Jump to content

Talk:Soham murders

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

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:

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)[reply]

"Ian" Huntley transitioned?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Dubious assertion

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Possible sexual assault

[edit]

I'm confused by these two sentences in the second paragraph of the Motive section:

"Pathological evidence retrieved from the bodies indicating at least one of the girls had been subjected to a sexual assault either before or after her murder was not disclosed to the jury at Huntley's trial. The reason for this decision had been that both bodies were too extensively decomposed and damaged by fire to enable a conclusive determination of either the actual cause of death or if either girl had been subjected to a sexual assault"

I read the first of these sentences as stating that there was clear evidence of a sexual assault. However, the second sentence states that there was not clear evidence of this.

If the latter is correct, could we change "indicating" in the first sentence to "suggesting"? Dferstat (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The source cited (archive link [3]) says "strongly suggests". I'm not sure it really supports the assertion in the second sentence - "the reason for this decision..." - though. We'd really need better sourcing to justify that specific claim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the swift reply! :)
How's this for replacement text for those two sentences?
"Pathological evidence retrieved from the bodies suggested that at least one of the girls had been subjected to a sexual assault either before or after her murder. However, this was was not disclosed to the jury at Huntley's trial, and Dr Nathaniel Cary, a Home Office pathologist, said the bodies were too decomposed and fire-damaged to determine an exact cause of death or whether sexual assault had occurred." Dferstat (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with "...where Dr Nathaniel Cary..."rather than "and". Otherwise it looks fine to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, which I've incorporated. I'd be grateful if you'd check what I've uploaded, and let me know if I've made any errors.
Thanks again! :) Dferstat (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]