Talk:Soham murders/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed Neutrality Check

I found quite a bit of emotive tone in this article, particularly in the introductory section. Is it possible for this article to be refined on the basis of the courts' findings of fact, with reference to a copy of that document or relevant news articles if available.

Probably most of my concerns can be addressed if more references can be given. Matt.hatton 07:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Police Investigation

Why is there nothing on the police investigation in this article? I'll write something when I get a chance.

Article name

I wonder if the best article name for this topic would be Soham murders with Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr as well as Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman all redirecting to that article? Or are separate articles more appropiate? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:12, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC) [This comment made whilst the bulk of the article was Ian Huntley. Page consequently moved to satisfaction of Pcb21, Morwen and Evercat]

There is nothing notable about any of them in isolation - I agree with your suggestion. Morwen 22:15, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

Good page move, was thinking this myself. Would prefer Soham murders of 2002, there may have been others for all I know... Evercat 22:29, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

None that are well known, so I've moved the page to Soham murders. If there are others, we can always have Soham murders (disambiguation)... As for where to put the material, I think a number of separate articles wold be good. There are facts about each of the people involved that aren't directly relevant to the murders. -- Oliver P. 01:39, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough. I also though that since articles are generally names of something, Soham murders of 2002 was just a better name. But it's all good, I guess. I would prefer all info to be consolidated here, though - the only reason any of these people are encyclopedia-worthy is the murders... Evercat 01:41, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, they're only in here because of the murders, but why someone is in here is a separate question from how the information on them is best organised. I agree that the information on the murders and investigations and so on should be consolidated in this article (until it gets too unwieldy, anyway), but a lot of background information on the people (mostly Huntley, of course) has been turning up which I think is easier understood if laid out in chronological order in biographical articles rather than in the order in which the information came to light. -- Oliver P. 03:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Criminal background checks

Could we make a link for the UK's background check system & write an article about it? -- Tarquin 17:48, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There probably ought to be an article on the UK Criminal Records Bureau and its associated problems (not all its own fault it must be emphasised :-). Phil 11:50, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

"There was also considerable concern about the police investigation into these murders. It took nearly two weeks before the police became aware of previous sexual allegations against Ian Huntley, and despite him being the last person to see either of the two children, his story was not effectively checked out early during the investigation." I'm going to investigate this further, but I'm pretty sure that it was not nearly two weeks at all, and Huntley was investigated early in the inquiry, and continued to be throughout. Chris

Name confusion

Phil asked me the following in my talk, and I thought my response was best posted here: Could you put the link to the news about the Huntley/Nixon name confusion somewhere clickable? Maybe that information should also be restored to somewhere on Wikipedia: it is after all part of the ongoing story. Phil 11:43, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Phil. I'm a firm believer in an encyclopedia detailing facts, and given the conflicting reports about whether there was a mix-up because of the two names, it seems that the facts have got rather lost in the media frenzy to apportion blame and tie up all loose ends in the few days before the story falls out of the news. I added the bit on the Data Protection Act interpretation because Humberside police have stated that publicly so that is a matter of recorded fact. The Blunkett inquiry should find whether there were any name mix-ups and whether they were significant so this article can evolve as the inquiry progresses. Spellbinder 16:32, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Understood. However the story about the alleged mixup is part of the ongoing story of the murders. At this stage it's difficult to decide what might be the final outcome: my feeling is that the article should report the process of investigation, and refer to the confusion over whether both names were investigated or not. Hence my request for the reference to your source of information. Phil 16:49, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

Phil, the link is in the comment from where I removed the text. It's http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/12/week_3/17_huntley.html, the relevant part being "We now understand that Humberside were using a computer system which automatically deleted old records. When they searched the computer under the names Ian Huntley and Ian Nixon, which he had also been known as, nothing came up. Anything which had come up would not have revealed the sexual nature of the offences." I take your point about the issue being part of the process, and I've no objection to you adding it into the article. I did think of trying to modify the name mix-up text myself rather than remove it; the problem is it's hard to do without making a big thing about a minor point and we have to remember that the ultimate purpose of WP articles is to convey information to readers who might know nothing about the topic. I wanted to add the fact that Huntley also used the name of Nixon because his mother had reverted to her maiden name after the break-up of her marriage to Huntley's father (rather than as any attempt to disguide his identity) but couldn't think of a way to work it into the text without digressing into another minor point which didn't add much to a reader's understanding. So I sacrificed that. It's back to what I described in my talk to you as "my favourite activity of trying to make an article look as though it's not been designed by committee"; we should strive to give the reader a coherent article giving all the salient facts on the subject without overwhelming them with a rag-bag of facts that wikipedians have added just because they happened to know them. Hope that explains where I'm coming from. Spellbinder 17:30, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Bichard Inquiry

I've restructured the article a bit and added the news about the Inquiry. This might well deserve its own article at some point. I have been unable to locate the date for when the Inquiry was instituted so I've quoted when David Blunkett announced it. I've also located the official website. Phil 11:50, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

There should be a lot more about the part Westwood and Inglis played in this. Westwood ordered the destruction of the Humberside Police criminal records on child molesters. Inglis was chairman of the Police authority and defended Westwood. Inglis is an alleged child abuser who is due up in court again in the next few weeks.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29389-2255134,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/5145492.stm

I've been filling out the page on the Independent Safeguarding Authority which was created as a result of rec 19 and have linked that page. I have also added a link to the Bichard Report. There were a series of Bichard progress reports which probably should be linked here as well. User:tybers 15:43, Feb 21, 2009 (UTC)

Police Reform Act 2002

I've added the political response to Bichard's report. It was also claimed that Bichard was close to Blunkett after working with him at the Department of Education. Anecdota

Missing white woman syndrome

If you intend to revert my additions to this article, please read Missing white woman syndrome article and explain how my additions are revert-worthy. The Soham Murders are a classic example of such a phenomenon, and as such the link is encyclopaedic and important. Your thoughts welcome Jdcooper 05:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll resist reverting again, for now, but I think the addition is inappropriate, simply because I've yet to see any indication that the coverage of the Soham murders are in any way indicative, let alone a "classic example", of Missing white woman syndrome.

There is nothing on the Soham murders page to indicate inordinate media coverage of the case, and nothing on the Missing white woman syndrome relating specifically to Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman (other than a link which you added, and which appears incongruous with the topic).

• It seems to me that the way the "syndrome" is described is much more typical of the United States than the United Kingdom - see, for example, Missing_white_woman_syndrome#Stages_of_the_news_cycle.

• I think it remains to be shown that a case involving missing ten year olds of any race or either gender would attract any less attention in the British media.

• It also remains to be shown that reporting of the Soham case displaced "reporting on other current events that some people consider more newsworthy, such as economics and politics."

It wouldn't particularly surprise me if you were able to make a good case for any or all of the above - but I do think it's important to do so, in either article, if these pages are to remain mutually linked.

It is hardly surprising that the disappearance of two young girls should attract so much media attention in Britain, where crimes such as the Soham murders are relatively rare. If you think that the reporting of the case was disproportionate to the importance of the events, then I think it's important that you demonstrate that before you add what otherwise appears to be an irrelevant link.

I have little doubt that Missing white woman syndrome is a genuine phenomenon - I can easily believe that a case of a missing / murdered white girl would attract more media attention in particular areas of the American media than a similar case involving a missing / murdered black boy, and that such cases might be used to detract coverage from important political stories.... all of which seems quite deplorable. However, it does not help us to understand the phenomenon of Missing white woman syndrome if such criticism is applied indiscriminately to any and all incidents involving missing white females, with no attempt to show that a connection actually exists. TheMadBaron 21:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair play, at the moment I am unable to do the necessary research and external links due to being very busy in my actual life, at some point I will provide reference material for all that stuff, but at the moment I'm content to leave this article as describing the bullshit "noteworthy singularity" that the Daily Mail tried to make out it was. I agree with your insistence that such a classification requires some kind of clarification within the article. Jdcooper 00:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Bearing in mind it was two murders and not one, I think the coverage was about proportional to the coverage of the murder of Damilola Taylor -- Dandelions nli

Merge

Ian Huntley should be merged with this pageas he is only notable for this crime.--Lucy-marie 18:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel that if fictional television characters can have pages of their own then so should these girls have a page seperate from Huntley's.--Cosmic_quest 22:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Some fictional characters are more famous than "these girls" as you put it. If you can justify thier importance outside the context of the murder and connection with Huntley then by all means then thay should have a seperate page. Take Bart Simpson he is world famous and yet is fictional so has his own page. These girls are known only in the UK and are generally not talked about frequently any more. This is why Bart Simpson who is fictional has his own page and these giurls are being considered for merging.--Lucy-marie 16:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you Lucy-marie, though it's worth noting that the crime and the victims are quite well-known outside the UK. I was in France at the time, and the story was the first or an early item on every TV news broadcast for several days, and it still crops up there now and again. However, you general point is correct: Bart is much more famous in France. Emeraude 16:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I too have to agree with lucy marie so i say that the article should be merged.--Jjamesj 11:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this two articles one on holly and jessica and the one on ian should be separate. they tell two different stories and are sufficient in facts.--90.225.121.21 12:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It should merge. We only need one article about the Soham murders. Chwyatt 12:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also in favour of the merge with Ian Huntley. LiPollis 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

General consensus seem to be for merging of the two articles.--Lucy-marie 19:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

David Blunkett/Police Reform Act

In the section "The Police Reform Act 2002" (in itself, probably a misnamed section) there are several references to David Blunkett that seem to me to have no justified place in this article, though they quite properly should be in the David Blunkett article. To itemise:

1. "The Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Police, Tom Lloyd, whose appointment in June 2002 had been approved by Blunkett...." Seeing as ALL chief constable appointments are approved by the incumbent Home Secretary, is this clause relevant?

2. Final sentence, on Blunkett's resignation. This had absolutely nothing to do with this case or the aftermath, and should not be in this article.

In addition the first paragraph could do with a rewrite for clarity.

I don't believe any of this is controversial so I will make the changes I've suggested; please let me know if you disagree. Emeraude 12:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Merger

The Maxine Carr article and this article should be merged as Carr is only known in relation to this case and the only reason the tabloid press went bananas regarding her was in relation to this case. Without the full merging of the Maxine Carr article important information will be lost and the Maxine Carr article cannot establish notability without this case.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Maxin Carr is notable in her own right.Chump Manbear (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

According to what sources?--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Plenty, try looking. Object to any merger, her coverage has continued well after the murders. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please can you provide a few of the "plenty" sources to back up your claims.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For the debate regarding Ian Huntly please see here the page was merged correctly and was not just one users opinion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge I agree. Huntley and Carr should be merged with the Soham Murders article. There's a lot of duplication of content and things are already getting out of sync. rrcatto (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No new sources regarding the notability of Carr have been provided and policies such as notability are fulfilled by completing this merger.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Corpse found on the same day as the murder

I seem to recall that later on in the same day that the two girls went missing, the body of a man was found on a railway line near their homes in an apparent suicide. I think it was later discovered to be an unrelated incident, and was just a terrible coincidence. But surely this was considered in the police investigation, as the man was a prome suspect at the time. There is no mention of this in the Wikipedia article, but surely it is relevant to the section on the murders, as it shows that Huntley was not the only suspect in the investigation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.63.116.72 (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Split of Huntly

I do not believe that the article should be split as I do not believe that substantial new sources have arisen proving the notability of Ian Hutly outside of the context of this article is notable. This is epitomized in the section titled "Huntlys Trial" which is all about Huntly being on trial for these murders. He has not committed any other high profile murders such as this double murder and is inextricably linked to this article. The article was also correctly merged and the discussion can be found here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The split of this article has received no support and the information regarding Huntly shall be re-added to this article and the separate page reverted to being a redirect as it should be.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Nicholls

Aaron Nicholls should, if he merits a mention on Wikipedia at all, get a brief mention here and not have his own article. If Ian Huntley no longer has his own page I can't see that Nicholls is notable enough for one. It is difficult to find anything about him at all on the internet - there is one online report of his crime that I can find, and he only seems to have come to brief public attention for the Huntley connection.Unlikelyheroine (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree that he does not warrant his own page and should only be mentioned in this article in a very small way.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed re mergerSJB (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Totally irrelevant to the Soham murders. Definately don't think it should be merged. Sky83 (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Jury Opinion

"Huntley added that Carr had told him to burn the girls' bodies after he murdered them, a claim which contradicted the jury's opinion that Carr was not guilty of assisting an offender and had not known that Huntley had committed the murders."

A bit pedantic I admit, but did the Jury add a rider actually expressing that opinion? I was under the impression they merely found her not guilty of assisting an offender, meaning simply that it was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she had done that. i suppose it goes more to the heart of does .not guilty. mean 'innocent', but to my knowledge no actual opinion was expressed by the jury in delivering a verdict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.122.35 (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Article title

Why has it been deemed necessary to disambiguate this article with the year? There aren't any other "Soham murders" articles so the year is not required. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the article back to where it should be according to the usual titling, ie. Year-Place-Crime. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not just remove the year and end this controversy right here and now. Rather than creating a potential edit war like the one seen on the Top Gear articles.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to go ahead and make the move in the first place. It's fine as it is now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been moved form the original title and at the time it couldn't be moved back over the redirect. The original title was uncontroversial and in wide use, so why was it moved in the first place. Lets go back to the original title and go from there.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It can always be moved back over the redirect if required. I didn't move it to a controversial title, you did. The current title, at least, is more uniform with other similar articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how this is controversial, you are saying your way is the uniform way of doing things please provide policy to support this statement.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you explain why you moved it to where you did please. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is childish of you please can you answer the question put before making your own assertions and claims. THe edit was made to be in line with other types of articles e.g Top Gear (current format), and Top Gear (original format) , Independent (politician) etc these are a few examples where the brackets are used to denote the subject of the article which was what my edit achieved. Can you now please answer the question I put to you.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore yet another personal attack. Please show me the consensus for your move. Also, show me other examples of such articles. And no, Top Gear (xyz) and ABC (politician) aren't the same at all - these are disambiguation pages, where a search could throw up more than one result - show me the other "Soham Murders" that this (2002) disambiguates? The page had been moved to be in accordance with the standard crime titles, a little like the aircraft crash pages which always go Flight Number-"crash". Your move was unhelpful to say the least. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Asking for consensus on this is in the exact opposite of Bold, can you show a consensus for your version and the policy stating this is how the page should be titled.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, being bold includes being useful. The move you made was inline with creating disambiguation pages. Is this a dab page? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I shall ask again can you show a consensus for your version and the policy stating this is how the page should be titled.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, you have considerable experience here. Can you not see that what you did was inline with creating a disambiguation page? When people come onto Wikipedia and want to learn about the Soham murders, why would they add " (2002)" to their search? It makes no sense. Yet again it's another case of making articles more difficult to find rather than easier. So your being "bold" is all very well but isn't helping. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I shall ask again can you show a consensus for your version and the policy stating this is how the page should be titled.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No Lucy, you're right, I can now see your version was as good as anyone else's. If you'd like me to move it back then just say. Your determination to make pages more and more difficult to find amazes me. I'll look forward to hearing more about your boldness. But just remember this - personal attacks are unacceptable, even via edit summary. And being bold is one thing, being reckless is another. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please move the page to Soham Murders and we can end this.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Height in Infobox

This is to discuss on whether Height should be included in the infobox. Please add you thought and views below.

I believe that height should be included as it was used as a descriptor for the girls when there were being searched for and is therefor pertinent information regarding the girls. This information also cannot be ascertained for the photograph which has been provided, so should be included in the infobox.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe its current inclusion in the article is sufficient. The person infobox has dozens of parameters which could be filled in for this example (e.g. parents) but which aren't directly relevant to the subject matter. So I don't think it needs to be in the infobox. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition of "convicted" near start of article

Ian Huntley was convicted of the murders by a jury, therefore shouldn't he be the "convicted killer" to reflect the jury's opinion, rather than just the "killer"? His culpability was effectively proven beyond doubt, but not completely. Lingotic (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Surname or first name?

Although the use of surnames is normal practice in Wikipedia, I can't help thinking that two 10-year old murder victims should be referred to by their first name rather than as "Wells" and "Chapman" (see this discussion in The Guardian on this very subject with reference to newspaper practice). Will change to reflect this. 92.18.202.140 (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ian Huntley birth location

The infobox for Ian Huntley indicates a birth location of Grimsby, is there any reference for this as this Times article gives a location of Immingham. Keith D (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Maxine Carr

I came to this page whilst looking for info about Maxine Carr. Whilst I agree with the various mergers that have taken part, I have rewritten it somewhat to separate a lot of the info about Carr out to its own sections. I believe it reads better this way.Steve3742 (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ian Huntley's background

There are no citations at all for the background on Huntley, and not much information available via googling the web (specifically on the peace corps and cockfighting charges). These really need cites added, surely? --138.37.81.69 (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

After the trial: Ian Huntley screening is irrelevent to murder

I understood that Ian Huntley worked at completely different school from Holley Wells and Jessica Chapman. They knew him because he was the boyfriend of their teaching assistent, Maxine Carr. Therefore any background screening that would kept him from that job would have had no effect on the murder. This should be added after the discussion of the lack of screening. 91.64.161.0 (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you any references for the information? Keith D (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Huntley the caretaker

I think it should be spelled out in this article that Huntley was not the caretaker at his victims' school and his access to them was through his partner Carr who was a teaching assistant at their primary school. The impression given by this article, in common with virtually every media report, is that Huntley was 'their' caretaker and couldn't have committed his crime if he hadn't got the job.

Not only is this an important piece of factual information it is also highly relevant to the question of Bichard's recommendations. 130.246.132.26 (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a reliable source that could be used to support such a change, as you say most of the sources indicate he was their caretaker? Keith D (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

St Andrew's Primary School (Soham) was the girls' school as indicated by the Wikipedia article on the school. Soham Village College was the school where Huntley was caretaker. This news story [1], unusually, refers to the fact that he worked at a different school than that which the girls attended.--130.246.132.26 (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The OP made a good point here which I think is still relevant. January (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The distinction may not be so clear-cut. It is evident from various sources e.g. mapping that the two schools are adjacent, and this Daily Mail article even describes them as being on the "same site". If a distinction between the two schools is emphasised, then it should also be mentioned that they are adjacent nonetheless. Scil100 (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Should Carr's photo and identifying details be included?

The main article says at least a dozen women have been attacked and persecuted because they have been mistaken for Maxine Carr. Is it a good idea to post a very visible sidebar with a photo and identifying details about her? Could that information be subsumed into the main story, and be made to read less like a wanted poster?

Belmontian (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Belmontian

Since she's still alive, you'd have to find a copyright-free image of her, since it is as yet too soon for her police mugshot to be out of copyright. As for a "very visible sidebar", remember she wasn't the actual murderer and convicted of being a lesser participant in the crime, so emphasising her in that way might be taken to be giving her too much prominence. Rodhullandemu 21:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There is the famous mugshot image of her in the article, but it is unclear whether this is an accurate version of her current appearance. It is not really the job of Wikipedia articles to say to assorted morons "Don't attack anyone unless she looks like this." Ironically, an up-to-date image could cause more problems than it solves. See also [2].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The story you refer to is absolute case in point. Even the most cursory glance at photos will show that he has different colour eyes from Venables, which shows quite how thoroughly stupid the self-appointed vigilantes can be (in case we didn't already know that). Regardless of what Wikipedia's role in this should or shouldn't be, there is nothing in practice that we can do with such people anyway. If some people want to inflict some kind of extrajudicial punishment on Carr because they cannot grasp the concept that the reason for her comparatively light sentence was that a court of law accepted that she had believed Huntley to be innocent (and therefore acquitted her of assisting an offender), then frankly there is no point trying to reason with them. These are people responsible for necessitating wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on providing false identities for the likes of Carr, Venables, and even Huntley's mother (who has committed no crime, and has even stated that Huntley should never be released). Really, there is no reason for any editor to bother to waste time aiming their writing at such an audience. Scil100 (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC) [P.S. in case any such people are reading this and see me as an enemy for daring to say such a thing, they might care to notice that my recent contributions to the article are not complimentary to Huntley.] Scil100 (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

See also the discussions here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive115#Soham_murders.2FMaxine_Carr. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Soham murders or Soham Murders?

Hiya to all. A question on the titling, as this article came up in a discussion about use of capitals in article naming on Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide#Requested move; specifically, about the capitalization of titles of events like these. Is Moors Murders a proper noun, and if so, shouldn't it be Soham Murders? Here's my sense of it, copied from over there at the RfM, [where the proposal (not mine, I had questions that led to you) was to move the page from Denial of the Armenian Genocide to Armenian Genocide denial]: This was my first question, because I thought, "Well, this would conform better to the Manual of Style (which does not cover this specific point...YET):

• "However, should it not be Armenian genocide denial, unless there is some legitimate reason why in this case genocide should be capitalized? Further, why should not (for examples) the articles Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Srebrenica Genocide, Rwandan Genocide follow the same naming conventions as do Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, and Burundi genocide? I have the same question concerning titles containing the word massacre: Why Parsley Massacre but Rohingya massacre? Perhaps if such topics are considered events and as such are considered proper nouns...but I'd like to see all such titles conform across the board, to a coherently stated convention, whichever convention is supported by either clear policy or robust consensus. I haven't looked hard for it at all, but maybe someone else has: Is there any established WP policy, guideline, or village pump decision on precisely this?"

The response was:

• "I'll explain my vision. In the titles it is a name of an event ("Greek Genocide"), a term and not word-combination (adjective + noun) to mark the belonging of the event. The same way the terms for Cuban Missile Crisis or Caribbean Crisis and not Caribbean crisis with Caribbean as an adjective and crisis as a noun. Or the Berlin Blockade, for another example."

to which I queried further:

• "Is your vision... supported by a WP policy, and if so, please point me to that policy. I studied WP:Article titles and WP:Naming conventions#Capitalization to no avail. Where is this 'an event, or series of events, is a proper noun whose terms shall be capitalized' policy, if there is one? Declaring that something is an Event (not to opine in any way that this E/event isn't one) and thus is a proper noun that should be capitalized, could be controversial to some, and might encompass different scopes for different folks, so please explain also, if you can, why (as examples--there are a vast number of 'E/events' that might have this issue) the E/events currently titled (and capitalized like this-->) Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, Burundi genocide, and Rohingya massacre should not be capitalized as you propose for the move to Armenian Genocide denial, if there is a good reason to handle each differently. Staying arbitrarily within the narrow category of death and dying-themed events only, why Moors murders and Soham murders, but Parker-Hulme Murder? (the current examples suggest, somewhat irregularly, that single death is an Event, but multiple death is an event, unless it's a whole lot of death, in which case it's an Event??) What is the WP policy, if there is one, that sets these sorts of boundaries (or not) for E/events of all flavors?"

and got this answer:

• "I do think that massacres or genocides you noted above should be capitallised. Those are events. A murder is an event, a pogrom is an event, a mass murder (massacre) is an event, a genocide is an event, but an article "Mass murders" is not an event, an article "The genocides of Europe" is not AN event or Sexual disorder is a collective word-combination and a collective article but Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder is a name of one disorder. the same way Greek, Assyrian or Armenian Genocides are separate events and not some variety of genocides or something. I don't even thing this was ever discussed. Just all the WP:RSs write it with a capital letter so no doubts."

Please share your thoughts on the idea of changing the name of this page to Soham Murders, a proper noun, recognizing the significance of the event. Yes, I do get that the Soham Murders were events, but so are all the events that comprise any given genocide or massacre. I'm going to try to edit the Manual of Style to address this question, and before I do, I'd like to find out what community consensus is on the matter.

Sorry so long-winded. =) Duff (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In simplicity the word murders is a verb here and not a proper noun so there is no need to change the title at all. Please do not bother continuing this pointless discussion as it is all semantics and a waste of time effort and energy. As shown by the above long windedness which is wholly making a mountain out of a molehill..--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. This is a WP:VILLAGEPUMP issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Maxine Carr 2004 benefit fraud conviction

The 2004 benefit fraud conviction and the three-year community rehabilitation order were removed per WP:BLP and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This has no direct link to the 2002 Soham murders, as the BBC citation shows.[3] A Wikipedia article is not a list of a person's criminal convictions, and this information does not add to the context or the topic of the article. Please reply here if there are disagreements, rather than posting on noticeboards.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There is though an inderct link. The crimes may not have been part of the murders, but they only got discovered because of the investigations. She was only discovered to be living with Huntley and not alone as a result of the investigations. Also the job application convictions relate to working in the same class and teaching the victims.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the media criticism of the case focused on whether Ian Huntley's past should have shown up in a Criminal Records Bureau check. There is no suggestion that Maxine Carr failed a CRB check, and without the murder case, the benefit fraud and other offences would probably never have come to light. There seems to be something of an obsession with adding this and reverting edits to the contrary, so a request for comment is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Material not germane to the article should not be in the article. Much falls under WP:BLP which governs. Collect (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Some further thoughts: The real issue here is implying that the 2004 convictions were directly related to the 2002 murders, which we all seem to agree were not. This case led to a major overhaul of the way that people in Britain are checked before they are allowed to work with children. However, the main check is with the Criminal Records Bureau, and since Maxine Carr did not fail a CRB check, there is an element of 20:20 hindsight in linking the 2004 convictions to the 2002 murders. The other problem, as previously stated, is that the infobox lists the 2004 convictions while the main text of the article does not mention or expand on them. This is clearly a structural flaw which needs to be addressed. Further thoughts welcome here to prevent past positions being restated.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't find any evidence of a consensus for inclusion, and have consequently removed the information yet again. I urge "includers" to find consensus here before re-inserting; without such consensus, you are acting against the current consensus which is mixed at best, and by my count against inclusion (and I'm counting me). Drmies (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The article was edited to focus on the CRB angle. Neither of the citations ([4][5]) mentions Carr's 2004 convictions as a factor in the case. This confirms the view that they are not directly related to the case and should be left out per WP:BLP1E.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would the media have focused on Huntley's past not showing up in a CRB check, when he was employed as a school caretaker in 2001 and the CRB was launched in 2002?

The sources also indicate the CRB system was reinstated after having been suspended because it was unable to cope with demand rather than changes actually being made to the CRB system. January (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The CRB system was intended (from what I can understand from the sources) to be a computer version of List 99, as well as a person's criminal record. The computer system was introduced in March 2002, and was plagued by early technical problems. In 2006, the then Education Secretary Ruth Kelly changed the procedures so that a person would require a full CRB clearance before working with children. The introduction of the CRB was heavily criticised in 2002, although Huntley became caretaker before its launch. It is unclear whether Huntley was ever on List 99, although he had various complaints on file. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

a suggestion to change the title

This article is currently the 2nd Google hit for "Soham". It all happened quite a while ago now, and it can't be nice for the residents that the subject be given such prominent attention forever after. As a courtesy to the locals, can the article be renamed to "murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman"? For sake of comparison, the remainder of the first few pages of Google hits for "Soham" consists mostly of just normal everyday stuff; it's just this article at number 2 that sticks out. I don't know what Wikipedia's internal style guide might say about this, but in view of the prominent Google position I reckon that external considerations deserve some weight as well. Do you agree? Thanks. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a reasonable question, but not because it may affect the residents of Soham, but whether this title is in keeping with our normal naming guidelines. Normally we'll go with the common name, and right now that's "Soham murders". If you wish to pursue this further then we have a "requested move" process which can be found at WP:RM. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

People in Hungerford and Dunblane have the same problem with a Google search. Search engines rank results by what people are looking for when they type in certain keywords. Inevitably, this is going to bring up the crimes with which the towns are most associated. Wikipedia uses the WP:COMMONNAME for articles, which in this case is "Soham murders", eg [6].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the fact is that many people associated the name "Soham" with the Soham murders. --TBM10 (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Soham is unfortunately known for this event. Like Lockerbie, it is destined to be associated with a nasty event for a long time to come. We can't really do anything about that. --John (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Poor English

"It took nearly two weeks before the police became aware of previous sexual allegations against Huntley and, although he was the last person to see either of the two children, his story was not effectively checked out early during the investigation."

I'd recommend the final part of this sentence be changed to something like: his story was not effectively verified during the early stages of the investigation. 2.99.26.236 (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Request not to use image

This article in today's Guardian says that the families of the victims are asking media organisations to stop using the photograph taken just before they were abducted. Should we reconsider whether we use it in the article? SmartSE (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

From the Guardian article linked above: "McGibbon argues that the use of the picture amounts to a breach of copyright but is more concerned about the wishes of the families being flouted". See also Society of Editors website here: [7] "[McGibbon] believes that Mrs Wells retains the copyright, and a lawyer approached by Press Gazette, Christina Michalos, agrees that to be the case." If there is any question of a breach of copyright, we cannot use the image. I will delete it, at least until the copyright issue can be decided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright isn't an issue for us since we are claiming fair use under US law. Whether to include it or not is an editorial decision. SmartSE (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for advice on this at [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Soham murder victims image, and suggest we wait for a response before proceeding further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. looking at the image licensing details, I see that it has been tagged as "not a sufficient claim of fair use", for what that is worth... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The image probably is copyrighted. It comes down to fair use and respecting the wishes of the parents.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When the image has been used by the likes of the Daily Mail it is credited and marked as copyright PA Wire/Press Association images. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)