Talk:Fred West

message: I found this article informative and intresting, however I am trying to find more details on all victims. If anyone can give me any more info please email me on gmkneen@msn.com thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.3.152 (talk • contribs) 
I think the prose and sentence structure could do with an overhaul. There are a lot of short sentences, and passages that don't seem to make much sense.A121509 13:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The introductory paragraph is not factually correct.  Fred West was not responsible for the murders. He was accused, charged and was to stand trial, but due to his committing suicide he died an innocent man under British law (he was to be tried under various elements of the Criminal Law of England & Wales). In the UK quoting the introductory paragraph can leave you open to prosecution for slander.
Unfortunately I can not edit this introductory paragraph to wording that is more suitable and accurate. Toxygene 15:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I just add for clarity that you cannot be 'open to prosecution for slander' on two accounts. Firstly, the written word comes under 'libel' and secondly you cannot sue for libel or slander if the allegedly defamed person is deceased. Don't come around here with your pedantic ways when your knowledge is that of a dilettante to say the least. FeedTheGoat 14:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've edited the paragraph to say he is 'believed'... which covers it. Ben Finn 15:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The word "suspected" is unnecessary - there really is no need to be circumspect here. The evidence was overwhelming, he confessed, there is no controversy over his guilt, and he is dead so there are no legal issues of slander or libel to consider, in spite of Toxygene's post. Furthermore, his crimes are reported as fact elsewhere in the article, so it's inconsistent to imply that there is doubt about them in the introduction. "Believed to have murdered at least twelve women" should remain though, as there is doubt over the exact number of people he killed. 81.79.35.188 12:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Then to be consistent, you should have changed all the other statements saying definitively that West murdered people in the article to claims that he killed them. But you didn't. Now the article just looks stupid -- inconsistency is not good for Wikipedia's reputation. 203.117.143.29 06:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory paragraph

message: Anyone want to clarify/support the claim that "West's sociopathy has been linked to a head injury"?  Who has claimed that a head injury caused his sociopathy?  What's the supposed connection?  Sounds quite ridiculous to me, and should be clarified at least. - Severinus 21:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was not so much a claim as a suggestion by Gordon Burn in his 1998 book Happy Like Murderers
- Bobble2 16:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A book published before 1998 made the assertion before Burns. LuciferMorgan 19:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: An expert also on two occasions makes a statement to this effect in the BBC documentary series Partners in Crime – Fred and Rose West (2013).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryfunk (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head injury lead to [[sociopathy]]? 

message: Re: " In November 1961, he was accused and nearly convicted of raping and impregnating aa 65 year old girl who was a family friend."
This seems to be a clear error, but I don't know what the facts are to change it - could someone in the know change it please?
--149.170.39.37 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, SqueakBox 15:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Life - error? 

message: "Charmaine died in mid-1971, probably at Letts' hands, while West was still in prison." I removed the "probably at Letts' hands", it sounds like speculation, it at least needs something to support it. Thehalfone 10:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of Charmaine 

message: There are many articles for this very inhuman guy, some may also be useful, e.g.FRED AND ROSE WEST(with many photos and references), True Tales Number 5: Trapped in a House of Horrors, Did Fred West Murder to Order?(A hypothesis of the murder with some superstition beliefs, but should be not true), a site with many photos of the house and the related people(unable to find at this moment), Fred and Rosemary West
, Nicci French - Nicci Gerrard(old review with some lucky victims experiences), and for an article about a boy in early 70s pick up by the guy in his vehicle who talk to him sex violence against women and made him frightened.  Now the boy is the one made film about that guy. Add some wish they would be helpful for someone use the page but not to teach someone to follow that evil behaviours(even reptiles and fish kill young to keep their life only not for fun). One psychologist wrote a book and as he is related to the case, he wrote a chapter for the case and said there would be 2-3 such pair of couples around the country(he also suggest to dug all the buildings built related to Fred, but some found bodies are in fields), that would be dangerous for such mental people to our young children who do not enough to protect themselves. Unfortunately Fred didnt tell us where some bodies are. probably in Berkley Mill, what a pity!Freedom76192m 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Well this article has no references whatsoever, so I think I'd better make a start. This should be exciting. Lradrama 09:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been started off very well. I took it to Crimelibrary.com and got some references from a very good article they have on the Wests. More can be added though, but that is a good start. :-) Lradrama 09:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Why has half the article been removed? especially the paragraph below marriage to Rose?? the whole thing looks really poor now and makes little sense in places  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.99.6 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: :Image:Fredwest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Fredwest.jpg

message: The infobox mentions a conviction but there was none. I'll change this. Perhaps the box should read 'crime - murder' instead? That would be essentially accurate. Malick78 (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conviction?

message: It should be noted that West was not found guilty but we are happy to put him in the 'serial killer' category. While I'm happy with this one hundred percent, I think we should be aware of a precedent set on the Dr John Bodkin Adams article - he was acquitted of one murder in 1957 and had one other indictment controversially quashed with a nolle prosequi - but in 2006 a book came out (Cullen, 2006) claiming the police suspected him of killing 163 patients of his. Now, the interesting bit: the book and the police evidence is more than convincing, but because of the acquittal (shown in the book to have been caused by political interference) - a couple of wikipedians have removed the 'serial killer' category, even though subsequent evidence (the police archives) has shown him to have been guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
:If they do this it sets a precedent that people like Adams, and West, not having been found guilty, may be deleted from such categories. There's a debate on the Adams discussion page so please feel free to add your opinions, otherwise, theoretically, West could be removed too. Malick78 (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Adams was found not guilty. The only reason they didn't convict Fred West is because he killed himself to avoid standing trial.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Guilt and categories?

message: "The progressive rock/metal band Porcupine Tree released their In Absentia-album in 2002 and one fan reported at the official Porcupine Tree forum that the leader of the band, Steven Wilson, mentioned Fred West as a notable influence to the album."
This is a joke right?!  A fan thinks that a member of band was an album influence.  Wikipedia has sunk even further into the realms of pointless information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.70.28.140 (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's probably non-notable unless there's a dedication in the album or something significant like that. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice there have been attempts to delete the Cultural References as being trivia. While we need to make sure non notable cultural references are kept out they are not the trivia that Wikipedia discourages and such references are found in many other articles without complaint. I suggest the removal of the trivia tag is warranted as not applicable. Wayne (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Applicable guideline is here. That section clearly acknowledge the existence and value of "in popular culture" sections, not that unsourced material should be tolerated, of course. A consensus should be sought. --Rodhullandemu 08:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless cultural references 

message: A paragraph at the start mentions that Fred's family life involved incest from a young age. Later it says that unlike Rose, there was no sexual abuse in his family history. Later still it mentions the incest again. Surely incest with children IS sexual abuse?? 86.2.38.112 (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Incest]] confusion 

message: The section on his first wife Rena says that her daughter Charmaine was not West's, but she is continually referred to in the article as being his daughter rather than his step-daughter. Can I change all? Marthiemoo (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charmaine: daughter or step-daughter? 

message: I've just read through this article, and it is quite confusing. I think it needs a thorough clean. Anyone else agree? KillerKat (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From its current state it would appear that never happened. EEng 17:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a rewrite? 

message: *favour: I really think that a combined page would work better they were a couple working together, much of the content is the same, same victims families address case backgrounds and only one explanation of their meeting and marriage would be required and their poor victims etc.
Delighted eyes (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: requested move part two

message: Am I missing something; is there a reason why Ann McFall isn't listed in the "victims" section? Also, we have her first name as both "Ann" and "Anne". Which is it?Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Although no forensic evidence linked Fred West to the murder of Anne McFall, the state of the body (missing finger and toe bones as was the case with the other bodies) and the dimensions of the grave site match aspects of West's modus operandi." e.g.  . But I'm not sure whether he was formaly charged with her murder. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ann(e) McFall 

message: We should also refer to West's brother John, who committed suicide while awaiting trial on charges of sexually abusing children. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably yes, here's a BBC source  which says: "West's brother, John, committed suicide while on trial for raping his niece Ann-Marie. She and her brother Stephen have both made failed suicide attempts. West is believed to have committed other murders, including that of Mary Bastholm, 15, who disappeared in Gloucester in 1968. No other bodies have been found." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  John West 

message: Can we please have some clarity on this; at the side of the article it says he had 13+ victims, in the opening paragraphs it says "at least 11 murders" and on Rosemary West's article it says Fred West carried out 12 murders FeedTheGoat 14:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. When I started reading the entry on Fred West, before I even finished reading the lead, I clicked on the link for the Rosemary West entry. I immediately noticed the discrepancy in the number of victims. Surely this needs to be corrected.74.138.45.132 (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably (the main part of) the problem is that West was never convicted, but only charged, and with only 11 murders - the victims are clearly listed. Similalry with Rose, who was convicted, but who legally speaking murdred only 10. The key sentence in the article is this one: "During questioning after being arrested, Fred West had confessed to murdering up to 30 people, but the police believed the pair may have killed only 13." (There was, for example,  Mary Bastholm, aged 15, who disappeared in Gloucester in 1968. Her body has never been found.)  Maybe that key sentence ought to be added to the lede section to make things clearer. Or maybe the "13+" should be changed to "13"? Or to "11+"? There seems to be no clear or easy way to decide. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of victims

message: "Janet Leach, West's appropriate adult who also visited him in prison, says West told her that he had been involved in at least 20 further murders, including children killed in a barn." This is currently supported by the 2013 book Scary Bitches: 15 of the Scariest Women You'll Ever Meet! by William Webb: . I think is much better source than Daily Mirror But is this book regarded as a WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  20 further murders 

message: I'm not sure what wikipedia's view is on using UK tabloids as sources, but The Express has published an article claiming a witness reported West and was subsequently intimidated by the police and ended his life. 
:Fred West police ignored warning from my husband
A quick google shows this has actually been written about before, in two books.
:Happy Like Murders - Fact
:The Lamp of the Wicked - Fiction
And it was written about at the time of his death. 
:Witness in West trial killed himself
Is this worth adding? -LookingYourBest (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court Witness Terry Crick Suicide 

message: Strangely, Caroline Roberts is not listed as a victim. You don't need to be killed to be a victim. 169.230.243.111 (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caroline Roberts not a victim? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fred West. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070621071349/http://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/sei/s/931/f84.pdf to http://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/sei/s/931/f84.pdf
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 22:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This will be a marathon, not a sprint. The biggest issue is the article's hard-to-digest organization and mammoth size: there's excessive detail that should (IMO) be omitted altogether (WP:Good_article_criteria #3b is ); much of the remaining material should probably be split out into one or more subsidiary articles (for example, a separate article with details of the victims and murders -- see WP:SUMMARY); and what's left here after that probably needs to be reorganized. Also, the relationship between this article and the Rosemary West article needs to be revisited -- why is Rose's trial covered here? (On the the other hand, maybe the Fred article and the Rosemary article should be combined, I dunno.)
Here's an example of the article's extreme overdetail:
:
:
:
In my opinion:
# The exact dates of the closing arguments, the date the judge instructed the jury, the date the jury began deliberating, on which particular dates convictions were returned on which particular murders -- these tell the reader nothing.
#There are always closing arguments, who else would deliver them except the prosecution and defense, and the reader will know without being told that the judge listened to them. (If he slept through them, that would be worth reporting.)
# What judge doesn't tell the jury to set aside its prejudices? (If he had said, "Look, we all know she's guilty, so can you hurry back with a guity verdict so I can get some golf in today?", that would be worth reporting.)
# The judge was apparently nonnotable, and doesn't seem to have done anything unusual during the trial; how does it help the reader to know his name?
# In these situations the accused is always sobbing or stoic, as are relatives of victims; telling us which is for newspapers and novels. (If any of these people had burst out laughing, that would be worth mentioning.)
# We don't say things like "direct and damning" in Wikipedia's voice, and all that "take her down" stuff is for movies -- again, it's my understanding (from movies, anyway) that that's what English judges always say. It may make the breast swell with pride at the majesty and finality of the Ango-Saxon legal system, but it tells the reader nothing about Rosemary West (much less Fred West, whose article this is).
Thus I've boiled it down to:
:
To be honest, I'm not even sure the name of the prison is worth reporting. I believe that trimming like this is absolutely essential. EEng 17:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the prison is a basic fact that any reader might reasonably expect an encyclopedia to supply? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's more infobox or lead information. It's in the lead of Rosemary 's article, so whether that article's merged here, or this Rosemary's-trial material is moved there, that should be enough. (If she moved from prison to prison for misbehavior, or because of some change in her legal status, that would be different.) But you see what I mean about overdetail? EEng 21:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how facts "tell the reader nothing". This is an encyclopedia, you know, not a psychological bodice ripper. But yes, there could be case for thinning out a bit. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "nothing" = "nothing that increases the reader's understanding of the subject" e.g. Even if this were the article on Rosemary, what does the date the judge instructed the jury, verus the date deliberations began, tell us about her? As for stating that the judge listened to the closing arguments and so on, that really does tell the reader literally zero, since that always happens. EEng 21:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, at least he was awake. I have to agree that there should be more detail in the [[Rosemary West][] article, since it does indeed tell us nothing about Fred. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  When I populate articles, I approach them usually section by section, then swiftly skim through the best book sources again to see if I've missed anything of possible pertinence - all the while trying to structure accordingly. I try and leave nothing out, then either myself and/or other editors trim out unnecessary weight over time. I appreciate your observations, and will try and trim/tighten the structure further, but what Martin said does ring true to me. If you look at the GA articles like 9/11 or Ted Bundy they contain more detail than this one, and meander more in their content. Perhaps a redirect to the Rose West article, and the transposing of some info. (certainly chronologically after Fred's "swinging New Year") would be apt? I will say again though I personally believe both articles should be one Wikipedia article only.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Well observed. I'll say no more beyond the number of watchers each article holds. As for the New Year's reference in the second paragraph, Fred committed suicide on that date, and every piece of content thereafter largely relates only to Rose. I'll continue with this tomorrow. Martin (or other users for that matter), any thoughts thus far?--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

text: That's an ambitious task to merge. But that is what has happened, of course, for better or worse, over at Moors murders. Although we never had the "West murders" as such. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Aiming for GA

message: Having discussed this at my Talk Page, I though a note was best placed here. The connotation that squint meant strabismus was my own assumption. Checking page 344 of Sounes, he does indeed just say: "Thrush and gonorrhoea had been present in the family and the children were afflicted with speech impediments and squints—classic symptoms of abused children". But he offers no sources or explanation for those claims. The wikipedia general article tells us that "a seal squints in the sun", but nothing about child abuse. If we are keen to mention some of the other health issues that the children suffered, there's no shortage in that final Epilogue chapter of Sounes' book. I think the way it's currently noted, in parentheses, is acceptable. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squints 

message: Um, are we all sure that we're not substituting  one euphemism for another? What, exactly, does the source say? Context before and after, please. EEng 01:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll quote the section of the page: "Worst of all, she made little jokes, about her 'always being pregnant', for example, about Fred drinking the vitamin supplement Sanatogen to keep his strength up, and she even made a derogarory remark about Lynda Gough's appearance. She did not seen to realise that, as she sat chuckling about Lynda Gough's 'grandfather glasses', members of the jury were staring at her with apparent distaste."--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So where did "virility" come from? EEng 02:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  His constant sexual practices in conjunction with his remarkable work ethic. In another book it uses that word. Read the literature about the guy enough and you'll know that whenever he wasn't "f**king", molesting his daughters or pestering women, he was either out working or advertising his wife's services, engaging in voyeurism or out on his "cobbles" (that's local slang for non-declared work to the Inland Revenue). His work was building, decorating, carpentry and installation etc. i.e. involving much physical exertion.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you come up with the word virility, or does it come from one of the sources? EEng 03:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both, as in the Oxford English definition and given the lifestyle and preoccupations. It's in another book too I'm sure. Perfect word IMO, but if you can find alternate be my guest.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I'm not sure if you're being playful. Virility is a euphemism for potency (which is, of course, itself a euphemism). What I'm trying to determine is whether Rosemary or others (directly) or sources (through inference of some kind) said or implied that Fred thought this tonic stuff would maintain or increase his ability to perform sexually (another euphemism). Certainly when I saw the word virility in the article, it never occurred to me that anyone would choose that word not meaning to give that impression. So, no joking, what's going on? EEng 05:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I'm not, EEng. That is the only reference I've ever found as to his consuming Sanatogen. As I said earlier, he lived for two things: sex and strenuous work. I can't think of any other reasons why he'd consume that (nor why Rose would oscillate into humour while recollecting this at trial). If you can think of another way of blending that into the text be my guest.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How 'bout if we just drop that bit? EEng 01:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything detrimental in the content, but I've done so.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, "energy" is another way to put it 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fred West. 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/20070706061518/http://www.crimelibrary.com:80/serial_killers/weird/west/endgame_7.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/west/endgame_7.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502150249/http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/theres-more-barry-island-tv-1895506 to http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/theres-more-barry-island-tv-1895506
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) 01:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fred West. 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/20090829144623/http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_story/1632%3A1923/1/Fred_West.htm to http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_story/1632%3A1923/1/Fred_West.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704075957/http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/west/blood_3.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/west/blood_3.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) 05:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I cannot see any discussion beyond the one at the top of this talk page about this. I am wary of changing the lead because the rest of the article will need amending too, and I feel some form of consensus must have been reached before. Any comments welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I very much doubt you'd obtain consensus, although I appreciate your observations. They had the confessions, identifications of the victims, and their whereabouts and names given to them by Fred prior to their unearthing after the third femur was discovered in the garden. This in addition to the circumstantial evidence gathered. Maybe a comment in the aftermath or death section regarding this legal point of view would be more appropriate?--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Innocent until proven guilty

message: I've not looked at all the instances, but the first change in this edit does not look like an improvement to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, of course, if one has a pathological aversion to the word "although", in the form of a kind of "althoughpobia", one could just carry on expunging them regardless. I'm guessing there are probably quite a lot of instances across 5,650,097 articles (not just confined to articles on serial killers). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree with you, and "although" I research to populate most articles I work on (even typically buying material in advance in addition to referencing forms of printed material I already own), I don't want to give the impression of either engaging in edit warring, any form of ownership, or attacking other users. Maybe a third opinion can be welcome? Consensus governs, not instances of population or "grammarphobia".--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Although 

message: In the second paragraph of the section titled, "Investigation," there is a sentence that reads, "Davis then suggested they might wish to speak with Heather to garner further details of her abuse." Who is meant by "they" in the sentence? The sentence reads awkwardly and is confusing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirabellayellow (talk • contribs) 04:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: To my mind, it is pretty clear there are only two parties in the conversations at hand: Chris Davis, and the investigators. Davis is therefore suggesting the only other party (the investigators) speak with Heather West.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is "they" in this sentence?  

message: In his 1985 book Sounes covers the 1978 murder of Shirley Robinson in Chapter 13 "Flesh and Blood", pages 172-185. She was murdered when eight months pregnant. Fred had originally planned to sell the baby to a childless couple. But the only people who could have discovered the gender of the child were Fred and Rose, when they killed Shirley and removed the unborn foetus. Yes, they later claimed, after Shirley disappeared, that she had given birth to a baby boy (in West Germany), but I'm not sure that we can use that as any proof of the baby's actual gender. Sounes certainly doesn't suggest that it was possible for the police to determine the gender when the remains of Shirley and the baby were eventually removed from the garden in 1994. So stating "son" seems to be speculation and/or WP:SYNTH? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it is not definitive proof, although Fred's extensive mutilation of the body, plus his habit of practising abortions, make an interesting insight given the context of the claim in the book. It is ultimately speculation as you rightly say. Personally, I believe this could be added to a notes section? Best regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, I would not take hearsay, from a known compulsive liar and fantasist, perhaps further embroidered by his lying wife, as "definitive proof". A footnote might be a good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shirley Robinson's baby 

message: There's a reference to West's allotment in Glasgow which he may have used to bury other, earlier victims. This section states that the allotment site now lies under the M8 motorway. However, I've found an article which claims that the allotments are in fact now a residential area, with OS maps supporting this claim:
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/fred-wests-infamous-glasgow-allotment-29275001
If there's no objections, I'm going to edit the article to reflect this. DustyDrawers (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Much of the information written regarding his time in Scotland sources from the mid-1990s media coverage. Perhaps cross-checking of claims of the precise allotment location was never performed? Is there an alternate source? Not sure the Scottish Daily Express is a reliable source.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  West's Glasgow allotment 

message: I came across the article via a CCI. I was struck by the extraordinary level of detail, making it longer than the articles on Jack the Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe or the Moors murders. At 13k+ words, it is very close to the size at which it is recommended an article be split or trimmed. Much of this comes from what is, for me, an over-detailed treatment of the subject, particularly the assaults on and murders of the West's many victims. I appreciate that editors have made sterling efforts to make the article comprehensive, and obviously those events will be the article's main focus. I also appreciate Wikipedia's position on censorship. Nevertheless, we do have guidance both on offensive material and on our summary style. For me, this article goes some way beyond what is recommended. KJP1 (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way too much detail