Talk:Murder of Sian O'Callaghan/Archive 1

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Crime_perpetrators
Editing of this article and its talk page should conform to Biographies_of_living_persons. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Requests from non-US jurisdictions need a more solid basis than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As long as the material is reliably sourced, there should be no problems. The UK police are worried that the tabloids could screw up a trial, as nearly happened with the Murder of Joanna Yeates. The previous version of this article was mainly sourced from BBC News.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A man has been charged with the murder of Sian O'Callaghan, this has appeared in reliable sources. The UK police have pushed their luck by attempting to block Wikipedia from reporting this, things have moved on since the days of the Star Chamber.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

unsourced assertion
There is no source given for the inclusion of this article in the 'List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom' category. I request that the category be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a category, just an entry under the heading see also. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right - though I'm not sure that the link is appropriate anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You should be able to do this yourself. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hat note
thumb|What you see on this front page of the [[Rhodesia Herald is not censorship. It is overt opposition to censorship. Real and effective censorship always works in secrecy. -- Petri Krohn (talk)]] I request the hat note be changed to read: "This article has been redacted to comply with the sub judice requirements of British law."

See the discussion here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC) P.S. – We might also say: "Sources used in a previous version of this article have been redacted to comply with the sub judice requirements of British law."

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks like it fails WP:NODISCLAIMERS. The excessive use of suppression has left this article looking anorexic, but a disclaimer will not solve the problem.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should we lie to our readers? It hasn't been. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Material was removed which did not conform to Biographies_of_living_persons. The request from English law enforcement brought attention to the matter. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. At no point has there been any suggestion that anything has been done because of "requirements of British law". Petri Krohn appears to be soapboxing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We can follow British censors or we can blindly and silently follow British censors. Even the editors of Rhodesia Herald had the courage to tell their readers when they were being censored.
 * There can be no question that what is going on off and on Wikipedia is a case of Internet censorship. See for example these sources used in the previous version of the article: Telegraph, Telegraph, Guardian, Guardian, Sky News. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * / _ none of those links leads to any article ? -  You  really  can  21:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely -- they've been removed, no doubt at the request of the police. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I reckon it's likely that WMF will get back and tell us we don't need to delete the article. But I think in that case we should not include material based on the sources that have been retracted. We can't read the minds of those sources and complain that they are censoring. It may easily be that they have been informed that their articles contain untrue and/or defamatory content. Per WP:BLP, we should take the more parsimonious course. FormerIP (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources have not been retracted (as in Retraction), they have simply disappeared from the Internet. The same articles (except for Sky News) also exist in printed form in the printed newspapers; they are as relevant and reliable sources as ever. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They clearly haven't simply disappeared. They have been removed for a reason. We don't know what the reason is and we should therefore be conservative in our assumptions. That's a written down policy. FormerIP (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved to WMF
The hat-note issue has for the time being been solved by this edit. If the article is to remain locked I still suggest the hat-note above. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As soon as I'm clearer on what's going to happen, I will add an appropriate hatnote. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Let me guess...the article went from protected to semi-protected and some admin changed all of the edit protected templates to edit semi-protected. Nice! Celestra (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 April 2012
Can an admin make the reflist 1 instead of two? Looks bad with only one reference. Thanks, Albacore (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also that date could be wrong. Since the afd opened on 30 March I'm guessing that's the date we received the request. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Page has become semi-protected. Celestra (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Law enforcement in the UK
(For want of a better place to put this...) We're told that "Law enforcement in the UK" have requested removal of this article. Law enforcement in the UK is not an entity; there are a variety of agencies dealing with law in the UK's constituent countries, which itself is not homogeneous. Which agency made the request? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is awaiting legal advice from the Foundation and cannot be discussed at the moment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was the Wiltshire police (I've now seen the request). The WMF have been in contact - I will have an update shortly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Poppycock. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we should be able to see this request. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Further update

 * Further update. WMF are clear that only "an order from a court of competent jurisdiction" (I think the phrase is) can force the deletion of articles or content. A request from the Wiltshire Police media office does not fall into that category.  However the concern of the prosecution is that "the defence will argue that due to the above facts (about the accused's actions immediately prior to his being charged) being reported and the significant pre-trial publicity this case has received, Mr Halliwell will not be able to have a fair trial."  This may well be a valid concern for the prosecution, but it is also true that this information was published a year ago, remained in the public domain in the UK up to 4 days ago, and is still in the public domain elsewhere.
 * Aside from this concern, can I remind everyone that Wikipedia has policies on the Biographies of living persons accused of criminal activities, available at Notability_(people). In a nutshell, it reminds editors that persons charged with crimes remain innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I believe it will be OK to unlock the article, or at least lower the protection to semi, provided editors are prepared to pay meticulous attention to reliable sourcing, and avoid any speculation as to the accused's guilt or innocence. This is required by our own policies, not the English police, so I hope editors will fully endorse it.
 * If anyone is worried about prejudicing the trial (or if editing from England, ending up being charged with contempt of court), I am advised (informally) by someone familiar with the English law that if the BBC is still carrying the information, then it is very unlikely it is an issue with the English sub judice requirements. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There has never been a high profile criminal trial (which this one will undoubtedly be) where the existence of a Wikipedia article has been used as a tactic in court by the defence, but there is always a first time. The article needs to take WP:ALLEGED into account more carefully, and not give the timeline in a way which could be seen as presupposing guilt. However, the judge should as a matter of course instruct the jury to disregard anything that they have read in the media, and not research the case on the Internet. I can't find a start date for the trial, but the most recent coverage seems to be here. The article (if restored) should ease off on the details of the timeline and stick closely to what is currently available. It seems to be the timeline that has set off the problem, as some of it is very specific about what allegedly happened.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 23:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, sticking to what is currently available is what we should now do. FormerIP (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There has already been trials closed because of general press reporting that wikipe3dia has been a part of and has repeated and publicised the causes of the mis-trial. This is all the BBC search reveals http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-12853461 - nothing speculative or opinionated or sourced to unnamed relatives or other such low grade reporting style. Of course unskilled unnamed wikipedia users many of them children and many free speechers with a publish and be damned mentality, will not likely even stick to the projects own policies never-mind report to standards of the BBC. You  really  can  00:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That really is the risk - adding speculative info from unreliable sources. And of course, a year ago, the News of the World was still in print, and the print copies are still out there in libraries. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, as I have seen here such a style of reporting is common on similar articles at wiki en - if the trial gets a degree of profile it will become the usual editing frenzy. I wouldn't like to take responsibility and undo protection on such an article at trial after such a request, are you going to unprotect Elen? You  really  can  00:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in two minds. I am concerned that we could get another Murder of Meredith Kercher, where a cohort of editors set out to use the article to prove Amanda Knox was innocent (although I doubt anyone has such a vested interest in the accused in this case). On the other, I cannot see Wikipedia adding substantially to the issues that the Crown Prosecution Service already has with previously published information. The feline has well and truly exited the tote at this point - the English court cannot stuff the internets back in the bag. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's a worry, but you have to unlock it, Elen, because you don't have a consensus behind you and you took control precisely to stop a renegade action.
 * Wikipedia policies are inadequate in this area and things like Murder of Meredith Kercher ought to teach us, but they don't. Not your responsibility, though. FormerIP (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No editor has to make an edit that don't feel to take the total responsibility for, taking an acceptable position of not objecting to un-protection but refusing to be the one to un-protect. I think Elen is in the uk and has identified to the foundation abd therefore identifiable, so may not feel to be the person to un-protect and allow editing of the article. You  really  can  01:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel unqualified to be the person policing the article. What I think I will do is reduce protection to semi - that will at least prevent drive bys and socks - and tag it with pp-office, as the foundation are still discussing it, and have asked that if the community wishes to retain the article, it try to ensure that editing is within Wikipedia policy.  That might give folks some pause for thought. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like a plan. You  really  can  01:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What to remove?
I have now gone through the last version of the article and the 20 sources used. All BBC sources all still available, please someone from the UK confirm that you can also see them. The five sources off-line are the following: I propose the following material be removed from the last version of article: These changes will remove three of the five occurrences of the name of the suspect. The others should be changed to read "suspect". Some minor details including personal data for Sian O'Callaghan is now sourced to [3]. I see no reason to remove the data or remove the reference, but an alternate source could be found instead. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC) P.S. – I have made the proposals to make the article compliant with the sub judice request, not to comply with WP:BLPCRIME. I would only agree to this level of censorship, if the article has a hat-note stating sub judice in some form. WP:NODISCLAIMERS specifically allows for temporal templates such as current or recent death to be used. As we do not have a sub judice template for articles, we will just have to compose a text with the notice template. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * [3] Telegraph, 25 March 2011
 * [4] Telegraph, 24 March 2011
 * [12] Guardian, 26 March 2011 (Timeline)
 * [13] Sky News, 26 March 2011
 * [17] GuardiaArticle historyn, 5 April 2011
 * Lede
 * Second (last) paragraph of lede section, exclusively sourced to [4]
 * Arrest and discovery... under Timeline
 * In the first paragraph the first sentence about the arrest on 24 March, sourced to [3],[4], and [9] should be truncated to what can be sourced from [9]
 * In the first paragraph the third sentence discussing what the suspect may have told the police, sourced to [10]
 * In the second (last) paragraph the first sentence about the events of 25 March, sourced to [10],[12], and [13]
 * Investigation
 * Fist paragraph, exclusively sourced to [6]: all material that is not related to the death of Sian O'Callaghan or repeats what the suspect may have told the police.
 * Second paragraph, exclusively sourced to [4]
 * Fourth (last) paragraph, partly sourced to [17]. It is also sourced to [16],[18], and [20] still on-line, but seems to discuss the suspect, not the subject of this article
 * I have accessed three or four bbc articles about the case tonight You  really  can  01:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that the BBC sources visible to you are visible to me. I'm not aware of any material that the BBC removed in fact. The Guardian and Telegraph pieces will have been published in print media at the time, and will still be available in libraries although removed from their websites. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that complying with sub judice would also meet the requirements of BLPCRIME - at least it would make it much harder to carry out a trial by Wikipedia. And we can indeed use a custom notice. I need to go get some sleep - will unlock in the morning if that's OK.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Article historyArticle history
 * OK, well it looks as if we have a plan of action, so that's good. Just FWIW, I don't think we will be giving Wiltshire Police what they were after here, and the article will possibly be in breach of sub judice. This is because the most sensitive details are sourced to the BBC article which is still online. But I don't see how we could justify removing information that the BBC is happy to carry.
 * I think it would be good to have a formalised rule about this, even though it might be difficult to achieve consensus for it. I will post a proposal below. FormerIP (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggested something similar at the BLP talkpage a couple of days ago, but I got the impression the consensus was to better utilise the rules we already have rather than creating new ones. We do need something specific to deal with this type of issue though as we don't want a replay of this in the future. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I just had a look at that discussion, Paul, and I'm not sure I would agree that that was the consensus. FormerIP (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have restored material from the deleted version as described above, see Death of Sian O'Callaghan/Temp. I will still add a paragraph on the trial. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC) I have moved the content to article space. Please do not add any detail to the article without discussing it here first. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC) I am still using this reference to source minor details of the subject of this article, Sian O'Callaghan. It is not used to state anything incriminating about the suspect. This is a highly reliable printed source. The on-line version is now off-line. I have a copy of the original. I am prepared to defend it if needed. Sian O'Callaghan is not covered by WP:BLP. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Final update
Final observation from WMF is along the lines of our sub judice disclaimer, just to be aware that editors may create some kind of individual liability depending on their actions. I think we are probably now good to go, along the following lines:-
 * Reduced protection to semi
 * Notice put on the article cautioning editors that the matter is the subject of a current trial
 * Everyone agrees to use only the best sources, and comply with the Wikipedia policies relating to BLPs prior to and during a trial. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * These BBC articles about the Death of Baby P are worth a look: Blogs threatened Baby Peter cases and Baby P's father gets £75k libel damages from The People. When the trial starts in this case, Wikipedia will have to be on its best behaviour.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, Wiltshire Police have apparently advised the following "PLEASE NOTE, IN ADDITION TO SUB JUDICE, THERE ARE REPORTING RESTRICTIONS THAT REMAIN IN PLACE that prevents any reporting on the administration hearing or related matters." This means that there are unlikely to be reliable sources as to anything that takes place in initial hearings, and any English Wikipedia editor tempted to include any information on what happened should think twice before doing it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * support the lines made up by user, Elen of the roads.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Article history
One thing is still unresolved, the article history is gone. I am not suggesting or demanding that the history be restored. If someone would be so kind enough to send me the last version in wiki markup, I would restore the contents as outlined in the section above. I have the old version in HTML format, but I am not going to return it and its 15 references to wiki markup. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sub judice guideline idea
As I said above, I would expect a proposal regarding sub judice to get a rough ride from the community, but I think it would be worth trying. I'm posting here to get feedback in the first instance, rather than supports and opposes. FormerIP (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I personally like this. One additional idea I have though is that it might be worth including a couple of examples of reliable websites, such as BBC, New York Times, etc, so people are in no doubt about the calibre of news report that's required. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I like it. I think it should be wider than just trials in countries with explicit sub judice laws, as many more countries have it as a principle of natural justice, and Wikipedia should always seek to avoid 'trial by internets' I think the principle - use of a reliable and preferably local source (not just what is 'on the wire') - is very sound for all situations where a persion is accused but not yet proven guilty.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is important to keep sub judice and WP:BLPCRIME separate. Sub judice is far more restrictive. Under BLPCRIME we can make any murderer look like a murderer just by citing page numbers in printed media. Under sub judice this would not be allowed. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Elen's point is that this isn't a good thing, even if the country in question doesn't have a sub judice tradition. Although it may not make much difference if there is no legal restraint in a particular country about what can be said online or off. From a pragmatic point-of-view, maybe it is worth thinking about which version would be more likely to gain support. (wanders of to think). FormerIP (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sub judice has an impact on wikipedia in that as we can see here, it will have an impact on sourcing. Local sources - which one would go to first - may not be able to report something, making it more difficult to check information in an external source. The lockdown on the administrative hearings is an example - while it is unlikely that much of interest will be said, UK sources cannot report on any of it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

One possible objection to the proposal is how do you deal with countries where there is little English-language news on the Internet? Does anyone have thoughts about how the proposal might take that into account? FormerIP (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We have far less moral and legal responsibility for countries in which English is not used. If they had jury trials, the jury would not be reading English language sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I was also thinking of English-speaking countries that may not have a strong media because they are small or poor. I do take the point though, with the reservation that it might create another basis for objections if the proposal discriminated between anglophone and non-anglophone countries. FormerIP (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

New version of article
There is a new version of the article at User:Ianmacm/sandbox2. This is more conservative and uses only citations that are currently available.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems good to me as a lay person. Has all the facts, no speculation, nothing that cannot be sourced from currently online UK sources of reliability. Comments from others? I know Petri Krohn has also expressed a view above --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me Ian - everything properly sourced.
 * I'm not sure if this may seem like a daft suggestion to make since we are already in a tangle with this article, but shouldn't there be a separate Murder of Rebecca Godden-Edwards article? Otherwise she's just a footnote to someone else's murder, which doesn't seem right. We also couldn't change the title to cover both murders, because that pre-judges that they are connected. FormerIP (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the the kind of material that should not be in the article and not even here on the talk page. I suggest you rephrase your comment. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The difficulty is that we can only make guesses at what should and shouldn't be in the article. I haven't referred to anything that the BBC website doesn't, but it can always be revdeleted once we have finished discussing it. FormerIP (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There are several differences to what I described above. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I still see 15 of the original 20 sources on-line. You have used only used 8 plus one new one.
 * You state the suspects name, but have deleted his age. I do not know if the name is necessary, but as the press are reporting on the trial I guess it can be included.
 * You have included much incriminating material that I thought was the core of the issue. (I am not going to say here what the material is, except by referring to the deletion I have outlined above in What to remove?.)

I agree with Ian's idea that considering the retractions/removals it seems a good position to use only sources that are still available, It is unlikely that free speech anti censorship supporting users will agree to that though and its not a position supported in en wikipedia policy, at least not a simple viewing of  You  really  can  14:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The sandbox article does say that Halliwell is 47 years old. Virtually all of the material from the timeline and investigation is BBC sourced, and will be heard by the jury if and when the trial goes ahead. It is the speculative tabloid/blog material that needs to be kept out.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks better than the original, but I'd definitely take out the suspect's name. Mentioning the other case could also be problematic. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be hiding reliably sourced material not to give the suspect's name, which was purposely left out of the WP:LEAD. Likewise, it would give an incomplete view of the available reliable sourcing not to point out that he is facing two murder charges.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's difficult when we're (legitimately) trying not to say out loud what the issues are. I wouldn't object to references to "Eastleach" and the second para of "Investigation" being removed from Ian's version, if that's what is being referred to.
 * I don't think the suspect's name can possibly be prejudicial to his trial, though. The first thing he will do at trial is confirm it, after all. FormerIP (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As you spelled it out, "two murder charges". This is the material the police want to be left out. The last I heard, he was only charged for one murder. Even if the was some alleged second body lurking somewhere in the bushes, the jury would never hear about it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * . FormerIP (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @Youreallycan – Yes, that is exactly what I described above. I just think Ian has missed what needs to be left out and what can be kept in. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't understand why pointing out that he is facing two murder charges is a problem, when this is clearly and multiply sourced. The only real problem would be if all the material relating to this had mysteriously vanished, which it has not.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Most of the material relating to that claim, except for the BBC, has "mysteriously vanished". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have informal advice from someone familiar with the English law that if the BBC is still reporting it, it is because they do not think it is prejudicial information covered by sub judice. There is some sense in this - the newspaper online archives may be much less important to them than their relationship with the police. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not a lawyer, so the sandbox version was based on the simple principle that if it is on the BBC website, it should be OK.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we can rely on that principle, but it doesn't remove the obligation to write conservatively under the generic BLP policy. We may also find that the BBC are just being slower at getting round to it. FormerIP (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

From the horse's mouth...
Wiltshire Police say on their own website here that Christopher Halliwell was charged with the murder of Becky Godden-Edwards on 23 May 2011. This surely cannot be sub judice, or covered by reporting restrictions.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This may be suitable for an article on Christopher Halliwell, not here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I still can't understand why this is a problem. It cannot be the sourcing, and when Halliwell was arrested, it was on suspicion of double murder. If the article title is misleading, it should be changed.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the core of the problem. Halliwell will be tried separately for the murders. If we, or the press say "double murder", it is feared he will not get a fair trial. Sub judice tries to prevent this kind of information from reaching the jury. Once again, sub judice is not WP:BLPCRIME. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This appears to be the case. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, while I come from an NZ perspective, I'm pretty sure the situation in the UK is fairly similar. The desire is to keep the jury (or perspective members of the jury) from learning about things they aren't supposed to know which often includes other crimes they've been convicted of (these tend to be consider too prejudicial a lot of the time, even if they aren't it'll take a while before the court decides that). With this aim, the media may be prevented from mentioning such details as any other crimes the defendant has committed (allegedly or not) during the trial, and the defendants name may be suppressed (although there are also other reasons for such suppression) particularly if it's widely known they were charged with or convicted of some other crime. This sometimes includes removing information from archives. The was a specific case here in NZ quite a while back (2006) which made me bring up the issue here on wikipedia where after a rape trial (which ended in a not guilty verdict) some info was still suppressed, it emerged during protests that this included the fact that two of the defendants had previous convictions (and it was fairly easy to find this out if you looked), I summised, correctly as it turned out that there was still another trial coming up for at least one of the defendants hence why it remained suppressed. Once all the trials were over the suppression was of course lifted. In that particularly ultimately we didn't have to worry since it was of little interest to the media outside NZ and all NZ RS followed the suppression orders. More controversial are suppressions not related to reasons of sub judice although even in that case the lack of any outside interest often means they are somewhat effective in keeping the info out of wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I am not sure if the British press would be allowed to print this, even if it is on the official site. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's on the BBC website, though. I think the version currently in mainspace is fine for now and we should at least give it a few days in case the wheels are still in motion at the BBC and Wiltshire Police and they haven't got round to removing the material from their websites yet. But, in the medium term, it would be silly for us to suppress information that the BBC and the local police are happy to leave on the Internet. FormerIP (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Things will become clearer when the trial starts. At the moment the situation is unsatisfactory, both from the viewpoint of sub judice and WP:BLPCRIME. It *is* unclear whether Halliwell will be tried separately on the two murder charges, and there may be some legal wrangling behind the scenes which is delaying the trial. Whatever, I am confident that the sandbox version of the article has no major problems, as it is basically saying what the BBC timeline says about what is known so far, nothing more. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @ianmacm – I agree, I believe WP:BLPCRIME does or should allow us to say all those things. In fact, I did not see anything wrong in the original version; it was sourced to reliable, printed sources. What I have done is edited the article to comply with the sub judice requirement. I believe it is better to openly admit this is censorship, than to secretly censor material under the imaginary cover of BLPCRIME, which was about to happen anyway. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, here in NZ the interaction between the internet, web searches and the courts when it comes to sub judice is still in major flux. Traditionally of course, just not running (whether in paper, radio or TV) the info any more was generally fine and about all that could be done but nowadays there's so much more. And it's so much easier to either find or accidentally come across such info (even when it has been fairly successfully suppressed and isn't an extreme hotbutton issue). It may be that BBC doesn't consider they need to remove the old info, it may be they simply missed it or forgot and the police haven't noticed or haven't bothered to ask them if they can remove it. The fact that they came to us first may seem odd, but myself I'd consider wikipedia a bigger risk then some BBC article. And you can't expect them to really appreciate how wikipedia works or the risk of their request become a big controversy. Definitely there's a fair chance they won't understand that the BBC article is one thing that may keep the info here or that check for exant UK based RS and asking them to be removed may help, and they probably aren't checking out this discussion page. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry to add the Godden-Edwards material if it is going to lead to an edit war, but if it is still on the BBC and Wiltshire Police websites in a couple of weeks' time, there is really no bar to including it.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The BBC source seems okay although as with others I'd prefer to keep it out. The Wiltshire Police website seems largely irrelevant as concluding they're the same person seems to me to be a form of WP:OR Nil Einne (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this was mentioned because it was a request from Wiltshire Police that started all of this off.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@Petri - the current content seems very policy compliant, nice work - All in all a calm and considered bit of wiki consensus contributing, well done to all involved. - keeping it in such a manner may not be so easy but at least there are some experianced eyes on it. You really  can  16:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

New sandbox version
The version here mentions the discovery of the second body and the resulting charges. This is also sourced on the website of the Crown Prosecution Service.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The Crown Prosecution Service is a primary source. It is most likely not a WP:RS and should only be used in conjunction with reliable secondary sources that state the same. I do not think official announcements are taken down because of sub judice. The way they are effected is that newspapers are not supposed to refer to or cite them, even if they are available. If we are going to comply with sub judice, I do not think we can name a second body. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the Crown Prosecution Service is an entirely reliable source, although I agree that it is WP:PRIMARY. I can see absolutely no reason why it should be regarded as unreliable - it is, after all, the agency that is pursuing the prosecution. You have fallen into a common trap (and I am surprised) of regarding "primary" as "unreliable". Also, if the CPS puts it on its website, it's publishing it. The site is publically available - anyone can look at it, including jurors, so I think we can assume that anything on it does not breach the UK sub judice restrictions.


 * (Not sure if this is a unsigned comment or if I am cutting in. Apologies if the latter.) I'm not sure that the information being on the CPS (or the police) website tells us that there is no sub judice issue. It might, alternatively, tell us that the CPS and the police are themselves failing to comply with the requirements, because the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. FormerIP (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also bear in mind that advice from the WMF legal counsel has established quite firmly that Wikipedia is NOT subject to UK sub judice restrictions. Our only concern here is BLPCRIME - don't try the guy on Wikipedia. What we write will be affected by the UK restrictions, as it will limit our sourcing, and it is a good guideline to avoid trial by 'pedia, but we don't have to comply with every jot and tittle of it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. We should also actively avoid giving the impression that that is what we are trying to achieve. I don't think we should even say we are doing it for sub judice, to be honest. Why not just use normal language? Editors can't be expected to be international lawyers and it would be ill-advised to try to take on the responsibility. FormerIP (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A notice that the case is subject to a current criminal prosecution provides a good reason to be particularly careful with BLP, and to be aware that local sources might be restricted in what they can report, which could cause verification issues. But you're right, we should avoid giving what looks like a legal warning. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia knows a thing or two about unnecessary drama, but Wiltshire Police has caused an unnecessary drama by recommending the deletion of an article which did not have much wrong with it at the time. The normal rules of WP:BLPCRIME should have been sufficient in this situation. The point that I was trying to make about the CPS website is that there is currently no restriction on mentioning that Christopher Halliwell is charged with double murder, and it is hard to see where anyone got this idea.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP does not allow us to use primary sources for contentious material, WP:BLPCRIME even less. A quote from Biographies of living persons:  Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.
 * We would need to read this from a reliable secondary source – which is unlikely because of the sub judice limitations. Sub judice applies to media, it does not extend to public records or official documents. The fact that this is available and accessible from the Crown Prosecution Service does not mean that the information there is not covered by sub judice. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The sub judice concerns are becoming a distraction. There are no restrictions on naming the man or the charges that he is facing, sourced here and here We should stick to WP:BLPCRIME and not try to be amateur lawyers-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC).

Notability?

 * - There is nothing particularly notable about this death, its all a bit newsy if you ask me. It is unlikely to have long term encyclopedic value at all. - You  really  can  08:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suspect that unless the outcome of the trial turns out to be notable, this may be marginal for notability. Sadly, people get murdered all the time, and most murders don't make it onto Wikipedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

use of names
IMHO, there is no encyclopedic reason to include the name of an accused in a Wikipedia article where the person, at very most, would hit BLP1E. This position is based on such wonderful articles as the one naming the Duke Lacrosse players etc. where the use of a name makes an implicit statement to readers that the person is likely guilty. In the case at hand, such an implication would be improper in the venue where the person lives and thus if of such exceedingly limited positive value, and possible substantial negative value, that it ought to be removed. Per WP:BLP
 * A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime when the person has not yet been convicted.

In the case at hand, the person is clearly "relatively unknown." Collect (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My view on this is 50:50. There is no legal ban involved, and the man has been charged and appeared in court as opposed to merely arrested. It was the tabloid nonsense following the arrest of the landlord in the Murder of Joanna Yeates which seems to have led to the current desire for caution. Simply saying that the man has been charged does not imply guilt.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like it may be taking it a stretch to change the actual title of a citation to remove a name.  He  iro 14:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If the name should not be in an article, then having it visible in a footnote would seem to be in the same category. If the name of an otherwise unknown person should be in the article, then it should be allowed in a footnote.  I see no way in which a name which should not be in an article is then deemed proper in a visible footnote. Removing the name from the footnote is not a "stretch" in other words, but done in conformity with what I read WP:BLP as requiring. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In the calculus "exceedingly limited positive value, and possible substantial negative value", I don't think it's clear what the "possible substantial negative value" is. This is someone on remand for murder, whose status as having been charged with murder is all over the internet. We should be taking general care over the article, but how is including his name going to make his situation substantially worse? FormerIP (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you note WP:BLPCRIME? It would seem to indicate on its face (also asked at WP:BLP/N that unless he is notable otherwise that we should consider not giving his name, no matter what other sources do.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Collect, my above comment was aimed at furthering the process of consideration required by the guideline. Because the person is not notable other than as a murder suspect, BLPCRIME of course applies. Clearly, there will be some cases falling under that guideline where the suspect's name may be detailed in the article and some where it should not. I'm asking why you think this case falls into the latter category. FormerIP (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

4 April court appearance
The article currently says "The accused suspect was scheduled to appear in court on 4 April 2012." There has been no media coverage of this, so perhaps it did not take place. I was tempted to remove this, but will leave it for the time being. Even the most serious murder cases usually come to trial within twelve months, so it is notable that over one year on, there have been no pleas and no fixed start date for the trial given as yet. Future court appearances in this case should be regarded as having an element of WP:CRYSTAL.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite likely withheld under court order? I would wait a week, then, if nothing indicates any action took place or is imminent, we can remove that whole bit. Collect (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This did occur to me, but if the hearing was in secret, it is unlikely that the newspapers would have mentioned it at all. The pre-trial proceedings in this case are becoming odd, and there have been numerous delays.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would they hold a secret trial? It is not the custom in Britain. No, what happened is that all the press were there. Sub judice just prevents them from reporting about it until the trial is over. The reference about the 4 April court appearance is the latest news to become public in a reliable source. It is not CRISTALBALL. It just states that something happened in the background and we will only learn more once the sub judice ends. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * UK murder trials are not held in secret, there may be something that the prosecution and defence teams cannot agree on.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The hearing was probably postponed, which could happen for any number of reasons and is par for the course. FormerIP (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Referring folks again to the last comment we got from Wiltshire police "PLEASE NOTE, IN ADDITION TO SUB JUDICE, THERE ARE REPORTING RESTRICTIONS THAT REMAIN IN PLACE that prevents any reporting on the administration hearing or related matters." (their emphasis). The scheduled hearings were administrative - their role to determine how the rest of the trial should proceed (questions such as will the cases be tried separately. If so, how should evidence that links the cases be handled). The press may be unable to report anything - including reschedules. Once the trial proper starts, these restrictions should be lifted. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Becky Godden-Edwards
This should be covered in the article: Sian O’Callaghan killer escapes justice for second murder after police blunder and Detective in Sian case suspended. There were inordinate delays and controversies behind the scenes in this investigation, and things are now becoming clearer.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think it was covered originally, certainly the suspect being charged with her murder, but a lot of information was removed on request. I don't know whether it can be restored now legal proceedings are over. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This cropped up at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_101 in April 2012. Wiltshire Police attemped unsuccessfully to get the whole article removed, apparently on the grounds that it might prejudice a fair trial. They had also asked the UK media to remove reliably sourced reports that police found two bodies following Halliwell's arrest (eg the BBC timeline of the case). This meant that the Wikipedia article had to be rewritten, because it could not include material for which the sourcing had gone missing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * A lot more detail here. It was known at the time that police had found two bodies following Halliwell's arrest.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. I seem to recall there was talk of two separate trials at the time, and some concerns that if Halliwell were convicted on one account, information on Wikipedia could potentially prejudice a separate trial. It would be interesting to see if the deleted articles now reappear. If they don't we could still potentially use them, but as offline refs, as they were originally published for public consumption. Unusual for them to request a removal of information, though I'm not sure if there's any legal requirement for it to be done. I thought journalists were largely free to print details of criminal investigations, though whatever the case I fear one day there'll be a huge blowup about it all. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, I think it is wrong that the article describes the withdrawal of the charge as due to "a police blunder". Based on this http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/19/sian-ocallaghan-murder-detective it seems that it was a deliberate choice to ignore the correct procedure because the officer involved thought that there was still a chance of finding the victim. Therefore describing this as a blunder is incorrect. Robinr22 (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this is a Police blunder and is correct. The officer concerned did not follow the correct procedure. Period. David J Johnson (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I accept that the officer did not follow correct procedure but this was a deliberate choice rather than a mistake or due to ignorance. The officer chose to ignore procedure in the hope of finding the victim alive. A blunder is defined as "A usually serious mistake typically caused by ignorance or confusion" and so cannot possibly be used to be describe the events that occured. To discribe them as a "blunder" not only misuses the word but also gives a very inaccurate impression as to what actually happened. Period. Robinr22 (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This article takes a detailed look at whether Steve Fulcher's actions were justified. The police are allowed to conduct brief interviews without a lawyer if they believe that a person's life is in immediate danger, but the three and a quarter hours during which Halliwell confessed and led police to the bodies was ruled to be too long and therefore a violation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The wording in the article was changed. Steve Fulcher must have known about the PACE requirements but chose to override them. Had Halliwell been found guilty of both murders he would have been facing a whole life term, but will now be eligible for release after 25 years. The mother of Becky Godden-Edwards described Fulcher as "a hero", although his actions turned out to be a double-edged sword.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Another useful article here in the Guardian. It helps to explain the frantic back-pedalling that occurred in April 2012. Steve Fulcher told the media that Halliwell had led police to the two bodies, even though this was a specific detail about the case that should normally have been kept back until a jury trial. Halliwell could have been acquitted of both murders as a result of this, but there was enough forensic evidence to link him to O'Callaghan's death, but not that of Godden-Edwards.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Halliwell was questioned in an "urgent interview", known as PACE code H, described in detail here (PDF). This is normally used only in counter-terrorism cases, and was unusual in a routine murder case. The article should now keep an eye out for the outcome of the IPCC investigation.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Fresh search for evidence
Wiltshire Police are currently involved in a fresh search for evidence relating to the case. This has picked up some rather speculative coverage in today's Express. Unless fresh charges are brought, this is not suitable for inclusion.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

"Man arrested in Becky murder investigation"
This is in the news.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)