Talk:Murder of Joanna Yeates/Archive 1

Proposed deletion response
As an editor living in the UK that happened to stumble across this page, I would strongly urge against deleting this article. As well as being headline news (the top story on the BBC website on Christmas Day, rather than, for example, the Royal Christmas Message), the disappearance of Joanna Yeates, and the later discovery of her body on Christmas Day, has generated widespread interest due to the mystery of what happened to her, similar to that surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.The deletion rationale of "Wikipedia is NOT NEWS" ignore the fact that, in my view, this subject easily meets Wikipedia's notabily guidelines for events. Admittedly, this article could be substantially improved, but I would like to see a fuller rationale from the proposed deleter as to why this article should not be kept. The Celestial City (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Having followed similar topics as a part of WP:CRIME, I have seen many articles disappear under the WP:NOTNEWS argument. To reinforce WP:NOTABILITY, the article needs additional sources to establish that the topic has in fact been of significant (not passing) national interest, especially details of any investigation into the similarities with other unresolved cases, such as the murder of Melanie Hall. Continued updates to demonstrate WP:PERSISTENCE will also help. KimChee (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * People are going to search Wikipedia a lot for this article, as they do for all other crimes. Wikipedia is naturally an early port of call. Deleting it is silly, given its widespread discussion and coverage. It just keeps the folk at AfD busy, that's all... Orphan Wiki  17:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How much it seems that all of you have neither read WP:NOTNEWS, or know that Wikinews exists. The latter should and has to host all the news articles. The disappeareance of Joanna Yeates (and possible murder) is just another one of those news events, that are just too recent to have enough information to be included in an encyclopedia. It isn't very important if it has received enough coverage (well, all events of this kind do appear on the main headlines of most important newspapers), but you should better wait until more information comes to light. (or whichever the way it is said, I'm not a native speaker) Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is something more than just "news". With crimes like this, NOTNEWS is not the be-all-and-end-all of everything. Orphan Wiki  18:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTNEWS (yes I have actually read it) does not simply say NOT NEWS. It states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" and "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion". Is this event merely routine or is it likely this event will have no enduring notability? Looking at other articles about similar cases, I think it's obvious what the answers to those questions are. WP:NOTNEWS certainly does not preclude writing about current events as they happen.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Some folk stumble across a particular policy they understand well, and try to enforce it like WikiPolice all over the place. Christ, let's get the red flags out. REVOLUTION! Orphan Wiki  18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps now the trial is over this page for an unremarkable murder case can finally be deleted and relegated to Wikinews where it belongs.60.161.199.194 (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we can consider this discussion closed as there is no way this article will be deleted now.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ref dump
For odd references and such that may come in useful. TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)



Seen leaving flat
It's good we haven't included what are now widespread reports she was seen leaving the flat with two other people. The source of these reports, the landlord, has denied making such a claim, saying he simply saw three persons:

Jefferies said he was not certain if one of the three people was Yeates. Speaking outside his home, he denied earlier reports that he told police he saw Yeates leaving with two unidentified people. "It is a serious distortion of what I said to the police," he said.

Earlier, he told Sky News: "I made some comment which was very, very, very much vaguer than that. Anything that I have said I have said to the police and I'm not prepared to make any comments to the media."

It seems to be a case of the media trying a bit too hard to get a new angle on the story. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Names of parents
There appear to be conflicting names for her parents, particularly her father who we have as John in the infobox and David elsewhere. We need a definitive name and source. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅. The previous forenames were actually those of Greg Reardon's parents. KimChee (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheers, everything seems to tally now. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work KimChee.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Landlord
I think we should refrain from writing things such as "looks a bit suspicious" with regards to the Landlord, it's not really a fact. Could people keep an eye out for such things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BananaNoodle (talk • contribs) 21:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with you. And yes users will look out for edits of that kind.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * UK editors need to be careful following this BBC warning.
 * Newspapers are under a legal obligation, indeed all media is under a legal obligation, 'in fact everybody who puts something on the internet is under a legal obligation, to observe the principles of the Contempt of Court Act'," he said. 'If they don't, they lay themselves open to proceedings for contempt.'
 * The servers are out of reach in the US but I think Mr Grieve means us UK editors! Does everyone know the rules?
 * A similar problem was discussed at Peter Tobin and an administrator Alison W was approached by the police. JRPG (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The situation mentioned above is an example of the benefit of the rule for no original research. Any added material must be cited from a reliable source or be removed. KimChee (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While that is true of course, it won't necessarily protect anyone under this law, as the fact something is also published elsewhere is no defence. I happen to think the law will change soon as it's inevitable that jurors will read the internet and ridiculous to try and "protect" them from speculation. It was appaling that the Peter Tobin article was deleted during the court case ot the whim of the UK police, as it would have been the most unbiased information the jurors would have found online. I'm sure if the trial had been in China we would have ignored any request from Chinese authorities. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly agree that the law will change. In this case, the judge will seriously criticise interviewing of former pupils should any charges be made.
 * In Tobin's case, papers referred to him at the second trial as an unnamed man and I suspect some newspapers even withdrew website content about previous convictions.
 * Then it reached utter farce when on day 1 of the trial, prosecutors disclosed his history under similar fact evidence.
 * Pre internet, all publicity took place before charges were made and papers then kept quiet until they reported the trial. The Old Bailey was available for those whose local notoriety prejudiced their trial, a sharp contrast to the US where people are always tried locally. Unfortunately Wikipedia detail is available during this period.
 * My recommendation would be that pretrial articles are hidden between charges being laid and end of trial.
 * I haven't voted on delete but fear serious criticism of Wikipedia if information isn't hidden or if some legally untrained clot makes a prejudicial statement.JRPG (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. I wonder if this incident warrants mention in that article. KimChee (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * AlisonW was approached by the police. See her comments here JRPG (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As it appears to have been unilateral action by one admin, I would have to say no.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will strongly object if this article is hidden. The servers are in the US and we wouldn't do it to comply with Chinese or Burmese law, so why do it to comply with English law? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Irrespective of where the servers are, the UK authorities are likely to take action against any UK editor who is regarded as in contempt of court. This is particularly likely in a trial where the accused is apparantly of previous good character. This didn't happen with Tobin who had previous convictions, or Stephen Griffiths who pleaded guilty.  We have yet to see what they will do.  JRPG (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Chris Jefferies
Is it right that the above article should link to this page? I personally don't think it is. Nobody has been charged and what if Jeffries is deemed not to have been involved? If nobody objects I'll remove it, or someone can do it if they feel strongly enough about it. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Get rid of the link!!! JRPG (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of removing this, but then thought that if we have his name in the article, is there any point in trying to hide that fact? On second thoughts he doesn't currently meet our notability guidelines for biographies, so I removed it. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers guys. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion continues on Talk:Chris_Jefferies. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there should be something mentioned in this article on how some in the British media did a character assassination job on Chris Jeffries and found him guilty, before the trial had even started. His supposed unconventionality, in the way he dressed, his appearance and his lifestyle, was picked up, particularly by the British tabloid press, as definite proof of his guilt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.31.58 (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Pretty white woman syndrome
Someone's added a link to Pretty white woman syndrome which I've just corrected to link to the actual page, but should we have this link? I know it was added before and some people decided it shouldn't be there. Any thoughts? TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that either that or the 'Media circus' see also are needed. Both seem to impart a particular point-of-view; ie that this is a media-driven fuss about nothing. pablo 13:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Pretty white woman syndrome article is linked-to from the the following bit of (referenced) text in the article: Criminology professor David Wilson commented on the resonance of the murder case with the national news media: "The British public loves a whodunnit ... It's a particularly British thing. We were the first nation to use murder stories to sell newspapers and that culture is more ingrained here than elsewhere." Wilson called Yeates, a white female professional, an "ideal victim" for the media. The article says "white female professional", "ideal victim" for the media. This completely qualifies for inclusion in WP (see this bit on NPOV): WP is not presenting a POV, it is David Wilson and the journalist, and the comments are referenced. Format (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pablo. It's fine putting the link in the text of the article, but putting it in the see also section as well gives it undue emphasis, in my view. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Agreed. KimChee (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Another observation about media commentators: after copyediting information added by another editor about Glenn Wilson (psychologist) (no relation), I found that he is not the same criminal profiler as the one in the police investigation. As media pundits tend to speak with a tone of authority, care should be taken not to confuse them with official members of the case. KimChee (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article in itself is more journalism than encyclopaedic... Orphan Wiki  19:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think should be changed to make it more encyclopedic and less journalistic? Jim Michael (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarification of my comment. Orphan Wiki  20:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Libel law change
I undid KimChee's text about the forthcoming Bill to change libel laws as I couldn't see a direct link to this case. If the Deputy PM or similar mentions this specific case in connection with the proposed law change then that is certainly worth noting as it helps confirm notability (although it may be little more than political opportunism as the law change has been planned for some time). --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That was a good call. I added the information to English defamation law instead as you had suggested. KimChee (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing white woman syndrome
If this was a proper encyclopedia, the article would be written to example the disturbing way modern media disproportionately hypes up certain cases rather than just being a school-type essay narrative of the case. In this instant a middle-class white woman is murdered just before Xmas whereas the countless dozens of missing less fortunates are ignored. It's taken the media 11 years to show an interest in this case 1. Is there anything really notable about this case except it's on the UK news nearly every hour for the past month? There is nothing remotely interesting about the case except the tragedy. But does that make it interesting or worthy of an article? No. What does it make it noteworthy is the way the British tabloid media and Sky (FOX affiliate) have jumped on the band wagon to make an innocuous provincial murder into a national story. The police have even announced that the killer(s) from the evidence were known to the deceased. It therefore is only a matter of time (I hope) until they are caught and the full weight of the law is brought to bare. These are the real issues here not the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.250.111 (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to be more your personal opinion than true facts.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with BabbaQ. This seems to be a personal point of view, and the issue of whether or not the case is notable has been extensively debated. What we need is to build an article which discusses all aspects of the cae, not use it as a piece of journalism to attack the media for the way they choose to cover the story. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to register that I am very uncofortable with such overt labelling of this case as missing white woman syndrome. The latter clearly has its roots in the markedly different demographics of the United States, and - by extension - white victims abroad. One could argue that at different times there has been similar levekls of coverage of the death of Gareth Williams, but nobody tries to claim there is a "death white man syndrome." Similarly, the recent case of Serena Beakhurst got enough coverage to show that the UK media does not ignore non-white disappearances. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues here - whether we label it Missing white woman syndrome, and whether it deserves an article here.

For the first: I do wonder why this dominates the media coverage, given that over the whole of the UK, there will be a fair number of people being murdered (or indeed, going missing). Why is it that this case is covered much more extensively? However, we have to abide by what sources say, rather than conducting original research. Are there any notable references referring to this case as Missing white woman syndrome?

For the second: the relevant articles would be Notability_(criminal_acts) and Notability_(people). Mdwh (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does it have "enduring historical significance"? This can occur with some murders, e.g., they spark calls for some new law. But that doesn't seem likely here.
 * Is there "widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)."? There's been a large amount of reporting. Has the coverage gone beyond the usual news reporting? It's unclear what the widespread "impact" was, however?
 * "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." - being tragic or widely reported doesn't imply notability.
 * Also note, "Some editors may take into account perceived media bias, such as Missing white woman syndrome, when assessing notability.".
 * "The victim is notable for something beyond the crime itself." - not here.
 * "The victim, consistent with WP:BLP1E, had a large role within a well-documented historic event." - doesn't seem to be true, either.
 * Thats argument for an AFD debate not the talkpage and this has survived once already The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * On the basis of the last five years' figures, there are around 760 homicides per year in England & Wales - around 15 per week. Males victims account for 70%, females 30%, so the latter averages at 4.4 per week. In the three weeks since Yeates's disappearance, then, we would expect an average of 13 female homicide victims. Whether that is a "fair number" is, of course, subjective, but it's certainly not many. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Boyfriend
WP:BLPNAME suggests restraint over the boyfriend; in this case there is no huge requirement to go into great detail about him and I believe we should err on the side of privacy. We reasonably need to include his name as part of the description of the murder, but I suggest the following replacement of that paragraph:

''Yeates moved, with her boyfriend Greg Reardon, to the Clifton neighbourhood of Bristol when her company relocated to that area. She later worked at the Building Design Partnership in Bristol. Her outdoor hobbies included biking, rowing, snowboarding and surfing.''

(tbh, I am not sure about the relevance of most of the rest of that either, just the first sentence is relevant I think) --Errant (chat!) 23:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also removed some detail about the landlord, it's not relevant, under BLP, to discuss his life --Errant (chat!) 23:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the trimming of information about the landlord has been appropriate, as well as personal details that appear to have no bearing on the case. However, looking at the complete article with the changes, I think establishing that Yeates and her boyfriend had been in a relationship for some time (December 2008) is a small but relevant detail. KimChee (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm... maybe worth a vague mention. But it isn't overly relevant to her disappearance and death at this stage. I won't cause a fuss if you add it in. (BTW, thanks for catching the bad grammar). --Errant (chat!) 19:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Crimewatch January episode
In the section entitled Crime reconstruction and second arrest, the sentence reads as follows;


 * On 18 January 2011, the BBC broadcast an episode of Crimewatch...

Is this accurate? Crimewatch isn't scheduled to be broadcast until 9pm on Wednesday 26th January. Is it not meant to be referring to a news broadcast? Orphan Wiki 13:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it's not accurate, I spotted this earlier and tried to correct it from my phone, but somehow only managed a partial correction, will sort it now. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I rephrased this to further clarify the coverage from the air date. KimChee (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Education
I don't know where you people are getting your information from, but there is one article (by The Sun, c'mon!) that says she attended University of Bristol for her MA in garden design. There are countless others that say she studied it in Winchester. I've tried to change it but people are obviously relentless in misinforming everyone. Have you lot not grasped that this is a public website, for everyone to contribute? Stateoftheloved (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The references I find to Winchester are for her "College" via a friend Rebecca Scott. for instance:


 * "Miss Scott, who lives in Swansea, met Joanna Yeates while attending Winchester College in Hampshire 10 years ago."
 * "Ms Scott first met Ms Yeates at sixth form college in Winchester, Hampshire and they remained close despite studying at different universities."
 * "Miss Scott, also 25, said she and her friend had been "inseparable" after meeting at college in Winchester, Hampshire, more than 10 years ago."
 * "Scott, 25, said she met Yeates more than 10 years ago when they were studying at college in Winchester. "We were 15-years-old and hit it off straight away. We were inseparable and have always remained close friends, even when we went off to separate universities."
 * Unless you have a reference to state otherwise I don't think you're right.Koncorde (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Further, the existing references point out that she only completed her MA in 2010 at Bristol University. Her "Winchester" connection is via her A-Level studies at Peter Symonds College, having previously attended Embley Park School in Romsey (secondary), and Sherborne House School (primary) in Eastleigh. We then know for certain that she left the Winchester area to attend Writtle Agricultural College in Chelmsford before moving to Bristol and completing her studies whilst employed in that same city.
 * I can find no reference to Winchester beyond her A-Level studies. Certainly not for her Masters.Koncorde (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Girlfriend
Similar to my "Boyfriend" section of before.. I have scrubbed irrelevant information on Tabak's gf per [{WP:BLPNAME]], she is not significant at this stage and there is no need for us to record idle media speculation. --Errant (chat!) 13:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Crimewatch again
It is not right to say (as it does in the lead) that the reconstruction was broadcast on Crimewatch. It was filmed for broadcast, but on this evening's edition it was said that the reconstruction and interviews with Yeates' family could not be shown because of recent developments. We need to reflect this in the introduction. Any thoughts? Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
It's ridiculous that this hasn't been deleted, Wikipedia is NOT NEWS and the vaguely racist extent (i.e. blonde murder gets more coverage than others) of media coverage of this case is only exacerbated by threating it as an encylopedic matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.54.244.248 (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to be your very own personal opinion more than true facts. It was decided trough a long Afd process that it should be Kept. And it will stay on Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. This passed the NOTNEWS test a long time ago. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Fund
The fund for Tabak's defense mentioned seems to be unnecessary. The free legal aid system in England should pay. Possibly, the Dutch don't know this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Modern societies will provide a defender for the indigent, but then you get what you pay for. I suppose the fund would be motivated by the desire to obtain legal assistance above the bare minimum. KimChee (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note to other editors: please do not bite the newcomers (including anonymous IPs); this is a fair point to raise about content in the article. KimChee (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you get a bloody good defence for free, actually, due to the arcane rules of the legal profession. Egg Centric (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but WP talk pages are not the place to discuss whether someone's actions in some real life endeavour are mistaken on misguided. Talk pages are to improve the article. If the suspect's supporters did start a fund, this is not the forum to discuss their wisdom in doing so. Format (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed on principle regarding talk pages, though the first point raised was whether it is necessary to state in the article that his family is raising funds on the defendant's behalf. KimChee (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It probably is worth mentioning if we can establish whether or not he will receive legal aid. I don't know if foreign nationals are eligible or not, but imagine they probably would be. I seem to have a vague memory that other people who are not naturalised Britons have been given legal aid, but we need to find this out for definite. TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Postgraduate school(s)?
At present, the article has cited sources stating that Yeates received her master's degree from the University of Bristol. However, as of late, I am seeing other sources mention that she was sponsored by BDP to pursue a "second degree" at the University of Gloucestershire. I surmise it could be possible that she was a studious individual who attended both, but I would like to hear if anyone else has leads on this detail. KimChee (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In terms of the timeframe it's feasible for her to have done this, but she would still have been studying at the time of her death - or recently graduated - and I'm sure this would have been reported. She would be 21 at the time of graduating with her original degree, then 23 when she received her MA. Assuming these qualifications didn't allow her to join the second degree at year 2 she would be two years into her course, and even if they did she would only have graduated in Summer 2010. I'm sure the media would have made much of this. Just a thought anyway. TheRetroGuy (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Landlord: Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill
I note the Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill UK parliament debate refered to this case. "What we saw in Bristol was, in effect, a feeding frenzy and vilification. Much of the coverage was not only completely irrelevant, but there was a homophobic tone to it which I found deeply offensive." Whilst private member's bills normally fail because of lack of time, this one may succeed as many people were disgusted by the coverage. If this case does change the law, it will be significant 30 years hence. Do people agree its worth a mention? I'd prefer someone else to add it though I will update the MP info. JRPG (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, be bold! There is a mention of its introduction in the media coverage section, but any sourced updates are welcome. I think this settles the issue of notability once and for all. KimChee (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi KimChee. Its not boldness I lack but time as I'm doing other articles! It'll be at least 2 weeks before I do anything on this so anyone else is welcome to have a go.   It'll be many months before the bill becomes law even if it is accepted ..but it is needed.  Hansard meets wp:source requirements and this bill may have tacit government support.  JRPG (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added some additional detail from the debate, not least because the press might not be completely neutral when referencing its own responsibilities. Soubry's qualification as a barrister is also relevant here.

Removal of Chris Jefferies
I note that has removed all information about Chris Jefferies from the article and unilaterally declared that it should not be restored without consensus. While disputing that a single editor has the ability to make such a declaration, it seems appropriate to debate whether the removal of every single mention is required or supported under WP:BLP. I note that no other editor has supported this interpretation since the first mention of Jefferies was added.

First, although later cleared, it remains an unchallenged and well-referenced fact that Jefferies was arrested in connection with the enquiry. It does not violate WP:BLP to report unchallenged and well-referenced fact. Of course it needs to be put in the proper context of his later exoneration.

Second, a relevant section of WP:BLP is Avoid victimisation. Jefferies is not notable individually but is notable in connection with the inquiry into the death of Joanna Yeates. The section does not say that no mention should be made at all, but that it should be pared back to a version which is "completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic".

Thirdly, the other relevant section of policy is WP:NPF which states that with relatively unknown people, Wikipedia should "include only material relevant to their notability" (emphasis in original). That is, it does not state that they should not be included at all.

Fourthly, the hugely prejudicial press coverage of Jefferies after his arrest is a separate aspect of the case and definitely worth inclusion (and still remains in the article). That section only makes sense if the article has previously recorded what happened to him to prompt the coverage, and the objections to it.

I suppose it could be argued that the material be restored but without Jefferies' name, referring to him as "Joanna Yeates' landlord". However I doubt that would make much difference, especially since the name is freely available even in the titles of sources. I think Nomoskedasticity has been oversensitive on this issue and that it has resulted in an article which is considerably less use to the reader than it ought to be. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Potentially a vague mention might be appropriate, but nothing more than a sentence or two. Our usual/accepted approach in these matters is not to go into detail in cases where someone has been arrested but is not charged because of the general BLP implications. --Errant (chat!) 13:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean to invoke WP:NPF and WP:BLPDEL, particularly "Restoring deleted content". It is surely obvious that this whole episode has been damaging for Jeffries, in ways readily apparent in the deleted text -- and I think it is highly plausible that having the whole thing spelled out in Wikipedia only exacerbates it.  I will not try single-handedly to stand in the way of partial restoration if a consensus emerges for it -- but I would like it to be considered in these terms first, and I really believe it would be appropriate for the article to not mention him at all.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One additional thought, in relation to NPF. NPF says, include material relevant to someone's notability.  However: if someone is notable, then they get their own article; if Jeffries is not notable enough for his own article, then he's not notable.  NPF is about whether relatively unknown people should have their own article, and "include only material relevant to their notability" does not amount to license to write about non-notable people.  Jeffries is not notable, and we shouldn't be writing about him.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the fact this entire article is NOT#NEWS junk, BLP does not mandate complete erasure from history like this of very basic and very pertinent facts. BLP simply demands that you note the facts neutrally, in proportion, and without supposition or analysis - the article can justifiably note that he was arrested on x date, and he was cleared on y date. The media painted him as xyz prompting interventions, and he is now planning to sue both them and the police. All of this has been the subject of high quality secondary sources. The name doesn't have to be exlicitly stated, but as above, it hardly seems an effective measure, given the coverage. Trying to use the defence that this is an encyclopoedia and not a newspaper to simply eliminate entire aspects of the story out of some ideal of upholding privacy for ultimately non-notable people doesn't work, when the entirety of this article is simply a giant exercise in documenting the news coverage of a case which, when complete, won't be particularly notable in historical terms at all (unless someone has got around to creating that List of major police enquiries in Avon & Somerset, as was alleged as the basis of this article's existence in the Afd.) MickMacNee (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

And if people are concerened about BLP, I think the fact that a shit load of the sources used for this article come from the likes of the Daily Star, The Sun, The Mirror, or the Daily Mail (recently described by Jimbo as completely useless for anything). Even if they are soley being used as verification of their own content and for nothing else, which I severely doubt, their proportion of usage here is way out of whack for any article which is putting BLP first. MickMacNee (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say, and as yet I havent looked at the article, if there is to be any content about Mr Jefferies then it should be very simple specific indeed. I wouldn't mention anything about his intending to sue or that the press tabloid press vilified him, that is what the British tabloid press do in such situations. I would suggest we don't even name him, we can just refer to, " on wed the landlord of the property was arrested and interviewed, he was later released without charge and the police said after their investigations, he was no longer a suspect" -  Mick and Jimmy are totally correct as regards the usage of low quality sources to support controversial content about living people, as in should not be used. Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All I have to say is that it should be mentioned. It is per fact a part of this whole story.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * - Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard this matter has been brought up here.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As another point I would like to mention to remember the definitions of the title and the article - Murder of Joanna Yeates - that is what the article is about and coverage of excessive content of fringe associations has the kind of real life issues that are currently being reported. All Mr Jeffreys in notable for in this article is his arrest and his release and his innocence and release from bail - as such we do not even need to name him, we can protect him and still get the detail across simply by referring to his as the landlord of the building. All reporting of how the press treated him and that he intends to sue and that he now selling his house is tangential on the article topic and should not be included. Looking at the article before User:Nomoskedasticity removed the content - why anyone though it was correct to include content about this innocent person in the section Murder of Joanna Yeates is unclear, and imo it shouldn't have been there at all. Perhaps someone wants to write a simple comment about this arrest and release so we can get consensus to replace something. Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes after following the discussion both here and on the discussion board I would Support a full restoring of the material removed about Chris Jeffries. And perhaps a rewrite of that.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict reply to Off2riorob) The article is about the murder of Joanna Yeates; the fact that someone was arrested on suspicion of the murder and later exonerated is clearly relevant to the murder. Jefferies' name and image have been plastered across the newspapers for months so I doubt that the fact that his name is not mentioned here will protect him from intrusive publicity to any degree; and if he does pursue legal action for false arrest, that is an action which voluntarily brings greater publicity to his position. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If he does is the optimum point, and if there is some legal proceedings then we can consider reporting them then as yet they appear to be un - actioned and presently speculative. I also don't think that he is selling the house is really correct to report here either. Also I feel the same about how the press reported the story about him is undue coverage in this article. If consensus is to name him then fair enough but his name adds nothing of informative value although I agree it is known now - in a year or two it will be forgotten and the unneeded propagation of his name here can easily be avoided without any loss of informative detail. Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * - addition for consideration. Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

On 30 December 2010 Yeates' landlord, Mr Jefferies, who lives in the same building, was arrested shortly after 7.00 am on suspicion of Yeates' murder. He was taken to a local police station for questioning while forensic investigators inspected his flat. Investigators were granted a 12-hour extension on 31 December for additional questioning of Jefferies, and released him on bail the following day. Jefferies retained the legal services of Stokoe Partnership and his family said that he would work towards clearing his name. Jefferies was released from bail on 4 March 2010 and the police stated he was no longer a suspect.
 * I support this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Th argument of "his name is out there, what damage can we do" is a moot one FWIW; we specifically have a policy to hold our content to a high standard of restraint over naming such individuals. That other publishers have lower standards is not relevant, many newspapers violate copyright on the most tenuous of fair use claims, you do not see us copying them :) I think there is no need to mention his name specifically, and no need to go into serious detail per Rob's comments. EDIT: I'd personally be happy with the above suggestion, from a personal perspective I'd still prefer not to name him, but it's kinda hard not to without making the paragraph look like it has been through a meat grinder :) --Errant (chat!) 23:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Still seems a bit weird as Jeffries himself made TV-appearances in interviews for example Sky News talking about her disappearance. If he had not choosen to do that I would have agreed not to mentioning him. But this is a personal choice by Mr jeffries to become a part of this media event. He is in no way a victim of the media, he was a willing participant in interviews until he was arrested.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

On 30 December 2010 Yeates' landlord, who lives in the same building, was arrested shortly after 7.00 am on suspicion of Yeates' murder and was taken to a local police station for questioning while forensic investigators inspected his flat. Investigators were granted a 12-hour extension on 31 December for additional questioning, and released him on bail the following day. On release he retained the legal services of Stokoe Partnership to assist in clearing his name. on 4 March 2010 Yeate's landlord was released from bail and the police stated he was no longer a suspect. - no name version - Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * - ok as conversation has fell away, imo we need some mention of this first arrest in our article and as I am personally only prepared to take responsibility for the no name version and I don't see and strong objections to that version as a minimum I am boldly adding it. Off2riorob (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will boldly support it. Note however that the current year is 2011.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Corrected, it is bold, as me, you and ErrantX are in support but there are also three users here that support naming him - Mick, Babba and Sam, but discussion can continue in regard to that. Off2riorob (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As Chris Jefferies' name was present even when the section about him had been removed (in the titles of sources), adding it to the text crosses no Rubicon. I have also added a mention of the press coverage and the Attorney-General's reminder to the media, which was a rare thing and worth recording. There may be a better source reporting on the extent and prejudicial nature of the press coverage available somewhere else. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a bit late to discuss now Sam after you have added your desired content. The lesser focus on article titles is a minor issue and is incomparable to naming him in the content - also the AG didn't actually do anything just a word in the presses ear - AG do that quite often, and should do it a bit more imo. Off2riorob (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that. 'My desired content' is that the article does not exist because Joanna Yeates had never been murdered, but that is not under the control of any of us. The point is to write an accurate, well-sourced and neutral article. Censoring a name which has been so widely distributed serves no interest at all, and neither you nor anyone else has produced any policy which requires removal of the name. And A-Gs do not frequently intervene with the press in the way which happened here, whether or not they should do. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As you can see, there are multiple objectors to naming him here, please attempt to discuss and find a consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The point to me is this: what good does it do? It contributes nothing to maintaining Jefferies' privacy in the light of the press coverage. Literally nothing, because the links you yourself added to the article take the reader straight to his name, and include his name in their titles in the very article itself. His name is also all over this talk page and freely available in the article history. Neither you nor anyone else has produced any policy supporting removal of names. Further, censoring Chris Jefferies name produces a very strangely written paragraph indeed in which the fact that his name is deliberately being withheld is obvious; that fact in itself makes it more likely that a reader will seek to find out and remember this detail. It is the way of the human mind that a cack-handed attempt to prevent people reading something will make them more determined to read it (see the Spycatcher affair). Removing Chris Jefferies' name also produces an uninformative article which omits a well-known, well-sourced, and sufficiently important fact. Wikipedia ought not usually to be in the business of being deliberately uninformative. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above; that other sources have a lower editorial standard in naming people doesn't mean much. His relationship to this event is trivial (not for him, of course) and doesn't deserve much weight. --Errant (chat!) 10:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is still in support. I believe he made his own bed, when he agreed to do numerous interviews with media in the days after Joannas disappearance. And thereby opened the door for media.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's about the most compelling reason for inclusion, I think --Errant (chat!) 19:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been over a week and there is no new argument for withholding the well-sourced information; meanwhile the debate proceeds with Christopher Jefferies cited as the main inspiration. I note also that the article freely names Joanna Yeates' boyfriend and states he was treated initially as a suspect by the police before being cleared; I really don't see that is any different in effect from naming Jefferies. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

At least mentioning him will not prejudice a trial. Anna Soubry MP, a barrister and former journalist held a debate in Westminster hall referencing Jefferies which you may find interesting. JRPG (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Chris Jefferies was interviewed on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning. Possibly some material here that could be used.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal
I reverted some of the removed material because you objected about the name of the coffin. But at the same time you reverted alot of other sourced and meaningful information. I removed the small section mentioning the name so its only about the funeral itself. If you feel the need to remove it again please atleast wait until a consensus about it has been reached on this discussion as you yourself point out. I think personally before removing huge parts of an article you should referr it to the talk page and atleast get the opinion of one more user. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is about the Murder of Joanna Yeates. We are not the Daily Mail and therefore don't need to tell our readers what material the coffin was made from, the name of the vicar that presided over her funeral, the amount of money she had left in her bank account when she died etc.... Just because it's sourced, doesn't mean it belongs in the article. I am particularly concerned about the part where we state that her parents will inherit her money - as if this has anything to do with her death? --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see your concerns. But Im personally of another opinion that as long as it is sourced and not in any way liable or discrediting the person in the article I dont think it needs to be removed. It is also under the section of Aftermath and memorials so that is correct to. And in my opinion in a good way describing the aftermath of this murder etc etc. But lets atleast wait and see what some other editor thinks. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bit late but Factual vs Relevant vs Factually Relevant should be balanced. The memorial mentioning is one thing, but when we stray into talking about specifics of the ceremony, who presided, people that attended etc then we really need to control our urge to include copious amounts of otherwise irrelevant detail. For me, all that is needed is "a memorial was held on X day" unless the people presiding or otherwise involved are notable in and of themselves. Koncorde (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well on the other hand there is nothign pointing towards the article suffering in notability from the inclusion of this material. So I still think keeping it as it is, is the best.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My point was only that how far down the guest list do you go? I'm all for coverage, have no real issue with the article, only that sometimes information is included purely because it's also in the cited reference. It doesn't actually add anything to the topic. Koncorde (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Article title: Murder or Killing?
I suggest that the title "Murder ... " is inappropriate, since the person accused denies murder while admitting manslaughter : that is, it appears that he admits to killng her but not to murder. Should the article be retitled "Killing of Joanna Yeates"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Crobuzon (talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It used to be at Death of Joanna Yeates so perhaps that's a more appropriate title. There are no 'Manslaughter of' articles, but we do have some 'Killing of' articles. For example, the Killing of David Wilkie where those responsible had their murder convictions reduced to manslaughter on appeal. Having said that, he has been charged with her murder so maybe it's ok, although we're supposing she was murdered, which could, arguably, potentially bias any jury member who decides to Google the case. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This article was titled Death of Joanna Yeates when her cause of death wasn't known. Since then, it has been widely reported by the mainstream media as murder. We have other articles entitled 'Murder of ...' where no-one has been convicted. Wilkie's article is now entitiled Death of David Wilkie. Jim Michael (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Move to "Death of"
This was moved with the rationale "NPOV/WTA". I am not sure this is valid, and the previous title was better: I could potentially buy some BLP reasons for keeping it at "Death of" till after a conviction (as the defendant please manslaughter) - so I'm not pushing for a move back, just registering discontent :) --Errant (chat!) 10:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeates was murdered and all reliable sources refer to it as a murder
 * WP:NPOV seems satisfied for this reason
 * WP:WTA was quoted, the only relevant section I can see there is WP:EUPHEMISM, which I feel actually supports the original title (i.e. not softening the title) seeing as it is widely identified as a murder.
 * I support a move back to murder. She was in fact murdered that has been confirmed. Even if the person who is currently going to trial is acquitted doesnt change the fact that Yeates was murdered.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not confirmed. The defendant has denied murder and admitted manslaughter. If he is convicted of the latter, then no murder will have been deemed to occur.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No actually it has been confirmed that she was murdered, this was no accidental death.. labelling this article Murder of... doesnt imply that the man in question has murdered her it only makes the fact clear that she is in fact murdered.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any reliable sources published after the manslaughter plea that say she was murdered? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I support keeping it at Death of Joanna Yeates for now. All we can say for certain at present is that she was killed. We don't know what the circumstances of the death were, or indeed if it was murder or manslaughter. That's up to the courts to decide in October or whenever the trial concludes. We should not presume the nature of the death. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never supported that sort of moving for the sake of moving, but all right. I dislike the use of "Death of..." as a general catch all, and this once again gives rise to the issue of writing articles before the events are concluded. --Errant (chat!) 14:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually this once again give rise to the issue of making moves on article names without proper consensus and discussion first. Has become more frequent that moves of article names are made, like here without basically any discussion or consensus on the matter.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The most accurate term is the "Unlawful killing of...".Koncorde (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, looking at a couple of quick google searches it appears Tabak has admitted to "unlawful killing" but denies murder. Koncorde (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, a coroner's court will often find a death due to a killing as being an unlawful killing, but Unlawful Killing of Joanna Yeates is a bit of a difficult one. We have other Death of articles - two current ones being Death of Mark Duggan which allegedly sparked the recent riots, and Death of Richard Mannington Bowes, the latter of which may end up being regarded as a murder. This is a difficult area, and perhaps the easiest thing to do might be to just call this article Joanna Yeates. We could always move it to Murder of or Manslaughter of or whatever later. Of course, if we do this then the deletionists will then argue that she's notable for only one event. Alas nobody's happy whatever we do. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pain in the arse isn't it? The issue is of course what has gone before and has been stuck at most often. As we know, pre-existing naming formats tend to win out over any attempt to bring them into line with actual legal findings. In the case of Mark Duggan, the issue is that the coroner is unlikely to rule it is unlawful until the IPCC investigation has concluded - so it's at the moment accurate to say "Death". In contrast the Death of Ian Tomlinson is a fine example of an "unlawful killing" verdict currently awaiting a final verdict on Harwood. My own contribution to the argument has been made. I'm equally happy with the article being called just "Joanna Yates" although the argument is that it is the event, and not herself, that is notable. Morbid thought eh? Koncorde (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Move to Murder of...
Now we have a verdict this article can be moved back to Murder of Joanna Yeates. If nobody objects I'll do this later on. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ok, have just done it. May as well now he's been convicted of her murder. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate infobox
Following the page move, a different infobox will be needed as the article is no longer a biography. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 21:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with the current infobox? It seems to display all the appropriate info appropriately.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was apparently decided that WP:ONEEVENT applied, therefore the subject is now the 'event' is the murder. What is wrong with the current infobox is that it still treats Yeates as the subject, not the event, and the fields that may have been appropriate for a person are probably not appropriate for the event: for example, the name of her alma mater, partner and parents are all rather peripheral to the story. A infobox news event ought to be substituted for the infobox person. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll find most "Murder of..." articles use the person infobox as it contains more useful fields such as "Disappeared date & place/Death date & place/Cause of death/Body discovered place/Resting place/Residence/Nationality etc... all of which are appropriate to the subject. Of course we don't have to include all fields, and we can adjust those which are displayed if we want to. What matters is that we have an article about an event rather than a biography. The title of a page layout template should be irrelevant - we use the one that lets us display the most appropriate information.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Peer review
I've nominated this article for peer review to find out what exactly it might need to get to GA or FA status. I think everybody who worked on this has put a lot of effort into making it comprehensive and presentable so believe it should be promoted. Hopefully we may be able to improve it further if needed. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Refdump
Currently removing refs from the lede in preparation for possible GA nomination, but don't want to lose any sources, so dumping them here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul MacDermott (talk • contribs) 14:50, 25 November 2011‎


 * Financial Times – The ordeal of Christopher Jefferies, 8 October 2011
 * Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill – Second Reading, 4 February 2011
 * Financial Times – The ordeal of Christopher Jefferies, 8 October 2011
 * Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill – Second Reading, 4 February 2011
 * Financial Times – The ordeal of Christopher Jefferies, 8 October 2011
 * Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill – Second Reading, 4 February 2011


 * I think this may be an unnecessarily premature step that could be taken with feedback from the GA reviewer. Straightforward facts in the lede that are self-evident from the rest of the article may not need redundant sourcing, but details from complicated criminal cases that are subject to contention may still be better off with atrribution, even when summarized in the lede. For example, a criminal biography article that passed FA review with a fully-sourced lede. KimChee (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I also read the pending peer review and understand that some editors have varying opinions on this. KimChee (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've no objection if you want to re-add them at some point if you feel they're necessary. I actually kept them just in case there was a need to do that. The theory apparently goes that the lede should be a summary of the whole article, and therefore any information there will be referenced later, but I personally see nothing wrong in having refs in the lede, particularly if it's something controversial like this. In terms of the GA I'll probably make a few more adjustments to the text, then read it through. We need a copyeditor to review it before it can go to GA, though I'm not exactly sure how to go about that. and I think the peer review has to close. Paul MacDermott (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well; in general if it is necessary to reference the lead, then it suggests problems in the text. You are right that there should be nothing in the lead that is not expressly covered in the article. I wouldn't say it is a deal breaker to add refs to the lead; but I would minimise them to the necessary only :) --Errant (chat!) 12:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. I was really trying to say that something controversial might need to be sourced, but then I guess if you think about it the same information would appear later on so it may not be strictly necessary. I think this article's lead had about 20 references though, which was far too many. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Tabak background
One thing which could be messing here is some background information on the killer. I've seen this included in other articles, so propose to write a two or three paragraph section giving a brief biography of Vincent Tabak - where he was born, how he came to be living in the UK, etc. I have found a very good article from The Guardian which gives a lot of detail. What do others think? I won't add anything yet, but if no-one objects I'll put something together over the weekend, and perhaps post it here first. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This BBC article may also be useful. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Vincent Tabak
Vincent Tabak (born in 1978) was a Dutch engineer who had lived and worked in the United Kingdom since 2007. The youngest of five siblings, he was raised in Udeh, 21 miles (34km) north of Eindhoven. John Massoeurs, who was Tabak's next-door neighbour while he was growing up, described him after the trial as an "introverted" loner who had few friends, but who was intelligent. Tabak studied at Eindhoven University of Technology from 1996, graduating with an MSc in architecture, building, and planning in 2003, then began a PhD in which his thesis was a study of how people use space in office buildings and public areas. The paper was published in 2008.

Leaving university in 2007, he moved to the United Kingdom having taken a job at the headquarters of Buro Happold, an engineering consultancy firm in Bath, and settled in a flat in the town. His job description at Buro Hapgold was as a "people flow analyst", a role which required him to look at how people move around schools, airports and sports stadiums. Popular with his colleagues, he would join them for after work drinks, and once organised an outing to see a Dutch comedian who was touring the UK. He enjoyed sports, particularly sailing and bowling, and was a keen photographer. He also liked travelling, and had visited both South America and Asia. Following his conviction for Yeates' murder, The Guardian reported that friends had described how he could sometimes be immature and needy.

In 2008 he met Tanja Morson through The Guardian's online dating website Soulmates, and the pair began a relationship. Morson was his first serious girlfriend, and he paid tribute to her in the acknowledgements of his thesis, writing "I am very happy she entered my life." He and Morson – the daughter of a Harvard-educated lawyer – moved together to a flat in Canynge Road, Bristol, in June 2009. A friend of the couple, Sarah Maddock, said during the trial that Tabak and Morson were planning a future together.

Joanna Yeates and her partner, Greg Reardon, moved into the neighbouring flat in Canynge Road in the Autumn of 2010, but she and Tabak did not meet until the night he killed her. In the months leading up to Yeates's death Tabak had researched and contacted escort agencies, and viewed pornography of a violent nature on the Internet. The footage depicted women being bound, gagged, held by the neck and choked, degraded and controlled by men. During the murder investigation police found images of a woman who bore a striking resemblance to Yeates shown in one scene pulling up a pink top to expose her bra and breasts. When she was discovered, Yeatess was wearing a pink top which had been arranged in a similar fashion. At Tabak's subsequent trial, prosecuting barrister Nigel Lickley QC, had sought to make the evidence of Tabak's activities available to the Jury, stating: "It might shed light on the need to hold a woman for long enough and the need to squeeze hard enough to take her life."

Comments
This is a draft of the proposed section. Please feel free to add any thoughts you have on it, or to make any changes you feel may be necessary. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLPNAME probably the girlfriend and friends name shouldn't be mentioned. Certainly not the friend. I'm not even really sure if we need to discuss his relationship at all, it doesn't necessarily seem relevant. Popular with his colleagues - the remainder of the paragraph starting from here seems like media filler and again not especially relevant. Basic background, moving to the area & his internet activity stuff seems the most pertinent. --Errant (chat!) 10:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks again for taking a look. It sounds sensible to take some of the stuff out. As it's been almost a week now since I wrote this I think I'll add an edited version of it to the article, then it can be tweaked around a bit more if necessary. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Section now added. I've taken out the colleagues stuff and the paragraph about Morson. Presently she is mentioned in the context of the move to Canynge Road, but I have no objection to that being removed if you feel it is necessary. I'm also unsure if I've added the information at the right point, but again that can always be moved if required. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I keep forgetting about this :) looks good! --Errant (chat!) 12:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've just listed it for copy editing so hopefully someone will read through it in the next few days and correct anything that needs doing. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Nomination
Just to let everyone know I've nominated this for GA. I welcome anyone who's contributed significantly to this as a co-nominee. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)