Talk:2022 University of Idaho murders/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

More info needed about photo

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.

---

Hi Snakejob - since you are the uploader of the photo to Commons and the one who added it to the article, can you give some more information about it? Where did it come from? Can you include any EXIF data? Right now, in the name of WP:V I'm removing it until we can get more verification around it. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Heres some more info on it. I do not own it, I don't know why it wouldn't let me source it, but its from the new york times article on the killings: New Details Emerge in University of Idaho Killings: What We Know - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Let me know if you need any more information. Snakejob (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You uploaded the photo to Wikimedia Commons, which is only for free images that are not copyrighted. The image you uploaded was by the New York Times, meaning it is copyrighted, and you must upload it here under "Upload a non-free file" if you wish to use it on Wikipedia. Silent-Rains (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2022 (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.

Inconsistent timeline

The Events section says: “ A livestreamed video[15] from a nearby food truck showed Mogen and Goncalves at the truck at 1:41 a.m., chatting and smiling, getting their food 10 minutes later, and leaving”

Then the next paragraph says: “All four victims had returned to the home by 1:45 a.m”

How could all four victims return home by 145am if two of them were getting their food at ~151am? Dat0990 (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The Moscow police department must have read your message. They changed the timeline, and the change is now reflected in the article.2603:7000:2143:8500:5C41:99F6:C22F:90E0 (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of categories

There is no BLPcrime issue (as asserted) that explains the deletion of two categories here .. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_University_of_Idaho_killings&diff=1123487207&oldid=1123481668 2603:7000:2143:8500:5C41:99F6:C22F:90E0 (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Correct. It's the same editor removing them too. --Killuminator (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Perpetrator Inconsistency

Currently the article says the perpetrator is "Possibly jack showalter." This is inconsistent with the article since in the investigation section it says that Jack Showalter has been ruled out. Shouldn't the perpetrator be changed to unknown then? Phantom1165 (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Phantom1165The edit that added that info seems to be vandalism. Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 16:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Did Kohberger live in the Poconos throughout his life?

As we're getting into the new year, the next chapter is underway involving the life of Kohberger. Yesterday I found more details about his early life in PA. Kohberger graduated from Pleasant Valley High School in the neighboring town of Brodheadsville when he was 18 in May 2013, before heading nearly 20 miles to Bethlehem where he attended Northampton Community College there until graduating with an associate's degree in psychology in 2018. After that, he sailed up to the Allentown area for DeSales. So the main question here is, did he live in the Poconos throughout (or for most of) Kohberger's life? ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Unless you are planning on gathering this information for a BLP of Kohberger for his own Wikipedia page, I don't see the relevance of tracking down more information on him. We can't even agree if his name should be mentioned in the article just yet. Sgerbic (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's leave it for now until we find more evidence. It might come within days especially on his court date in the next few days to come. But for now, let's leave it. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@ImDeadAsADoornail, I don't know what you mean by "let's just leave it for now"? Valereee (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Recently, Moscow Police are currently discussing whether Kohberger had an accomplice, and indeed that Kohberger had acted alone at the time of the stabbings but was unknown why. At the time of his arrest in his Indian Mountain Lake house in Chestnuthill Township, he was spending time with his family (so that's a clue right there). ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Please stop looking for clues. That is not what we do, and we don't speculate here. Valereee (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@ImDeadAsADoornail, you may not have discovered your user talk page yet. That is where other editors leave messages for you, and there are multiple messages there which you haven't responded to. Valereee (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Get a handle on these edits.

These edits are causing more harm than good. Get it together. Include facts and stop including momentary opinions. 47.223.57.163 (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Who are you speaking to and what edits are you specifically talking about? Sgerbic (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

locked?

why is this page locked? 71.223.65.45 (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Because anonymous editors without a Wikipedia account keep vandalising the page. WWGB (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Should the title be changed?

The current title, "2022 University of Idaho killings," implies that the killings happened at the University of Idaho. In reality, the stabbings occurred off campus. Should the title be changed? Silent-Rains (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The "University of Idaho" part of the article name is fine. Wikipedia convention is to use the common name, and "University of Idaho murders" is what the news media is calling it. Nor is "University of Idaho" wrong: while the house may have been technically off-campus, it is still next to campus and typically used as student housing, and furthermore, the victims were all University of Idaho students.

I would, however, support a move from "University of Idaho killings" (for which I'm getting 70,000 Google hits) to "University of Idaho murders" (for which I'm getting 240,000 Google hits) because the latter is the more common form.

—Lowellian (reply) 07:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm ok with either name. --2603:7000:2143:8500:7132:7C4B:C683:2CF3 (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Silent-Rains, Lowellian, BTW, might one of you (as an established editor) be able to add this article to the see also for 2014 Isla Vista killings? Thanks.2603:7000:2143:8500:D1B4:EE77:1BC4:FC91 (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Who is Bryan Christopher Kohberger?

This came in from outside Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, 40 miles away from Scranton and 30 miles away from Allentown: The suspect in connection with the Idaho murders of arrested by Pennsylvania State Police and Monroe County Circuit Court and Sheriff's Office. The suspect was identified as 28-year-old Bryan Christopher Kohberger of Albrightsville, Pennsylvania. He was born on November 21, 1994, in Albrightsville, but his other early information has not been identified at this time; although I found just a short time ago that he was a former graduate of Washington State University in Pullman, Washington. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Although I'm as horrified as anyone by this crime, and my heart can't fathom what the victims' loved ones are going through, I also understand that one reason the USA fought the American Revolution was for due process under the law. Per WP:BLPCRIME I think we should have all mentions of this guy's name rev-deleted, until some point further along in the investigatory/prosecution process.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Everyone has due process. That doesn’t mean a suspect hasn’t been named. There’s no point in shielding the accused when the authorities have encouraged the spreading of his name and the identity has been published everywhere in news media. TheXuitts (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Google the following: Dogpile, Tar and feathering, Lynching, Summary execution, Peer pressure, Follow the herd, Kneejerk, Freed from prison, Falsely accused. See also, Presumption of innocence

I am sufficiently grey-haired that Walmart is already sending me offers of funeral insurance, yet among my loved ones I count teens and college-aged "kids". I'm relieved they have a suspect in custody. But I fear for my own "kids", and their future, if our society gives in to the human tendencies to just string the bastards up, based on our gut, before our brains have sufficient time to think. I'm not alone either. "Fair trials" were one of the reasons our ancestors fought the American Revolution. It's easy to wave these principles when there is nothing stirring our blood, but that is the measure of weaklings. The real test is when we're blazing hot beneath the collar..... do we have discipline for our principles then? Or are we dumb beasts, who just lash out when things get hard?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You know embarrassingly little about the causes of the American Revolution if you think US common law and English common law are in some way very much different.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:15FF:38F9:EF8B:9126 (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

That's complete and utter rubbish. This arrest is obviously very relevant to the story and widely reported by very reputable sources. It's not the job of Wikipedia to make judgements about protecting suspects, and the United States's succession from England centuries ago has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. TheScotch (talk)

Until and unless you bring about a change to our long-standing policy found at WP:BLPCRIME, you're just pounding the table with a macaroni noodle. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright enough with the arguments. Let's make this fair-and-square. So I was expecting early information including Kohberger's family information as soon as possible. So I added a new section here on his early life in Pennsylvania. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we may be dealing with a rather solid bunch of un-cooked spaghetti here. The policy makes it clear we shouldn't suggest NN is guilty when a court hasn't found him so; it does not say we cannot cite reputable sources about the arrest of a named person of interest.

Obviously, we cannot stop readers from jumping to conclusions, but that should not stop us from reporting major developments like this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Nø (talk • contribs)

Of course. Wikipedia regularly reports arrests of persons in cases of significant interest. I think we've now achieved consensus. (I'd "be bold", but I'm too lazy.) TheScotch (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to report the details of the arrested suspect in this article while taking great care to avoid any language suggesting guilt. Paul Potnuru 04:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potnuru (talk • contribs)

Early life in Pennsylvania

As we immediately deep dive into the life of Bryan Christopher Kohberger although it is a WP policy to do so, here are the main questions: [redacted, not important for the article] ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

No, he is just s suspect for now. WWGB (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We do not delve into any of that. If RS mention it, we maybe consider mentioning it, but in general that kind of thing is trivia. Valereee (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, its all up to the trials now. We might see his family or wife later into next year, but in the meantime its completely undetailed. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@ImDeadAsADoornail, even if we do learn about family members, we're not going to mention them in the article unless there's some reason to think they're involved. Valereee (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Correct. But let's see how things turn out nonetheless next year. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous. Naming the accused is standard on Wikipedia. They’re named the *accused* rather than the *perpetrator* because they are not convicted as the perp. Cut the BS TheXuitts (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@TheXuitts, that's not correct, per WP:SUSPECT. We name if there's a reason, but it's not standard, and there's nothing ridiculous or BS about discussing it. Valereee (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

There is clearly reason to include here. TheXuitts (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

We can talk about the reason. What does the name actually do to help the reader understand the subject of the article? Valereee (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Suspect's name in lead/redirects

I'm not comfortable with the name in the lead or redirects from the name while this person is a suspect rather than someone convicted of something. I feel like this is a BLP policy issue that needs to be discussed here and/or at BLPN. Valereee (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Good choice. Adding the redirects and leading section is a good idea; because earlier today while finding more evidence involving Kohberger, there were fights in the comments with the subsequences on media. So you did the best choice. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is with naming a publicly-named defendant in the lead. He hasn't been convicted, but nothing in the lead you removed said that he was. Is there an actual BLP-related policy that applies to this? Otherwise, I just think it's needless paranoia. Many people use Wikipedia for convenience, and making useful information harder to find is not convenient. Silent-Rains (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, policy is at WP:SUSPECT. We don't always mention a suspect's name, much less highlight it by placing it in the lead. Convenience for readers is important, but protecting living people is more important. Valereee (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I am also uncomfortable with the suspect's name in the lead, at least until formal charges are laid. WWGB (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The decision with the Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German case was to not name to the suspect until he is adjudicated guilty, I think we should wait to name the suspect until a conviction. JuliettPapaGolf (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's leave it for now. Despite the DNAs they've tracked, doesn't mean that they have tracked the touches. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I've Googled it, and have no idea what a touche is? Sgerbic (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Its just a unique way I say about DNA. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

What does that sentence mean? Valereee (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

A man was arrested for these murders

There was an arrest for this case today. 208.53.125.83 (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that. That is why there is renewed interest in the article. WWGB (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The article now reads as if that arrested man were another person than Kohberger, who is introduced in the next section. Isn't it established that it's the same person? Or was more than one suspect arrested?--2.200.163.33 (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Affidavit released today with details

Affidavit was released today and contradicts what transpired as written in the article. Link to article Leitmotiv (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

What are the contradictions? You can WP:BOLDly make changes. Also, any such "contradictions" can be added and discussed in the body of the article, as the original reporting could be incorrect. Natg 19 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

There was something in the article that all the roommates were asleep, but affidavit says the opposite and encountered the suspect in the house. Maybe it's been edited since I last checked. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Leitmotiv is totally correct. The article sorely needs updating - many people will come to the article today due to the recent affidavit release, and it is wrong in a number of places. It should mention the actual time of the killings update, the tan knife sheath for the type of knife, the DNA thumbprint on it, the footprint, the sounds caught by the nearby security camera, the words caught by the roommate, the appearance reported by the roommate, the high speed of egress of the car at x hour, the sobbing heard by the roommate, the cell phone records showing tower pinged in the area that night and times over prior months at night .. --2603:7000:2143:8500:D812:26AA:3845:68DD (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• Incredible reading. I am not sure if it is WP:PRIMARY based on upon statement by police. Should not be treated as fact, but certainly was interesting and should be WP:DUE somehow. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The affidavit should "not be treated as fact"? Are you suggesting that the police is lying about one survivor being on the second floor, or the new timeline? --Reibeisen (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The affidavit details are robustly reported in RS articles, so there is no wp:primary issue. 2603:7000:2143:8500:84C7:B13E:3A44:FE52 (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct, thus the affidavit itself is not of any use to use. We dont use PRIMARY in this instance. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• I feel like none of this passes the WP:TENYEARTEST. All of this detail...none of it is going to matter. Why are we including it? The dog barks, the roommate thinks she hears someone crying...why don't we just wait to see what's actually entered as evidence? Valereee (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• I disagree. First, I think it will. Second, that's of course nothing more than an essay. Third, by that thinking, some editor would eviscerate 2014 Isla Vista killings and similar articles. Fourth, the enormous level of coverage for two months weighs against that view. Fifth - its a sworn affidavit; what in sworn testimony do you think superior? Sixth - its what the State views as the most material probable cause information; it's not just a neighbor said, its the State trotting out what it views as most relevant, and of course goes to the timing of observations of the car and cell phone pinging (yes, that's why its in the affidavit we can easily guess), which dovetails with the car being observed speeding away (no, they don't care that a dog barked or a woman sobbed, but the observation of the timing of those, and how those mesh with the car and with the cell phone). Seventh - 344,000 readers opened the article in the past 10 days. Do you think they really came to it to see an article lacking the robustly covered probable cause RS information because an editor thinks that the information should be excluded because .. "why don't we just wait?" I mean, why have an article at all, ever, until we have a conviction or a not guilty plea, under that mode of thinking. 2603:7000:2143:8500:84C7:B13E:3A44:FE52 (talk) 07:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Again, how important will it be to helping the reader understand the subject? Right now all these things seem important because we don't know what's actually happened or what will happen in court. Valereee (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• -Again, the seven points I made above, as to the essay, reader interest, etc.2603:7000:2143:8500:F44B:759C:6453:A74E (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, ten year test says we are not going to do all the excess detail. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• I removed the press release which was being used as a source, it is not an WP:RS to make allegations. A press release is a press release, nothing more, not even in this case. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  People, this is Wikipedia not a print book. Some details can be added in as reported in RS and then as the case progresses and more details are revealed, the prior details that are deemed superfluous can be removed. The bottom line is that the public comes to Wikipedia for trusted information, if it is available in RS then we should use it. We need to keep up with the information as it is released, everything can be altered if needed. Sgerbic (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Truth. 2603:7000:2143:8500:B877:4F95:5E18:5A1B (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Elapsed time is not helpful

The info box says, as of January 8, 2023, “ Date November 13, 2022 (1 months ago)”. It is way more than 1 month ago, and “1months ago” (sic) looks illiterate. It seems to come from a template, which assumes that any event happened several months ago. Is there a way to remove or disable “# months ago?” At least until it is multiple months? Edison (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It has not been two months yet, so it is 1 month ago. It will update on January 13. WWGB (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Under Events (end of 4th paragraph) INFO INCORRECT

The article states that Maddie (Mogen) & Kaylee (Goncalves) were found in Goncalves' room. But that is not accurate. Madison Mogen and Kaylee Goncalves were both found deceased in Maddie's bedroom, while Murphy (Kaylee's dog) was found unharmed inside Kaylee's room with the bedroom door shut. 2601:644:4284:B320:54EA:7646:E100:345D (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I've corrected that - thank you. --DSQ (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2023

Under ‘Investigation’ tab, law enforcement ran 22,000 registrations for 2011-2013 model year elantras, not through 2015, per the sourced article already citing. Also, Latah County coroner did not perform the autopsies. That was done by a medical examiner out of Spokane, WA. 166.205.147.129 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Dp syndrome, and visual snow

On google there are links to news stories which say he posted on a forum about having dp synrdrome and visual snow. He also talked about having no emotion. 70.59.0.12 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

He's the suspect, so it's expected that the media is doing a lot of digging into his background. But this article isn't about him—it's about the murders. Once he becomes convicted, more background information about him and his childhood, etc. could be added later. Some1 (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Info is added about him though in the article, as talked about above. The information above relates directly to the murders, is backed up by valid new sources. Currently the information is relevant even though it does not prove he is guilty and even though he hasn't been proved guilty in a court of law. I think the agreement above was to include important information on the suspect without giving a full bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.0.12 (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The article already includes "important information" about the suspect, such as his hometown, residence, educational background, etc. Allegations/stuff such as mental disorders or conditions, him being obese then losing weight, drug use, bullying people, etc. aren't important yet to include since this isn't a biographical article on the suspect/accused. Some1 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There is also information about the police stopping saying he was tailgaiting, him throwing out trash and his movements etc as well many many other things that connect him to the murders. They are widely reported by many news sources. The difference between "accusations" vs other circumstances seems to me to be extremely arbitrary as well as what is important to the case. Wikipedia currently has a censored version of explaining who Bryan Kohberger was which mentions some biographical information but doesn't mention his online posts at all. That doesn't make much sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.0.12 (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"him throwing out trash and his movements etc as well many many other things that connect him to the murders. They are widely reported by many news sources." Yes, and that information is already included in the article because it is directly related to the killings and subsequent investigation (see the Investigation section). "has a censored version of explaining who Bryan Kohberger was" Because this article isn't a biography about the suspect where editors list every single allegation/rumor/bits of trivia they can find about him on random news websites. If his forum/online posts get brought up during the trial, for example, then it's noteworthy to include (provided that multiple reliable sources are reporting on it, of course). As of now, those forum posts allegedly made by the suspect are trivia/non-noteworthy information. Some1 (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I meant censored in that it neglects to mentions relevant information that everyone wants to know, just like they want to know about the traffic stop. 70.59.0.12 (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"Yes, and that information is already included in the article because it is directly related to the killings and subsequent investigation." Information related to a possible motive for the suspect is relevant to the killing. This isn't random trivia found on random websites...it is important information displayed front page for everyone to see from the major news sites. CNN is an example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kop7AtgUnQM 70.59.0.12 (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

What "information" (be specific) do you want added to the article and what WP:Reliable sources (excluding videos) do you have to support that? Some1 (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That he posted online that he has no emotion to start with maybe? CNN is fine or whoever reported it originally. Actually I don't particularly care if the page gets edited or not and how the page gets edited or what sources are used. Other people can figure that out. 70.59.0.12 (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing and Reading Women Back into History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2023 and 3 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taysun20 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Taysun20 (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Categories: Unsolved Crimes and Unsolved Mass Murders

Seems that a suspect was recently indicted. Should these categories be removed? 174.95.87.77 (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Case is not solved until someone is convicted or otherwise proved guilty. WWGB (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2023

I would respectfully request that the title of this wiki be changed to "University of Idaho Murders" Because that's what it was. Murder. What happened was not just "killings". That word in and of itself removes a sense of humanity from the 4 young people who were brutally murdered.

Thank you for your time. 174.247.237.188 (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It is not murder until a court finds the accused guilty. WWGB (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2023

The Accused Bryan Christopher Kohberger has meet before the 4 university of idaho student as in their college orgenganigatio as like a other other organization students "this statement is based on the victims friend"

source: https://northeasternpost.com/news/crime/bryan-kohberger-visit-idaho-student/ Santoshsendha (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

What change are you proposing? WWGB (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Northeasternpost does not look like a reliable source. Valereee (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing and Reading Women Back into History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2023 and 3 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taysun20 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Taysun20 (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: True Crime and Misinformation

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 2 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gmp76 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ashleyrv2018, Jeiyah, Aberkheimer02, Dc10732.

— Assignment last updated by Aberkheimer02 (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Redirect for name of accused

@Valereee and Jauerback: I noticed that the title Bryan Kohberger has been salted to prevent creation of a redirect. At the time the title was salted (January 6), I think the cautionary approach made sense. The relevant policy is WP:BLPNAME, which states that "it is often preferable to omit" names when "the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed". However, at this point, the name of the accused has been widely disseminated in reliable sources with national-level readership (see e.g. The New York Times, NBC News, Time, ABC News, The Wall Street Journal), and we now dedicate a whole section of this article to discussion of this individual. Because of this, I would argue that a redirect should be created from Bryan Kohberger to this article. Would either of you still oppose? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mz7, I agree, it should be unsalted. Er, looks like I don't know how to do that lol...I guess I should have just temporarily salted? Should I now just change it to expire in an hour? Valereee (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

No opposition here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee and Jauerback: Thanks! I was able to create the redirect through the salt, so no need to modify the protection. Mz7 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see! Thanks! Valereee (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Writer444 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Editi2000, 373077CH.

— Assignment last updated by WikiEdit7205 (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Investigation Section

I'll try to get back to this eventually but don't have time any time soon, so maybe this mention will motivate someone else who has been following the court proceedings…

The details listed in this article seem to be from news sources and don't match the information that's come out in the pre-trial court events.

The court documents are all available on Idaho.gov If you scroll down on the main page they have a Cases of Interest page with all of the court documents available there. Jelly Garcia (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jelly Garcia This is common problem everywhere. The news gets something wrong, but it gets blasted everywhere and never corrected. It would take someone really dedicated to this case to make the corrections. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Name of the accused

It seems inconsistent to me to have the accused name present in this article. The policy WP:BLPCRIME seems pretty clear to me on not naming people until convicted unless they are already a person of note. Some may argue that the accused is well-known at this point, but there are other cases that are also widely reported on and the decision has been made to keep the accused out of the article. For example: Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German. In this case the accused is maintaining his innocence and again the policy seems quite clear to not name people until a conviction has been secured. Pictwe (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The policy does not say "to not name people until a conviction has been secured". Rather, it says "editors must seriously consider not including material ...". It would seem that editors have "considered", and determined, that the widespread publication of Kohberger's name warrants its inclusion here. WWGB (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yet they decided the opposite in the case I linked to. Curious. Especially when in the other case the lawyers are giving press releases, and in this case the accused is trying to preserve his privacy and keep the media out. Pictwe (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Each article has its own local consensus. This article found consensus for including the suspect's name; the other article hasn't. See Talk:Murders_of_Abigail_Williams_and_Liberty_German#RfC:_Suspect's_name. Some1 (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Please don't look to the Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German article as an example of how to do things. The ongoing censorship of the criminal defendant's name in that article is a disgrace to the Wikipedia community.MiamiManny (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Says he pleaded not guilty. He didn’t

He stood silent. A plea was entered on his behalf Jelly Garcia (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jelly Garcia he did not enter a plea. The court entered a plea on his behalf. Idaho Pleas Rule 11 for reference. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"A plea was entered on his behalf" is literally what I said. Jelly Garcia (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

We should immediately remove the name of accused and section about him

It’s unethical to leave this up. I’ve read every single court document and watched all hearings. He likely did not commit the murders. Any logical person who reads all the documents and watches the hearings will understand the same.

May I please change it to remove the name of the accused?

There is no real evidence in this case whatsoever.

• The Defense hasn’t received any of the most crucial evidence mentioned in the PCA yet, which supposedly justified his arrest in Dec, 2022.

- The upcoming May 14 & 16 (2024) hearings are in regard to that.

• They don’t have the video of the vehicle in the neighborhood, the CAST report from the FBI (subpeonaed 05/02), all cell phone data, or the drive test,(confirmed in hearings: 01/26, 02/28, 05/02/2025); and there is something critically wrong with the SNP DNA info that supposedly led to him (08/18/2023 hearing, Fifth Motion to Compel, 05/02 hearing, upcoming 05/14 & 05/16 closed hearings)

• The state is not using most of the DNA evidence in the trial (State’s Motion for Protective Order) and attempted for 11 months to withhold it before being ordered in October to hand it over.

• Their method for obtaining it is highly questionable (taken from shared trash across the country where suspect was, instead of their empty apt near the investigation, where the trash is not shared, and no risk of being observed) and breaks many guidelines of the DoJ Interim Policy they’re bound by, including warrantless search, of the DNA database with surreptitiously-obtained third-party DNA (it’s not the trash that needs the warrant; it’s the genetic info)

• The only confirmed official identifications of the vehicle in the King Rd. neighborhood come from the FBI examiner and Chief Fry: 2011-2013.

- This includes the PCA. The PCA only identifies a 2011-2013 in the King Rd. neighborhood.

- He does not drive a 2011-2013. He had a 2015.

• Only the car on the WSU campus was identified as a 2014-2016.

- that’s where the defendant lives, works, and keeps his car.

• There are obvious differences and the camera mentioned in the PCA is directly in front of the intersection at King & Queen where the car is stated to have made a 3-pt. turn.

• Chief Fry of the Moscow PD & the FBI examiner, who are the only officials who have identified the car, have a combined 65+ years of experience and confirmed it as being a 2011-2013.

- No official statement confirms a 2015 Elantra as being in the neighborhood.(All officials avoid definitively identifying the vehicle starting 1 day after the arrest.)

• There is no phone evidence for the time of the crime whatsoever.

- The phone evidence that exists from the surrounding hours points toward being elsewhere.

• The prosecutors confirmed the allegations of stalking are false in the 04/10/2024 hearing.

• The claims accompanying the STR DNA are completely anomalous and have a huge, obvious indication of an error (misidentified complex mixture) as it’s astronomically outside of what is practical from a trace single-source sample (no comparable result exists in any study or case, and I don’t think they’re rewriting the text books over this claim).

- PCAST report on validity of forensic evidence: “Because many different DNA profiles may fit [superimpose] within some mixture profiles, the probability that a suspect ‘cannot be excluded’ as a possible contributor to complex mixture may be much higher (in some cases, millions of times higher) than the probabilities encountered for single-source DNA profiles.”

- this is octillions of times higher than what’s encountered for trace single-source.

• Not a trace of any of the victim’s DNA was found in his home, office, or the car he’s alleged to have entered mere moments after the murders when he’d presumably be drenched in blood or transporting bloody clothing.

• The claim in the State’s Motion for Protective Order, that the (12” long leather) sheath was found after being sandwiched “partially under the body of Madison Mogen & her comforter” for 12 hours, but only had male DNA on it, logically, makes no sense.

• No connection has been found to any of the victims in any way and that’s been confirmed in open court with prosecutor’s acquiescence.

• The phone pings in the PCA actually make it impossible for him to have been there at the times stated. - See Aug 21 traffic stop: he’s said to ping “utilizing cell phone resources shared by the King Rd. residence” til 11:35; he’s pulled over at 11:37 much farther than 2 mins from their house (he got a $10 seatbelt ticket right outside of the 24 hr grocery store in Moscow).

- cell towers give ranges of miles, not feet.

• There’s no evidence that he’s ever been to that neighborhood or was aware of the victims until after their deaths.

The PCA is a joke once you see the prosecutors assert stalking is false in their attempt to have the defense expert’s survey thrown out for asking about “false information” - stalking… which is only suggested in the PCA they advised the public to “share far and wide,” which states they sought phone evidence to determine if he “stalked” a victim …then goes on to list (completely irrelevant) phone “evidence.” …It’s an oxymoron (04/04 hearing)

The judge’s remarks on 05/02 included “if this ever makes it to trial,” and that something else (we don’t know of) that’s missing discovery is “a big deal,” and issued the FBI a subpoena deuces tecum for what the State didn’t turn in.

I would not be surprised if this doesn't make to to trial.

This seems to be a case built around a DNA mistake - false positive from misidentified complex mixture (likely why they hired Stephen Mercer, additional advising expert on PCAST report, top litigator on complex mixtures) but that hasn’t been stated yet. Bicka Barlow, another of the experts, viewed the STR DNA they aim to use in trial & referred to it as “partial and ambiguous” (Declaration in Support of Third Motion to Compel Discovery).

The evidence is completely unsubstantial and this article is wildly inappropriate while he is still considered innocent, and likely is factually innocent.

• it goes against Wikipedia’s guidelines to name him
• He’s not notable otherwise
• has not been found guilty
• and there’s currently no reason to believe that he’s even involved in these murders.

This case is getting horribly biased treatment already and this article furthers the harm against someone whose rights are supposed to be protected at this stage.

Primary example: They have not provided Notice of Alibi yet - only a response and a supplemental response to the demand which are being grossly misconstrued as they both explicitly refuse to submit alibi defense until and unless they're provided with the discovery evidence their alibi is supposed to refute. All the Idaho court docs for this case are available here: Idaho Cases of Interest - See State’s Motion to Compel Disclosure of Alibi Defense or Alternatively to Bar Certain Evidence - 07/27/2023

- Defendants Response to Alibi Demand, 07/24/2023

- Defendants Supplemental Respknse to Alibi Demand, 04/17/2024

The 07/27 Motion prevents them from telling their side of the story unless they agree to attempt to blindly refute unknown evidence while facing the death penalty - and hope the state doesn’t say anything else - and forfeit their ability to defend against it if they do.

• The grand jury indictment caused the cancellation of the preliminary hearing where their unsolicited alibi could have been delivered.

• The alibi defense in Idaho requires the defendant to take on the burden of proof, which would be extremely unwise Idaho Supreme Court criminal jury trial rules (see ‘Burden of Proof Defenses’)

His defense lawyer is right about this: Anne Taylor 05/02 Hearing

This Wikipedia page hurts his chances of receiving a fair trial.

It’s not right.

Elisa Massoth 04/10 Hearing

Anne Taylor 04/10 Hearing

May I please change it by removing all references to the accused, or would someone else like to? Jelly Garcia (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Considering the name is all over the internet and media, avoiding it here would be rather pointless.

Giving a balanced and sourced account of the state of the evidence would be reasonable - but obviously immensely difficult. Nø (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed his name but not the sources that state his name. Jelly Garcia (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Disagree with the removal of his name; his name is widely disseminated by the media (and reliable sources). Your arguments sound like WP:Original research. Some1 (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This removal seems more of a differing point of view based edit than a BLP based edit, with a pro-defense based stance. A discussion on this had happened a while back with regards to including the name and the consensus was to include. We have to balance what is widely reported (see WP:BLPSTYLE) in order to provide an article written from a neutral point of view, concealing the name if that is what both the sources and the courts do (see WP:BLPNAME). Further, your edits break redirects that have existed to the article for quite some time for the accused persons name, and as far as I was able to tell you did not have any issues with it when you made this edit and it was present.

Awshort (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

No, do not remove his name. The censorship of a well-known criminal defendant's name in a highly publicized court case is inconsistent with an online encyclopedia. Your extraneous comments proclaiming Mr. Kohberger's innocence also suggest that your request is rooted more in advocacy than improving this encyclopedia.MiamiManny (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

An encyclopedia wouldn’t publish the name of someone who hasn’t been convicted! Most countries don’t even allow the news to publish their names, because it’s UNETHICAL and it’s not how the justice system is supposed to work. It’s cruel, and it literally HARMFUL to a living person who has not yet been convicted of the crime, which is against Wikipedia’s guidelines. Jelly Garcia (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jelly Garcia An encyclopedia would publish all relevant facts related to a subject. If a crime was being discussed, it would be a terrible article if it didn't cover the arrests and court proceedings related to the event as well.

Most non-US countries don't publish the name for legal reasons, but also because equating someone with a crime can be dangerous. And if this topic was about a crime happening in one of those countries, that would be a completely valid argument to take into account. This is about a crime that happened in America, and how the sources are reflecting on both the event and the amount of coverage the individual has received, so the 'this is what other countries do' argument has less relevance.

Wikipedias policy on Biographies of living people, not guideline, is what requires us to take into account what can happen to an individual and equating them with a crime. However, to my knowledge, no one has outright said that the individual did this crime or is guilty and we still refer to him as the accused, which is in line with WP:BLPCRIME as well as naming him based on the amount of coverage he has had in the media along with WP:BLPNAME.

I do find it somewhat concerning that you initially wanted to remove information from the article based on your interpretation of the court proceedings/filings/evidence, and not based on what sources are saying about the case or what is verifiable. That seems to be completely against WP:NOR.

Awshort (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Suspect's Name

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.

---

Should the suspect's name be included in this article? CrystalXenith (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Exclude - Including the suspect's name transgresses WP:BLPCRIME. The suspect is low-profile WP:LOWKEY, notable for only this event Wikipedia:BLP1E, and their notability may not be sustained depending on the outcome of the trial Wikipedia:NTEMP.

If not found guilty, this article contributes to harm to their reputation, which is unnecessary. The name itself does not add any more encyclopedic value to the article than referring to them as a suspect or defendant Wikipedia:NOTWHOSWHO.

The arguments stated against removal of the name fit under WP:PETTIFOG, as they primarily rely on the fact that news has covered the name extensively. This is a notability fallacy WP:ITSINTHENEWS, and insufficient basis for bending the policy. The inconsistency gives WP:UNDUE weight that implicates the accused, contrasting the standards applied across-the-board in articles about crimes for which the accused has not been convicted. CrystalXenith (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Include. If he is declared not guilty, he will still never be a private figure again. He is too inexorably tied to this case, and if by some miracle he is found not guilty the trial against him will likely become a famous case of the media assuming someone did it when they didn't. His name will not become less relevant, at that point he'll probably get covered for his own sake. Given the extent to which his name is reported in RS, it would make us look like fools - it's not like the majority of articles hide it and we only picked it out from one or two! They all name him!

In any case, his name is constantly brought up in every source, there is no getting this cat out of the bag. BLP1E is of no relevance because this is not a biography article on him. It will surely add encyclopedic value, as much as including anyone's name in any article adds encyclopedic value, because if he is somehow found not guilty he will still be a major part of this case anyway. This is also a BAD RFC, we did this before, we came to the consensus to include it before.

All the rules vis a vis BLPCRIME say is that we must seriously consider not including material that implies a BLP is guilty. It has been seriously considered, and we decided to, because of the circumstances of the case and how widely covered it is. Also, the first and only edits the starter of this discussion has made is to reopen this same RFC on this and a very similar case today. Most of what you linked is about notability, and notability arguments have no bearing on this at all, because this is an argument about name inclusion, not notability. If you want to argue notability and request to delete the page, by all means go ahead. Undue weight is ludicrous when it's what most of the sources focus on. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

--- BLPCRIME say is that we must seriously consider not including material that implies a BLP is guilty [3]. It has been seriously considered, and we decided to, because of the circumstances of the case [1] and how widely covered it is. [2]

[1] The circumstances of the case aren't relevant to the policy.

[2] In regard to how widely covered it is, WP:NOTWHOSWHO covers that, as 'the news coverage of the individual does not go beyond the context of a single event'

[3] How does the main argument here, to skirt the principles & norms of the here not fall under Wikipedia:Wikilawyering?

• Asserting the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.
• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles.
• Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.
• Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical, or more literal than the norm.

CrystalXenith (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

As to NOTWHOSWHO, it specifies this is about the person not Having An Article. Kohberger does not have an article. This is not about naming people involved. None of the policies and guidelines you are quoting say what you say they mean! PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Include on the basis that the widely reported identity of the arrested and indicted person is routine information, and omitting it would be a disservice to Wikipedia's encyclopaedic purpose. The only pertinent policy here is WP:SUSPECT; the essays we may see invoked, e.g. WP:ITSINTHENEWS or WP:LOWKEY, are well intentioned but not of equal weight. (WP:BLP1E is easily dispensable, too; it's a single yet unique and extraordinary event.) As a matter of fact, WP:WEIGHT means we should present the event's complete information. -The Gnome (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  widely reported identity - for this, WP:NOTWHOSWHO would be applicable (subsection of WP:ITSINTHENEWS)

  ITSINTHENEWS or LOWKEY, are well intentioned but not of equal weight - The importance of WP:LOWKEY is that it's a prerequisite for WP:BLP1E

  WP:BLP1E is easily dispensable, too - Respectfully, I do not see how or why

  it's a single yet unique and extraordinary event - The event itself is not the issue; it's the inclusion of the name against recommendation of WP:BLP recommendation in favor of privacy.

  omitting it would be a disservice to Wikipedia's encyclopaedic purpose - What encyclopedic value does the name itself add that is lost by referring to the "suspect" or "defendant"? CrystalXenith (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Again, NOTWHOSWHO has nothing to do with naming people, it is about these people having their own articles. BLP1E also has no relevance because that is about notability of an article about him, which we do not have.

  What encyclopedic value does naming anyone add to anything? Of course his name is encyclopedically valuable because he’s a person involved. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Include His name is widely reported by reliable sources, especially by mainstream news outlets, not just local news ones. Some1 (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  WP:BLP1E states, "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article."

  The article wouldn't be rewritten to say a suspect hasn't been apprehended. The issue is tying the name of an otherwise unknown person to the 4 murders before they're found guilty. CrystalXenith (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Kohberger is not the subject of this article per se, the killings of the students are. I take "subject of a Wikipedia article" to mean having his own Bryan Kohberger article, which I would then agree that WP:BLP1E states "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." But this is not a deletion discussion. Also, WP:BLPCRIME does not forbid Wikipedia articles from ever naming a suspect who has not yet been convicted of a crime, it just says that "editors must seriously consider not including material". Ultimately, the inclusion of the name is left to editorial discretion. Some1 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Include the name is widely included in media reports. Wikipedia should not be censored to remove relevant information that is widely published and verifiable. Avgeekamfot (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Include This is a high profile case and the suspect's association and arrest for the crime is enough to make them notable. Even if the suspect is found not guilty he'll be notable for the trial and connection to the crime. While I agree that editors must seriously consider not including the suspect's name, this is an example where it should be included. No harm will come from inclusion. Nemov (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Include The Notability page of Wikipedia states that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Wikipedia:NSUSTAINED says that brief bursts of note coverage may not demonstrate notability but sustained coverage is an indicator. Given that the suspect has been in news through credible new agencies for almost two years it fulfils the criteria of notability. It may or may not have been earlier, but now it is sustained coverage and worthy of Wikipedia which is an encyclopaedia. Rigorousmortal (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Include This is a high profile case and the suspect's association and arrest for the crime is enough to make them notable. per Nemov, and Given the extent to which his name is reported in RS, it would make us look like fools - it's not like the majority of articles hide it and we only picked it out from one or two! per PARAKANYAA. I would always argue against us in any way instigating or amplifying or memorialising an obscure name, but given that this is the US and the name is very public, it would seem a strange omission to exclude it and impossible to imagine any harm from including it.Pincrete (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Include It might be better to include if there are sufficient sources for it. 110 and 135 (talk) 14:43, 29 November 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.

Victims

There's only 1 sentence in the 'Victims' section. Should it be removed, or would somebody like to add something of substance there? CrystalXenith (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Add something of substance. With cases like these, the sources do tend to give a background on the people, at least a bit. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

"Rebecca Scofield" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Rebecca Scofield has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 13 § Rebecca Scofield until a consensus is reached. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

"Ashley Guillard" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ashley Guillard has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 10 § Ashley Guillard until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 09:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Was Maddie Mogen roommates with Hannah Cleere?

Can it be cleared up as to if Mogen was roommates with Hannah Cleere? 50.103.84.30 (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Suspect's OCD/Autism Diagnoses

There's a lot of detail put into certain behaviors of Kohberger's (wearing surgical gloves, sorting trash, cleaning "every inch" of his vehicle) that seem overly prejudicial when his OCD and ASD diagnoses are left out. If his name and specific details of his behavior unrelated to the actual killings are going to be so heavily mentioned in the article, especially when he hasn't been convicted as of my writing this, it seems biased to leave behavioral/mental health info out that can account for that behavior. Can we add at least a line or two mentioning these? Actiondegrace (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposed move to 2022 Moscow, Idaho killings

The murders did not take place on campus, nor did the assailant (as far as is known) specifically target students from the University of Idaho. Don't really see why they should be in the title. CornyDude22 (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

You'll have to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move to start a move request. Some1 (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

thx! CornyDude22 (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I initially wanted to this suggest to reject this move(, as an unauthenticated user).

Fact is:

- the murders did not occur on the direct property of the University

However:

- Media and popular culture, reduce this it's simplest, popular form - eg. "Boston Strangler"

- Perp likely stalk them as attendees of this specific university- (that's not substantiated!!) 80.151.94.151 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 30 June 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) ShallowC (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

---

2022 University of Idaho killings → 2022 Moscow, Idaho killings2022 Moscow, Idaho killings – The murders did not take place on campus, nor did the assailant (as far as is known) specifically target students from the University of Idaho. Don't really see why they should be in the title. CornyDude22 (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose "University of Idaho", "student", "college" are words that commonly appear in the news articles' titles about this event, not Moscow. We don't need to include the year either. Kohberger has reportedly accepted a plea offer, so once he officially changes his plea, here are the article titles I would support:

  University of Idaho student murders

  Idaho student murders -- used by: Guardian, NY Times, CNN

  Idaho college student murders -- used by: USA Today, NBC

  Murders of Idaho college students -- similar titles used by: Reuters, BBC, CBS

  Murders of University of Idaho students -- similar title used by: People

  Some1 (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Revising my comment to add sources and other titles that I would support. Some1 (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't really have much of a preference regarding whether or not "University of Idaho" is included, but as Some1 has stated, with the guilty plea in place, the word "killings" should be substituted with "murders" once Kohberger has officially been convicted. 2022 University of Idaho murders or possibly just University of Idaho murders is probably best, although the year 2022 seems to be added to the beginning pretty much universally, so I guess the first one is the more likely option. Plectiscus (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Current title is fine. Also oppose removing year per WP:NCE - the year should only not be included if it is an event with worldwide infamy that many people would know. This does not have worldwide infamy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  Disagree. Oxford High School shooting doesn't have the year and I doubt that shooting has "worldwide infamy." Some1 (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Some1 WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That article should have the year in the title - the guideline is WP:NCE. This article needs to follow it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NOYEAR doesn't say the "article should have the year in the title", it says (emphasis mine): Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. As this is a judgement call, please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement. If Oxford High School shooting can go without a year, so can University of Idaho student murders.

  I would say though, that if we're keeping the current article title (2022 University of Idaho killings), then I would be fine with the inclusion of the year since "University of Idaho murders" is too generic. (So I would also support 2022 University of Idaho murders, but it's not my first choice.) Anyway, this discussion about the year is out of scope for this RM since it's not related to what OP proposed (which is dropping "University of Idaho" from the title). Some1 (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Note that there appears to be a support in a separate section below by an IP, but I don't want to refactor their comment without their permission. See Special:Diff/1298293419. Fork99 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  Note another comment on the RM by @TJRTexasFlorida in another section below. See Special:Diff/1298499836. First time seeing something like this, and no idea why it's happened twice! Fork99 (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  Turns out one more IP comment on the move in the section above where CornyDude22 first proposed a move without a formal RM request. See Special:Diff/1298297613. Please feel free to strikethrough any of my comments and add a note if any of these are moved under this section heading. Fork99 (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  Just as a clarification for the closer in case it makes it easier, these were all made after the RM opened, so presumably they were all aware of it. Fork99 (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support removing "Unviersity of Idaho" as the event did not take place on campus and there's no evidence of a connection to the university. If each victim also happened to work at Home Depot we wouldn't call these the "Home Depot" killings. If some media have chose this term, then we say "also known as...." in the opening line. Also probably don't need the year. One further note: as of right now, the plea deal has not been accepted by the court, so premature to move from "killings" to "murder", and only if the plea includes a murder charge. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, the plea includes a murder charge. The change from killings to murders should be initiated after sentencing in July 23. Plectiscus (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• Neutral on whether it should be University of Idaho or Moscow, Idaho, but if the latter, there should be a comma after Idaho. Also, given the killer pleaded guilty to murder, it should be "murders" rather than "killings". -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support: I also support a motion to remove the year from the title, as no other major murder cases have come from this area Rexxx7777 (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree that the title should be changed, but I this time, I cannot think of how it should be changed. Comfr (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think that title would be too general. It would confuse it with any other possible murders that took place in the town of Moscow that year. I feel something better would be something along the lines of "2022 Idaho Student Murders". A title that is specified of location and significance without mentioning the University directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlboy64 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, to avoid the contentious issue of whether there should be a comma after "Idaho". Moscow Mule (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - I understand the point of this name change suggestion. But, that would without doubt lead to discussions about the comma. And other naming issues. I say leave it.BabbaQ (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Would people support “2022 murders of University of Idaho students” as an alternative? Dahawk04 (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

You could add that as a redirect, I suppose. Gommeh 🎮 15:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Support, this title is the best suggestion I have heard so far. Comfr (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I had suggested this above but without the year. I wouldn't support the title if it includes the year. Some1 (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - I get the reason why, but the current name is a lot more specific. Like people said above, I don't want to have any confusion about the comma placement. Gommeh 🎮 15:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't get how the current title is "a lot more specific" when all it is doing is reflecting where the victims happened to go to college, but which is actually completely unrelated to the incident itself. Many comments are like this, which baffles me. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I don’t necessarily agree that it has nothing to do with it. The house was down the street from the college, they all knew each other because of the college, and following the murders the college took possession of the house and built a memorial. Also as was pointed out, a significant amount of sources mention their relation to the college. Dahawk04 (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

We shouldn't care about how media organizations decide to write their headlines. And certainly the fact they all were students there is notable and should be mentioned (as well as the school's response -- but the fact the university bought the property afterward is irrelevant). Bottom line, the University isn't a definitive feature of the incident itself. These weren't killings at the university, they weren't connected to a university event, there's no indication the perpetrator specifically sought victims connected to the university, etc. The current title suggests these are killings directly realted to the University of Idaho, and that simply isn't the case. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

That problem is easily solved by just adding the word "student" to the title, so "University of Idaho student(s)." Some1 (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I just noticed (on Reddit) that there's a Peacock documentary titled "Idaho Student Murders" and that seems suitably descriptive if we don't want to make the city the defining element. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see my comment above where I listed all of the alternative titles I would personally support; that's one of the titles that I would support. Some1 (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2025 (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.