Talk:Mark Speight

message: Mark Speight was born in 1965, seeing as the page is locked temporarily, could someone more authorised add this information to the page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.225.241 (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for his year of birth? --Popplewick (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate 

message: "The BBC cancelled the January 5 broadcast of the new series of SMart, though a decision about further broadcasts has not been taken.[10]" - This is rubbish. The source actually says that a "new series of SMart is not scheduled until the end of the year". The cancelled broadcast was actually a repeat episode. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorted. --Popplewick (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: False statement

message: The article says "and on 19 March, the BBC reported that Speight had been cleared of all charges relating to the death".  Quite aside from there being no reference for this (I have searched BBC website without success although its search engine is not always entirely reliable), I would suggest that talk of him being "cleared" is not encyclopaedic.
It is an important principle in English law that any person is innocent until proved guilty in court (or makes an admissible confession).  The police do not "clear" people.  Even juries do not really "clear" people: they just state that the prosecution has not proved guilt to their satisfaction.  Mark Speight was and remains innocent until a court decides otherwise.
Doubtless the posting was well intentioned, but I think it (a) needs referencing by the person who posted and (b) tidying up a bit.  It may well be of course that the BBC spoke of him being "cleared", but that does not mean Wikipedia has to perpetuate the inaccuracy! :-) Informed Owl (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, if you believe that anyone is innocent until proven guilty by the courts you are living in your own world !  Sadly trial by media is all that counts these days, the press will let you know whether anyone is guilty or not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.45.71 (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that is POV.  Legally a person is innocent until proven guilty in the UK.  Yes, I accept that the media is prone to speculate and that this is all that many people will ever believe, but the encyclopaedic reality is as set out above. Informed Owl (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: He was clearly arrested on suspicion and bailed pending further enquiries. Presumably the reference to "cleared" is that the CPS decided not to pursue those charges, and his police bail was revoked. He hasn't been "cleared" in any meaningful sense because he's ever faced any charges before a court of competent jurisdiction. However, that does not mean that he can never be charged, if evidence is later discovered. Informed Owl is entirely correct. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Speight 'cleared'

message: CCTV images of missing children's TV presenter Mark Speight have been released by the Metropolitan Police.
Speight, 42, disappeared three days ago and was said to be in a "vulnerable" state following the drugs overdose death of his fiancée, Natasha Collins, on January 3. - Woogyman (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearance 

message: Will this do as a source? http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1035811.ece --tgheretford (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly it is now getting to a point where we cannot add sources any more to the article. I withdraw the above statement. --tgheretford (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7345486.stm --tgheretford (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sky News? http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1312756,00.html. I'm hoping these are good enough sources, because half my articles are gone otherwise. --tgheretford (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, both of those are reliable. I'm waiting to hear back from Rodhullandemu, but if I don't, I'll unprotect the article shortly. TalkIslander 16:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: I'll lower the protection back down to semi - it still warrents semi. TalkIslander 16:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are reliable sources, but: "The body of a man, believed to be missing TV presenter Mark Speight" - surely means it cannot be included at this stage. Because, it hasn't been officially confirmed that it is his body... although it's likely it is. Surely at this stage we should just include that a body, believed to be his, has been found, but there is no confirmation it's him? Gran2 16:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Sky News, the British Transport Police believe the body found at Paddington was Mark Speight; typically formal identification of a body takes a day or so. I think it does at least warrant inclusion  that a body believed to be his has been found. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, I wish I could share your optimism that it will stay as just that! However, I've no objection to protection being lowered to semi. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (ec x 2) WP:V does not apply here, as both the BBC and Sky are indeed reliable sources. Gran2, I agree with you - we cannot state that he has died, but we can state that the body is believed to be his. We can say as much as the reliable sources state. TalkIslander 16:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: What, they've found a close relative to identify the body before the police have? Sack the police, they're obviously useless. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: " A formal identification is yet to take place." TalkIslander 17:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Will people please keep an eye on Deaths in 2008, people over there don't get it either. One Night In Hackney303 17:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it - thanks for the heads-up. TalkIslander 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Because it's not official. There's no confirmed, official statement about this story - newspapers/websites will always go for the sensational, shocking title.  It's more than likely it is correct, but until it's announced we can only use the word "suspected". Booglamay (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: "Investigating officers believe the deceased to be that of reported missing person, 42-year-old Mr Speight. A formal identification is yet to take place but will be confirmed on Monday." TalkIslander 17:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: His family haven't been told that he is dead, they have been told that a body was found, and Police believe it to be Speight. Otherwise the family would find it out from the media, which would be horrible. Still, it's (highly likely, but) unconfirmed. TalkIslander 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Can you actually read, until there's a CONFIRMED identification and a date of death, there's nothing we can do. Lukeitfc (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Apparently consensus, however incorrect, has taken the place of policy. That's what can happen when you let the lunatics run the asylum. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And that last comment pretty much sums up the whole sorry Speight saga, right commandant? Admin = good, editors = bad. WWGB (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: The blip about his death is stuck in the "references" section, it needs to go in the section before. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed, pending confirmation. TalkIslander 16:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Will this do, or should we wait for the formal ID to occur? Here's the latest BBC piece (timed at 16:37):  MeegsC | Talk 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, just read the above, which must have been entered while I was typing! MeegsC | Talk 16:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: ITV News also stating it categorically under the headline  "Mark Speight Found Dead"--Whimsical Oracle (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From that article: "Investigating officers believe the deceased to be that of reported missing person, 42-year-old Mr Speight. A formal identification is yet to take place but will be confirmed on Monday." - in other words, it's not completely confirmed, so we cannot confirm it either. TalkIslander 16:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The television ITV News just reported the headline without qualification. "His body was found..." etc. DWaterson (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, then again, the outside broadcast journalist at Paddington did qualify that the identity is unconfirmed. Meh. DWaterson (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Sky news says it's him: . ~Eliz81(C) 18:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Please read most of the above conversation. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Yep, you're bang-on - it's just a formality. However, unfortunatly, it's a formality that we must wait for. We base this encyclopaedia on fact, and until this formality has gone ahead, it's not fact. TalkIslander 19:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: admins please move

message: Whilst I realise some admins are already involved, I've posted this on the Noticeboard so there can be some closure, hopefully! Computerjoe's talk 22:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrators' noticeboard 

message: how do we know he died today? we cant put todays date as his death until we knoe for sure  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.101.191 (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't list that fact - and won't do until a formal announcement of his death is issued. There may have been edits that did include a date, but until there is categorical evidence to this, nothing can be added with authority.  Booglamay (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Since the body found has not been officially identified as his, we cannot yet report him dead. Please see the WP:BLP guidelines. -- The Anome (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It has not yet been formally cofirmed that the body that was found is his. We are reporting what reliable sources are saying, namely that the body is believed to be his. Because of WP:BLP, beyond that we cannot go, and all this messing about has resulted in the article being fully locked for a while. Not ideal, but if people cannot understand policy, they should begin to try. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are reliable sources stating the body is him: . Majorly (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rupert Murdoch's money-grabbing ventures are "reliable sources"? The Times, perhaps. Sky, I doubt it. All we can say until the legal formailities have been attended to is "it has been reported that..." If that will keep the Tricoteuses happy, fine. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Telegraph seems clear. I do believe that's considered "reliable". Majorly (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Hey, I doubt this is true as he wasn't even missing on that date. Hopefully, the post-mortem will provide us with a time of death. Computerjoe's talk 10:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: date of death

message: With all dew respect this is hardly the general register office but instead it is just a website (very beneficial one at that) whose contents will have little or no bearing on any conclusions or outcomes of this case so I think that is important to remember.--Energizer07 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)..and this website has policies to be followed, although not stupidly. One of the principal ones deals with living people, and it requires care to operate. We cannot go beyond what is reported by reliable sources, and when they differ, we should default to the least contentious report. It will all come out in the wash tomorrow (or, to be precise, later today), and this unseemly rush to cram any available gossip into what is meant to be an encyclopedia, rather than a blog, is disheartening. It can wait. Festina lente, as they say. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I don't agree with the policy as such, we have to abide by it and wait until any conference/statement (i did make a change myself but that was in good faith- i assumed by teletexts wording it had been confirmed). maybe the lock should be more like 10-12 hours as it won't happen before 9am Chocobogamer (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I've now extended the block until 9 AM tomorrow morning, UK time. -- The Anome (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Be WP:CIVIL, please. You might need an Admin one day. And we do it because we believe in it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Break 1

message: :Does that mean your opinion counts more than the BBC, sounds a bit hubristic to me that, we are second class citizens and BBC reporters are above us, if you dont like that I suggest you fgo somewhere else. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Majorly (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We could just wait for the police identification. I mean are we a news source? No, and we dont advertise either so waiting on the police identification is a good idea. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: At the risk of being indelicate, there is a reason that a celebrity, with a well known face that has been all over the news this week has not been officially identified (I am an American and would know him on the street)  It is very probable that the police made a tentative ID based on clothing, ID on the body or even a note of some kind, however, if the body was hanging for as long as a six days I think we can safely say that at visual identification is simply not possible.  The authorities are holding back on officially stating it is Mr Speight for a reason and I believe we must respect that and follow their lead.OneHappyHusky (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - it should be left that it is only suspected to be him until it is formally announced who it is. What if it turns out not to be him? BananaNoodle (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Try telling that to the users/admins who disagree, and want Wikipedia to publicise the fact as much as any other news source. You won't win. TalkIslander 00:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So be it, but that does not make us wrong in trying to do the right and responsible thing.  I respect you and others fighting for that concept and felt I needed to speak out in support of that.  What harm comes in waiting for official word?  I truly do not get all the fuss. OneHappyHusky (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case I thank you for your attempt. I'm tired, and about to go to bed. This has far and away been the most, err, 'active' time in my time on Wikipedia, and it's been stressfull. So much so that I'm starting to wonder whether I should ever have bothered. What with a number of sources contradicting themselves, I'm still not convinced that it has been officially confirmed, and as such I believe that per BLP the information should be witheld (better no information than incorrect information, where biogs are concerned). However, it seems that there are a greater number of users who view Wikipedia as another news source, which is sad. All that aside, thanks for the respect - after nine hours of this, it's much appreciated. TalkIslander 00:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki has policy for a reason, and it needs to be adhered to. There are sources "confirming" and others not yet. This is probably a grey area. Lets just leave it as whatever it is until a press conference. Lets just remember at least people aren't vandalising the page. :) Chocobogamer (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Nobody's censoring anything. While I was reverting stuff yesterday (when the story was still new and unconfirmed), the coverage in the hours after that mean it's pretty safe to say he's died. However, stuff we shouldn't yet be including are the date of death (he might have died yesterday, or three days ago), or the circumstances (three newspapers I've looked at this morning have differing accounts). In an ideal world, we'd spend a few hours finely honing the wording here, calmly trying to craft the best possible article from tragic circumstances, without even touching the article. Wikipedia isn't the news, so there's no reason not to do this. Steve T  • C 07:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the place to start arguing about Wikipedia's policy and censorship. Its in bad taste to. Chocobogamer (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Break 3

message: "The body has now been formally identified by Mr Speight's family. ", "Missing TV presenter Mark Speight was found hanging in a building adjacent to Paddington railway station, British Transport Police have confirmed.".  Updated article accordingly. Computerjoe's talk 14:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Body identified 

message: it is believed that Mark Speight was found hanged at PAddington station  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddebie (talk • contribs) 16:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. The great majority of work on this article has been to prevent it looking like a pack of animals has been at it. Steve T  • C 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't have put it better, Steve. Anon IP: please explain how preventing unconfirmed information about the tragic loss of someone's life from being 'published' on Wikipedia is in any way similar to the behaviour of a pack of animals? If anything, I would like to think that we have been respecting the legacy of Mark Speight. TalkIslander 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of Death 

message: Some sources state Wolverhampton   
or just outside Wolverhampton at Seisdon, Staffordshire  or alternatively at Trowbridge, Wiltshire  .
Does anyone know for certain which one of the three options are correct?  Ignoring local media, the BBC and The Times plump for Wolverhampton, the Guardian suggests Seisdon and the Telegraph says Trowbridge. Fingerpuppet (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: His BBC obituary says he "called Trowbridge, Wiltshire his home", which suggests he was actually born in Seisdon, as the Guardian obituary says, but grew up in Trowbridge. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However, he apparently attended Tettenhall College and Regis School in Wolverhampton. I suspect from the balance of the evidence that he was born in either Wolverhampton or Seisdon (which is a Wolverhampton commuter village), and lived in Trowridge as an adult. Fingerpuppet (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From the inquest report "born on August 6, 1965, in Wolverhampton."  For What it is worth.  OneHappyHusky (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The register of births says he was born in the Bilston registration district which would include Seisdon.  So I would say this is correct.  92.11.26.92 (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Place of Birth

message: I'm seeing most sources are the BBC but would a little variety hurt? Could some people maybe use some different news outlets? Computerjoe's talk 20:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I get what you mean but you have to remember 2 things, BBC.co.uk is an incredibly popular, and frequently updated website, and that BBC were his employer, so they will probably know more than other sites. Chocobogamer (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do realise it's reliable and they were his employer (although this may lead to bias). However, it doesn't seem very encyclopaedic to use only one source, if that makes sense. Computerjoe's talk 20:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All true points, however, the source doesn't matter, its the content of the reference itself, you want to go for the accurate and detailed one. EG, look at any games console page, without looking the odds are that most of the sources used are from the manufacturer itself. Chocobogamer (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, it just looks slightly odd when you look at references and they're nearly all from the Beeb! Computerjoe's talk 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I get what ya mean and I'm not saying it doesn't look odd, but at the end of the day accuracy is the most important thing, not who its from Chocobogamer (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, I'll add some more sources just to support current ones later. Computerjoe's talk 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a link to sky news' most recent report - may be useful to back up the BBC?  BananaNoodle (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Here is a link to the Guardian's obituary. It has a lot of information on Mark's career.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BananaNoodle (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: It probably should be noted that a suicide note was found on Mark's body, and a further note was left at his North-West London flat. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7350087.stm) TomFriend08 (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, added. I will also be going to Trowbridge register office later today to confirm (or otherwise) Mark's place of birth. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 10:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suicide note

message: I'm Dutch, but I've seen many of his SMart shows. This is a terrible tragedy. Hope you will all handle this article the right way and we will put it right on the Dutch wikipedia too (it's already there), that's all I want to say about it. - Art Unbound (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible 

message: Do we really need a paragraph in the opening explaining Speight finding Natasha Collins's body?
"In January 2008, Speight discovered the body of his fiancée and former colleague Natasha Collins at their London flat. He was arrested in connection with the death, but released without charge. On April 8, 2008, Speight was reported missing by family and friends, after having failed to attend a meeting the day before. On April 13, his body was found hanged on the roof of MacMillan House next to London's Paddington railway station." 
I think this should be put into another section. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, whilst at the moment it may be what's in the news I don't think it's a good start to have it as an opening section. I think perhaps that there should be more detail of his achievements in this section.BananaNoodle (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Mark's life being over, this tragedy is one of the things that makes him notable for our purposes, however it could be reduced to essentials in the lead and dealt with in more detail in the body of the article. Some more detail about his professional career would balance that. Perhaps recast as 
That covers the essentials without unnecessary detail for a lead. Thoughts? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sounds better, there just seems to be too much detail in it for the opening paragraph at the momement when it is covered in detail later on.BananaNoodle (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, I suggest we leave it for comments. If nobody objects, it can be changed within a sensible time frame. I have the article watched anyway. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragraph  

message: should we add this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7370490.stm
w_tanoto (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Tonywalton Talk 16:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) w_tanoto (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  funeral 

message: I don't think the YouTube link should be there. I'm pretty sure it violates the BBC's copyrights. See here for more information. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, and it's gone. Would fail Featured Article review with that in, and it doesn't add anything. --Rodhullandemu 17:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean one link which could be removed in a couple of seconds could cause an article to fail? -- how do you turn this on 19:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't make it as a clear as I might; I meant that it would be removed as failing part of the WP:FARC. Generally any breach of copyright, fair-use defects, etc. are potential FA fails, and this applies to links to copyrighted material, IMO. --Rodhullandemu 19:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Speight. 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/20081010054231/http://www.thisisbucks.co.uk/leisure/pantoguide/pantointerviews/display.var.1887408.0.cbbc_smart_host_mark_speight_draws_the_crowds_at_the_watersmeet.php to http://www.thisisbucks.co.uk/leisure/pantoguide/pantointerviews/display.var.1887408.0.cbbc_smart_host_mark_speight_draws_the_crowds_at_the_watersmeet.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512055717/http://www.muscular-dystrophy.org/news/statement_on_2.html to http://www.muscular-dystrophy.org/news/statement_on_2.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) 21:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified