Jump to content

Talk:Murders of Rachel and Lillian Entwistle

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

Inaccuracy

[edit]

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

Restore history please

[edit]

You can keep the redirect, but why can't we just leave the discussion that was previously here in the history? -72.93.80.253 (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this here?

[edit]

Why is this even an article? The only reason this man is of note is because of the murders and there is already an article on the murders with almost all of this information contained therein.--ScreaminEagle (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion of merge or delete or afd exists here, so i restored everything. -72.93.80.253 (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restored merger tags. Discussion now instigated at Talk:Entwistle murder case. Dick G (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family photo

[edit]

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)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia. Can someone embed this photo: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

Why an article?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merge of family members

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
okay i can agree with that, thanks for your input. - Shadowsill (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumption of innocence

[edit]

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)[reply]

Rachel's age at death

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"Murders"

[edit]

Although the defendant in this case is accused of murder, the section entitled "Aftermath of Murders" does not reflect the innocent until proven guilty idea. Would there be objection to a change to "Aftermath of Deaths" - at least until the verdict? Booglamay (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would object. The coroner called them murders, so we don't need to be PC. As to who did it, we don't know, so the husband is only "alleged" so far. --CliffC (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the text that explicitly talks of murder (without the terms "accused", "alleged" etc). While it's not necessarily being 'PC' (like you said, the guy is only accused), entitling any section (without an "accused" or "alleged" disclaimer) would be assumption towards the case. As this header is for the first section of the article, the point of view of the article has been skewed before the facts (or at least what we know to be fact already) have been presented.
Ultimately, the header implies that the victims were murdered. This hasn't been proven. Booglamay (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this guy has just been found guilty? 212.18.227.182 (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has, and so the title of this section is indisputable. See the timestamps at the end of the messages - the posts were made yesterday. Booglamay (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the header was not implying Mr Entwhistle was the murderer, just that the victims were murdered. That is a fact or there would be no murder case for you to be so dutifully PC about. 86.134.195.178 (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Neil Entwistle

[edit]

Propose merge. The Neil Entwistle article previously stood as a separate bio article before being merged and recreated as this article (i.e. Entwistle murder case). No formal discussion as to that merger had previously taken place and the Neil Entwistle page was subsequently restored.

However, that page is an outdated mirror of the page as it existed prior to the merger. At the same time there is no apparent need for there to be two separate articles which essentially deal with the same subject. The individual would not qualify for WP:Notability were it not for his trial and conviction for murder. The limited biographical detail included in the Entwistle murder case article is sufficient for these purposes. Having two separate articles does not assist the reader's understanding of the subject and instead confuses, since the two articles duplicate the same information, albeit presented in a different format. Thus the Entwistle murder case adequately deals with the relevant subject matter without the need for a separate bio page. Dick G (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Neil Entwistle's notability appears to be strictly limited to the dealings of his trial. The contents of his bio article seem only to duplicate what is written in the article on the trial. PatrickWaters (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The Neil Entwistle article is unnecessary and should be merged here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmallon (talk • contribs) 12:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per proposed. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ive merged the Entwistle article with this one. Smith Jones (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How bout we wait more than 24 hours to solicit more than three votes. There's no rush! There's plenty of time. Moreover, people who come to the Neil Entwistle are free to edit the Murder article. -72.93.80.253 (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
we can wait a week, but longstanding polciy has indicated that when someone is notable for being involved wtih a crime only then their article is usually merged with the crime article. An example of this is O.J. Simpson. Wikipedias O.J. Simpson article is redirected to O. J. Simpson murder case because he is only notable for the criminal trial involving him and the murders of his wife and son. The same standard should apply here as to the Neil Entwistle murder case since in both instances the subjects of the article are nonnotable but the murder trials involving them are. Smith Jones (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all these discussion follow no time tables. They depend on consensus. I don't want to get into a debate as I am happy with the decision either way. Several things irked me about the last move/redirect/deletion ... What needs to happen now is that everybody here just calm down and relax, no sudden moves, please. OJ is a bad example. Let's chill with the examples OK, lets just stick to this guy and move one step at a time. No rush. -Cheers-72.93.80.253 (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
isn't OJ the worst example possible? his article -doesn't- redirect because he -is- notable... well, just my unconstructive two cents... - Shadowsill (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that was unconstructive. thank youf for trying though. 05:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
That was actually constructive. O.J.'s case was so sensational because he was famous, not because of the details. Smith Jones needs to be repeatedly spoken to that way in an effort to get him/her? to begin thinking with his brain not his emotions. It was a social necessity for Shadowsill to make that comment. Granted, it wasn't necessarily relevant to the discussion at hand, but wasn't beside the point either. Regards. 78.151.218.167 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if you could tone down the condescension just a tad you would notice that i was agreeing with you that i moved to quickly. all i was saying is that merging is probably the likel outcome anyway since we never create articles on people that are notable for only WP:ONEEVENT when the event itself is more notable. im with you that we should wait for more consensus, although I honestly cant see a policy-basedbacking for anyone to oppose rediirect/merge. Smith Jones (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Just for future reference, if you merge articles, please take care not to splice one full article on top of another - in this case we found ourselves with the Neil Entwistle bio-style page (complete with external links and info box) immediately followed by the case article, which had almost exactly the same info (including the external links). Generally the whole article needs a complete overhaul too but that's for another time... Thanks for stopping by though, the more editors the better this place will be Dick G (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smith jones, you can do whatever you want. I'm sorry! Signing out.-72.93.80.253 (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Neil Entwistle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neil Entwistle. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming article

[edit]

I am changing the title of this to Murders of Rachel and Lillian Entwistle as that is more in keeping with our naming conventions for homicides:

  • We do not name articles for the killer unless they are notable for something else. Neil Entwistle isn't.
  • We can use "murder" in the title because he was convicted of that crime ("murder" can only be determined by a trier of fact; a killing of one person by another is homicide).

Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

[edit]

This article should use American, not British, date formats. For example: "Today is January 29, 2019"; versus "Today is 29 January 2019". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to correct them all. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can a sovereign country extradite its own citizen to another country?

[edit]

From what I understand Neil Entwistle is a British citizen and does not have American citizenship? If that is so, how is it possible that his own country would extradite him to the US? This seems absolutely crazy. Maybe the article could address this in a sentence or two as this is extremely unusual. There is no way the US would ever extradite their own citizen to the UK if the roles were reversed. 185.68.78.218 (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murders_of_Rachel_and_Lillian_Entwistle&oldid=1207121148"