Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is it appropriate to have a section about ongoing court cases involving living people who are not public figures before a conclusion is reached? XZealous (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)XZealous 9:26, 2 May 2024

Discussion

This should be addressed, but discussed with caution and care noting the subject matter and the inclusion of living persons (WP:BLP)

Noting WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:BALASP, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:RECENT, is it appropriate to have a section about ongoing court cases involving living people who are not public figures before a conclusion is reached?

The people named in these court cases are “low-profile individuals (WP:LPI) in which "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.” (WP:BLPCRIME)

Not that it is always a bad idea, but it should also be discussed if the paragraph on the court cases is “actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time.” (WP:RECENT).

Note that these are 4 cases in the state of California. This brings up WP:BALASP in consideration of its significance in relation to the ICOC as a whole.

In order to be careful with low profile living individuals, I propose that it will only be appropriate to include information on these cases if/once a conviction is reached. It will then become clear what, if anything, will be appropriate for this ICOC article.

Due to the sensitive and controversial nature of this specific paragraph, I look forward to careful, constructive, and respectful input. XZealous (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This might be my lack of understanding of US law, but I didn't think lawsuits resulted in convictions? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You may be right. I took the quote the from WP:BLPCRIME page. There may, however, be a more legally correct term. XZealous (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Your understanding is correct. A civil case can potentially result in a finding of liability, not a conviction, and the standard used is preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! XZealous (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd also add that most civil cases are settled, so there may never be any sort of ruling by the court. Nowa (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes (Summoned by bot), if the court case has sufficient sourcing then it should be covered in the article. However if the individuals have a low profile, I'd steer away from naming them at all in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 09:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  I concur with this answer of yes. So long as court documents are public, and there are sufficient sources, it is entirely appropriate. If the individuals are defendants, I would certainly avoid using names until a court has assed liability. If the individuals are plaintiffs, I would never use their names unless one becomes a notable individual. In both cases, for the time being, I would use generic descriptors is needed like "former congregants," "former staff," "former pastors," etc. if that context is necessary. LoneOmega (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Note there is some question about whether the individuals in the court cases are indeed "low profile" individuals or not. However for the purposes of the question as asked I'd state that we should steer away from naming low profile individuals. TarnishedPath^talk 00:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment XZealous, an RfC should only take place after a matter has already been discussed to a reasonable extent, and that discussion has reached an impasse and failed to achieve consensus. If such discussion has taken place, I sure can't find it, so could you include a pointer to it so that those commenting on the RfC can also read through it and see what points were raised there? If that hasn't happened yet, then this RfC is premature, and needs to be closed in favor of just trying a regular discussion first. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  There have been ongoing attempts by editors with COIs to have material perceived as critical of the ICOC removed from the article, of which this appears to be the latest attempt. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#International Churches of Christ. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Cordless Larry I would advise to follow WP:GF. If you have doubts about my behavior/editing here you can "substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence." My goal is not and has not been to remove "material perceived as critical of the ICOC." I have tried my best to suggest edits according to and citing policies.

  I have noted that you put me on the COI notice board for removing the tag on the belief section. However, the previous RfC (posted after my removal of the tag) has concluded my action to be appropriate. Feel free to discuss any further concerns about my behavior/editing on my talk page.

  I will also WP:DGF in listening to and understand that you also are aiming to improve this article by discussing and following policy. Thanks! XZealous (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, which RfC has confirmed that you were correct to remove the third-party sources tag? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  "This RfC has received open comment and discussion for more than 10 days and appears to have achieved a majority view on acceptable uses of About Self sourcing on the beliefs section of a religious organization's article under certain circumstances." XZealous (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  You're citing Meta Voyager's assessment of their own RfC as demonstrating consensus for removal of a template that the RfC wasn't even about! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Cordless Larry yes, agreed that's some odd reasoning. TarnishedPath^talk 13:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  That was a completely inappropriate close, and I've reversed it. Meta Voyager, editors involved in a discussion cannot decide to "end" that discussion. In the case of something like an RfC, you may ask (for example at requests for closure) that an uninvolved editor close and summarize the discussion once it has run long enough; in the case of an RfC that's 30 days, not 10. Please ensure not to do anything like that again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  I take issue with your characterization of my actions as "a completely inappropriate close." According to WP:RfC, keeping the discussion open for 30 days after which it will be ended by removal by Legobot is one option. Seeking a Wikipedia:Closure request is another option, but I found the requests for uninvolved editors to be currently backlogged and, frankly, discouraged. A third option is to manually end the discussion if one of the reasons to end RfCs applies. I chose to manually end the discussion without a closing summary based upon my belief that the discussion had run its course, an "undoubtedly clear" consensus written by either an uninvolved or involved editor was unlikely and one editor suggested that a closing summary by an involved editor was inappropriate. I announced my intention to manually end the discussion and did so a few hours later. I also note that WP:RfC provides for a RfC discussion to be extended which is what you have appeared to have done, so I have no objection. Do you still see it the same way? Meta Voyager (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. It's okay if the RfC just comes to a natural end if all the participants agree that it has or it just peters out, and not every RfC requires a formal close, but once Cordless Larry objected to you doing what you did, you don't do that. In that case, leave it open until someone uninvolved (and that, by the way, is a "you get who you get", not someone of your choice) closes it, or until the discussion just ends on its own accord. But someone involved should not shut down the discussion if anyone involved in that discussion objects to them doing so. Generally speaking, if anyone at all involved in the discussion objects to it being closed or summarized by someone else involved, that should not happen. And the discussion had not clearly reached a natural end—the last comment in it was made just a couple of hours before you did your close, and it's entirely possible people might have liked to respond to that or say more. You don't just get to decide "Well, that's enough here then" and unilaterally shut it down. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Seraphimblade, please read Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Reasons and ways to end RfCs. RFCs are not required to stay open until the bot's 30-day limit. If the answer appears in 10 days, then editors should end the RFC after 10 days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing the discussion hadn't run its course. TarnishedPath^talk 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  His statement contained an error. My concern here is about preventing that misinformation from spreading. Most of our 'training' of editors is basically the telephone game: An admin says something, and less-experienced editors believe that the statement is an accurate representation of The Rules™. Almost Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, so if none of us correct these errors when they appear, then the fake rule will get repeated, in total trust, until "everybody knows" the fake rule, and nobody knows the real ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Cordless Larry, I initially removed your sourcing tag because I knew that it was fine for the Belief section to use the sources that it already had, it did not need your tag stating "This section may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject,"

  @Meta Voyager's RfC was about this very topic. Can the belief section use WP:ABOUTSELF for its sourcing? The consensus (I now see that the Rfc has been re-opened for further discussion) was that ABOUTSELF is fine for that section. Therefore, your tag is not necessary. XZealous (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  The RfC didn't ask specifically about this article though but rather about religious organisations in general, which is why responses included things like "For most major religions, this should be fine, but..." and "But for what I see in the article, no because it is not those things". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Both of the responses you quoted were not from replies that had issues with the sourcing themselves. The issue was with the application of the sources. @Licks-rocks was mentioning about organizations with high discrepancy between internal and external claims which might need more than just primary sourcing. And @North8000's issue was with the wording of the belief section, not just the source used. They later stated they was fine with the sourcing as long as the wording of the section was cleaned up.

  I actually didn't notice that the RfC wasn't about this article. I assumed it was because it was posted on this talk page. I'm not sure how much of a difference the same RfC would make if it was restated to be about this page, as most of the answers were still helpful XZealous (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Please avoid quoting me to defend using primary sources where better sources are available. I listed one scenario where the use of primary sources can lead to problems, as an example for why you shouldn't. See also above. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Im sorry if it seemed I misquoted you. I wasn't using you to defend the use of Primary sourcing. I was noting your comment on high control organizations being an issue for using Primary sourcing, and how in those situations there should be more than just primary sourcing. I see you clarified your comment above, thanks for that! XZealous (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  @XZealous, that wasn't my reading of consensus. I certainly spoke about only using WP:ABOUTSELF sourcing when there was gaps in other sourcing and then only with care. Another editor agreed with me. I'd wait for a formal close before claiming to know what consensus is one way or another. Ps, I've called for a formal close at WP:CR. TarnishedPath^talk 02:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  @XZealous, the RfC has now had a formal close from a non-invloved editor. You might want to see what they determined conssensus to be, because it is markedly different to what you stated. TarnishedPath^talk 02:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, since I've been (Summoned by bot), I might as well give my input, premature RfC or not. Yes, it's absolutely appropriate to have a section on an on-going lawsuit with non-public figures, just as long as their names aren't given. Lawsuits can take years, and are extremely important to the affected organizations/people. Omitting them just because they're delicate subjects that need to be treated with care would be negligent. Ships & Space_(Edits) 15:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Since there was already discussion on this topic in the above section entitled WP:RECENT, the point was made that there are 5 court cases all confined to the State of California. The ICOC is a church in over 150 nations of the world, with the majority of churches outside the US. Therefore the policy of WP:UNDUE would apply. Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Well, as it seems like someone's saying that there was at least some prior discussion on this (though I can't find it), then as to the question itself: The article of course should include information about the lawsuit; it's clearly been noted as significant by reliable sources. If lower-profile individuals are involved in the court filings, they should not be mentioned by names, but it is fine to mention the name of church leaders and the like if the sources which discuss the matter do. I don't like having a "Controversies" section in articles and prefer that such material just be integrated in, but that's a question of article style. It certainly belongs in the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  The "prior discussion" that is being referred to is in Talk Archive 9 Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ/Archive_9#WP:RECENT The discussion was whether or not what the article says about the lawsuits should be updated based on primary sources (e.g. court records). The article currently discusses a set of related cases filed in US Federal Court. Court records indicate that these cases have been dismissed without prejudice at the request of both the plaintiffs and the defendants. Court records have also indicated that a similar set of related cases have been subsequently filed in CA State Court. These cases are ongoing. The consensus at the time was not use any primary sources and wait until if/when RS provides an update. There was no discussion of "people who are not public figures". Nowa (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Nowa, you are right. The issue I remember you highlighting is whether a few cases in one US state are notable. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that's not quite the issue I was highlighting. The issue was not the notability of the state cases, but whether or not we should update the article based on primary sources or wait until RS becomes available. Nowa (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  The cases are notable because they've been covered in multiple high-quality independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Cordless, just because it is in the news doesn't mean that 5 cases isolated to one US state should be used to describe 755 churches in 150+ nations in the world. If you had court cases in multiple nations, that would change the picture. WP:BALANCE states An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  The lawsuits implicate the founder of the ICOC, Kip McLean; they're not just about isolated parts of the organisation. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  McKean hasn't been a part of the ICOC for almost 20 years now, and he has his own page on Wikipedia if you wish to post over there. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• The way the question was worded, the answer is yes. It is appropriate to include a section about ongoing litigation, if it is WP:DUE and referenced and avoids the names of non-notables... etc. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Cunado, I think the argument is that it is not WP:DUE. The 5 cases are all filed in California and are limited in jurisdiction to that one state. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  Since when has extent of jurisdiction mattered when evaluating due weight? On its face that appears to be absurd Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back agreed. If there is extensive reporting in RS then there's extensive reporting in RS. TarnishedPath^talk 16:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  “Since when has extent of jurisdiction mattered when evaluating due weight? On its face that appears to be absurd”.

  Great question… I would say since your fellow Administrator said this:

  “A single defamation case in Singapore (and we still don't have a source stating that the church was part of ICOC) doesn't merit inclusion in the lede to my mind. CordlessLarry 5th Jan”

  “WP:WEIGHT requires us to give due weight to the prominence of each viewpoint in reliable sources. The Singapore case largely received local attention, @CordlessLarry 17th January”

  Feel free to read all the arguments in their full context on the section above regarding the Singapore court case. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  The Singapore case received mostly local attention (and is still covered in the article), whereas the LA lawsuits have received international press coverage. It feels very much like you and other COI editors are grasping around for a policy rationale to justify the outcome that you desire because of your association with the ICOC. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Per Larry's comment you're grasping at straws with your argument. We go with the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources. You bringing up questions of jurisdiction is a frivolous and transparent attempt to muddy the water. It's obvious you are engaging in WP:ADVOCACY because you have a WP:COI as disclosed here. TarnishedPath^talk 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for acknowledging that I have self disclosed that I am a member of the church. It is interesting that you would choose that attacking the messenger is your best form of argument. I answered the question I was asked about jurisdiction by quoting an administrators statements made on this very Talk page… Can we get away from personal attacks and return to the purpose of this RFC?

  - On that note, the court cases mentioned in the sources that are referenced in the LEDE are dated 19th of March 2023 for the Guardian and 28th of February for the LA Times. The cases mentioned in those articles have all been dismissed by judge Otis D Wright II on the 14th of July 2023. If we do not have a reliable source dated after July 2023 describing the state cases, may I ask why is this included in the page? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm confused. Are you saying that the state cases are mentioned in the article? Where? Nowa (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm glad to see this topic resurfacing in this thread. The prior cases that were reported on in the cited news articles and that have been relied upon as secondary sourcing for the Legal Issues section of the article were published in early 2023. If the prior editor is correct, those federal cases were dismissed on July 14, 2023. Thus, the prior news articles are outdated and can not serve as secondary sourcing for any subsequent cases are refiled. A series of 4 state cases appear to have been filed in California beginning on July 13, 2023 based on Los Angeles court records. No matter your view on this RfC, the current state cases do not appear to be appropriately sourced with secondary sources and any interpretation of the content of these cases such as has been done under the section entitled "Lawsuits related to alleged coverup of sexual abuse" would be premature and prohibited by WP:NOR. According to WP:LAWRS as elaborated upon by SamuelRiv elsewhere on this Talk page, “Editors cannot interpret anything in primary sources of law or court rulings beyond its plain text (not how they apply, not what they imply -- same goes with any WP:Primary source). A newspaper is not a RS on legal interpretation unless they have a specialist correspondent or expert commentator." Meta Voyager (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  When you say "interpretation of the content of these cases ", are you referring to the federal cases or the state cases? Nowa (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Based upon WP:LAWRS, interpreting legal court decisions should be left to legal experts. Briefs or legal memorandum are "probably a primary source and should be considered as advocacy for one adversary for which balance from an opposing party is needed and even the balance is often insufficient. While they may quote reliable sources, they are not reliable regarding those other sources, because the quoting is itself a form of one-sided advocacy." Based on this guidance, my view is that interpreting the pleadings from either the federal or state cases is not appropriate and does not constitute RS for purposes of supporting the paragraph in question. Meta Voyager (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  We're not interpreting legal findings. We're relying on the LA Times and Guardian, which are reliable sources, reporting on the lawsuits. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Right, I just want to be sure that you are not saying that the state cases are currently described in the article. If you do feel they are described, please show where. Nowa (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  We can only update the material if we have reliable sources. Even if the lawsuits failed, it would still be appropriate to cover them in the article because they've been covered in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I’m making a point about the lack of reliable sourcing in the cited articles on legal matters based on Wikipedia policy. The authors referenced in the LA Times and Guardian articles do not have special expertise on legal matters. Authors of the LA Times article are Ngai Yeung, a healthcare tech reporter with recent degrees in Journalism and Political Economy and Samantha Moscow, a multimedia journalist with degrees in Journalism and Political Science. Natalia Borecka who authored the Guardian article is a freelance journalist and photographer based in San Francisco with degrees in English Literature and Journalism. Neither are qualified to interpret legal matters. If you feel it’s important to broadly acknowledge that there have been lawsuits, that’s one thing, but to say anything further about what they imply based upon these sources is not RS. The current paragraph under the heading on "Lawsuits related to alleged coverup of sexual abuse" should be deleted from the article. Meta Voyager (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Which part of the current article do you feel is a legal interpretation? Can you point to a specific sentence? Nowa (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for seeking clarity on my prior comments. I hope the following information is helpful. Whoever authored the paragraph in the Legal Issues section of the article under the heading, “Lawsuits related to alleged coverup of sexual abuse” makes statements throughout about what is contained in the complaints that were filed by plaintiffs in the referenced federal lawsuits. The entire heading to the paragraph and the paragraph itself are a legal interpretation that is not supported by RS. These interpretations are about allegations in the initial complaints of lawsuits that were never tested in a court of law before the lawsuits were withdrawn. The paragraph's author(s) apparently rely on two news articles written by three journalists who do not appear to be legal experts and who are not according to WP:LAWRS reliable sources. Every allegation in a complaint is rightfully subjected to interpretation by the judge and jury in the lawsuit after considering relevant responsive pleadings and evidence. That's what happened in the Singapore lawsuit that is also reported in the Legal Issues section where the findings of a final judgment by the court were reported by a RS. However, Wikipedia policy makes it clear that it is not up to editors or journalists without special legal expertise to include in the Wikipedia encyclopedia their interpretations on legal matters. Meta Voyager (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarifying note.

  Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law) is a Wikipedia:Essays, not a Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. If it's helpful, great, if not, then we are not bound by it.

  The essay has suggestions to help editors evaluate "books about laws and articles about laws" that might be suitable RS for a Wikipedia article that talked about a law.

  But the current article isn't about a law. It is simply summarizing what RS newspapers say about the status of particular cases. Citing RS news sources about the status of particular cases is common practice in Wikipedia. Take a look at any article about an ongoing case and you will see how other editors are doing this. Nowa (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. I understand that essays are not binding, but this particular essay highlights the special care given to editing and sourcing on legal matters. The essay also encompasses court decisions. In any event, I appreciate the interest that you've taken in editing this article. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not only is it an essay, but WP:LAWRS defines the scope of the essay in the very first sentence, "Law sources such as books about laws and articles about laws in magazines and academic journals may be reliable sources". Clearly it is not meant to cover WP:RS which are news articles about court cases. Please give up your attempts at WP:WIKILAWYERING. TarnishedPath^talk 12:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your additional advice. I urge you to consider the second sentence in the WP:LAWRS essay that says, "Whether a law source is reliable or not needs to be assessed separately for each source" and the entire section on News Media and Broadcasts that includes the sentence, "Reliability varies between general media and legal media, the latter probably being more reliable on average." Nonetheless, I take your point and appreciate the willingness of those on this talk page to consider a differing viewpoint on a given issue. Meta Voyager (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  In relation to the last snippet you quoted, there is a follow on putting it contect "When time has passed and more stable sources have been published, generally the latter should be used instead of older news media". We need to bear in mind that academic journals in the field of law or professional magazines are not going to cover every court case that occurs, especially not ones which might be dismissed because of settlement of some sort or other. To try and suggest that just because the reliable sources used in the article are not academind journals or professoinal magazines in the field of law that they all of sudden become not reliable sources is bizarre in the extreme and not in keeping with actual Wikipedia policy found at WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 00:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes If there is sufficient reliable sources about the law suit and it is sourced what the suit is about and it is relevant to COC, then it would be appropriate to include the law suits in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your input. Could you guide me to the policy that led you to this conclusion? Thanks! XZealous (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for all that have put your input so far! Some have said that it is fine to keep the lawsuits in as long as the non public figures are not named. What policy does that come from? I see in WP:BLPCRIME that "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.”

Would appreciate further input on this, thanks! XZealous (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PUBLICFIGURE Nowa (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I see. That policy is regarding public figures. The lawsuits involve (as far as I am aware), non public figures. XZealous (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Are there any non public figures mentioned in the article? Nowa (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the cases they are not mentioned by name (depending on how public you view Kip Mckean to be). In my reading of WP:BLPCRIME, there should be nothing in an article about a non-public figure in a court case unless a conviction has been secured.

It seems like the discussion is between not naming them, but keep the case - or don't keep the case.

This revolves around "For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

Thanks for your input! XZealous (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

When you say "depending on how public you view Kip Mckean to be", are you saying Kip McKean is not a public figure? Nowa (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I was reading through WP:LOWPROFILE and I think an argument could be made either way. However, there are other low-profile individuals named in the case. XZealous (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

He was the public face of a church. How do you figure you could make an argument either way? TarnishedPath^talk 08:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Reading through WP:LOWPROFILE he seems to align more with the "low-profile" of the 5 aspects written about. But honestly not a hill I'm interested in dying on. Either way, my main concern is about the other low-profile individuals in the case. XZealous (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

He's a public figure who's named in the media reporting on the case, so it's fine to include his name here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree. Him being the head of the church, i.e. its public face, for 20ish years would well and truly categorise him as a high-profile individual. TarnishedPath^talk 10:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I generally think open court cases with non-public people should NOT be included. The outcome of the case is yet to be determined and people who may at some point be declared innocent may be affected. After the case is decided that would be another matter. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Good points, but as indicated above, these are civil cases, not criminal. Civil cases assess liability, not guilt. The vast majority of civil cases are settled before any court decision on the merits. The terms of the settlement are often confidential. Nowa (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Emphasizing one aspect of that, anybody can file a civil case claiming anything and so it's existence is less meaningful/informative than a criminal case. I'm just talking generally, I don't know the particulars here. North8000 (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry wrote above that the lawsuits implicated Kip McKean, the founder of ICOC. I don't know the specifics of the court cases, however if that is true they are not a low-profile individual. TarnishedPath^talk 00:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Kip McKean is only one person named in the case. If at all, he would be the only non low-profile individual. There are around 30+ other clear low-profile individuals named in the cases. For this reason, I suggest waiting to see the outcome of the case before we put any information about it on the ICOC page per WP:BLPCRIME XZealous (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that these are not criminal proceedings and therefore WP:BLPCRIME is not an argument, even more so if "low-profile individuals" are not named in the article. Correct me if there are current criminal proceedings. TarnishedPath^talk 07:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, I don't think there are criminal proceedings.. I'm not a lawyer so there may be aspects of these cases I don't understand, but the low-profile individuals in the case record are accused of committing crime. However, the case was filed by "civil procedure", so the outcome would be about liability not conviction. Also, is there any WP about how to handle criminal accusations in a civil case? XZealous (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "criminal accusations in a civil case". Even if some things alleged in a civil case could be crimes, they are still claims of civil liability, not criminal indictments. I think we would have at least a rough parallel to BLPCRIME there, but in this case, since an organization is being sued, that doesn't mean we would not discuss the case at all, since the organization is not a "low-profile individual". It just means we wouldn't name individual names of low-profile people who happen to be mentioned. Of course, the organization's leader is not "low-profile", but other people might be—but that means don't mention their names, not don't mention the case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Agreed. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree here. We should wait until the case it settled before deciding how to/if to include this material. If not, we may be assisting in bringing unwanted attention to (potentially) innocent low-profile parties in a serious matter. XZealous (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.