This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska
Months ago, we concluded a discussion about the lede of the article by changing the article to have one sentence describing what the Zizians are before talking about the deaths. I was not even the person who wrote the final compromise version. Months after that, someone who was not involved in that discussion changed it to talk about the murders first, while saying they were "unburying the lede."
I don't watch this page closely, so I didn't notice until the other day. I reverted it to the agreed version. That is now being reverted with observations that the previous discussion did not have a firm consensus. Despite the fact that the compromise version should be the version that stays in place while this discussion is reopened, I will restart the discussion.
Now, I do not particularly care which lede the final version of the article uses. That's not the core problem that was identified by the previous discussion. The problem is that article's lede is not congruent with the article's title.
As it stands, this article is about the murders, NOT ABOUT THE ZIZIANS AS A GROUP. If this is the version of the lede that more people want, then the article needs to have a title that indicates that it is about the murders rather than the group. lethargilistic (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can't really call them "murders" withOUT convictions, but we can call them killings.
In that discussion, I commented that a short title might be hard to choose: "Alleged crimes by persons loosely/possibly associated with an ex-Rationalists group somewhat led by Ziz".
I am strongly opposed to these proposed titles. The current title is a WP:COMMONNAME that fits the WP:CRITERIA for article titles much better than these proposals. It is consistent with other articles, such as Zodiac Killer, where the common name for the person or group is more commonly used than the related incidents. Eigenbra (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Eigenbra Our proposals comply with COMMONNAME because they incorporate Zizians. The argument that keeps getting repeated is that they are notable for the killings, not their beliefs. I.e., that the article exists to cover the killings, not them. The Zodiac Killer was exclusively a serial killer, and not much else is known about him as a person. Not only is there no conflict between that title and the purpose of that article, that article could not start any other way. Meanwhile, this article presents a clear conflict between whether we are talking primarily about the group or about the killings. If the decision is made to talk primarily about the killings, then the article needs to be about the killings upfront. Additionally, simply stating the conclusion that "Zizians" follows the criteria better is not an argument that it does so. lethargilistic (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If this discussion isn't about the lede, then collapse it and open a new one WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. But I'll note we've had the rename discussion multiple times, everyone here has been involved [1], and it's pointless to relitigate the same issues. Patternbuffered (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+1. I think there's a valid discussion to be had about the lede, but that's separate from the title, which has already been extensively litigated. "Zizians" has the significant advantages of being common, short, accurate and neutral, and it's going to be very difficult to come up with anything better.
Also, the article is not only about the killings. The Zizians might well languish in obscurity without them, but now that they are in the media spotlight, plenty of column inches have been devoted to their philosophy etc. Asamboi (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then y'all should write more about preferring the current lede rather than making procedural arguments. We picked a version of the lede that actually presented the article as about the Zizians months ago. Reverting it without discussion, pretending like there was no agreement, and then refusing to engage with the issue again because I didn't phrase it in your preferred way is just not on. lethargilistic (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently begins with the sentence The Zizians are an informal group of rationalists allegedly involved in six violent deaths in the United States, three in 2022 and three in 2025. In my opinion, this means that the article is about the killings, not the Zizians. After the previous discussion, to make sure the article is structurally about the Zizians, we inserted one sentence about what the Zizians are first before talking about the killings. Now, to defend changing it back, the argument has been that they are notable for the killings, not for who they are; i.e., that the article should be about the killings rather than them. To defend the current version of the lede, some people have even said that nobody cares about what the Zizians think. Well, then the article is about the murders, not the Zizians. The title and the lede need to match. If people would prefer to keep the article as "Zizians", then it needs to be about the Zizians and the lede needs to change. If people want to keep the lede, then the title needs to be about the killings. lethargilistic (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong preference for the order of details in the lede, but I have to say that your argument makes very little sense to me. Wikipedia is full of articles about people that are mainly about the one or few things that make the person notable. To pick an example at random, Luke Helder is notable for being a bombing suspect, and his article naturally focuses on that in the body and in the lede. Nobody is confused about whether the article is about Helder or the bombings. Eigenbra (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to all of that. Also, it's not as binary as "the article is about the killings, not the Zizians": the killings don't exist in a vacuum, they were (allegedly) committed by various Zizians.
As noted in previous discussions, I think the Manson Family is a useful comparison, since it documents a group of people primarily notorious for killing people, and secondarily known for having an idiosyncratic belief system that led to the killings. (Sound familiar?) The lede starts with a definition ("commune, gang and cult"), a quick summary of their lifestyle (1 sentence), membership (1 sentence), and the murders (1 sentence). I would not be adverse to reworking Zizians similarly, although I also don't view the order in which these elements are introduced as being particularly important. Asamboi (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the first sentence of an article should be a "lead to the lead", whereby we give a VERY brief overview summary of the ENTIRE subject if possible, before getting into more detail. "..an informal group of rationalists allegedly involved in six violent deaths" is in my opinion a good first sentence summary, because we go into more detail about their alleged crimes and beliefs later in the lead. Note that in the Luke Helder article mentioned above, the FIRST SENTENCE establishes what this person is notable for: "...known for being the suspect in a series of pipe bombings.", and my preference would be to include "primarily known for the Tate–LaBianca murders." in the first sentence of the Manson Family article. ---Avatar317(talk)20:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The opening line is currently organized name -> beliefs -> reason for infamy, which is a plan that makes sense. I reordered the rest of the intro text to follow this structure. To be honest, I don't think it makes that much of a difference exactly how the intro is structured, but this way, the reason for their notoriety is summarized in the first sentence, the peculiar name is explained quickly, and the details of the alleged crimes are still there. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
|text=Some rationalists were surprised, and a bit put off, when Ziz announced that she would now be known as Ziz. The name comes from Worm, a roughly 7,000-page serial fantasy story that many rationalists have read. Ziz is an alias used by a monster called the Simurgh, part of a group of villains called the Endbringers.
The Simurgh has an unsettling power, a reader of Worm told me. She’s an infohazard: anyone “who has encountered the Simurgh for too long, listened to the Simurgh for too long, becomes a liability. Because at some point in the future they will go crazy and cause a bunch of destruction.”
To unpack "listened to the Simurgh", Ziz sings. IIRC the song penetrates all technological measures to keep it out of people's heads. Nobody knows how hearing the song sets people to later carry out Ziz's plans. Nobody knows how Ziz makes plans so baroque. Nobody knows the outer limit on the delay between being sung to and carrying out the plan. All of Ziz's plans for audience members are destructive for the people around them. (This from one read through of Worm.)
Is there any source around why someone would adopt Ziz for a name or nickname, in this context?
Rolling Stone has published an article / interview with Gwen Danielson, who was at one point part of the Zizian group. I believe that Gwen may be the person the article refers to having committed suicide (Gwen faked their death via suicide note).
I'm not sure, on reading the article, how much of the original page needs to be updated with new information from the insider perspective, but for what it's worth here it is:
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)