Talk:Russell Williams (criminal)/Archive 1

Archive 1

MSNBC's Dateline Williams Program - Also Available On-line

People who recommend the deletion of this Williams Wikipedia information are trying to cover-up something that's clearly well out of the bag, not only in Canada but now in the United States with the well done MSNBC.com Dateline series. Williams has earned this information on Wikipedia for the nature of his serious crimes, and the fact we have enormous mountains of photographs and even a video of his murdering a woman. This is a unique crime of a split personality that is relevant in showing the average citizen that it's possible for someone of high authority or status to have another side to them that is dark, sinister and evil. It's important for people to understand a man or woman's image can be deceptive serving as a means to hide serious crimes behind. That is why this article is important on Wikipedia and there's no valid reason for deleting it as a means to cover up the truth as described herein.Brainchannels (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• • The article was speedily kept, and the nominator later blocked indefinitely for being the sockpuppet of a previously banned user. --NellieBly (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

serial killer?

He's pled guilty so far to two murders with a litany of charges ahead of him, unproven yet in court. By wikipedia's own entry on serial killers, "A serial killer is a person who murders three or more people". Once he's admitted to a third victim or proven guilty thereafter, the status applies but already calling him a serial killer is premature.69.196.182.218 (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right about 'serial killer'. How about "murderer and serial rapist"? Also: Williams pleaded guilty to all charges; there are none remaining to be proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.228.86 (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had two edits tagged for BLP issues on this page, both relating to the description of Williams as either a serial killer, or a murderer and serial rapist. I removed serial killer, since he's only been convicted of two murders. But Williams has pleaded guilty and been convicted of two murders, several rapes, and dozens of counts of burglary. How is my description problematic? Doesn't it match the pages for other convicted murderers and rapists? To whoever tagged the edits, what would you suggest? Don't you think it's disingenuous-- and pretty damn insensitive-- if the opening sentence is about his military history rather than his crimes? You should read the Globe accounts of the sentencing hearing: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/col-williamss-murder-victims-pleaded-for-their-lives-before-death/article1763300/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.228.86 (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I stopped reading newspapers a long time, considering the amount of yellow journalism rampant. Newspapers use terminology incorrectly every day. 76.10.137.105 (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I just removed Category:Canadian serial killers per the definition at serial killer (3+), but then I looked at Ed Gein who has a serial killer category and has less than 3 murder victims. Also, much of the newspapers are calling him a serial killer. Thoughts? –xeno^talk 14:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the definition is broken. Psychologically he's a serial killer who was caught before his third murder. Leaving him off the list does a disservice to anyone researching the phenomenom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.177.240 (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Psychologically a serial killer? What does that mean? That's 100% speculative. How does it do a disservice to the "phenomenom" if it doesn't math Wikipedia' definition of serial killers? The above is POV 100%. 76.10.137.105 (talk)

Interestingly enough, a quick look at www.fbi.gov, The FBI's site, defines serial killer as "...a series of three or more killings, not less than one of which was committed within the United States, having common characteristics such as to suggest the reasonable possibility that the crimes were committed by the same actor or actors." http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-1#two Even in the follow Symposium, the defintion is defined as killing two people but as "separate events. Granted it is a geographic term it seems (being in the US) if someone could find a Canadian definition that'd be great. And before we start labelling this guy's psychology as being "serial killer", we should start referring to primary definitive sources. 76.10.137.105 (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a Canadian paper, dating from _before_ Russell Williams. Although the author questions other components of the definition, he doesn't question that two killings qualifies. He also uses Bernardo as an example. (Bernardo and Homalka also only killed two.) Written by: Ronald Hinch, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Guelph url=http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.002/hinch.html Electronic Journal of Sociology (1998) ISSN: 1198 3655 Hinch, Ronald (1998). "Researching Serial Murder: <br>Methodologial and Definitional Problems". Electronic Journal of Sociology. Retrieved August 7, 2011. (Is this enough to be able to change the article to call him a serial killer? Or will the edit war continue?)173.206.131.48 (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the first line of Wikipedia's definition, he is a serial killer. A serial killer is a person who commits "a series of 2 or more murders, committed as separate events"67.193.122.84 (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm - it didn't say that on the day I made my post. –xeno^talk 18:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No prob, I just saw it today myself.67.193.122.84 (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Untitled section

where was he in 1990"76.71.96.67 (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No time to add the details, but there is more early biographical detail in this article: [1]--209.202.70.226 (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Model military man" and "flag-draped caskets"

"Model military man" is not an encyclopaedic statement in that it's untestable. Also, since he seems to have confessed to serial rape and murder, it's difficult to see how this could constitute "model military" behaviour. What can be independently verified (and what is actually stated in the article referenced) is that he was decorated (albeit with fairly routine service awards) and has a long and hitherto successful career.

The description of Trenton as the based that "welcomed home the flag-draped caskets of every soldier killed in Afghanistan" is just purple prose. Factually, Trenton is the airbase that supports overseas military missions, including Afghanistan. As such, it is incidentally the point of arrival for the bodies of dead soldiers. I'm going to try to compromise on this one, but if this gets completely reverted one more time I'm going to have to call in an Admin to arbitrate. Geoff NoNick (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the 2nd paragraph. However, on the first, this is indeed how the Star described him. His public persona was that of a "model military man". We can prefix it with a qualifier to make it clear that it was a Star reporter who said it. –xeno^talk 15:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I recognize that the Star did state that he was a "model military man", but their own statement is unsupported. Journalists can indulge in a little prosifying, but Wikipedia needs to adhere to a higher standard. On the subject of the overheated and unsupported nature of a lot of media assertions about Williams, I'd recommend this piece in the Globe & Mail. Geoff NoNick (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

1) That's an opinion piece 2) It says nothing about the statements by the media that he was a model military man. 3) We are to represent what we find in reliable sources - we aren't to editorialize. –xeno^talk 15:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(1) I only provide the opinion piece to inform background understanding, which is why I didn't link it in the article. (2) While it doesn't reference "model military man", it convincingly excoriates otherwise reliable media sources for unfactual reporting such as that reflected in the Star piece. (3) The question of whether or not the Star piece (and others like it) can be accepted as "reliable" is the very point at issue.

I agree that opinion should not shape this Wikipedia article, but that principle also extends to the opinion of a single journalist at a single newspaper. While we can recognize that the Star is a generally reliable source of news, we can't attribute infallibility to it; that its "model military man" description is unsupported by the facts of the article suggests an intrusion of opinion into what should otherwise be a factual piece. The location of the description in the article's lede further suggests that it is intended to attract attention, not report factual details. The fact that the "model military man" description hasn't been attributed to Williams by other media sources also suggests that the description is unfactual.

In any case, I accept the compromise wording, bearing in mind that the relevance of that single description of Williams will eventually diminish to the point that it should not be included if it is not backed up by other media sources or factual evidence.Geoff NoNick (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

At present, the article states that The Toronto Star called him a model military man. This is verifiably true. Balancing that with how other media outlets describe him is probably the best way to achieve NPOV. –xeno^talk 16:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's being described just about everywhere as a serial rapist and murderer, which is verifiably not "model military" behaviour. Just food for thought - I'm not going to change your wording. Geoff NoNick (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And until these allegations surfaced, by all accounts he was a model military man. According to the Toronto Star. Refer again to my (3) above. –xeno^talk 16:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly - I don't disagree that he "appeared" to be a model military man. The Star's assertion that he actually "was" a model military man (while still raping and killing) either reflects imprecision in the wording or an POV bias against people in the military.Geoff NoNick (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that the alleged criminal behaviour is "model military" behaviour. This doesn't change that by all accounts and outwards appearances he was "the model military man". If the sentence can be tweaked further to clarify this, please feel free. –xeno^talk 16:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of the tweak. I don't think there's any need to name the Star in the sentence, as the ref takes care of that. Geoff NoNick (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a decent compromise - thanks. –xeno^talk 20:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, admins aren't arbiters of content. (And for the record, anything I say here is as an editor) If you want to raise this for outside opinions, I would suggest (and actually encourage) making a thread at the WP:Content noticeboard. –xeno^talk 15:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I was going to recommend a solution based on WP:3RR if the edits were completely reverted again without consideration, but it doesn't seem that that will be necessary. Geoff NoNick (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Geoff NoNick, how is "model military man" not "encyclopaedic"? This man was such a model soldier that he was widely expected to become a general - If that's not a model military man, what is? Everyone understands what the phrase means, and everyone understands that he was not just what he had seemed to be - that's exactly what gives his case notability, the reason this article exists. You brought up the suggestion of a "POV bias against people in the military", and your basic argument has been that a model military man could not possibly be a rapist and murderer. That, with your insistence on censoring out an innocuous phrase that everyone understands, could suggest a POV bias for the military.

Look at it this way: Someone can be a model military man and a philanderer, a model husband and an anti-authoritarian Buddhist, a model student and a stripper by night, a model father and a lousy lover, etc. - these are not mutually exclusive. Likewise someone can be a model military man and, in their other life outside the uniform, be a rapist. On the other hand, someone cannot be a model military man and a anti-authoritarian, a model husband and a philanderer, a model student and an illiterate, a model father and a cokehead - these are mutually exclusive by most definitions. Most people understand what "model military man" refers to, his exemplary military career, but you seem to have broadened the definition far beyond that. Within your point of view, the "model military man" seems to be elevated to the same thing as a model human being, someone that can do no wrong.Occas (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Without rehashing the discussion above (which more less exhausts everything I have to say on the subject) do you object to the current description? "Model military" behaviour does, in fact, extend to activities outside of uniform. Geoff NoNick (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Any reasonable reader understands that "model military man" refers only to his military career, and only someone overly-concerned with the image of the military would inflate this to some broader, personal definition of what the "model military man" is to them. I note that you contributed no new content to this article, only censoring the contributions of others, and ignored addressing numerous other more glaring problems with the article such as poor grammar, organization, uncited content, etc. While others add new information and show concern for the overall quality of the article, your sole and overriding concern here seems to be protecting some image of the military and pushing your idealized view of the "model military man".

You tweaked "model military man" to "model officer" after arguing that a "model military man" could not possibly rape or murder. So you're saying that a "model officer", on the other hand, could? You argued against the phrase "model military man" because it was used in just one cited and reliable source, and yet you use "model officer" that appears in zero cited sources and in zero news articles. You argued against "model military man" saying that is somehow not factual and the result of imprecision of wording, yet your tweak resulted in a sentence that is imprecise and non-factual: Was he really an officer for all of the 23 years, from the very moment he enrolled in 87? Nowhere is this cited.

To fix the sentence so that it becomes factual and backed by the cited sources again, I am changing "A decorated pilot, Williams was regarded as a model officer over the course of his 23-year career" to "A decorated officer, Williams was regarded as a model military man over the course of his 23-year career". He was not an officer over all those 23 years, but was a military man. I trust that Xeno's addition of "was regarded as" to satisfy you still does the trick. It is completely factual and well-cited that he "was regarded as a model miltary man over the course of his 23-year career." Occas (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that things have cooled off somewhat, I invite you to take a look at the following policies/essays at your leisure: WP:Assume good faith, WP:Ownership of articles, WP:Consensus, WP:Civility, WP:Etiquette, WP:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Take care, Geoff NoNick (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

See also

Xeno, this is from the WP:SEEALSO guideline that you referred me to:

Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question.

It is on this basis that I included links to Trenton, Ontario and to the Highway of Heroes. Most Canadians have heard of Trenton or CFB Trenton in relation to the return of caskets from Afghanistan and the Highway of Heroes. They read or hear about the Colonel Williams news and ask themselves, as I did, "Didn't I hear about this CFB Trenton in news about soldiers' bodies from Afghanistan? Isn't that where I heard of it before? Let me look it up on Wikipedia." Even if the subset of readers that are more familiar with the military argue that the repatriation of soldiers from Afghanistan is only "incidentally" related, as Geoff NoNick put it above, that then specifically falls under the WP:SEEALSO guideline given above. If it were more than "peripherally related" it would be in the article body - but Geoff NoNick kept removing any mention of it - but it is useful for the average readers seeking to read about the topic, so the See Also section serves as the place for precisely these cases. Occas (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the See Also link for Trenton, Ontario since I see that it is now linked to within the body of article. Occas (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but how exactly is Highway of Heroes relevant? -M.Nelson (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This article exists because Williams was the high profile base commander of CFB Trenton. It's what gives him the notability that warrants a page, unlike the average rapist that gets arrested. Most people, myself included, have only ever heard of CFB Trenton in relation to the Highway of Heroes and repatriation of soldiers' bodies from Afghanistan.

• As a Montreal Gazette article on Williams reports, CFB Trenton is "an airbase known to most Canadians as the place where soldiers killed in Afghanistan return home".
• As a Global TV article reports, "Williams' base is known to Canadians as the site where the bodies of soldiers killed in Afghanistan first arrive home."
• As an Ottawa Citizen article on the Williams case reports, "CFB Trenton has been on the country's radar recently as the base where soldiers killed in combat in Afghanistan are flown before being driven to Toronto along the route dubbed the Highway of Heroes."
• As a Canadian Press article on the Williams case reports, "Trenton is the sprawling air base from which troops leave for Afghanistan and to which they return home when their tours end, sometimes in coffins. Located midway between Toronto and Ottawa, the base is Mile 0 of the Highway of Heroes, the section of Highway 401 over which funereal processions carry the bodies of dead Canadian soldiers to Toronto for autopsy."

These news articles on Williams mention the Highway of Heroes and repatriation from Afghanistan precisely because it is relevant to readers seeking to read about this topic. It informs readers and allows them to confirm that, yes, this is where they had heard of CFB Trenton before, that, yes, this is that same base. What I don't understand is why someone would seek to exclude a link that is clearly of interest to most readers and that has been made by so many news articles covering this story. Occas (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on this, HoH should be linked in the prose. It is out of place on "See also". If another country had a similar highway, HoH would belong in the see also there. If there is another article about a high ranking military man who allegedly led a double life as a violent criminal, that would be relevant in the see also here. Not Highway of Heroes. –xeno^talk 16:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Xeno, I've moved the link to HoH into the prose as you suggested. If there there are attempts to remove it from the prose as being "only peripherally related", however, then the Wikipedia WP:SEEALSO guideline for also "including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question" should apply. Occas (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

References

Any links as college classmate with autre tuer serie?

LaidOff (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)++ What the hell is an "autre tuer serie"? Is "college classmate" a reference to Bernardo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.226.62 (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links

I removed the article's external links as these aren't really legit ELs, but User:Occas reverted me. My reasoning is that, per WP:ELYES #3, there should be external links to material that "contain[s] neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article" (emphasis added). These could surely be integrated through referencing, as they are basically news articles about Williams.

In the same vein, the external links violate WP:ELNO #1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." The information in these links (news articles, biographies, etc) could be easily integrated into the article with referencing. If the article was of featured quality, it would include all the valuable information present in these links, using them as references... I don't see how these links provide a "unique resource" beyond what the article would include at featured status. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Article name

Given that the army has announced that Williams will be stripped of all rank the minute he formally pleads guilty (scheduled for October 14, 2010), the qualifier "Colonel" will no longer apply.

What should the article be named after that? DS (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible options, (Canadian Forces), (CF), (AIRCOM).--Cube lurker (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, as I understood it, he's going to be formally... (missing word - something like 'cashiered' or.... well, it's an equivalent of 'excommunicated'?) from the Forces. I'm thinking {murderer} or {serial killer} or {criminal}? DS (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we want to go down that route, I think it would be only proper to mention his military career in the title as well, which would make it Russell Williams (ex-soldier and criminal), which I'm not sure really would work too well. But perhaps. It is not to be as if he was never held that rank? NW (Talk) 01:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to say that he's only truly notable for the murders (since he didn't have an article beforehand), but his murders/etc generated far more press coverage than the average double-murderer/sex offender due to the fact that he was a Colonel. It's clear that he won't be remembered either as "the former air force base commander" or as "the double-murderer", but as "the Colonel-turned-murderer"; as such, I agree that we should try to integrate both those ideas. However, NW's suggestion is awkward and I can't think of any better ones at the moment; if we can't think of any good ones, maybe we should stick our fingers in our ears and leave it with "Colonel". After all, I'm sure we have some long-dead historical officers disambiguated by their rank. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of articles have qualifiers that we're true at the time, but no longer. Jimmy Johnson (American football coach), John Davis (Massachusetts governor), etc. I'm not sure we need to sacrifice clarity. The body gives the timeline.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• What about D. Russell Williams? –xeno^talk 17:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That's funny I didn't even notice the floating initial. Probably the simplest move. The Russell Williams disambig page can be altered keeping the article there, since it's still what most people would type, but giving clarity to his military status change.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Have moved the article to David Russell Williams. –xeno^talk 15:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In keeping with this, does the first line of the article need to be modified to remove the "CD" from his name? I am unsure, personally, if this is retained or not following release in this manner. Ddcorkum (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. –xeno^talk 13:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that he will be stripped of both his rank and his awards, but that the process of doing this has not yet finished. Eventually it will be appropriate to remove the "CD", but not yet unfortunately. Geoff NoNick (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• FYI this was discussed at BLPN: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Disambiguation tag for criminal? (perm). –xeno^talk 13:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I just posted this to the BLPN, but I think the article title has to be changed to "Russell Williams (murderer)." 1) The current title isn't appropriate, as it is not in wide use & would not identify him to an inquiring reader. None of the three largest Canadian media outlets (CBC, the Globe & Mail, the Toronto Star) have ever referred to him as "David Russell Williams." A searcher would not know who that is. It doesn't effectively disambiguate anything. This isn't a case like Mark David Chapman; he is never referred to in the press by his full name. When the press refers to him, it is usually as "Col. Russell Williams," but since he is no longer a Colonel (as of his conviction), that isn't an appropriate article title. 2) "(Murderer)" is the appropriate tag. Williams's notoriety stems entirely from his crimes, and that is how the article should distinguish him from others with his name. He has confessed, pleaded guilty, and been convicted. The current proceedings are a sentencing; his guilt has been stipulated by the defence, and all the facts being read into the record have been agreed to by both sides. I don't see any flaws in "Russell Williams (murderer)." I'd like to rename the article.193.157.199.205 (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned there, 1) The Toronto Star has referred to him as such and 2) WP:NCP#Disambiguating suggests to avoid using (bracketed disambiguators) whenever possible. I think here, a case could be made to move this page to Russell Williams, moving that page to Russell Williams (disambiguation) per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. –xeno^talk 13:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Xeno-- moving the other Williams & adding a tag like (cyclist) sounds like a good compromise. I wasn't asking to add (murderer) because I wanted the page name to be pejorative; I'd just like people to be able to find it effectively. Thanks! 193.157.199.205 (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)scott

Yes, after taking a look at the pageviews, this is clearly the primary topic. –xeno^talk 14:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• How about ex-Col. Russell Williams? "ex-" to signify former military rank, no first name in article title. (I never saw David" in any press coverage (5 sites)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.177.240 (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  I don't see a need to disambiguate further from Russell Williams. –xeno^talk 16:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I've started the process of editing this article to remove unnecessary repetition and improve flow; there is still more work to be done. Other editors might wish to verify the reference links support the statements that they are associated with, and to ensure they're not dead. I think there should be no difficulty at all in finding reliable sources for just about everything in this article. If people are uncertain whether or not to include something, or there is a new link they're not quite sure where to add, they could certainly post the link here. There are enough eyes on this page, I think, that other more experienced editors will be able to help. Risker (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The article would benefit from a timeline. –xeno^talk 14:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably true; however, I'll leave that to someone with the talent to do such. It probably involves a template, and we all know I need to be kept away from such things. ;-) Risker (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

What does "10-27-25J-acceptance" mean and could it be explained. I don't understand what this is doing in the infobox. Thanks. - CET^TALK 15:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it was someone trying to put an image, but no such file exists. –xeno^talk 15:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't realize it was at the image line. Thanks for the help. - CET^TALK 15:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Medals

Since Williams historically had the rank and Canadian Forces Decoration, even though they're going to be removed from him... I'm thinking that, instead of removing them from the article once the 'dismissal with disgrace' process is complete, we add a note explaining. "Rank: Colonel (dismissed with disgrace); Awards: Canadian Forces Decoration (removed)", perhaps? DS (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What About...

What about the fact that ole Russ knew Paul Bernado in his school days in Toronto? University of Toronto (Economics) And that he will probably be in the same unit at Kingston Penitentiary; why even the next cell? Google it yourself....--Oracleofottawa (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So what's your point? How is this relevant? Franamax (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

They were at the same school at the same time; I've never seen any suggestion they knew each other. This is just trivia. Hairhorn (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Redacted soapboxing. The WP:BLP policy applies in all namespaces. If you have specific suggestions to improve the article, place them on this page. Franamax (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The article contains the sentence "On Sunday, February 7, 2010, the CFB Trenton base commander was arrested in Quinte West following a 10-day search for Lloyd." which is absolutely NOT true. (Perhaps the author of that sentence was mixed up about items about a pretend jail event that happened previously, around the time of the murder of the first woman.) He was in Ottawa, and was "invited" to attend there for questioning, when things evolved as evidence was further gathered (i.e. they asked to see his boots he wore to the police station, and then later showed him how they were going to be used as evidence against him and then he started his confession.) One presumes, after confessing, he was not released on his own recognizance, and thus he was detained in custody rather than ever having been arrested... however IANAL and I don't know if this still constitutes an arrest... but in any case, it NEVER occurred in Trenton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.106.116 (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship?

The article mentions that he was born in England and moved to Canada as a child. But what was the nationality of his parents? Were they Canadians or British subjects? If British subjects, when did he receive Canadian citizenship? 76.10.156.138 (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent question, couldn't find an answer either. If someone has a clue it would be nice to hear about it. Cheers. - CETTALK 08:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

To be a member of the Candian Armed Forces, William's had to have Canadian citizenship: http://www.forces.ca/en/page/doyouqualify-105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyflag (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I reverted this edit [2] as it was copy-pasted from [3]. Supertouch (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

name dropping

I can't understand why it's necessary to mention names of passengers Williams flew, with the list "..,Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, the Governor General, the Prime Minister, and others.[3]" It gives a false sense of connection to mention those names. When you're the Queen, or otherwise famous, you have thousands of different people do thousands of different trivial things for you. You have no relationship with 99% of them. Also, this is the lead, so it definitely doesn't belong there. --Rob (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

From the point of view of the pilot (the article is about a pilot), it's an important "accomplishment" (in lack of better words). It's not like the article was about the queen and there was a statement saying : "the Queen was once transported by X pilot", it's more like "this pilot transported this X VIP". "Notable Inferior" serving "Superior" is a lot more notable than "Superior" being served by "Notable Inferior", if you get what I mean. Also, Williams spent a significant portion of his carrier flying VIPs, I don't see any problem naming the most notable of those. I say this is fine the way it is. CETTALK 07:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Also shows his high status in the military. The Head of State tends to get the best. Highlights the depth of his fall. 2A00:23C5:E097:5D00:38CC:E9AE:FB6C:2557 (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Psychological study

With a forensic psychologist friend I was discussing the hazards of compartmentalizing fantasy play and using Col. Williams as an example. I came to Wikipedia for more information pertinent to our discussion and found the article proposed for deletion. Among other reasons, this article is valuable in Wikipedia for the purposes of the study of human psychology and should not be deleted.

Analysts point out that Col. Williams' kink ran from a separate compartment in his mind outside of normal psychological controls. It may have effectively been a sort of mental cancer spreading uncontrolled and catastrophically in his mind. The first time he had likely ever discussed it with anyone in any way was on video with the police interrogator when forced. Col. Williams evidently had never self-examined his kink for whys and wherefores and could offer no explanations. This is a dramatic example of compartmentalization.

Compartmentalized phenomena such as fantasies are outside one's normal everyday psychological controls and can become a malignant mental cancer leading to disastrous behavior in the way Col. Williams may exemplify. This example in Wikipedia is valuable for that discussion and should not be deleted. Arrowcatcher (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Article's focus?

I am confused is this article about the glorious 23-year-old career of a military man or the fact his only real claim to fame outside the Canadian Armed Forces is that he is a serial killer and sex attacker. There is no mention of how many victims he had? But there are two needlessly overlong sections that cover his personal life and his military career. There is too much weight on what he is not notable for (being a pilot in the CAF) and hardly any worthwhile information on what Russell was notable for, a killer and sex attacker. From reading this, as an encyclopedic entry, there is no mention where he did his crimes, when, where and how. It's just a load of soundbites from newspaper articles. If there has to be narrative let it tell a story, instead of just focusing on the wrong thing.

I suspect that this article has the vested interests of the Canadian Armed Forces at heart, i.e. by packing it full of trivial entries what this man did for nearly two decades is buried within meaningless waffle.

It basically needs a complete overhaul. The focus should be on an officer who was a killer, not an officer who had a great military career and, oh by the way, he was a killer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.28.118 (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding yourself if you think the Canadian military wants to put spit polish on this entry. The more high-acheiving accomplishments this guy had, the worse they look for promoting him again and again. If there's a slant to this entry, it may be due to the fact that most of the details of his crimes came out only at sentencing, long after his arrest, while his military career was already matter of public record. But also, it's the contrast between his private and public lives that make this story what it is, without that this is just a rape-and-murder story that wouldn't even make it into the encylopedia. Feel free to add the more sordid details yourself. Hairhorn (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The military would love this article to contain less, not more, about his military life. Williams may be the single most notable criminal in Canadian history; there have been murderers with much higher death counts (the Air India bombers come to mind, as does Willie Pickton) but there have been none who were so prominent before their arrest and/or conviction, and none whose secret life was so wildly at odds with their public facade. Double murderers aren't that unusual even here in Canada, and most get only sporadic local coverage (if that). This guy was named the 2010 Canadian Press Newsmaker of the Year [4]. His connection to the military, the rank he achieved, the great career he had, and the twist into depravity that brought it all down is specifically why he is so notable. Not because he is a murderer, but specifically because he was a respected senior military member who was repeatedly entrusted with the lives of our country's senior governmental officials but who turned out to be a brutal, vicious rapist and murderer. --NellieBly (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Canadian Forces Decoration

Since He was Stripped of all the trapping of the Military life He once held I was not sure whether to do this,

Question - Should He Be Included In the Category:Recipients of the Canadian Forces Decoration as He Had Revieved it and held it for some years Before He Started Raping/Killing etc.

Thanks, Michael Drew (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I would think so, since the category is called "recipients" rather than "holders" (or whatever) of the decoration, although this may strike some as hairsplitting. Part of what makes him notable is the nature and calibre of his work in the military. Hairhorn (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

different claims to place of birth

In the article about Russel Williams, it is stated that he was born in Cardiff, Wales, without other sources confirming the statement. When I look at the article 'Bromsgrove' (city in Worcestershire) though, I find Russel Williams noted as being born there, alongside a source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/7724233/Canadian-commander-accused-of-murders-and-sex-attacks.html).

Which is the correct claim?

Dudley Heinsbergen (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Anything that I have seen has been 'Midlands' or as you say, Bromsgrove. I don't know why Cardiff is mentioned.McMuff (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

Williams will be one of the very first multiple murderers to be sued by his victims. (O.J Simpson being the other notable one see his wiki) The effects of Williams actions on the murder victims is obvious, but Laurie Massicotte remains the only identifiable person in this story who can offer insight into Williams and the Williams matter. Her claims against he, his wife an the police are certainly relevant to Williams legacy, and may well prove him to be a serial murderer as she has claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.12.189 (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Semi protection

I have protected this article to prevent the repeated reintroduction of violations of WP's WP:BLP policy as well as WP:Verifiability. This material should not be reintroduced by anybody without a consensus here on the page that it is appropriately sourced, WP:Verifiable, follows WP:BLP policy and is not of undue weight.Slp1 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've looked into this a little more, and see that there are indeed reliable sources about Williams and his wife being sued by victimes and/or their families. There are also brief mentions that at least one victim is suing the OPP in relation to the case. This should likely be included in the article in a few sentences. The material which was being inserted were several paragraphs of clear advocacy poorly sourced synthesis involving living people and was totally inappropriate. I leave editors here to work out a suitable, BLP compliant text for inclusion. --Slp1 (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree the civil actions are as much a part of this story as anything else related to Williams. While I do agree that the sourcing could use some editing, I disagree that any of the information is inappropriate. All individuals are publicly mentioned in news articles and would be historically cemented in court documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.12.189 (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuits against Williams might be noteworthy. Lawsuits against OPP officers (and various related attacks, no matter how well sourced) probably aren't. Hairhorn (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As Williams information is all public knowledge presented by the police and Crown, it is my opinion that any information related to or generated by the civil actions is noteworthy. If the police are hiding something (as the lawsuits clearly allege) than it becomes as much a part of the Williams story as the events of the crimes themselves. Laurie Massicotte is the only victim left who can talk. Surely her litigation and any connecting litigation is noteworthy. As well, knowing that the police who investigated Williams were themselves said to be under criminal investigation is certainly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.219.69.247 (talk)

If you want something included then please propose a text here. Note that any text has to be backed up with reliable sources, and compliant with BLP, WP's policy on living people, which in this case includes Williams, Massicotte and the officers. Note that BLP policy specifically excludes the use of court documents to support assertions about living people, so these are excluded as potential sources. Use articles from newspaper and other mainstream media. Note also that WP is not the place to propagate rumours about individuals who "were said to be under criminal investigation" as the IP above states. Stick strictly to the facts noted in reliable sources please, even on this talkpage, which is also covered by BLP.

Based on geolocate and whois data, I am concerned that the IPs posting this material here and in the article are actually one or more individuals connected with the case in real life. If I am correct, please consult WP:COI, and note that WP is not the place to pursue your dispute. Please also register an account so that your contributions can be consolidated as belonging to one person.Slp1 (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Overstated scored earth of Williams's belongings

The reference which reports on Williams's uniform being burned and medals and vehicle destroyed, doesn't talk about the medals' disposition nor does it even mention his vehicle. What do we know about that? AngusCA (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Article Opening

Shouldn't this article's summary paragraph be revised to succinctly present the fact that he is the base commander at the time of his arrest of Canada's most important Air Force base? This is not in retrospect or in hindsight when this is recognized and acknowledged. He is the Base Commander - not just a colonel or a pilot - of Canada's most important Airbase, yet the summary is very weak at describing it, instead almost insinuating his importance which the reader has to ultimately ascertain after considerable thought... Shouldn't the poignancy of this description be revised? regards... Steve Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Photo change?

Can we change the photo to reflect the fact that he is no longer in the Canadian Forces but rather is regarded as a criminal? He was stripped of all honours, and his uniformed was burned.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.96.72 (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is a better photo: http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2010/02/18/ottawa-100218-russell-williams-court-sketch-cropped.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.96.72 (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

We cannot use that photo. If someone can provide a better free alternative (see WP:FUP), we certainly could swap out the existing free image. --Yamla (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh. It turns out the existing image isn't free, either. We should probably remove it, as a free image could be provided. In any case, we can't use the non-free image from cbc. --Yamla (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we use a photo where he is not in uniform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.96.72 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if and only if it is freely licensed. --Yamla (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Russell Williams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101022051754/http://www.cbc.ca:80/fifth/2010-2011/abovesuspicion/timelinewilliams.html to http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2010-2011/abovesuspicion/timelinewilliams.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120127161420/http://www.cbc.ca:80/fifth/2010-2011/abovesuspicion/timelinewilliams.html to http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2010-2011/abovesuspicion/timelinewilliams.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101024184137/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2010/10/21/russell-williams-day-four.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/10/21/russell-williams-day-four.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)