` * Weak Oppose While the rape claim certainly seems extremely dubious at this point, I'm not sure we've reached the point yet where it's been positively shown to be false. That said, I would agree that - if she has been named in RS - it would be acceptable to include her name in the article if it's relevant (which I believe it is), as opposed to just to ``out`` her. However, it seems the only outlet that has given her surname as ``[redacted]`` is GotNews which is not a RS. Even the outlets that have reported on GotNews' story have been careful not to use the name ``[redacted].`` I am of the suspicion this will change in the coming day or two and my opinion is we should wait until it does, at which time I'd change my !vote to support.    * Endorse above BlueSalix has taken the words out of my mouth. At this time I don't believe it would be right to name her unless the sources do such first. Alternatively, her deliberately coming out of her nickname to embrace and reassert such allegations would also be a sign that disclosing the name would be appropriate.    ::Thanks. Yeah, while I'm sure many people feel indignant and/or scandalized about the evolution of this story, it's not WP's job to exact punishment. I feel like we should go slow and steady on using names unless and until it becomes absolutely necessary to maintain the integrity of the article.    *Strong oppose - firstly, the accuser's rape claim has not ``turned out to be false``; there are questions over details she alleged. Secondly, the name that's being bandied around is from a single source, posted by some blogger. That utterly fails WP:RS. I notice that the Daily Mail, a newspaper not averse to ``naming and shaming`` has decided not to reveal the name of the accuser, nor that of members of her family. And neither should we here. Given the gravity of the situation, it would require some seriously reliable sources. Furthermore, I have suppressed her name, at least for now, for the above reasons. It's non-public, personal information along with accusations of potentially criminal activity. YMMV, but that's the call I'm making here -    ::Just to underline this, it appears the name has been repeated by Inquisitr, in addition to GotNews, however, it bears noting now before the point is raised that Inquisitr is not RS. As per 's point, we really need Reuters or the New York Times to use a specific name before we even consider it.     == Categories ==  I feel like including the following categories - Feminism and sexuality, Feminist theory, Misandry, Misogyny - is a little WP:POINTY. Does anyone object to their removal?    : , do you have sources to support such cats?   `