Talk:Soham murders

Indefinite anonymity

I've removed this comment again, for several reasons:

• If only four people in total have been granted indefinite, there is not enough data to claim that Carr's case is "significant" when there are only three other people to compare cases with.
• It's unsourced - the source it's been wedged next to does not support the claim.
• No discussion or rationale as to the re-insertion. Please discuss here, as per wp:brd.

Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Without a source, it doesn't belong in the article at all. If it does belong, we need evidence that this is seen as significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Soham murders. 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/20090617064414/http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/bichard-inquiry-report to http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/bichard-inquiry-report

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"Ian" Huntley transitioned?

As far as I'm aware, the wikipedia policy on names and pronouns for transgender people is to go with what they themselves say to use. Does this extend to criminals or not? There are a lot of news reports saying Huntley prefers "Lian" and "she" pronouns: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/15/call-lian-child-killer-ian-huntley-has-told-inmates-call-feminine/ Wikiditm (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Criminals are humans too. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There has been a marathon length debate about this at Chelsea Manning. If a person is widely known under a particular name before transitioning, it cannot be hidden per WP:NOTCENSORED. This would apply to Ian Huntley. Also, the Telegraph cite above is based on a story in The Sun [1], so it has sourcing problems.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes definitely don't hide the previous name, but the Chelsea Manning article consistently uses "she" pronouns and the name Chelsea, including when referring to times before she was known as Chelsea. Should we do the same here?Wikiditm (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

According to more recent news reports in December 2018, Huntley is now asking to be called "Nicola", but "It is thought that Huntley has not yet made an official request for the sex change". (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ian-huntley-demands-sex-change-13708814) Subject to further developments, I think it would be premature to make changes to the article at this time. Blurryman (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Got you. This makes sense. Looks like the situation is one where we will change if it becomes clearer that there is some preferred name other than Ian, but at the moment that clarity just isn't there.Wikiditm (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It was apparently a lie made up by the press - and one newspaper printed a "clarification" about it today [2]. --Wickedterrier (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I was just coming back to post this. In case future editors want to change the name, pronouns, etc. The story I linked to above is definitely false. Wikiditm (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, this is why there is the WP:BLPSOURCES policy. If it is only found in the UK red top tabloids, it carries a tag marked "is this really true?"--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Dubious assertion

I have tagged as dubious the reference used to support the assertion that ‘The Bichard enquiry recommended the implementation of a mandatory registration scheme for people working with children and vulnerable adults’. I’m pretty sure Bichard did no such thing. He def recommended improvements but nothing of the scope of the current implementation. Any comments? Fob.schools (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

May need restructuring and adjusting. As per the contents the contents around page nine to fifteen here.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)