Wikipedia

Talk:Soham murders: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Remove defunct WikiProject British crime banner as no longer used. See Wikipedia:WikiProject British crime. - Add WikiProject United Kingdom and WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography as substitutes.
 
(16 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{skip to talk}}
{{talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShellWikiProject banner shell|blpo=yes|1class=B|
{{Uk-crime|class=BWikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=highMid}}
{{WikiProject East Anglia|Cambridgeshire=yes|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Death|class=B|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Lincolnshire|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{merged-from|Ian Huntley}}
{{merged-from|Maxine Ann Carr}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{archives}}
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
 
|maxarchivesize = 75K
==Ian Huntley birth location==
|counter = 1
The infobox for Ian Huntley indicates a birth location of Grimsby, is there any reference for this as this [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1045337.ece Times article] gives a location of Immingham. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 20:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
|minthreadsleft = 4
 
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
==Maxine Carr==
|algo = old(28d)
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.[[User:Steve3742|Steve3742]] ([[User talk:Steve3742|talk]]) 16:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
|archive = Talk:Soham murders/Archive %(counter)d
 
}}
==Ian Huntley's background==
{{archives|search=yes}}
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? --[[Special:Contributions/138.37.81.69|138.37.81.69]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/91.64.161.0|91.64.161.0]] ([[User talk:91.64.161.0|talk]]) 14:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
:Have you any references for the information? [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk: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.
[[Special:Contributions/130.246.132.26|130.246.132.26]] ([[User talk:130.246.132.26|talk]]) 15:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
:Have you got a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that could be used to support such a change, as you say most of the sources indicate he was their caretaker? [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-177011/Huntley-denies-Soham-killings.html], unusually, refers to the fact that he worked at a different school than that which the girls attended.--[[Special:Contributions/130.246.132.26|130.246.132.26]] ([[User talk:130.246.132.26|talk]]) 13:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
:::The OP made a good point here which I think is still relevant. <font color="navy">January</font> <small>(<font color="navy">[[User talk:January|talk]]</font>)</small> 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 [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-152078/Special-carol-murdered-schoolgirls.html 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. [[User:Scil100|Scil100]] ([[User talk: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?
 
[[User:Belmontian|Belmontian]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:UNDUE|giving her too much prominence]]. [[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 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 [http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/blackpoolnews/David-Calvert-reveals-stab-threat.6141409.jp].--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 09:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 
:::The story you refer to is absolute case in point. Even the most cursory glance at [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7412162/Jon-Venables-man-wrongly-accused-of-being-Bulger-killer-living-in-fear-of-vigilantes.html 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 [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society 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. [[User:Scil100|Scil100]] ([[User talk:Scil100|talk]]) 17:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC) <small>[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.] [[User:Scil100|Scil100]] ([[User talk:Scil100|talk]]) 17:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)</small>
 
See also the discussions here: [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive115#Soham_murders.2FMaxine_Carr]]. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk: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 Genocide|Greek]], [[Assyrian Genocide|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:RS]]s 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 event''s'', 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. =) [[User:Duff|Duff]] ([[User talk: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..--[[User:Lucy-marie|Lucy-marie]] ([[User talk:Lucy-marie|talk]]) 16:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 
:Ditto. This is a [[WP:VILLAGEPUMP]] issue.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 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.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3700149.stm] 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.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 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.--[[User:Lucy-marie|Lucy-marie]] ([[User talk: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.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 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. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk: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.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 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). [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 22:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
:::The article was edited to focus on the CRB angle. Neither of the citations ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/dec/17/childrensservices.soham][http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4612038.stm]) 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]].--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 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. <font color="navy">January</font> <small>(<font color="navy">[[User talk:January|talk]]</font>)</small> 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. --'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 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. --[[User:Money money tickle parsnip|Money money tickle parsnip]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk: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 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3312551.stm].--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 05:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately, the fact is that many people associated the name "Soham" with the Soham murders. --[[User:TBM10|TBM10]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 12:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 
== Request not to use image ==
 
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/may/01/soham-dailymail 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? [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk: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: [http://www.societyofeditors.co.uk/page-view.php?pagename=General&parent_page_id=139&news_id=4263&numbertoprintfrom=1&language={language}] "[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. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk: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... [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk: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.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 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. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) 19:22, 7 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.
[[Special:Contributions/2.99.26.236|2.99.26.236]] ([[User talk:2.99.26.236|talk]]) 03:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 
== Indefinite anonymity ==
Line 141 ⟶ 50:
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/ [[User:Wikiditm|Wikiditm]] ([[User talk:Wikiditm|talk]]) 09:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
:Criminals are humans too. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk: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 [https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2866040/child-killer-ian-huntley-tells-lags-to-call-him-female-version-of-his-name-ian-as-make-up-frankland-prison/], so it has sourcing problems.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 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?[[User:Wikiditm|Wikiditm]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Blurryman|Blurryman]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Wikiditm|Wikiditm]] ([[User talk: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 [https://twitter.com/CaseyExplosion/status/1094934111419056128]. --[[User:Wickedterrier|Wickedterrier]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wikiditm|Wikiditm]] ([[User talk: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?"--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 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? [[User:Fob.schools|Fob.schools]] ([[User talk:Fob.schools|talk]]) 08:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
: May need restructuring and adjusting. As per the contents [https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6394/1/report.pdf the contents] around page nine to fifteen here.--[[User:Kieronoldham|Kieronoldham]] ([[User talk:Kieronoldham|talk]]) 00:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Soham_murders"