Talk:Suicide of Eden Knight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do Eli Erlick's allegations that Michael Pocalyko patronized trans sex workers violate WP:BLPPUBLIC?[edit]

Eli Erlick's tweet that "Multiple trans s-x workers have independently confirmed Eden Knight’s abductor, Michael Pocalyko, has hired them before" has been reported in the Them article on Knight, and given Erlick's notability her reaction may deserve mention, but the claim that Pocalyko patronized trans sex workers is a rather extraordinary one and should require corroborating high-quality reliable sources per WP:BLPPUBLIC, and Them's reporting on Erlick's tweets is the only reliable source for such claims. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexschmidt711 I do not believe that uncorroborated allegations made on social media should be included. I have added this to the biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion I started. ☰ Hamburger Menu (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Yes per WP:BLPPUBLIC we definitely need much better sourcing to include that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Galobtter No worries, not particularly wedded to the wording. Long as the Eli Erlick response is mentioned in some way, since it's sourced and all. RexSueciae (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a trans sex worker in DC, I simply dont think this one is true fwiw; 2600:8806:3105:E500:35E2:6360:70C4:C000 (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying here and about the bad client lists mentioned on the noticeboard. WP:OR does apply though so we can't really base content on this. Filiforme1312 (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Alomair[edit]

Do we have positive identification that the "Bader" mentioned in the note is Bader Alomair? The cited sources for this information seems to cite the Google Doc, which admits that the ID of Bader as Bader Alomair is circumstantial. from the doc: "We do not know for a fact this is the person Eden mentioned, we believe it’s possible and something of value to look into." 2601:602:8200:CAE0:382F:4540:19BD:BB8 (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites LGBTQ Nation which doesn't mention the Google Doc -- they note in addition that this "Bader" and Eden Knight's father have connections in the world of Saudi finance. RexSueciae (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the chatlogs published by SDL nor the note published by Eden confirm that Bader is Bader Alomair. While I agree that Bader is most likely Alomair, the fact that Bader Alomair and Fahad Al-Shathri is not positive ID, just well-researched speculation. 2601:602:8200:CAE0:382F:4540:19BD:BB8 (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I meant to say "the fact Bader Alomair and Fahad Al-Shathri are connected is not positive ID" 2601:602:8200:CAE0:382F:4540:19BD:BB8 (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Made an edit. How's it look now? RexSueciae (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually -- now that I think about it -- both LGBTQ Nation and Them identify the guy (but Them specifies this is taken from Eden's note); however, both publications have presumably done the legwork in confirming the identity (especially given the previous involvement of Mr. Alomair in exfiltrating Saudi citizens from the US, as documented in the Washington Post). I'm changing it back -- if the sources are wrong then we need to find different sources (and it's not really our position to question how they got their info, whether from a confidential tip or intense research or a séance, if it's in a reliable source then it's in a reliable source). RexSueciae (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date[edit]

I am removing the birth date of March 8, 2000 because it is unsourced. As someone who has recently died or is assumed to be dead, WP:BLP still applies. ☰ Hamburger Menu (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no worries that looks fine. Someone needs to look at older sources + any new sources that emerge to see if they come to a consensus -- the PinkNews article published today states "found dead on 13 March" which is entirely consistent with "circa" March 12 -- for my money, the birth and death date in the lede is less important compared to the text of the article, which I think clearly lays out what is known about dates. And sources are still coming out! Paper magazine published just now (although they basically restate the coverage from Vice, Rolling Stone, and The Independent). RexSueciae (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless other sources cover this, it appears that the PinkNews author is making assumptions based on the social media posts attributed to the family. That's one of the problems with this entire article - various people have made assumptions based on nothing more than social media posts. We may never know if Eden Knight is dead or alive. For the purposes of this article WP:BLP applies so high quality secondary sources are required. ☰ Hamburger Menu (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lets not go down the route of questioning whether she really is dead. That's not just WP:OR, it's utterly ghoulish. DanielRigal (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielRigal Several of the media reports have used words such as "feared dead" or "presumed dead". That isn't "original research", it is reflecting what the sources say. I'm sorry if you find that ghoulish. ☰ Hamburger Menu (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While noting I have not looked at the sources, if Hamburger Menu's claim is correct and many RS still treat her death as unconfirmed even after all the latest information has emerged, then the article needs to reflect that just as in any other case where there is a clear dispute between RS per WP:UNDUE. There's nothing ghouslish about our article reflecting the fact that someone's death is uncertain because reliable sources feel there is insufficient information to confirm it since she is living in a country with terrible respect for human rights and the only factual information that suggest she is dead cannot be trust for various reasons. That said, I would not trust any sources which uses presumed dead. (Presumed to have died on X date is a bit of a different matter.) Presumed dead is a wording you use for something like Disappearance of Harold Holt or Disappearance of Madeleine McCann where we the person is believe dead with various levels of certainty but the lack of a body or anything else to confirm death means there is some doubt, not a case like this where there is undoubtedly certainty over her death but that information may not be available to sources and so they reflect that. Nil Einne (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that sources should be read carefully to ensure they are expressing uncertainty over her death rather than certain aspects of it (like the date). Also as I implied we have to be careful to ensure the remains a dispute and it's not simply a case that some sources were initially uncertain but later perhaps as they were able to find more confirmation, they also no longer disputed her death. Not particularly important since it has little relevance other than to explain why presumed dead is terrible wording for sources to use here. A final example I'd add to the above would be [1] which is sort of at the other end of the spectrum to Harold Holt (where I think there's a high degree of acceptance he died), to the extent I think very few if any sources actually use presumed dead for them in sources at the current time. Madeline McCann is somewhere in the middle. Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Social media posts are perfectly fine sources -- if someone says something on social media, or in a phone call, or in person, what difference does it make? Journalists take the information and put it into news articles regardless of the source, once they've confirmed it as best they can. And for the rest of the article (everything that isn't on the precise date of death), the details have been confirmed with things like interviews with Eden's friends, screenshots of private messages, and people going on the record saying "yeah that's the guy who was talking with her." And to echo the above commenter's point (came in just as I was typing this!), I think you're making your own share of assumptions. RexSueciae (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RexSueciae In some circumstances, social media posts are acceptable sources for statements about oneself. They are not considered reliable sources for statements about other people. Please read WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Biographies of living people require high quality sources, especially for possibly contentious claims. ☰ Hamburger Menu (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't inheritable, though. There's no problem with citing a news article which used social media as a source. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 09:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true. I was responding to RexSueciae's statement that "social media posts are perfectly fine sources ...". ☰ Hamburger Menu (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...immediately followed by if someone says something on social media, or in a phone call, or in person, what difference does it make? Journalists take the information and put it into news articles regardless of the source, once they've confirmed it as best they can. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of Wikipedia, Eden Knight falls under WP:BLP because they are recently or possibly deceased. I started this discussion because of a unsourced birth date, which is completely unacceptable for a biography of a living person. I thought it was a good idea to remind RexSueciae about social media sources because of their statement. That's all. ☰ Hamburger Menu (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually BLP by default does not apply here: Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can agree that all contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends has been reliably sourced at this point. The only question is birth and death date. I don't much care about date of birth but for the latter The Daily Dot says March 12 and the more recent sources appear to conclude that when someone publishes a suicide note that begins "If you're reading this, I've already killed myself" and they are subsequently found dead by their family, they probably died on the date they indicated and not some other time. RexSueciae (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be overlooking all of the careful words that many of the sources have very deliberately used to avoid saying definitively that Knight is dead. I don't think we should be saying anything more than what the most reliable sources say. You are trying to use logic to infer a death date instead of stating what is known and unknown. The death date is simply not known. ☰ Hamburger Menu (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard to get more input from more experienced editors. Can we agree to disagree here and take further discussion there, please? ☰ Hamburger Menu (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to get as many eyes on this as possible (and in that case, you might want to put the BLP Noticeboard template at the top of the page rather than in the middle, so more people see it) but I can't help noticing that the guidance at the top of the noticeboard clarifies that it's mostly meant for cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period -- none of this is defamatory, it's a minor talk page dispute over birth and death dates. RexSueciae (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just repeating what Hamburger Menu said BLP should be consider to apply for anything to do with Eden Knight for at least 6 months and probably 2 years from ~12 March. And indefinitely if there remains dispute over her death. Nil Einne (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing but I think we need to be careful before indulging claims of a dispute over her death. There would need to be a genuine dispute, explicitly supported by good sources, and not just not just some people refusing to accept what the sources say e.g. by trying to wikilawyer minor ambiguities into the appearance of a dispute. I'm not sure if you are acquainted with the odious nonsense we used to get on the Kiwi Farms Talk page, with a succession of SPAs and IPs disputing the suicide of one of the victims in what was almost certainly bad faith, but that is what worries me. I'm not accusing anybody of anything here, and I really do hope that I am worrying unduly, but I am keen to foreclose any opportunity for any similar problems here although obviously not in a way that prevents discussion of any genuine dispute should there be one. DanielRigal (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we've moved on from your earlier claims of "original research" and "ghoulish" to just conspiracy theories and bad faith editing. I think I'm done here. ☰ Hamburger Menu (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wording[edit]

She was not being forced to transition guys- she wasn't threatened nor was she coerced. 'Deceived into detransitioning' would be more accurate. If they hadn't fed her with lies, she wouldn't have transitioned. The only 'threats' they were making are blameless because she wasn't in the U.S as documented.... 2601:2C7:980:17F0:202C:65F3:600C:EB6E (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All reliable sources describe the situation as coercive and/or forced. If you have your own reliable sources that have hitherto gone unnoticed, now is the time to reveal them. RexSueciae (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only 'threats' they were making are blameless because she wasn't in the U.S as documented....
"Blameless" is a subjective term. 126.39.252.99 (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She was seeking asylum on the grounds of being transgender, which is legitimate grounds for asylum for someone with sole citizenship in Saudi Arabia due to Human Rights abuses recognized by the United States. She was misled into believing SpecInv was helping her attain this asylum by introducing her to who she believed to be her lawyer. To suggest that using misrepresentation of legal counsel to threaten to deport a trans woman to a country where being transgender is illegal is "blameless" suggests to me a disregard for WP:NPOV in which case you should not be making edits on an article dealing with WP:CONT topics. Anthroqueer (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't use blameless in my edits, all I did was not use the word, "forced", and took off, "continuously dead named her" because it suggests that what they did was terrible. Eden was not forced to detransition, she was 'allegedly' forced to detransition. 198.147.198.224 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As has been explained, this is what the sources say. If you have other reliable sources feel free to provide them. It is not our job to critique the information provided by the sources, wikipedia is not a research project it is an encyclopedia. see WP:NOR. Anthroqueer (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://gcn.ie/saudi-trans-woman-eden-knight-suicide/
"Saudi trans woman Eden Knight has died by suicide after allegedly being forced to 'de-transition' by her family." 2601:2C7:980:17F0:3866:9437:E796:896 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, IP user / kid editing from the computer lab of their school -- congratulations on identifying a reliable source. Kindly explain how its contents contradict the current wording of the article / support your (?) proposed changes above. RexSueciae (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, pointing that out was not necessary, and thanks I guess?
All I pointed out was instead of using 'forced her to de-transition',edits should be made to include 'allegedly' infront of those claims. As stated, edits should be made to have a neutral point of view, in which this article does not have. This article depicts Eden's experienced as forceful, ('After being forced to adopt..') etc. when in reality she had many options that did not require her to detransition. Notice how many sources who support her say the same thing, 'forced, forced forced' but when you dig deeper (link to post not available) her family's tweet was evidence that they just wanted their child to return home. Eden was deceived, not forced.
Overall, I just think the word choice should be edited. 2601:2C7:980:17F0:3866:9437:E796:896 (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia reflects what is found in reliable sources. I don't care what her family said. The sources available clearly indicate that she was coerced by the hired fixers and her family. We're not going to qualify every sentence because an anonymous concern troll thinks that we should; you can see other articles on similar topics for their practices. Finally, I would encourage you to review MOS:DEADNAME. RexSueciae (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that deadnaming is a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY, which applies to recently deceased people. BLP is taken very seriously, and applies to the entirety of wikipedia including talk pages. Persistent BLP violations in a talk page may result in the page being marked as protected. Anthroqueer (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From a medical transition stand point, if you cut a person off from their healthcare provider and keep throwing out their hormones', that person is then being forced thru a medical detransition. 2600:8806:3105:E500:FD13:910F:3CB5:8679 (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence[edit]

I want to remove "23 year old" from the lead sentence per BIOMOS unless that is the reason for her notability. Thank you, Malerooster (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly, yeah that makes sense. RexSueciae (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide_of_Eden_Knight&oldid=1205499177"