Talk:Neil Entwistle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 7 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

In the interests of accuracy, it should be noted that the picture that goes with this article is NOT of Neil Entwistle after his arrest. As some may have noted from his apearance at Bow Street on 9.2.06, he was wearing a white t-shirt and black jumper.

For what it's worth, in case anyone is wondering about the specific pre-trial information about Entwistle's movements between 20 January and 23 January despite the fact that he has yet to set a single foot inside an American court to defend himself - it has all come from publically available documents given to the press by Massachusetts' Framingham District Court officials. So, despite what you might think about Entwistle - it should be pointed out that he has actually insisted so far that he is innocent of all charges against him. The details - which one would assume could prejudice any kind of fair trail in advance of one starting - have now (as of 17.18 p.m GMT) been very widely reported on both sides of the Atlantic. Neil Michael 17.20 pm, GMT, 10 February 2006.

Contents

[edit] Family photo

In the interest of legality, I am taking the photo out of the article as it's marked AP and should be presumed to be copyrighted. Daniel Case 23:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia. Can someone embed this photo: Image:P1010173.JPG and also apply the proper copyright to the image? I took the picture from the Entwistle family website. Thanks. --Gimeral 18:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll check with AP on Monday. For today though, there was nobody on the picture desk around to give permission for its use. That said, given that the picture has already been published on the internet and everybody else is using it, I wouldn't be surprised if it's OK to use it. I think - but could be wrong - the whole copyright issue is different with pictures published on the internet. Neil Michael 11.32am, GMT, 10 February 2006.

The copyright issue for this photo is no different from any photo you'd find in a book, newspaper, or any other medium. All photos are presumed to be copyrighted unless claimed otherwise. Publication on the Internet does not automatically remove copyright. I think this photo is usable under the U.S. fair use doctrines, but before we tag it as such, we need to confirm its copyright status (you can't claim fair use until a) you know who the author is and b) whether its copyrighted or not. — EagleOne\Talk 21:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Any image posted from the AP, newspapers, etc are all protected by copyrights. Taking them without payment, even with a credit line or "courtesy of the AP' is theft, pure and simple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.41.4.196 (talk • contribs) 19:25, February 16, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why an Article?

I'm new here, so I'm curious why this person would rate an encyclopeida article? Wouldn't this go better in Wikinews? As far as I can tell, this is just another run-of-the-mill murder suspect.

HELLOOOOO? Are we really going to create encyclopedia articles for everyone accused of murder? This article belongs in wikiNEWS, not here! Rklawton 00:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles in Wikipedia tend to reflect what people are interested in. Hence, an article with no interest will remain a stub and may eventually be deleted whilst an article like this will be continually read, reviewed and added to. Surely the level of interest in an article isn't a bad measure of its encyclopedic notability? (though, of course, not the only measure) And, on another note, this page actually appears to present facts rather than the mindless opionions reflected in almost all other sources on the subject. 69.140.65.251 04:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of family members

I believe the wife and daughter should be merged into this article as they are all only notable because of the trial, which is a single event. Timb0h 09:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No i do not agree, mrs entwistle was my English teacher and i do not believe it would be suitable for her and neil enwistles biography to be murged! HE MURDERED HER! it would be totally insensitive, she was an individual person who we all loved, you should not move her on to the same page as that BEAST who killed her... she is greatly missed! R.I.P miss xxx

While I find the irony of one of the decedent's English students misspelling "merged," I do agree with the point. To merge a victim with that victim's alleged killer is the ultimate irony.

Oh now don't insult the kid. He/she is obviously upset and passionate about it. Nitpicking on typos is just a bit tacky in this situation.nut-meg 07:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think they should NOT be merged, I agree with the reasons above, she was also my English teacher and for her biography to be merged with his would not be the right thing to do in my opinion, as they are separate people and it's not like this page is to summarise the whole trial or the events that sadly happened, so I see no reason for them to be merged together.

Whether or not this case really warrants all the media attention it has gotten is beside the point. The fact is that it is getting the attention and that makes it notable. I do not believe that it should be merged. One of the good aspects of wikipedia is that we dont have to relegate murder victims to articles about their killers. We can know more about the victims and they are not defined by their killernut-meg 07:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the merge tags (outstanding since Oct 2006) as there was no strong argument for merging the articles. It may be that the wife and daughter should be merged but that is for separate debate Dick G 15:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

i totally disagree, there is a clear argument for merging - she would never have her own wikipedia page had she died in a car accident. in other words, without her husband, she does not satisfy the notability requirement. i contend that there is no reason for these articles NOT to be merged (look up any other murderer on WP, the victims are part of the same article). unless someone can give some strong (non-emotional) reason not to merge them, i'll go ahead and do it. - Shadowsill (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear I was not saying whether I agreed with the merger or not - as it happens I agree with your viewpoint. I simply deleted the merge tags as no clear consensus had evolved at that time, much less any meaningful debate. Merging or moving pages should really only be undertaken after consultation and on the basis of a consensus. In any event I see the pages are all now linked which ultimately is probably the best solution but it should not have been put in place unilaterally. However, rather than stress about the merits or otherwise of a merge, this article needs serious work and editors should instead be focussing on that, updating it with well-cited references as the trial progresses.Dick G (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
okay i can agree with that, thanks for your input. - Shadowsill (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Presumption of Innocence

Would the above posters please sign their comments and note that Neil Entwistle is presumed innocent until convicted. --PeterMarkSmith 06:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel's Age At Death

If Rachel was born in December 1979 then she was 26 years old at the time of her death in January 2006 and would not have turned 27 until December 2006. I revised her age to 26 in the article but it was changed back to 27 again. I don't understand why. (I was born in July 1979, five months before Rachel, and was certainly 26 in January 2006!) Bruiseviolet (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, here's just one of many sources confirming she was 27. I suspect the date of birth is wrong as most news sources including the BBC and CNN say she was 27. Dick G (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, you made the change without leaving an edit summary, which to many editors is the first sign of mischief. Some editors will simply revert such changes out of hand without spending any time investigating whether it is correct. I did check news sources, probably the same ones Dick mentions, before reverting your change. --CliffC (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to try and clarify, query whether this astrology chart relates to her [1] (same name, Worcester birth place, same day and month etc), which would suggest the date of birth is one year out and that she was born in 1978, not 1979. Just checking Cliff, I assume you're not blaming me when you mention reverting edits without summaries? :) Dick G (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah okay, I didn't consider the possibility the date of birth was wrong. Thanks for the tip on edit summaries, I'll use them in the future. Bruiseviolet (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)