Talk:Zizians

Name of Accused in Maland Shooting

I think it is warranted to stipulate the name of the accused in the Maland shooting. The name has been publicly stated by various mainstream news organizations, and is specifically stipulated in the filed notice of intent to seek the death penalty. I am cognizant of blp constraints, but this is substantially well-sourced information and should be included. 00deathwarrant (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Here is a link from the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel which includes the notice of intent of almost all federal notices of intent to seek death filed during the Post-Gregg era.

https://fdprc.capdefnet.org/sites/cdn_fdprc/files/Assets/media-root/public/Notices%20of%20Intent/97%20Youngblut%20%28DVT%29%20Notice%20of%20Intent%202025.08.14.pdf 00deathwarrant (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The relevant criterion in this case is not how well-sourced the information is. Previous discussions on this talk page (Talk:Zizians/Archive 2#BLP Consensus for this article? Talk:Zizians/Archive 2#Why is the other person in the Maland killing not named?) have come to the conclusion that because the suspect is not a public figure, WP:BLPCRIME sets a high bar for including material naming them in relation to the accused crime on Wikipedia until a conviction is obtained. I don't see how the fact prosecutors' intending to seek the death penalty changes anything regarding that analysis. If you wish to reopen the issue, please first read the previous discussions and familiarize yourself with the relevant policies. Eigenbra (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Very well. I still think the fact that prosecutors are seeking death is relevant and is a fact of significance. If I anonymize the accused, am I permitted to retain that edit. 00deathwarrant (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the un-convicted Luigi Mangione has his own article, Assassination of Charlie Kirk has a detailed devoted subsection naming the the un-convicted suspect, Killing of Joan Sebastián Durán Guerrero has a subsection naming the un-convicted suspect. All are BLP issues. Curious, isn't it? --Animalparty! (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

You'll note that this article also mentions Ziz by name, even though they have also not been convicted. The bar is that they must be a "public figure", and Luigi Mangione most certainly qualifies. The other two are more questionable, especially the Guerrero case, and you're welcome to raise this on their respective Talk pages. Asamboi (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2026

at reference #8 it states that Felix Bauckholt had an expired visa, then it states due to reference #8 they say it was later found the visa was not expired. That is the only article that contains that accusation. i will list multiple that contradict that one article, https://thepostmillennial.com/german-on-expired-h1-b-visa-suspect-in-fatal-shooting-of-vermont-border-agent https://www.ctol.digital/news/tech-genius-felix-bauckholt-border-shooting-h1b-visa-crisis/ https://www.bing.com/search?q=was%20Felix%20Bauckholt%20visas%20expired&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=was%20felix%20bauckholt%20visas%20expire&sc=12-32&sk=&cvid=E3CCAA94B1AC4F4AAF0C6CCCFD863908 https://crystalclearnews.com/expired-visa-linked-to-fatal-border-shooting/

I ask that this be edited to reflect the real story rather than an artificial one made up by a single tabloid. I ask that this phrase be removed per more investigation. ~2026-28284-10 (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: The source cited in reference 8, Open Vallejo, looks like a legitimate journalistic endeavor (and far from a tabloid), whereas the links you've posted are all to varying degrees unreliable, outright AI slop or user generated content. Day Creature (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

To add to what Day Creature said: If you look here Zizians#Ophelia_Bauckholt you can see there are additional sources confirming the visa was current, including the FBI. Patternbuffered (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Ziz's deadname

I've read the previous (archived) discussion regarding removing Ziz's former (and possibly current?) legal name, and the cited MOS:DEADNAME. However, the removal does not appear to actually follow that policy. The relevant section says:

Unless a living transgender or non-binary person was notable under a former name, the former name should not appear in any page (including questions, lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even if reliable sourcing exists.

While Ziz was not notable while identifying as Jack LaSota, she was notable under that name, as this was her legal name when arrested and booked, and was hence the name most media used. Indeed, two of the citations on this page refer to "Jack LaSota", which might confuse readers since "Jack" is not otherwise present in the article (not to mention that they might have a hard time researching further without making that connection, as "Ziz" alone is swamped by the mythological Ziz and the Simurgh from Worm, and the string "Ziz LaSota" is not found in most articles). Hence, I think it's worth re-adding a parenthetical note "(born Jack LaSota)" (and possibly revising the main name given to simply "Ziz"; I'm not aware of any evidence that Ziz has ever identified as "Ziz LaSota" rather than "Ziz" - or "Xalis"/"Yanrae", her Zizian names - though I could be missing something). However, I'm not going to BOLD against a unanimous talkpage consensus, so... thoughts? Magic9mushroom (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

No. MOS:DEADNAME covers both notability ("In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person..." - see Page, Manning examples) and citations ("In source citations, do not remove names of authors or references to former names in titles of works"). Patternbuffered (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Rest assured consensus on this topic is far from unanimous, and I personally agree that we're doing readers a disservice by never mentioning Ziz's legal name. However, MOS:DEADNAME is enforced on Wikipedia with such fervent zeal that this battle is unlikely to be worth fighting.

But I'll throw a wrench in the works to see if we can push this to reductio ad absurdum: as far as I'm aware, their preferred name was the simple mononym "Ziz". Is "LaSota" thus also an unspeakable deadname? Asamboi (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME applies irregardless of WP:COMMONNAME ("even if it does not match what is most common in sources."), and simply being deadnamed by news outlets does not constitute notability under the deadname (Unlike figures this usually applies to that came out after they met the notability requirements such as Chelsea Manning, various musicians Laura Jane Grace , and actors Elliot Page Jack Haven). Relm (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I concur that "Jack" should be included. Per MOS:GENDERID, In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current name as the primary name (in prose, tables, lists, infoboxes, etc.). If they were notable under the name by which they were credited for the work or other activity, provide it in a parenthetical or footnote on first reference. The deadname guidelines cover former names, but the media reports treat "Jack" as LaSota's current name. I will add a footnote in the style of Elliot Page. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

That is a clear misconstruction of MOS:GENDERID. The deadname might be the current legal name, but that's clearly not what the MOS is referring to when it uses the term "current name." Eigenbra (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I suppose the MOS is ambiguous on this, since it assumes the name is changed at once in all contexts. The universal use of "Jack" as a current name in RS is notable enough to warrant a mention, in my opinion. Note that this is not a typical case of the media misgendering trans people, since they use the correct pronouns for everyone involved. The guidelines being cited here are meant to apply to cases where a former name is strictly a former name, no longer being used by anyone in good faith.

In addition to being LaSota's legal name, and in addition to the use of the name by the media, it seems that "Jack" is or was also being used concurrently with "Ziz" by people close to LaSota. For example, this SF Chronicle article has quotes from people close to her referring to her as "Jack". --Un assiolo (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

It is not ambiguous on this as it goes by self identification per '...that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification..." and that has been the standard application of MOS:GENDERID.

The usage of her deadname in sources does not warrant mention, as the only thing which does is if she was notable under that name - which unequivocally she was not. Relm (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The bit you are quoting concerns the question of what name to use in most of the article, which I am not disputing. I am saying we should include "Jack" in addition to that, in a footnote, as an alternative name under which LaSota has been notable. She has most certainly received significant coverage that refers to her as "Jack", which is the standard for notability. The bit in MOS:GENDERID saying even if reliable sourcing exists refers to situations where a reliable source mentions the former name in passing, not, like here, where it is universally used in reliable sources as one of the two primary names. In cases where the former name is mentioned in passing, it is an irrelevant detail that is of no interest to readers, so there is no reason to include it. But LaSota is currently being criminally prosecuted, and will probably be convicted, under the name "Jack LaSota". It is very much of interest to readers to be able to look up relevant court documents, etc., which is only possible if we include LaSota's legal name. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Ziz was not notable under that name, by all sources they had changed their name prior to being notable. That is what the policy is referring to, not whether sources use the deadname. Relm (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Serious question: what sources do we have for "Jack LaSota" being a deadname in the first place, or is this all just a teetering pile of WP:OR? Obviously they were widely known as "Ziz", but AFAICT they never legally changed their name. With the whole multiple hemispheres/multiple genders thing it's not clear to me that they ever ceased to be "Jack", and our WP:RS can't even seem to agree on whether to use "she" or "they". Asamboi (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Serious answer: the sources are in #Etymology_of_Ziz above. Rolling Stone: she'd adopted the name Ziz; the Guardian: Ziz announced that she would now be known as Ziz. Under MOS:GENDERID, what requires sourcing is the most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. Whether she changed her legal name or not is irrelevant. Patternbuffered (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree those amount to her abandoning full name entirely, but assuming they do, isn't "LaSota" now a deadname as well? Asamboi (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Abandonment is irrelevant. The MOS:GENDERID standard is most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. Sourced adoption of new name + recency. Abandonment just isn't in there. And even if LaSota were a former name, she is notable under it - and that is in there. Patternbuffered (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Would you agree that Ziz's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources is the mononymous "Ziz", without a last name? Asamboi (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Would you agree that a surname has much less bearing on gender identity than a first name? Eigenbra (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID specifies that we should use the name .. that reflects the person's most recent expressed self-identification. Given said self-identification is just "Ziz" (do you dispute this?), I'm not seeing a policy-based justification for ignoring that and calling them "LaSota". If they're notable in WP:RS as "LaSota", they're also notable in those same sources as "Jack". Asamboi (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The self-identification in question in that sentence is a gender, not a name. A first name has bearing on that identification. A surname, in this case, does not. Eigenbra (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2026

{{subst:trim|1=

Request to change reference from six deaths linked to the cult to eight.

Source: https://thepostmillennial.com/andy-ngo-reports-zizian-death-cult-murder-trial-delayed-again?cfp

 Not done WP:POSTMIL is not WP:RS. --Eigenbra (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Dispute of this article's neutrality

I had previously read this article and been left under the impression that Ziz was ousted by the rationalist community for erratic behaviour, but other sources I have found (https://fredwynne.medium.com/an-open-letter-to-vitalik-buterin-ce4681a7dbe) indicate a history of wrongdoing on the part of the MIRI and the CFAR that are directly relevant to the story and mentioned nowhere in this article. ~2026-50152-48 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-50152-48 First, that is not in any way shape or form a reliable source to draw information from for this article. Second, this article is not about MIRI and CFAR (they have their own articles). And finally, the article does mention Ziz's grievances against these organizations. Eigenbra (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

By linking the article I was by proxy trying to reference the many sources it cites from (admittedly some are difficult to access due to link rot; archives have to be fetched) - I'm not proclaiming the absolute accuracy of the article, but I believe given the weight of the allegations present it must be considered. I will grant that some of the grievances mentioned are only orthogonally related to the zizians as a group of people, and perhaps it would be more proper to bring these concerns up in the talk pages for the articles for MIRI and the CFAR, which also neglect to mention some information which multiple sources report on. ~2026-50506-47 (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2026 (UTC)