Talk:John Darwin disappearance case

message: The phrase "John Darwin is a British former prison officer..." doesn't sound right to me but, I am an American and I know the British phrase things differently than we do.  Should this be as it is or would it be correct to phrase it "John Darwin is a former British prison officer..." or do we move his nationality to a different statement?  Being a British article it should follow standard British spelling and phraseology.  Padillah (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "A British man, formerly a prison officer, who ..." seems to get the weight about right. Also, he is not known for being a prison officer, he is known for being missing presumed dead, so the name disambiguator should be something like "John Darwin (formerly missing person)". The point is to let someone looking at the article title by itself, for instance in a category, known who is meant. Most people reading about his situation probably couldn't tell you his profession even after reading three articles. --Dhartung | Talk 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'former British...', though smoother reading, suggests he is no longer British. So I think the original wording is clearer. Ben Finn (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely - there's nothing incorrect about "British former prison officer" at all, and "former British..." makes no sense because, well, he isn't formerly British. I'm ging to change this pending further consensus, because whatever it ends up as, "former British" won't do. Lordrosemount (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the intended parsing was former (British prison) officer, not British modifying prison.  But that's neither here nor there. mkehrt (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to phrase his situation? 

message: Please source this immediately per WP:BLP. It is getting worldwide press attention so shouldn't be difficult. --Dhartung | Talk 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgently need sources 

message: In light of Dhartung's comment above, I recommend this article be moved to "John Darwin (formerly missing person)".  Has anyone else seen this name disambiguation used before?  Is there a wiki-approved disambig we can use appropriately?  What say yee?  Padillah (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no need for the word "formerly" - (he's also 'formerly a prison officer) he was a missing person and the event surrounding him going missing as well as him turning up again are what make him notable. Certainly being a former prison officer isn't. Jooler (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Other options include "John Darwin (canoeist)", as that is how most of the UK headlines term him, but again he is not "known" for his canoeing skill. The best option may be "John Darwin disappearance" or "disappearance case", covering the event and not the person as per WP:BLP1E. --Dhartung | Talk 15:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally I think that's too cumbersome. As the creator of this article (!) but no expert on the article naming conventions I would be equally happy with 'John Darwin disappearance' or 'John Darwin (missing person)'. Ben Finn (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the move to John Darwin disappearance case, and made redirects for some of the other suggestions. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I've seen many references to "Mr & Mrs Canoe", so it could be useful to add "canoeist" or similar into the mix.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.72.33 (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move to John Darwin (formerly missing person) 

message: While I admit that this is not normal behavior, unless his wife claimed an insurance policy I can't see how this is fraud.  I am not sure why he was arrested, gained the attention of UK tabloids, or has the notoriety worthy of a Wikipedia article.  Is he otherwise noteworthy, or is he merely of interest because he is a modern day Lazarus? 72.196.196.61 (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above was posted by me, I forgot to login.  I am also not challenging the validity of the article, as its validity is established by the media attention, albeit it inexplicable to me.  Thanks.  Tolstoy143 - "Quos vult perdere dementat" (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are reports that his wife did in fact make a claim on his life insurance. Timb0h (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks, none of the five media reports I have read mentioned it, which you think would be a basic fact that they'd cover.  Tolstoy143 - "Quos vult perdere dementat" (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this a crime, and why is this Wiki-worthy? 

message: I see no discussion as to why a person, allegedly one who has conspired to commit fraud, would initially waltz into a police station.  Typically, such a thing is an effect of being pulled over for a traffic violation or some such.  Has anyone uncovered any citable description as to why Mr. Darwin went to the police precinct in the first place? Mangler (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, her interview in yesterday's Daily Mail confirms this.Lordrosemount (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any mention as to ''why''? 

message: Here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stunning full confession

message: There's quite a bit of vandalism going on at the moment, mainly by someone adding the word "slaphead" into the body of the article in various places.  Sure, it can be reverted easily enough and I guess this always happens with current affairs stories that are changing by the hour, but I was wondering if it is worthwhile protecting or semi-protecting the article for a few days at least until the media fuss dies down a bit.  Madmick13 (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bulk of Wikipedia's contributions come from anon or new accounts, so we don't like to protect if we can avoid it. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I've started to merge the timeline into the main body of the article. The parts that I haven't yet merged I place here so editors aren't tempted to add to it rather than build the main article.SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: The authors of this page are committing a criminal offence of Subjudicy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolstoy999 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjudicy 

message: "This page is in breach of UK Subjudicy laws.  The page states items of fact which have yet to be proven in court.  There is an ongoing court case.  The press complaints commission are currently investigating the media coverage of these events. The page reports items as fact which are pure speculation.  This page could be read by someone who may end up as a jury member and they may take information from this page as verifiable fact which would prejudice the court case.  It seems only sensible to remove the page until after the hearing at which time the information can be posted without breaking any laws. Citing something from a newspaper does not mean that it is accurate, many sources contradict each other on facts such as locations and activites at particular dates.  
As an example the following lines 'This allowed his wife to claim on his life insurance; £25,000 was paid out from Unat Direct Insurance Management Limited (part of the AIG insurance group) [4] as well as a much larger amount which paid off the £130,000 mortgage.".[15] she may have been charged with this offence but it has not been proven.  the writing suggests it to be fact.
There are numerous other examples of this type of thing.
I am not in objection of the page being on wiki, I am just pointing out that this is in breach of the UK law at this time." (posted by User:Tolstoy999)
I am not judging the relevance of  the above statement is. This will need a discussion either at the BLP noticeboard or via OTRS. For one thing, Wikipedia operates under Florida law, not UK law. For another, problems such as the specific one mentioned  would seem to be able to be handled  by editing the article. I'm going to give it a quick try. DGG (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from article page

message: ...is John Darwin related to Charles Darwin?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.172.97 (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relations? 

message: To me, the timeline and description of events is clearly pasted together and is very unclear. Anyone agree that it needs a rewrite? Are the court transcripts available anywhere? Turkeyphant 02:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup? 

message: Is it true that Anne Darwin has been released, and is now sharing a house with fake road-rage murderess Tracie Andrews? 86.143.234.55 (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anne's later history? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on John Darwin disappearance case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071210010251/http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk:80/0912_darwin.shtml to http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/0912_darwin.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Darwin disappearance case. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026091302/http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/dec2007/lostin_panama.html to http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/dec2007/lostin_panama.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026071630/http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/dec2007/darwin_admits.html to http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/dec2007/darwin_admits.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified