obsessed teens plotted Brianna Ghey’s murder
• The Independent Brianna Ghey's mother pays tribute to 'fearless' daughter
• The Independent Was Brianna Ghey's murder a transphobic hate crime?
• The Independent Timeline of events leading up to Brianna Ghey’s murder
• iNews Two teenagers found guilty of stabbing Brianna Ghey to death in park
• iNews Brianna Ghey's 'high-functioning' killers shared double life of dark web violence
• Sky News Brianna Ghey: How teenagers with a 'thirst for death and murder' plotted killing on their phones
• Sky News Brianna Ghey: Teenagers guilty of 'disturbing' murder after planning 'frenzied and ferocious' knife attack
• ITV News National Brianna Ghey: A view from the courtroom as teen killers found guilty
• Evening Standard Brianna Ghey’s mother 'glad' after two teenagers found guilty of murder
• Evening Standard Two teenagers found guilty of transgender schoolgirl Brianna Ghey's murder
• Evening Standard Boy and girl guilty of ‘frenzied and ferocious’ murder of Brianna Ghey
• Evening Standard Timeline of events leading up to Brianna Ghey's murder
• Evening Standard Was Brianna murder transphobic hate crime?
• The Telegraph Brianna Ghey: Teenagers guilty of trans schoolgirl's murder
• The Times Brianna Ghey murder trial: two teenagers found guilty
• PinkNews Teenagers found guilty of Brianna Ghey's murder
• STV News Boy and girl found guilty of murder of teenager Brianna Ghey
• BBC News Teenage boy and girl guilty of Brianna Ghey murder
• BBC News Brianna Ghey: The young killers who tried to get away with murder
• BBC News Brianna Ghey: 'My daughter was fearless to be who she wanted to be'

Substantial international articles:

• Irish News Boy and girl guilty of 'frenzied and ferocious' murder of Brianna Ghey
• Irish News Brianna Ghey's mother 'glad' after two teenagers found guilty of murder
• RTE News Two children found guilty of murder of UK teenager Brianna Ghey
• AP News Jury convicts boy and girl in England of murdering transgender teenager in frenzied knife attack
• Reuters British teenagers convicted of 'ferocious' murder of transgender girl
• Cosmopolitan Brianna Ghey: Two teenagers found guilty of murdering 16-year-old
• The Advocate Teenagers Found Guilty in Brutal Murder of Transgender Girl Brianna Ghey
• The Mary Sue Two Teens Found Guilty of Murdering Brianna Ghey

Non-media sources

• Cheshire Constabulary Two teenagers found guilty of murdering Brianna Ghey
• https://www.cps.gov.uk/mersey-cheshire/news/two-teenagers-who-plotted-murder-convicted-killing-brianna-ghey Crown Prosecution Service] Two teenagers who plotted murder convicted of killing Brianna Ghey

Feel free to add more sources as you find them. Don't worry about inline signing if you add a source, just stick it as a reply here if you feel it's needed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't know if you have this one https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-67729418 from the BBC but it has this that (the judge) "said she would deal with an application by the media to be allowed to publish the names of the teenagers on Thursday" thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.76.220 (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yup, that source is in the list, though I see the title has changed since I added it. I'll add text about the release of names to the article now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Verdict : Expansion?

It may be an idea to tell the reader that the length of time that the jury were out was approximately 4 hours 40 minutes? I think that the article should also state that the reason given by Mrs Justice Yip for adjourning was to order pre sentencing reports . I know it is in the source but the content would be more encyclopaedic and helpful if the reader is told why Mrs Justice Yip adjourned? 95.147.62.233 (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added the jury deliberation times. My brain's switching off though so I can't think of good phrasing to include the reason for the delay in sentencing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

How about :Mrs Justice Yip indicated that life sentences would be given and adjourned for reports, ( approximately 6 lines down?) 95.147.62.233 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The rest of the wording can then follow on? 95.147.62.233 (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Names of accused

It's really weird how the article doesn't actually say who was convicted of the murder. Apparently some kind of British law is responsible? (Is WP bound by that?) I've seen it claimed they're named (Redacted) but have not been able to find a reliable source. 74.133.75.76 (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Lets not be putting names here that might not even be correct. I understand that the court will make a decision on whether to release the names. Let's wait for that. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, the names the IP posted are very similar to two actors' names. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not so much that Wikipedia is bound by the law but that the British media is. So there is no verified way of getting a local source proving the names. All people have is gossip and social media, and people really should be taught about reliability of information if they believe everything they read on Twitter and TikTok. Any names submitted until the sentencing date are unproven and could be hoaxes attacking innocent people. IP, please think, this is not even about the law, but simple manners; would you spread a rumour that you have no reliable sources for? What would be the consequences for you if you ruined someone else's life by falsely naming them? Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm a local member of the legal profession and I can confirm the widely circulated names are correct. Of course I can't name them atm. Kanayoko (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME is the relevant policy point, where a name has been intentionally concealed by the courts. For our purposes, with the exception of removing names should someone mention any of the speculated names, there's not much for us to do until February. The protection order on the names will be lifted at the sentencing hearing. Whether we include it at that time will depend on a mixture of sourcing and editorial consensus, and I don't want to pre-empt that in any way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Trial Aftermath :bpov Esther Ghey

I note that no mention has been made of the praise Esther Ghey made of the police, Family Liaison Officers or witnesses who tended Brianna at the scene. I also think that Esther Ghey's words concerning press coverage are important, giving praise to " most" of the media for their coverage as this forms a counterpoint against the separate section critiquing the British Media from America.

The statement of the Headmistress was given airtime . Emma Mills told the BBC inter alia " There was never any evidence that Brianna was bullied in or out of school " and " she was portrayed in the media as a victim and she didn't live her life as a victim...she was loud and proud and confident in who she was"

Brianna's father also paid tribute whilst fighting tears. 95.147.62.233 (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

[2]https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/brianna-ghey-fearless-teenager-who-28325109 95.147.62.233 (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Judge's conditional lifting of reporting restrictions

The relevant factors a court must consider in relation to anonymity for a child in criminal proceedings are:the welfare of the child,the child's best interests as a primary consideration, the child's right to privacy in legal proceedings and lastly the public interest in learning the child's identity 95.147.62.233 (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

https://yjlc.uk/resources/legal-terms-z/anonymity

Mrs Justice Yip determined that the public interest was such that reporting restrictions could be lifted when X and Y are sentenced on 2 February 2024. 95.147.62.233 (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/date-brianna-gheys-killers-girl-28327245 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.62.233 (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The court order can be found here. --Kanayoko (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Murder: Post Mortem

Is the sentence " a post mortem was ordered", referring to a period prior to a remand hearing redundant/ superfluous,given that several lines later we are informed that the post mortem established the number of wounds and therefore, by implication the cause of death? 95.147.62.233 (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Criticism of UK media section

Has a subhead saying:

Further information: Transgender rights in the United Kingdom § Public attitudes

The article referenced has only two sentences about Ghey, and only one sentence that has different material concerning this section's criticism of the UK media, so would it be more relevant in the see also section? I realize it's subjective, so am asking. Ward20 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

As a matter of organization, I think it’s better as is. If the article referenced was merely the wider article in general, I’d perhaps agree, however in this case the section specifically describing how the media environment in the UK may have contributed to the murder is the only part connecting to that specific section of the article, so it’s best to have it there for further reading - if what I’m saying makes sense. Snokalok (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Reference to GRA

Due to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 that prevents minors from acquiring a gender recognition certificate, Ghey's death certificate will likely misgender her

The law introduced a new right (to obtain a GRA) for adults, where that right did not before exist. So this language does not seem neutral, but ideological. Tedzz Tokyo (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)— Tedzz Tokyo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There is nothing "ideological" or non-neutral here. Maybe the sentence could be recast into the past tense though. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The law granted a new right to adults. It doesn’t mention minors so it should not be cast as “preventing” in the active sense. A neutral way to phrase this would be “Under UK law, Ghey’s death certificate will reflect her natal sex”

The reference to misgendering and the GRA are obviously ideological/straw man given that it’s estimated that since 2004, less than 3% of the UK Trans population have obtained a GRA (4910 people) so how is it remotely relevant to this individual and the likelihood that they would have wanted a GRA but been unable to attain one due to their age? You are postulating a civil rights violation, for which there is no evidence. Tedzz Tokyo (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The likelihood Ghey would not have wanted a GRA is tragically now moot and hypothetical. It is not hypothetical people and organizations wanted her to have a GRA posthumously, and it was widely covered in the media.[3] The article simply recounts the media's reporting of the matter after her murder. Ward20 (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTFORUM discussion bordering on trolling. Please stop. DanielRigal (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Prosecution Case: Inaccurate summary re poisoning

Unfortunately the section has been written as if the attempted poisoning was a joint enterprise. It was not. The attempted murder by poisoning was solely X's work not Y's and The Guardian article cited as footnote 64 makes clear that X contacted Y AFTER having administered the attempted poisoning . Y's subsequent reaction was to engage with A as to the likelihood of success of what she had undertaken. Y also discussed poisoning Brianna with caustic sofa as a potential plan and made online searches.

95.149.93.13 (talk) 05:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Death certificate/’misgendering’

@Snokalok: – there needs to be a source to say that she has been officially misgendered. Do you have a source saying what is on her death certificate? If you don’t, then you should self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Such as the current sources that say that under British law her death certificate records her as a boy, and that people asked the British government to not do that, and the British government said “no, fuck off”.

That’s, flat misgendering. If you want I can dig up sources that say the word misgendering. And it’s being done by official sources. Thus, it’s misgendering by official sources, or official misgendering. Even if no one uses the direct term “official misgendering”, plenty have still used the term “misgendering”, and thus “official misgendering” is a completely reasonable title. Snokalok (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Snokalok: You still haven’t provided a source saying that she has been misgendered. Your change to the heading is still unsupported. In England, your legal name is the name you are known by. This principle predates the Gender Recognition Act, and is independent of it. I don’t know what is on the death certificate. Do you? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/02/16/brianna-ghey-trans-girl-gender-recognition/

Under the current policy, she will be “misgendered in death”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/13/16-year-old-brianna-ghey-posted-tiktok-hours-stabbed-death/

Under the current policy, “her sex will be recorded as male”

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/03/16/uk-government-rejects-brianna-ghey-death-campaign/

UK govt: “We have no plans to change it”

It is completely reasonable to say, based of the current policy and the statement given by the UK govt regarding how that policy will be applied in this case, that her death certificate records her as male. That’s misgendering, very simply. Snokalok (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think this is reasonable and far removed from any risk of falling into Original Research. It is not necessary for the sources to use the specific word "misgendered" so long as they say words that unambiguously mean the same thing. Also, it is important to note that misgendering can take at least two separate forms on official forms. Using a deadname or putting an incorrect gender marker in a box would each count as acts of misgendering. It is not necessary for both to be present. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

DanielRigal – It looks like you have missed my point. The current heading of the section is Misgendering by official sources. But there is no source saying that she has actually been misgendered, because there is no source saying what is on the death certificate. So we have a heading which breaches Wikipedia policy, in that it is not supported by text which has a citation. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

DanielRigal – please don’t change a post after I have replied to it – it is confusing. And you still haven’t answered my point. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

This is Wikilawyering. The sources demonstrate that it is policy to misgender in this situation, that a request was made for an exception and that it was denied. There is no improper synthesis here. There is no ambiguity here. To speculate that the death certificate might have been issued contrary to policy and that that has been kept secret is, at best, WP:CRYSTAL.

BTW, I was editing the comment while you were replying and hit an edit conflict. I forgot to tag it as such. I have done so now. I was only adding to the comment so it doesn't change the part you were replying to. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation for my confusion around your amendment to your post.

No, it is not Wikilawyering. That essay says Using the rules in a manner to achieve a goal other than compliance with the rule (for example, to "win" an editing dispute) is frowned upon by the Wikipedia community. I am not ‘using the rules’ to ‘achieve a goal other than compliance with the rule’. Please stick to the point, which is the lack of a source.

I would have no objection to the current heading if there was a source saying that the death certificate describes her as male. I have not been able to find any source which says what is actually on her death certificate. You say The sources demonstrate that it is policy to misgender in this situation. But you will also see that the paragraph in our article includes: In April, the Trans Safety Network reported that, contrary popular belief, "in an ongoing case concerning a trans person’s death, the coroner has agreed that a Gender Recognition Certificate is unnecessary in order to record the correct name and gender of a trans person on their death certificate. In the absence of a source saying what is on the death certificate, we don’t know whether this was applied in Ms Ghey’s case.

The rule is that everything said on Wikipedia should be verifiable - this is absolutely basic. Do you have some objection to the basic rule operating in this instance?

Sweet6970 (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The Trans Safety Network, while helpful in some situations regarding the topic of trans rights, is not a particularly strong source. Certainly not strong enough to fundamentally change the title of the section in such a manner Snokalok (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The inquest reported in the Trans Safety Network article is the inquest into Brianna's death. However, I'd agree it's insufficient to fundamentally change the heading at this stage. See below. – Kanayoko (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kanayoko: This reference [4] you have just added has (a) nothing to do with Brianna Ghey and (b) nothing to do with death certificates. Why have you added it? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Since the inquest was put on hold pending the criminal proceedings,[5] the final death certificate may not be complete. The final death certificate apparently comes after the inquest is finalized.[6] As the article indicates, a gender recognition certificate may not be necessary for the death certificate to recognize Ghey's expressed gender, but does not mean it will.[7] as far as I can see there are RS's documenting a misgendering debate, but at this point I don't find a reliable source stating the final death certificate has misgendered her. Indeed it may not according to the sources. Ward20 (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Her death certificate has not been issued. In general, the coroner must adopt the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The prosecution has proved not only to the civil standard of the balance of probability but to the certainty that Brianna Ghey was the girl that X & Y murdered. I don't think she will be misgendered. These developments deserve a new section. – Kanayoko (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I happen to be a local member of the legal profession. We use the term "officialdom" without any negative connotation. It has even become somewhat of a jargon, particularly in the context of equality laws and gender recognition, and our former President of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, has also used this term. It's the most precise word one can find on the supermarket shelves.

I changed it to officialdom because it steers clear of the uncertainty we're discussing in this thread. – Kanayoko (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2024

Please change “Child on child murder” to “Child on adult” murder. Brianna Ghey was 16, 16 is the age of adulthood in the jurisdiction Brianna lived in, when she was killed by real children who were under 16. Changing such is important as LGBT adults 16+ are often targeted very violently by none LGBT people due to the false belief that they are somehow allegedly dangerous to children just because of who they are. Particularly trans people. Nothing is ever said or mentioned in the media about the deadly attacks by straight children on lgbt adults that is fuelled by false insinuations by others of transgender people allegedly being harmful to children, a false stereotype that may have actually been partly why her child murderers targeted Brianna in the first place. Changing it to a child on adult murder would highlight the suffering of lgbt people in this area. 2.99.81.33 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)