This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Murders of Rachel and Lillian Entwistle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 February 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 28 June 2008. The result of the discussion was merge. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
In the interests of accuracy, it should be noted that the picture that goes with this article is NOT of Neil Entwistle after his arrest. As some may have noted from his apearance at Bow Street on 9.2.06, he was wearing a white t-shirt and black jumper.
For what it's worth, in case anyone is wondering about the specific pre-trial information about Entwistle's movements between 20 January and 23 January despite the fact that he has yet to set a single foot inside an American court to defend himself - it has all come from publically available documents given to the press by Massachusetts' Framingham District Court officials. So, despite what you might think about Entwistle - it should be pointed out that he has actually insisted so far that he is innocent of all charges against him. The details - which one would assume could prejudice any kind of fair trail in advance of one starting - have now (as of 17.18 p.m GMT) been
You can keep the redirect, but why can't we just leave the discussion that was previously here in the history? - 72.93.80.253 ( talk) 20:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is this even an article? The only reason this man is of note is because of the murders and there is already an article on the murders with almost all of this information contained therein.-- ScreaminEagle ( talk) 21:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of legality, I am taking the photo out of the article as it's marked AP and should be presumed to be copyrighted. Daniel Case 23:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia. Can someone embed this photo:
and also apply the proper copyright to the image? I took the picture from the Entwistle family website. Thanks. --
Gimeral 18:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll check with AP on Monday. For today though, there was nobody on the picture desk around to give permission for its use. That said, given that the picture has already been published on the internet and everybody else is using it, I wouldn't be surprised if it's OK to use it. I think - but could be wrong - the whole copyright issue is different with pictures published on the internet. Neil Michael 11.32am, GMT, 10 February 2006.
Any image posted from the AP, newspapers, etc are all protected by copyrights. Taking them without payment, even with a credit line or "courtesy of the AP' is theft, pure and simple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.41.4.196 ( talk • contribs) 19:25, February 16, 2006 (UTC)
I'm new here, so I'm curious why this person would rate an encyclopeida article? Wouldn't this go better in Wikinews? As far as I can tell, this is just another run-of-the-mill murder suspect.
HELLOOOOO? Are we really going to create encyclopedia articles for everyone accused of murder? This article belongs in wikiNEWS, not here! Rklawton 00:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe the wife and daughter should be merged into this article as they are all only notable because of the trial, which is a single event. Timb0h 09:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
No i do not agree, mrs entwistle was my English teacher and i do not believe it would be suitable for her and neil enwistles biography to be murged! HE MURDERED HER! it would be totally insensitive, she was an individual person who we all loved, you should not move her on to the same page as that BEAST who killed her... she is greatly missed! R.I.P miss xxx
While I find the irony of one of the decedent's English students misspelling "merged," I do agree with the point. To merge a victim with that victim's alleged killer is the ultimate irony.
I think they should NOT be merged, I agree with the reasons above, she was also my English teacher and for her biography to be merged with his would not be the right thing to do in my opinion, as they are separate people and it's not like this page is to summarise the whole trial or the events that sadly happened, so I see no reason for them to be merged together.
Whether or not this case really warrants all the media attention it has gotten is beside the point. The fact is that it is getting the attention and that makes it notable. I do not believe that it should be merged. One of the good aspects of wikipedia is that we dont have to relegate murder victims to articles about their killers. We can know more about the victims and they are not defined by their killer nut-meg 07:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the merge tags (outstanding since Oct 2006) as there was no strong argument for merging the articles. It may be that the wife and daughter should be merged but that is for separate debate Dick G 15:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Would the above posters please sign their comments and note that Neil Entwistle is presumed innocent until convicted. -- PeterMarkSmith 06:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
If Rachel was born in December 1979 then she was 26 years old at the time of her death in January 2006 and would not have turned 27 until December 2006. I revised her age to 26 in the article but it was changed back to 27 again. I don't understand why. (I was born in July 1979, five months before Rachel, and was certainly 26 in January 2006!) Bruiseviolet ( talk) 04:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Although the defendant in this case is accused of murder, the section entitled " Aftermath of Murders" does not reflect the innocent until proven guilty idea. Would there be objection to a change to "Aftermath of Deaths" - at least until the verdict? Booglamay ( talk) 12:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought this guy has just been found guilty? 212.18.227.182 ( talk) 19:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Propose merge. The Neil Entwistle article previously stood as a separate bio article before being merged and recreated as this article (i.e. Entwistle murder case). No formal discussion as to that merger had previously taken place and the Neil Entwistle page was subsequently restored.
However, that page is an outdated mirror of the page as it existed prior to the merger. At the same time there is no apparent need for there to be two separate articles which essentially deal with the same subject. The individual would not qualify for WP:Notability were it not for his trial and conviction for murder. The limited biographical detail included in the Entwistle murder case article is sufficient for these purposes. Having two separate articles does not assist the reader's understanding of the subject and instead confuses, since the two articles duplicate the same information, albeit presented in a different format. Thus the Entwistle murder case adequately deals with the relevant subject matter without the need for a separate bio page. Dick G ( talk) 23:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Neil Entwistle. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neil Entwistle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I am changing the title of this to Murders of Rachel and Lillian Entwistle as that is more in keeping with our naming conventions for homicides:
Daniel Case ( talk) 04:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
This article should use American, not British, date formats. For example: "Today is January 29, 2019"; versus "Today is 29 January 2019". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 06:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
From what I understand Neil Entwistle is a British citizen and does not have American citizenship? If that is so, how is it possible that his own country would extradite him to the US? This seems absolutely crazy. Maybe the article could address this in a sentence or two as this is extremely unusual. There is no way the US would ever extradite their own citizen to the UK if the roles were reversed. 185.68.78.218 ( talk) 21:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Murders of Rachel and Lillian Entwistle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 February 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 28 June 2008. The result of the discussion was merge. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
In the interests of accuracy, it should be noted that the picture that goes with this article is NOT of Neil Entwistle after his arrest. As some may have noted from his apearance at Bow Street on 9.2.06, he was wearing a white t-shirt and black jumper.
For what it's worth, in case anyone is wondering about the specific pre-trial information about Entwistle's movements between 20 January and 23 January despite the fact that he has yet to set a single foot inside an American court to defend himself - it has all come from publically available documents given to the press by Massachusetts' Framingham District Court officials. So, despite what you might think about Entwistle - it should be pointed out that he has actually insisted so far that he is innocent of all charges against him. The details - which one would assume could prejudice any kind of fair trail in advance of one starting - have now (as of 17.18 p.m GMT) been
You can keep the redirect, but why can't we just leave the discussion that was previously here in the history? - 72.93.80.253 ( talk) 20:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is this even an article? The only reason this man is of note is because of the murders and there is already an article on the murders with almost all of this information contained therein.-- ScreaminEagle ( talk) 21:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of legality, I am taking the photo out of the article as it's marked AP and should be presumed to be copyrighted. Daniel Case 23:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia. Can someone embed this photo:
and also apply the proper copyright to the image? I took the picture from the Entwistle family website. Thanks. --
Gimeral 18:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll check with AP on Monday. For today though, there was nobody on the picture desk around to give permission for its use. That said, given that the picture has already been published on the internet and everybody else is using it, I wouldn't be surprised if it's OK to use it. I think - but could be wrong - the whole copyright issue is different with pictures published on the internet. Neil Michael 11.32am, GMT, 10 February 2006.
Any image posted from the AP, newspapers, etc are all protected by copyrights. Taking them without payment, even with a credit line or "courtesy of the AP' is theft, pure and simple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.41.4.196 ( talk • contribs) 19:25, February 16, 2006 (UTC)
I'm new here, so I'm curious why this person would rate an encyclopeida article? Wouldn't this go better in Wikinews? As far as I can tell, this is just another run-of-the-mill murder suspect.
HELLOOOOO? Are we really going to create encyclopedia articles for everyone accused of murder? This article belongs in wikiNEWS, not here! Rklawton 00:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe the wife and daughter should be merged into this article as they are all only notable because of the trial, which is a single event. Timb0h 09:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
No i do not agree, mrs entwistle was my English teacher and i do not believe it would be suitable for her and neil enwistles biography to be murged! HE MURDERED HER! it would be totally insensitive, she was an individual person who we all loved, you should not move her on to the same page as that BEAST who killed her... she is greatly missed! R.I.P miss xxx
While I find the irony of one of the decedent's English students misspelling "merged," I do agree with the point. To merge a victim with that victim's alleged killer is the ultimate irony.
I think they should NOT be merged, I agree with the reasons above, she was also my English teacher and for her biography to be merged with his would not be the right thing to do in my opinion, as they are separate people and it's not like this page is to summarise the whole trial or the events that sadly happened, so I see no reason for them to be merged together.
Whether or not this case really warrants all the media attention it has gotten is beside the point. The fact is that it is getting the attention and that makes it notable. I do not believe that it should be merged. One of the good aspects of wikipedia is that we dont have to relegate murder victims to articles about their killers. We can know more about the victims and they are not defined by their killer nut-meg 07:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the merge tags (outstanding since Oct 2006) as there was no strong argument for merging the articles. It may be that the wife and daughter should be merged but that is for separate debate Dick G 15:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Would the above posters please sign their comments and note that Neil Entwistle is presumed innocent until convicted. -- PeterMarkSmith 06:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
If Rachel was born in December 1979 then she was 26 years old at the time of her death in January 2006 and would not have turned 27 until December 2006. I revised her age to 26 in the article but it was changed back to 27 again. I don't understand why. (I was born in July 1979, five months before Rachel, and was certainly 26 in January 2006!) Bruiseviolet ( talk) 04:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Although the defendant in this case is accused of murder, the section entitled " Aftermath of Murders" does not reflect the innocent until proven guilty idea. Would there be objection to a change to "Aftermath of Deaths" - at least until the verdict? Booglamay ( talk) 12:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought this guy has just been found guilty? 212.18.227.182 ( talk) 19:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Propose merge. The Neil Entwistle article previously stood as a separate bio article before being merged and recreated as this article (i.e. Entwistle murder case). No formal discussion as to that merger had previously taken place and the Neil Entwistle page was subsequently restored.
However, that page is an outdated mirror of the page as it existed prior to the merger. At the same time there is no apparent need for there to be two separate articles which essentially deal with the same subject. The individual would not qualify for WP:Notability were it not for his trial and conviction for murder. The limited biographical detail included in the Entwistle murder case article is sufficient for these purposes. Having two separate articles does not assist the reader's understanding of the subject and instead confuses, since the two articles duplicate the same information, albeit presented in a different format. Thus the Entwistle murder case adequately deals with the relevant subject matter without the need for a separate bio page. Dick G ( talk) 23:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Neil Entwistle. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neil Entwistle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I am changing the title of this to Murders of Rachel and Lillian Entwistle as that is more in keeping with our naming conventions for homicides:
Daniel Case ( talk) 04:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
This article should use American, not British, date formats. For example: "Today is January 29, 2019"; versus "Today is 29 January 2019". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 06:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
From what I understand Neil Entwistle is a British citizen and does not have American citizenship? If that is so, how is it possible that his own country would extradite him to the US? This seems absolutely crazy. Maybe the article could address this in a sentence or two as this is extremely unusual. There is no way the US would ever extradite their own citizen to the UK if the roles were reversed. 185.68.78.218 ( talk) 21:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)