Speedway

Talk:Zizians

Perpetrator Bauckholt? Get facts straight first.

Grotesque. So far, it seems clear that at least one of the two shots from the gun Youngblut (!) used hit and killed the policeman. Of the other gun ("Bauckholt's"), not a single shot had been fired. Makes the whole affair seems even stranger that lethal shooter Youngblut has hardly been hurt by police fire but Bauckholt, supposedly still in the car, was killed by police projectiles. 2003:C0:DF08:8700:ADBE:6FA8:E18C:5F6D (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's clear yet who shot Maland- if it was Youngblut or Bauckholt or if it was friendly fire. 73.234.98.192 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling an unconvicted person a "perpetrator" (in infobox and heading), "shooter", or "gunman" in wiki-voice are definitely WP:SUSPECT violations. Jfire (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is as yet unknown which bullet from whose gun killed the agent. It was not Bauckholt. It may have been Youngblut or it may have been an agent. The most reliable sources to date as to what happened are:
1) the 01/22/2025 FBI affidavit of Special Agent Leah Bogdanowicz:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69573795/5/1/united-states-v-youngblut/
2) the 01/27/2025 motion for detention by AUSA Matthew Lasher:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69573795/20/united-states-v-youngblut/
The court docket for the case in general should be monitored for future documents:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69573795/united-states-v-youngblut/ Patternbuffered (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by @Jfire and @Patternbuffered, there is no indication (that I am aware of) that the passenger in the car injured anyone. On the contrary, the court documents mentioned by @Jfire indicate that the passenger did not fire a weapon. The affidavit of Special Agent Leah Bogdanowicz that the passenger "attempted to draw" a firearm, which (depending on how this observation was made, by a person or by a camera, which is currently unknown) seems to be an observation of low reliability in the situation of the shooting. Thus, there is little evidence at all linking the passenger to a criminal act.
The passenger was also not a public figure before the shooting. Therefore, I don't think the passenger's name should be mentioned here at all, at least not until there is no clear evidence of his relevance to this incident?
Descriptions of the passenger as "perpetrator" or "shooter" certainly need to be removed immediately. 2A02:3100:B001:2100:F0B9:B99A:76DA:E2FB (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it was @Patternbuffered, not I, that mentioned court documents. Those documents in fact cannot be used, per WP:BLPPRIMARY: Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Jfire (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my inaccuracy in mentioning you, and thank you for the clarification! 2A02:3100:B001:2100:F0B9:B99A:76DA:E2FB (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deadnaming

Is that really the right way to be referring to the suspects? My reading of the policy suggests that their chosen names/gender identity should be used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Gender_identity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:1E7C:B810:CC6F:2CB2:C10:5DA6 (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now edited to refer to Ophelia Bauckholt by her chosen name and pronouns. Some secondhand claims online suggest that Teresa at one point went by Milo but no longer does so (such that the current usage in the article reflects MOS:GIDINFO), but I don't know of any reliable sources that express an opinion one way or the other on the matter (as opposed to Ophelia's case, where we do have confirmation). RavenclawPrefect (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
zizians.info suggests that all four people arrested as well as Ziz themselves are transsexual and that the cult actively targets transsexual people for recruitment. Jpatokal (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
zizians.info is referring to an incident in 2019. It doesn't mention Youngblut, Bauckholt or Snyder at all and contains no information on recent events.
https://www.sonomanews.com/article/news/authorities-id-four-arrested-in-westminster-woods-protest/ Patternbuffered (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Also killed in the shootout was Ophelia Bauckholt, a German national who Border Patrol agents mistakenly thought was in the country illegally. Bauckholt was transfeminine, and federal authorities have been using Bauckholt's male birth name in court documents. Federal officials in a court filing also acknowledged that Bauckholt used the name Ophelia." https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/02/06/grand-jury-indicts-woman-accused-in-vermont-border-patrol-shooting/78300819007/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:c0:df1e:7b00:d555:576a:f0a4:b982 (talk • contribs)

i'm more puzzled over the deadnaming of lasota...who wasn't even involved in this!

does she still go by "jack", even as a trans female?! 2601:18A:807C:1C40:5592:F4A4:D077:2010 (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably she goes by Ziz. It is tricky, though, because as the zizians.info website says, members of this group tend to view each hemisphere of the brain as a separate person, and thus they can and do sometimes use a different name for each one (and possibly a third name for the combination of the two). The two hemispheres can be different genders, too.
There really isn’t a precedent on Wikipedia for how to refer to people who self-identify as multiple, whether due to a quasi-religious belief system (in this case) or due to dissociative identity disorder. If Ziz really didn’t want anyone ever using the name Jack, she could presumably have had it legally changed at some point. But she never did.
In any case, I don’t think the courts would ever allow someone to legally register themself as two different people with different names, though. Just because the Zizians hold this belief, mainstream US society doesn’t and probably never will. After all, it could be easily exploited to avoid the law (“it’s not fair if you put both our hemispheres in jail, since only our left hemisphere was involved in committing this crime”)! 174.229.180.132 (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh, yeah, "ziz". i sort of brushed that aside as the "cult leader" name.
just wondering if there was some "trans-female" name (e.g. cathy, jane, mary...) before/aside from founding the cult. article implies that her POST-transition name is/was "jack". 2601:18A:807C:1C40:61AD:7B8E:DB2A:B686 (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/refocus article

The article is currently named after a single killing, but the investigation has now been expanded to at least four killings with at least two alleged perpetrators, all tied to the Zizian movement. It's going to be tricky to come up with an accurate yet NPOV name. Jpatokal (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the easiest solution is just wait to see what major sources write about these killings, assuming they are all indeed related, and see what name they use. The lead mentions Lind and the Zajkos, but the article currently focuses on and is named after Maland. If somebody wants to write an article about the killing of Lind or the Zajkos, that can be a separate article with it's own title, and when there's a concrete connection established in a reputable source, those articles can be merged into one, and by then there may be a suitable name for that article. Truthnope (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe new information is coming out that links these murders together. I came across an Associated Press article last night that corroborated some of the events: https://apnews.com/article/vermont-border-patrol-shooting-youngblut-lasota-zizians-6541ebcefc2806efd105d7db99a24aaf
Let me know if this helps!
Middle Mac CJM (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restructuring the article along the lines of Manson Family should work. "Zizian movement", perhaps? Jpatokal (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They called themselves the Zizians (and so do the sources) so lets just use that.
https://apnews.com/article/vermont-border-patrol-shooting-youngblut-lasota-zizians-c37e931e1d4c8cbbe31dbf438684f4a4
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/15/zizian-group-killings
https://apnews.com/article/vermont-border-patrol-shooting-youngblut-lasota-zizians-6541ebcefc2806efd105d7db99a24aaf
I don't think it is or was a movement. Polygnotus (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it makes sense to refocus around the movement, similar to the Manson Family article.
Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all support a rename, now we just gotta figure out what name is best. Polygnotus (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would renaming it not have some sort of BLP issue because we’re tying it further to living people not convicted of crimes? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that problem is everywhere on Wikipedia. For example, on the article about a soccer team we mention the awful things hooligans do, including murder. Polygnotus (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about just Zizian group?
Re: BLP concerns, we can describe the Zizian group's origin and beliefs, then note that many of its members have been charged with various crimes. Jpatokal (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well it’s named after one of them and they really haven’t done anything but crimes. At least the perpetrator of this specific one is dead. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to rename it after the group (I have concerns over BLP issues) it should be Zizians. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't rename this article. I would leave it about Maland's murder and create a separate article about the Zizian cult. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motive for shooting at Maland

Do we know a motive for shooting at Maland? This says Multiple uniformed Border Patrol Agents were present at the stop in three USBP vehicles with emergency lights illuminated so I don't see what they were hoping to gain by shooting at Maland. Polygnotus (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like they were hoping to gain anything. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a very weird part of the story? For a criminal it might make sense to shoot a cop so they can get away, but if I understand the story correctly there was zero chance of escape (2015 Toyota Prius on an interstate vs 3 USBP vehicles with near-infinite backup). Getaway cars usually don't have great fuel efficiency. Of course I understand that not all decisions are taken rationally. I haven't been able to find any motive in the sources so far. Polygnotus (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per zizians.info, part of the group's ideology involves maximum escalation in any conflict. Rational(istical)ly, if you're convinced by the correctness and vital importance of your end goal, any means are justified. Jpatokal (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. I am convinced by the correctness and vital importance of my personal goals, but there are many means that are not justified or justifiable. If a reliable source reports on this it may be worth including in the article. Thanks. Polygnotus (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the same website, "Zizians do not think it is ever valid to surrender. The reasoning goes that if someone is trying to extract a surrender from you, giving in is choosing a strategy that gets coerced into surrender. If you fight bitterly you prevent the coercion in the first place by making it too costly to fight you" Trumpetrep (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they proved that that was a bad idea. Polygnotus (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Links to these claims, please. Liz Read! Talk! 17:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Links to which claims? zizians.info was already mentioned above, which is where the quotes are from. Polygnotus (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zizians

Links for the Zizians:

  • Sinceriously - Jack LaSota's blog, which seems to be the hub of the cult. It went dark in 2023. The url was bought and briefly used as spam.
  • Zizians.info - A website warning people away from the Zizian cult.

It seems this was a very small group of people doing really cruel things to anyone who prevented them from doing what they wanted. The cult itself doesn't seem organized enough to merit an article. Their crime spree does.Trumpetrep (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we have an article about their crime spree then the best article title would be "Zizians" right? And if we do, then we don't need a separate article for David Maland. So I think it would be best to rename this article to "Zizians" and then shift its focus. Polygnotus (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so. The Maland murder is significant enough for an article of its own, in my view. See for examples of similar articles. Sometimes these crimes are high-profile enough or have enough material to merit their own article.
This article's problem now is that it has sprawled well beyond Maland's death. I don't think there's a single correct approach. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a single correct approach. Wikipedia's new motto! Polygnotus (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the Zizians were being kept under the eye of the FBI’s watch list for a while, long before this article was made. And the cult is tied to at least five other murders, including David Maland. For example, they killed an elderly couple under horrible circumstances in Delaware County, PA back in 2022. What is pretty clear is the pattern of their victims; white, straight (or cis) men or women at any age and are possibly Border Patrol agents and/or hold conservative values, Anthonysici27 (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should add the pattern is alleged before someone yells at me. Anthonysici27 (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see anything here about the victims' political beliefs or "values"? Liz Read! Talk! 17:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anthonysici27, looking through your Contribution history, I don't see any instance where you have ever provided a source for any of the claims you make on article talk pages. Could you start doing this? It's what makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia and not a discussion forum. Liz Read! Talk! 17:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 February 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: moved. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of David Maland → Zizians – This article was originally written about a single killing, but has since sprawled into a complicated web of killings all tied to the "Zizian" group. As discussed on the Talk page, I propose renaming the page Zizians, a bland but neutral, accurate and commonly used name, and restructuring it along the lines of the Manson Family article to describe the group's leader, the group's beliefs and the various crimes they have been legally charged with (but not convicted of). Jpatokal (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to weigh in here and fully agree with this. So I !vote to keep this article, but ALSO to create a new article entitled Zizians. I think Zizians has more than enough to be its own article. I even heard about them on the nightly news tonight. Already there articles in various outlets about them:
There's likely more than that, but I'd say these articles could certainly be used on a page for the group. And if the vote is to rename this article, then the above links can be used to improve the existing article and make it *more* about the group. Historyday01 (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the suggestion to create a separate article for Zizians. Just noting there are new articles today on Zizians in the NYT and WSJ. I came looking for the WP article on Zizians out of curiosity and was surprised there wasn't already an article. As to the BLP point, which is a fair one, it seems like that could be resolved with careful and fair editing within the new proposed article. Jameson Nightowl (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Death, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Law Enforcement, WikiProject Anarchism, WikiProject Animal rights, and WikiProject Washington have been notified of this discussion. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, because the body count has been mounting and nobody's going to make a separate article for each crime. The facts about the death of Maland should be made into one of the top-level sections of the new article. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you support the move? If so, please change your "vote" to Keep; redirection will happen as part of the move. Jpatokal (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited for clarity. Thanks. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there not something of a BLP problem in naming the article after someone whose entire notability is being accused of crimes they have not been convicted of? Bauckholt is at least dead. Ziz, not so much. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is (will be) about Zizian philosophy, its followers, and what they're accused of doing. The WP:PERP threshold of "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual ... sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources" is clearly met here, as shown by the global media coverage mentioned above. Jpatokal (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning the notability I'm questioning whether this is a WP:BLPCRIME issue. This is basically a personality cult surrounding one person who has not been convicted, and would be accusing these people of crimes. And at this stage whether we have secondary sources is debatable, but we will probably get them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I Oppose a move as premature. The use of this article to collate information about the Zizians generally seems premature and potentially inappropriate, IMHO. It reads to me like writing an article on an alleged cult, and the central figure is not even a public figure. We don't have an article on Mars Island (associated with Jared Leto). We shouldn't invest too much into this before it has developed into some actual facts, IMHO. lethargilistic (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're not doing WP:OR here, there's plenty of mainstream RS digging into the Zizians and using terms like "death cult" for it. Leto's group doesn't seem to have done anything more notable than wear white robes. Jpatokal (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but is this not a BLP issue to move it to the name of someone who hasn't been convicted? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Johanna-Hypatia. There isn't really that much to say about the killing of Maland by itself, and there is mounting news about other related people and events. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The subject of the sources (and this article) is more a potential Zizian conspiracy than events pertaining specific to the killing of David Maland. If the material pertaining specifically to this killing comes to overwhelm the larger Zizians article, it can always split out in summary style. czar 01:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies has been notified of this discussion. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 20:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also support per johanna-hypatia. Ignazsemmelweis (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, only a small part of the article is directly related to the killing of Maland. Both subjects are likely notable enough to have separate articles, so if reliable sources publish significantly more information about Maland in the future this article could be recreated and linked to in the Zizians article. For the time being, I support Johanna-Hypatia's suggestion to make this a top-level section in Zizians. Jamedeus (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to move per nom and Johanna-Hypatia. Juwan (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Split - I think both the zizans group and this incident are notable, make them seperate articles Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as premature per lethargilistic. Still contested and unknown how much of a cohesive group, let alone cult or gang this was. Some sensationalist news articles are quick to latch on to the Zizian label that came from zizians.info and LW, but soberer deeper dives like Ratliff make it clear that's not really supported by known facts. Eigenbra (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The allegation that these murders are connected forms part of the indictment, and if by Ratliff you mean the Wired story, that uses the label "Zizians" right in the title. Jpatokal (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.
DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Anarchist?

Hey all. I noticed this article has been placed under the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, and was wondering why. I see the article mentions that "Zizians hold anarchist beliefs", as cited to AP News, but it doesn't seem to go into much depth about this. The AP News source doesn't elaborate on what these "anarchist beliefs" were and I can't find any other sources going into this; from what I've seen, this cult is very closely associated with rationalism and militant veganism more so than anarchism. If anyone can provide more in-depth sourcing on this claim, I'd be interested to take a look at it. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only other detail I could find from the AP is

LaSota began promoting an extreme mix of rationalism, ethical veganism, anarchism and other value systems, said Jessica Taylor, an AI researcher who met LaSota both in person and online through the rationalist community and knew her as Ziz.

From The Independent:

What links these cases, according to prosecutors, public evidence, interviews, and media reports, is a small group of ideologically radical young people — most of whom are trans or non-binary — who appear to follow a left-wing anarchist offshoot of rationalist philosophy. ... Ultimately, her creed was anarchist and vegan. ... "There's no organization. There's no centralization. We're just a bunch of anarchist trans leftists that are trying to exist in current year in this world," said self-declared Zizian Octavia Nouzen

From the sources, I don't see a defining connection between anarchism and the killing of David Maland, but there would potentially be a defining link between Zizians (if split to a standalone article) and anarchism. czar 00:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To call Zizian beliefs half-baked would be dressing them up considerably. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalist community?

In the Background section, Zizians are referred to as "a radical offshoot of the rationalist community.", which link leads to the article about the Center for Applied Rationality. Call me old fashioned, but the "rationalist community" used to be exemplified by people who subscribe to The American Rationalist, or members of The Rationalist Association in the UK, aligned with the secular humanist/secularist/skeptic/freethought movements. CFAR itself seems like an offshoot. Better wording would be simply "Zizians are a radical offshoot of the Center for Applied Rationality". Assambrew (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That suggests the Zizians are/were members of CFAR, which is AFAIK is not the case. Jpatokal (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well if they aren't an offshoot of CFAR, in what way are they connected to rationalism at all? Assambrew (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to be strongly influenced by LessWrong, notably Roko's basilisk. Jpatokal (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of dancing around the CFAR-MIRI-LessWrong-EA-longtermism circle, should the article just name the person at the center of the circle. Yudkowskyists certainly seems like a better way to refer to this community than rationalists. Eigenbra (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yudkowsky may be a core factor behind the existence of the community but it really spreads far beyond that.
I would say there needs to be a new article on Rationality community (or Rationalist community), about the community which emerged in the 2000s on the internet- I'm amazed that doesn't currently exist, with content instead being scattered around articles like effective altruism, longtermism, LessWrong, Eliezer Yudkowsky, etc. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 09:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link has been changed to TESCREAL. I'd note that rationality community is a redirect to LessWrong while rationalist community is nothing. I feel in the absence of a specific article, LessWrong is probably the best link for both since while not all members of the community may be part of that forum and it arguably didn't originate there it seems to be the closest thing we have to an article on the community. Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've started an article, and pointed the link to it. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 10:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar error

This is a sentence fragment and should be joined to another sentence with a comma: "Described as a "death cult" and fringe group by SFGate." 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:DCF2:CDF7:FC1F:D3F (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, user Eigenbra fixed it. Polygnotus (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lede image of Maland

I dug up the high-res version and uploaded it, available at File:Agent David Maland with service dog.jpg. The metadata of that image states the picture was taken in 2022. Would it be acceptable to date the picture, or do we require a third party to figure the same thing out before we remove 'undated'? JayCubby 02:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations, edit warring, and possible POV issues

I am concerned about a spurt of recent edits and reversion by editor MatriceJacobine. This editor is attempting to introduce a lot of self-published sources, authored by the LW community, and injecting the POV of said community into the article. Eigenbra (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? What POV? All of those claims are entirely in line with all other reliable sources. MatriceJacobine (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MatriceJacobine: Yes, they are serious. The POV of the LW community. Would you please be so kind to respond over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#MatriceJacobine? Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Provide diffs to support your accusations then. MatriceJacobine (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MatriceJacobine: What accusations? I am not Eigenbra, that is someone else. I am Polygnotus. Polygnotus (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The accusations you yourself just repeated by claiming "they are serious" and talking nonsense about "the POV of the LW community" (who? which claims? nobody knows). But thanks for confirming (Personal attack removed). MatriceJacobine (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
they are serious is not an accusation, it is a neutral description of a fact. And they wrote the POV of said community which refers back to the LW community and me answering your questions does not turn me into the author of those statements. Obviously. But you already knew that. Polygnotus (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And how would you know Eigenbra is being serious if you're not approving and repeating your accusations? MatriceJacobine (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-S7hjniQD8 Polygnotus (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am serious. I commend you for being WP:BOLD, but I think your edits as a whole are making this article less encyclopedic and putting undue weight on incidents and history far removed from the four fatal incidents that make the subject of the article notable. My suspicions of a LW POV stem from your repeatedly inserting claims with citations to rationalist bloggers. Eigenbra (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which "rationalist bloggers"? The secondary sources of all major US newspapers and an independent filmmaker? Or the primary sources of the subjects of the article themselves? MatriceJacobine (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
another e.g. citing a jessi_cata tweet https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zizians&diff=1277805251&oldid=1277804471 Eigenbra (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a primary source cited by a secondary source. MatriceJacobine (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
one more citing LW post https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zizians&diff=1277794540&oldid=1277791219 Eigenbra (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cited by the WIRED article. Do you really need a crash course on primary v. secondary sources and why one need to cite the other? MatriceJacobine (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that primary sources can be used here if a secondary source has cited them somewhere else? That's not how it works, use the secondary source that cited it. Jamedeus (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One is supposed to put both the citing secondary source and the cited primary source if possible. Else there wouldn't be primary sources in the first place. MatriceJacobine (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In both of the diffs linked above you only included a primary source. But in any case, that's not how sources work here. If there's a secondary source referring to a tweet you just need the secondary source. Jamedeus (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point for the LW post (I planned to get to the WIRED article later), but the tweet by Jessica Taylor is quoted in Ken Jones' investigative work. MatriceJacobine (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By Ken Jones' investigative work you mean the google doc that has been repeatedly removed? That's WP:UGC, not a reliable secondary source. Even if it was you didn't cite it in that diff, so you still just have a BLP claim cited to a single tweet. Jamedeus (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did. MatriceJacobine (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, it's unlikely you should ever be citing the Google Docs document. If it cites a reliable secondary source then confirm the RSS supports what you want to add and cite the other source directly. If it cites a primary source or unreliable secondary source then you either need to find a reliable secondary source yourself or leave it out. There's a fair chance a lot in that document cannot be added to our article because it lacks a suitable source. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it looks like the best way to deal with this is to revert back to a revision before the article got derailed with overly detailed explanations of concepts used by the group. Polygnotus (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I think I agree Eigenbra (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to prove a "LW POV", you would need to give an example of specific claims which are the POV of "LW" and not other observers (who?). Considering how distant from LW the secondary sources are, and how the primary sources are just the primary sources, this border on conspiracy thinking. MatriceJacobine (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Order

The history should be at the top right? And the beliefs and members below that, not necessarily in that order. Polygnotus (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source - WSJ

This source may not have any info not already present in this article, but I thought I'd put this here since it isn't already in the article as a source. https://www.wsj.com/us-news/zizians-group-jack-lasota-killings-6f3aa40a ---Avatar317(talk) 06:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article order

Maybe other editors can offer their opinions on the order of subjects that this article covers. I put the "Associated murders" section first because that is what this "group" of people is known for, and is covered in MULTIPLE sources. So far only a very few sources talk about their beliefs, and go into detail about their history. So, per WP:DUE, we should spend most article text covering the subject as the sources do. Had these murders not occurred, no one would be talking about this group. A more appropriate title for this article might be "Zizian group murders" ---Avatar317(talk) 07:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zizians