Talk:Levi Bellfield

Untitled

May 2023, Bellfield admits to 4th Murder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:F48B:D201:643D:F2A7:6319:FA7B (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Timeline

Timeline, dead link: https://web.archive.org/web/20190117052422/http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/307199

Numbers and notability

This source claims accusation of 2 murders, not 12. What is the sourcing for the rest, and why is this notable enough to merit an article? We do not have articles for all murderers. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This page lists the attempted murders linked to this serial killer, not 12 murders. The attacks have been very high profile in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.206.8 (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The notability is established, but I'd query him being categorised as a 'serial killer'. He has been convicted of two murders, not three - which is the usual number for dubbing someone a serial killer. Thoughts? Malick78 (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that wikipedia ought to disperse Bellfield being a serial killer as much as possible, because a) it could prejudice a possible trial against him concerned with the murder of Milly Dowler in 2002, and b) more potently, it makes the POV comment that Bellfield did do this murder, which is a violation of Wikipedia:BLP--Cymbelmineer (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Numbers

what are all these numbers in the all attacks bit? they just look random to me. are they meant to be ages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.137.32 (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bouncer

'Bellfield worked, perhaps unsurprisingly, as a nightclub...' Aye, the lot of them must be murderers... Removed because it implies he murdered them because he's a bouncer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.137.32 (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Megre of the articles ould take place only if bellfield is convicted of the murders he is charged with.--Lucy-marie 10:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Even then, the victim's pages should be merged with this one. (my IP 62.64.206.8)

Strongly agree, Lucy-marie. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Caution

It must be noted that news reports in the UK media today as regards Bellfield being charged in the Dowler case - even from sources that only yesterday, when it was merely rumoured he would be charged, gave full details of his previous convictions - have all without fail omitted this information. As a result, we must assume there is now an injunction against these details being publicised to avoid prejudicing the case, and so I suggest caution in updates to this page. 86.9.26.150 (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not so much an injunction, more the operation of the sub judice rule. On that basis, I have removed the Michael Stone material under WP:BLP as a poorly-sourced attempt to imply that his murders were actually committed by Bellfield, and I have no doubt what the reaction of the (High Court) judge in any trial would be were it to emerge that this content had potentially been accessible by jurors. If necessary, this article will be protected to preserve this position. Rodhullandemu 01:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The documentary about Levi Bellfield, My Dad the Serial Killer

I watched that film, and I thought that Levi Bellfield's daughter's mother, said something of the type of comment that Levi Bellfield had many times tried to break into their house, and vandalise it. She also said that both the women he is currently known to be guilty of killing, as well as other women who were his probable victims, seems to have had her features. Is that reliable as it is from a third-party, or does Wikipedia:C.O.I apply? By the way, if anyone replies to this, can they preface your comments with one colon(s), as it makes chat replies easier to log. just in case you didn't know. Thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

MichaelStone.co.uk

In this edit I removed material claiming Levi Bellfield is or may be guilty of other crimes. This material isn't sourced, bar a link to a website that is not a reliable source. The Biographies of living persons policy applies to all articles, even those convicted serial killers. I believe this content, and the external link to www.MichaelStone.co.uk, flatly and flagrantly violates this policy, and that this material cannot be included in any Wikipedia article until it is supported by reliable sources. Regardless of this, user:Londonlinks restored the external link in this edit. The link alone is still entirely unacceptable - it violates Wikipedia:BLP#Further reading and external links which reads Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs. Londonlinks was extremely ill-advised in adding this link. I don't intend immediately to to remove it myself, but I'm going to bring the matter up on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I deleted that link before I saw this discussion, since it seems clearly inappropriate to me. Since that makes two of us who are strongly opposed to its inclusion, I suggest we slightly shift the terms of this debate to discussing whether the link should be included (as opposed to whether it should be removed). RandomLettersForName (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The link does not point to a "self-published website" but is merely an article from one of several other Court of Appeal crime analyses. The relation of Bellfield to the Chillenden Murders is hypothetical until proved, but this does not make the source of the information "unreliable" and the external link does not therefore violate any editorial policies.

The source of information is completely "reliable" since it derives from the linked page. The content may not be reliable, but that is not the aspect which the edititorial rule is designed to cure.

The link should therefore be restored and will be restored unless there is a successful argument to the contrary which allows for a different interpretation of editorial policy. London Links

"self published" really means "not published by a reliable organisation, such as a newspaper, university, company, etc." This is not published by any such organisation, but by some random person on the internet. The absolute necessity of published reliable sources on Wikipedia biographical articles is a strict rule, one that's entirely not negotiable, and one that you must abide by. If you restore this link, or the material it describes, you may be blocked from editing. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 15:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but how can the source be reliable if the content in the source isn't? BTW have you read WP:RS? Anyway with the addition of the Daily Mail article I'm willing to let this stay for now although the Daily Mail is not exactly a great RS. Nil Einne (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a Wiki link about self-publishing - please read it if you haven't done so already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_38#Self-published_acceptable_for_.22existence.22_or_attribution.3F

The function of Wiki editors is not to police content to see if it is "reliable" but to verify if the source is reliable.

I will now add a link to two "reliable" sources spelling out the connection between Levi Bellfield and the Chillenden Murders. They are links to articles in the Daily Telegraph and also on Sky News. Hopefully these links satisfy everyone's definitions.

If academics and scholars who publish articles by pressing the "save" button are regarded as "self published" and cannot therefore be referenced under an external link, then I for one would be quite happy to give up editing for Wikipedia. London Links

Reliable reports saying some similar things still won't make that external wikipedia reliable. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The external links which you have removed without giving any reason point to reliable news sources. The issue is not about "reliable reporting" or reliable content on external sites, but reliable sources. A reliable source is a source which can be validated in the way described on the above link - please read what the policy states. We're not here to act as censors according to our small opinions as otherwise nothing would appear on Wikipedia - we'd all be arguing over what is "reliable" and what isn't.

As no other editor has argued against restoring the external link to media sources, that will now be done.London Links

No other editor has supported your addition - quite simply the articles you are wanting to add are simply newspaper articles - as such if their is anything additional in them them add ther content ot the body of the article and use them as citations to support the content. why don't you go along to the EL noticeboard and ask them there. Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Modus operandi

I've paraphased some of the article in this section and removed part of it - some of it seemed to be a cut and paste from here or here, possibly the former. I've left direct quotes as they were.Autarch (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Levi Bellfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100516154328/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23831491-levi-bellfield-trial-delays-milly-dowler-inquest.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23831491-levi-bellfield-trial-delays-milly-dowler-inquest.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Amélie Delagrange

Was Amélie a French student just visiting the UK or an expat who have been living, studying and working in a bakery in London for few months? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.15.247 (talk) 14:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)