Talk:Fred West

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JCarter823.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment

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)

Introductory paragraph

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)

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)

He wasn't legally responsible, but nor was he legally found NOT responsible, and let's face it, there's little serious doubt that he was, in fact, a serial killer. A quick disclaimer in parentheses might be a good clarification anyway, regardless of the legal implications.

That aside, isn't it the case that slander/libel don't apply to the dead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.9.28.123 (talk • contribs)

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

In the inital description, added the word "suspected" to serial killer. Of course there is no common sense doubt about what he did, but I hope that covers the legal issue describing his status accurately, while the phrase "serial killer" is still linked for those who use the searches or relevant links etc. Rrose Selavy 20:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

I have restored doubt. This has nothing to do with libel and everything to do with wikipedia's reputation as sticking to the facts and not making it up (which to say he murdered people when he was only charged is making it up). This article needs an eye kept on it for this reason, SqueakBox 00:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

He was a sick murderer and you say he was an "Innocent man under British law"!?? He killed them there is no doubt so don't use stupid semantics.WikiFounder 20:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I feel that Wikipedians have made the right decision in this case. I'm sure he was a cold-blooded murderer and he did confess to the crimes (or some of them). But as he was never found guilty in a court of law we therefore have to assume innocence, however impossible that might be to believe. Xanucia 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Head injury lead to sociopathy?

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)

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)

• Thanks for the clarification & edit. - Severinus 21:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A book published before 1998 made the assertion before Burns. LuciferMorgan 19:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Bigamy

"He committed bigamy by marrying Rosemary Letts on 29 January 1972, as he never had divorced."

The previous paragraph states that he had already murdered his previous wife, so is this actually bigamy? Marlinspike 13:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I would have thought that bigamy was the least of his crimes, even if he had committed it. Though maybe in law, if his wife was considered missing or still alive legally then it might apply but I don't know enought about the details of the timings etc, but otherwise unless some one can provide a legal justification or reference then I think it should be removed. Rrose Selavy

It appears he murdered a woman who was not his wife whom he had impregnated. 24.131.12.228 08:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

He did kill his first wife, Rena, some time after killing that girlfriend. It appears she left him around the time of that murder. She later (after he had married Rose) came back looking for her daughter and was killed by them. Rose was charged with her murder. So, yes, he was a bigamist.

• A fascinating question: if a man kills his wife, but only he knows it, is he a bigamist if he remarries? Can he defend himself at the bigamy trial by proving he killed the first wife? EEng 17:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit

I'm not sure this is particularly encyclopedic, but an episode of the American TV show, Law & Order: SVU appeared to be modeled after Fred West and his wife. The episode was titled Resilience and is from season 4. The episode also made a reference to Fred West by Dr. George Huang character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OPaul (talk • contribs)

Early Life - error?

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)

Done, SqueakBox 15:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Death of Charmaine

"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)

Links

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)

References

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)

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)

Recent changes

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fredwest.jpg

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)

Conviction?

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)

Guilt and categories?

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)

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)

Pointless cultural references

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Incest confusion

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)

Does pop culture trivia belong in a serious article about a murderer?

Although I find it rather hard to believe, another editor has restored this section to the article:

• Harold and Fred (They Make Ladies Dead) was a 2001 comic strip in Viz, also featuring serial killer Harold Shipman. Extracts from the strip were subsequently merchandised as a coffee mug. Viz also featured a spoof advertisement for 'Little Ted West,' a "collectors' item" teddy bear with the hair and clothes of Fred West, which came complete with a teddy-scale shovel.
• In a 1998 interview with Charlie Rose, English novelist Martin Amis revealed that his cousin Lucy Partington, who disappeared in 1973, was a victim of Fred West and his wife.
• In the Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps episode "Croppity Crops", Johnny is planning on self-sufficiency and compares himself to "that guy off the telly, from the '70s -- always in the garden, curly hair" (meaning Tom from The Good Life.) "Fred West?" says Kelly. "That's the one", replies Jonny.[8]
• Norwegian futurepop group Apoptygma Berzerk have a song on their album 7 based around Fred West and his suicide entitled 25 Cromwell Street.

My edit removed all but the Martin Amis snippet. My reasoning was that in a serious article, having factoids about an obscure Norwegian pop group or a passing mention in a comic or a sitcom add nothing at all to our understanding of the subject. Somewhat bizarrely, I have been reverted and advised to come here, so here I am. What do others think? --John (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As I cited above, this is our guideline here. If the test is "does this material increase our understanding of the subject", strictly the answer is "no"; but it may aid our understanding of contemporary attitudes to the subject as reflected in popular culture. Fred West is not new in this regard, because we have traditionally used humour and ridicule as a defensive weapon against the horrors of real life. The problem we have is that we are writing an encyclopedia and unconsciously imposing our cultural values on it by assessing the relevance of such material today. One of the problems faced by historians in this regard is not only the lack of material in itself but also the lack of contemporary commentary on the material, except, and that even only recently, that by journalists, arguably with an agenda to pursue. We have an opportunity here to provide that commentary for those who may come after us. They may well throw up their hands in horror and shout "how could they?", but equally, they gain an insight into some of our values from a perspective which we may well not understand right now. I'd argue we owe it to future generations to provide a mirror to our own society, with, of course, a proviso of reliable sourcing. Even the Martin Amis snippet is unsourced, but will not remain so if I have anything to do with it. I've put it on my list and will probably reach it in about 2011. --Rodhullandemu 17:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, but for me, especially given the seriousness of the topic, the test "does this material increase our understanding of the subject", and the answer "no", end the matter. There has been a similar to-and-fro on the Josef Mengele page, and the consensus has been that jokey trivia does not belong there in view of the seriousness of the topic. I commend the same logic to apply to this article.

The Martin Amis fact can easily be sourced to here: "Martin Amis, whose cousin Lucy Partington disappeared on 27 December 1973, and was later found to be one of the Wests' victims, describes, in his memoir Experience, how the average domestic day at 25 Cromwell Street was 'a scarcely credible inventory of troglodytic squalor, including theft, violence, incest, rape, sexual torture, whoredom, pimpdom, peeping-tomdom, pornography, child prostitution and paedophilia'." I recommend reading the whole article. I strongly suggest that unless the significance of these trivia can be readily demonstrated, the other ones should be removed from the article. --John (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm addressing this although I am not specifically familiar with Fred West. This is a sticky issue and there are widely diverse opinions on it. I'd point out that the lead at WP:TRIV says explicitly Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined. WP:HTRIV#Practical steps encourages the incorporation of lists into the article itself, so immediately, I am against beginning and expanding such lists. I certainly don't support the inclusion of trivia where a person's name is used for the sheer sensationalism of using it.

The trend at this time for articles concerning murderers/criminals is developing toward not including sections that are essentially lists of tangential facts about the person(s). I would refer you to Charles Manson, Bonnie and Clyde, Ted Bundy and Lizzie Borden for examples of how this is being handled on high profile articles. On Manson, the popular culture list has been limited to items in which Manson specifically has been the subject (films, recordings, publications) and a few select instances where he is covered. I think this approach has been very good to present how this person has and does effect today's culture. On Bonnie and Clyde, it is presented as media in which the pair are specifically the subject. On Ted Bundy, only the film/tv shows that specifically are about Bundy are included. On Lizzie Borden, again, only the media which specifically have Borden as the subject are included.

The problem is addressed with hidden notes, an example of which is "Selected" is meant to prevent an exhaustive listing of mention in popular culture. Please do not add to this section unless the reference is solely about them, such as a song entitled "Bonnie and Clyde", or a film is made about them. Don't add passing references to the pair in songs, items that are "based on", "like", or "mentions" aren't appropriate for this page. Please broach this on the talk page if your addition doesn't meet this specific criteria. Don't add without proper citation. Any additions not meeting this guideline will be removed. Thank you. An issue with this is that one of us is constantly having to remove references to Eminem and Jay-Z songs, which only use the names of Bonnie and Clyde and are not about the pair at all, despite an additional hidden note which states clearly that these songs are not about the subject and will be removed.

While it is obvious that some criminal related articles are more susceptible to long trivia lists than others, I personally don't see a benefit from indiscriminate listings of instances where the person's name is all that is used, or a reference is added where something "is based on," "mentions," or "is like". In this article, "Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps" isn't about Fred West and the Martin Amis item should be incorporated into the main body of the article. The other two items are questionable, but at least should be sourced. In any case, this is the trend, and this is my view on this issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a distinction to be drawn between Trivia and Cultural References. Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles, although only an essay, addresses this distinction. Certainly tangential references do not necessarily improve the quality of the encyclopedia through relevance to the subject. Would that inline HTML notes were heeded, but they ain't, and we have to live with that. What I object to is butchery when surgery would be more appropriate, and I was able to save a large amount of material that had been deleted from Cunt by (a) sourcing it and (b) rewriting the article to reflect the relevance of the remaining material. It took months. Whilst I am fed up of deleting nonsense "Family Guy" and "The Simpsons" references from otherwise worthy articles, if such material is removed without due thought, it is effectively lost to rational consideration by competent editors. --Rodhullandemu 01:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a secondary reliable source to attribute that judgment. Quoting a respected expert as attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged." (from the essay you linked to above). Do we have reliable secondary sources to verify the cultural significance of the Two Pints of Lager, the Norwegian pop group, and the Viz mug? If not, we are in the world of trivia, of "nonsense "Family Guy" and "The Simpsons" references ... otherwise worthy articles" as you say. My edit was intended as surgery, not butchery, I did give it due thought, and I removed the trivia and kept the one that was easily sourced to reliable sources. I agree with Wildhartlivie that the ones which can't be referenced with good sources should go. As for invisible comments, they aren't a panacea (nothing is), but at least you can always refer people to them later if there's a dispute. It can't do any harm. I like the wording that Wildhartlivie suggests too. --John (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the trivia again, and also from Peter Sutcliffe and Harold Shipman on the strength of this discussion. Hope that is ok. --John (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, it's been a sod of a weekend, and I can't really get excited about it. This wasn't a great example of what "in popular culture" sections should be about anyway. {{User DGAF2}} --Rodhullandemu 21:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is okay, really. There is no justification for the removal. It's not trivial to see how a culture and community reacts to the impact of a mass murderer. It's NOTABLE to see how in the case of West as in Shipman, the public reacted with horror, disbleief, and humour, and then the desire to understand and document the murders. In the circumstances, especially since the basis for the removal was that this was 'trivia', I have reverted this. If anyone can give a justification that is within Wikepedia guidelines for removing the cultural references, please explain here. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:N will do for starters. --John (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• As for WP:V, you removed sourced content without consensus. That's normally considered to be vandalism. As for significance, that should be subject of WP:CONSENSUS. --Rodhullandemu 20:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No I didn't. If you wish to build a consensus to restore this material, please feel free to do so here or elsewhere. Throwing around inaccurate accusations of vandalism probably won't help your case. --John (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • Is anyone else able to read this and judge a consensus to include jokey trivia items on the article. I'm not seeing it myself but having been accused of "vandalism", "disrupting wikipedia to make a point" and goodness knows what else for removing the trash, I thought I'd better check. --John (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd say some info on the pop-cultural impact of West is relevant - but it should be in intelligent prose, not a random list which this effectively is. Also, passing mentions in a sitcom... are basically irrelevant, though a comic strip with West as the main character is more substantial. SO, get rid of the sitcom and song (or reduce it to a passing mention, ie: "West is mentioned in sitcom ______, and the song _____ by band ______"), but keep the cartoon. Malick78 (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd agree with this, but with the proviso that some valid third-party verifiable evidence of the cartoon's notability can be found. This should be pretty easy; if it cannot be done, I'd say the cartoon certainly doesn't belong here either. I am glad you agree with me over the other trash. --John (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Charmaine: daughter or step-daughter?

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)

Better explanation of "Rose" needed

The name "Rose" is widely used throughout the article. I recently added the notation "(Rose)" to the lede to explain that this refers to Rosemary Letts West. This addition was reverted. I think this reversion was a mistake.

Without my addition, the only explanation of "Rose", who is mentioned repeatedly, is buried in the third paragraph of the section about Rena Costello. When I first read this article, I was extremely puzzled about the identity of "Rose". I guessed that this might be short for "Rosemary", but it was not clear, and when I looked for an explanation in the logical place, the section on "Rosemary Letts", there was none there!

The name "Rose" was used ahead of the explanation in two places. One of these was fixed by User:Rodhullandemu; I just fixed the other. But this is not sufficient to solve the full problem. Readers of the article may not read the whole thing; they may read the article out of order; they may skim the article looking for certain details. The use of two different names for the same person can only be confusing.

I suggest that either the name "Rose" be eliminated completely, in favor of "Rosemary", or that an explanation be placed in the lede, as I did here. -- Dominus (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it needs fixing. WP:MOS says that we use surnames, however, when two people share a surname, that doesn't work; by implication, I'd interpret this that we should be using formal rather than informal names. That would certainly seem to be more encyclopedic to me. Accordingly, I concur that we remove all references to "Rose" and just use "Rosemary" throughout. --Rodhullandemu 14:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done this.

I also added an explanatory note to the "Rosemary Letts" section header, changing it to "Rosemary ("Rose") Letts". it seemed necessary to mention of the nickname somewhere, since it seems commonly used: many of the external links and other references mention "Rose". Adding the explanatory note to the section header makes it more easily visible, and also puts it into the table of contents, which is near the top of the page. I think this will be sufficiently visible to people who are trying to understand who "Rose" is.

The article on Rosemary West, and perhaps related articles, may be in need of similar treatment. -- Dominus (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Good move, thanks. I think your solution covers all angles. --Rodhullandemu 16:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope so. It might be uncommon to refer to Rosemary West as "Rosemary", and the article might now read as stilted or peculiar to a British person. I have no way to know. -- Dominus (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs a rewrite?

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)

From its current state it would appear that never happened. EEng 17:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved'"' Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Fred West → Fred and Rosemary West – These two are a pair, just like Bonnie and Clyde, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. It doesn't seem meaningful to have tow separate articles here. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be worth seeing if a merged page can be kept succinct; if so fine, but I suspect it might be too long. It might be an idea to keep Fred & Rose on separate pages, as now; but what about a new third (but very short page) on both Fred & Rose, that then links to the two main pages? Arrivisto (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Rosemary's article is 12kb, Fred's is 22kb – a long way from being 'too long'. Post merger, it's likely to be a lot less than 12+22kb. My guess is that it will be closer to 25kb. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose to merger. Very notable in their own right, and Fred is dead, Rosemary is living.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Seems to mirror the case of the Moors murders: I believe Ian Brady is still alive. They ought to be a single encyclopaedic entity. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Despite what I said earlier (above), I 'm now persuaded that the two pages should be merged. (Brady is alive). Let's produce a combined Fred & Rose page, and then we can agree to delete the single pages.Arrivisto (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose If they had been tried together for the same crimes, maybe - but they relied on separate defences, played different roles in the crimes and have ended up with very different fates. Merging would blur a distinction that clearly exists in real life. Exok (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• I also forgot to mention the Reggie and Ronnie Kray have one WP article between them. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Favour: Despite what Exok say: they would have been tried together, had Fred not hanged himself; and rather than "playing different roles", it is arguable that they worked together in most of the murders.

  Hindley & Brady surely played roles that were more different? Arrivisto (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

requested move part two

• 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)

• Agree that one article would be best. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ann(e) McFall

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)

"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. [1]. But I'm not sure whether he was formaly charged with her murder. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

John West

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)

Probably yes, here's a BBC source [2] 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)

Number of victims

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.243.105 (talk)

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)

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)

20 further murders

"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: [3]. 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)

Court Witness Terry Crick Suicide

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)

Caroline Roberts not a victim?

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fred West. 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:

• 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent tidy-up

Hi Kieronoldham, nice work on the article. I've noticed that whilst altering the structure of the 'Aftermath' section, you've removed my edit about Terry Crick, but left the ref (it doesn't refer to his brother's suicide). I didn't want to edit to put it back, whilst you were. Rgds -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 14:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

My bad. It was a genuine overlook. I'll rectify that. Sorry. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries at all, I thought as much. Didn't want to step on your toes. Thanks very much. -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 12:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just ordered the Aftermath section of the page by date. Hope people think it looks OK? Will try and search for more accurate dates for some of the entries. -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 15:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Aye. The article is really taking shape now. I always thought the Fred and Rose West articles should exist as one article much like the Brady and Hindley or Bittaker and Norris Wiki. pages do. If there are any dates you'd like fine tuning or referencing I'll see what I can find.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The re-ordering of the Aftermath stuff seems to have dropped off, somewhere in the ether! -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 19:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, well done, Kieron, a great effort. I may try and do a bit of minor copyediting if that's ok. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm almost done with this article: just scanning through Sounes's book one last time to see if there are any segments of info. I can add. Gonna add this image (or a lower quality derivative) as to my mind it's pertinent. That'll be added within the next few days or so. Any info. requests I'll see what I can find.

Some people ask me how I can deal with topics like this without all but throwing up - I just compartmentalise the psyche. I see them as challenges. LookingYourBest, sorry I didn't want to step in your toes there, it is just that adding the aftermath section by year greatly increased the contents table which is already quite long.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

What is that image? How come it's in the public domain? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Charmaine, Heather and Anna Marie. That image was taken on 14/4/71; it's the one used to prove via dental examination Charmaine died before 24 June i.e. was killed by Rose when Fred was still incarcerated.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

And there's no copyright? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I've not looked into it yet. Got the name of the original author. Maybe one of 25 Cromwell Street could qualify as a 'unique historic image' instead. Gonna look at Geograph on Commons to see if any images of Cromwell Street exist on there too.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find any at Commons. This site shows 25 Midland Road and 25 Cromwell Street (both before and after demolition). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Murder in Mind

Presumably the source cited is this magazine: [4]. Is this a WP:RS? Are there any authors? I think the full citation should be given under "Cited works and further reading". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep I believe it is. Colin Wilson (the author) is one of the contributors. Brian Masters, too.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I've seen (as well as used) this publication in other articles of this nature. If consensus is that it should be superseded I can do so, although I wonder about the weight used of the remaining material sources I have.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The names Colin Wilson and Brian Masters certainly lend some weight. A full citation is certainly needed somewhere. It's a bit undefined at present? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It was morphed perfectly into the Dahmer article (which has over 400 active watchers). I'm pasting an example from the body text here: <ref name="Mind p. 36">"Murder in Mind" (5): 36. ISSN 1364-5803. OCLC 498473511. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) Maybe we can expand the references to include contributors, ISSN etc.? The ISSN for this edition is 1364-5803--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

the body text -- great choice of words, given the context. Seriously, though, I question the reliability of this as a source. Not to choose a book by its cover, but from its cover it seems very much like a tabloid. EEng 02:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll be happy to supersede the instances of reference usage if any of you like? I wouldn't judge it as a tabloid or fanzine personally - it is direct, clinically informative, and any info. can be found in other sources. But I can and will supersede it if that's what governs.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I won't be able to get into this too deeply, but it does look like a review of the sources used in the article is in order. For example, unless there's something going on I don't understand, Out of the Shadows and Inside 25 Cromwell Street are primary sources and cannot be used as fact sources. Same goes for the other sources authored by those directly involved. Kieronoldham, I hope this doesn't come as a shock, but now that I look more closely this is a serious problem. EEng 03:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

How else can anybody talk about what ultimately happened (from 1972 onward) inside the proverbial shell of the home where the crimes and abuse in question emanated from (plus generally those in question either testified at the trial as to their endurances at the address or were witness to behaviour which was scrutinized at the trial or was verified as to in other cases)? Whatever way you choose to view this case, many of those participant to the case were only those there before Feb. 1994. can add sources (book and otherwise) corroborating some of these claims at least. Seriously though. Would Sounes the author of Fred & Rose maybe have found at least some "body text" for his book from the verbal statements of Stephen and Mae West alone?--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Obviously all sourcing starts with primary sources -- those who were there who saw what they saw and did what they did -- but these accounts are often clouded, incomplete, or self-serving. Thus we (WP editors) get our facts mostly through secondary sources, which weigh, compare, and evaluate statements made in primary sources -- something we're not in a position to do. To the extent that stuff found in primary sources does't make it into high-quality sources, there may very well be a reason for that, and so we rarely use such material in articles, and that means there will be times there's material you'd like to put in the article but can't, because it only comes from primary sources. And remember, in general even news reports are primary sources, but at least they're third-party -- not by people actually involved in the events under discussion. In the case of the sources we're discussing, they're actually people involved in the events, and that makes it almost impossible to use them except for very cautious, "X later recalled that..." stuff which illustrates facts established by secondary sources. There's a good discussion at WP:Identifying_reliable_sources_(history). EEng 03:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, and this has crossed my mind in the past, but the secondary sources will have gotten their 'scoops' or otherwise researched their material using to one degree or another word of mouth from those in the West family and those known to them. It is difficult to gauge, but in a case of this nature, where "insular" (if that is an appropriate word to use) crimes are discovered retrospectively, in many respects, we can largely only rely on word of mouth of those within the household or close to them to chronologically account for their behaviour.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

No, we can't rely on them, and we don't. We leave it to the secondary sources to evaluate and weigh what the primary sources say, and use why they pass on. That may mean that there's a lot we just don't say, because the secondary sources, for whatever reason, didn't pass them on to us. Did you check out the link I included above? EEng 21:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

No I didn't, but I've read it in the past. Out of the Shadows is not a direct autobiography but a collaboration with an author named Virginia Hill. I can supersede them with other sources if you like even though, ironically, most of them will be listening to the words of the West children for information to populate their books/ articles.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if it appears they're just parroting what the participants said then we have to question whether they're usable as fact sources either. Do any of these sources take a critical approach to establishing facts -- citations, footnotes, comparative discussion? "With"-type collaborations are still primary -- just means someone helped with the actual writing. I don't want to upset you but I'm beginning to think a lot of this article is built on sand. EEng 02:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm just saying the bedrock of information in question sources from their mouths, EEng. I will be more than happy to attempt to supersede these actual refs. with others if that's what you'd desire.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Like I said way back, "Obviously all sourcing starts with primary sources -- those who were there who saw what they saw and did what they did", but the sources we have to work from will be those that take a critical view of such sources. It's not what I desire but the right way to source an article. How many of these sources do you actually have access to? EEng 03:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Six or seven of them, but I assure you that many of them just regurgitate what the West children say. Some others can be found online.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Then you need to figure out which ones don't just do that, and stick to using them. I'm afraid I've bit off more than I can chew here, in terms of the work that needs doing. Martinevans123, can you help out? EEng 00:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Currently enjoying life under the patio. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Many of the West children's abuse is independently covered in external sources from the likes of the BBC and HTV, and can be verified from hospital records, the news/trial testimony from neighbours, acquaintances etc. I can supersede this info. but please don't cast collective eyes in my direction if before too long an "undue weight" tag of any form is placed upon this article for leaning on the likes of Sounes and Wilsons' books too heavily. I fail to see just, for example, who other than Anna Marie West can testify as to what happened in the basement the 1st time of her sexual abuse at the hands of her father and stepmother alone given one perpetrator is dead and the other refuses to talk and proclaims her innocence. Who other, for example, than Anna Marie can tell what Rose told the girl as to this being a "father's job"? The fact much of this content in those books as to the West children's general ordeals and the couple's behavioural pattern of offending was independently chimed towards in the testimony of those to testify independently and individually at Rose's trial speaks volumes to me. I'll do this requested superseding for you all but you'll have to give me anything up to a week or two to actually complete it, not least to the actual time of year.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Wait, wait, there's no hurry. There's plenty of time to discuss what to do, and I don't want you to see me as some mean taskmaster, though I strongly suspect there are sourcing problems that need to be addressed. You're right that there are a lot of details that can't be sourced to anything but the witnesses' primary accounts but (as I keep saying) that likely means we can't include those details -- or, at best, we might be able to say, in some cases, "In her autobiography, X claimed that...", and we'd have to have a very good reason for doing that. We cannot state as flat fact, in Wikipedia's voice, assertions made in witness' books, court testimony, and other primary sources.

Weird as it may sound, one of the reasons (though not the only reason) for this is that Rose West is still alive, and we have to be careful about reporting uncorroborated statements that cast her in a negative light. (And yes, I can't help but laugh as I write that.) EEng 02:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Really? Wow. So some brave soul would have to go and trim out all the material mentioned in the trial over at the Moors murders article, in case it reflected badly on poor Ian Brady? Except that the article there is a venerated Featured Article, carefully crafted by some of Wikipedia's most respected editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Material that ultimately derives from court testimony can be fine, but it has to come through secondary sources -- we can't ourselves mine the court transcripts for "facts" to use in the article. AFAICS Moors murders doesn't source anything directly to court testimony.

One of the indicia, BTW, of a reliable secondary source is that, when passing on first-person accounts, court testimony, etc. that is uncorroborated, it won't just say, "The next day X did such-and-such", but rather, "X testified that the next day he did such-and-such". Sources that accept uncorroborated first-person accounts as simple fact, and report them as such without reminding the reader of their uncertain basis, have to be viewed with suspicion. EEng 17:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Let the trawl commence, then. I must try and use the word indicia more often. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see you as a 'mean taskmaster',EEng. Rather I respect your integrity and appreciate your observant eyes. Martinevans123, when we're finished with this article, perhaps it can be nominated for review by some other editors for GA or FA status?--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that looks like a real gauntlet being thrown down! You mean taskmaster. Haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Kieron, don't mind Martin. He's just that way. EEng 03:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

He does it to keep things between editors upbeat, EEng. Indicia Idiosyncrasy can be unique but welcome especially with topics like I usually devote attention to. Bah!" Kez!--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I think, Kieron, you need to make a visit to User:EEng and User_talk:EEng. EEng 23:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't listen to him Kezza, it's a trap! Or, as EEng would say just an open and shut case. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll stay out of this, EEng. He's always been decent with me. Any other thoughts from either of you on the reference superseding on this article? I have done the majority of the requested superseding re: Out of the Shadows and Inside 25 Cromwell Street. I'd welcome any update on Murder in Mind. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I fear you misunderstand, Kieron. ME123 and I are secret internet lovers. I'm afraid I can't evaluate these sources specifically without actually seeing them, thus I've tried to give you guidance on what to look for yourself. EEng 00:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

See you both in electric dreams, then. Seriously MiM to me as mentioned earlier does qualify. I'll let you know when I'm finished with the superseding.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh darn it. That's blown it. That's the last time I meet you on grave-grinder.com. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I've superseded the references required, Martinevans123, and attempted to follow the advice of EEng from 27 December with the handful I cannot find an alternate source for (In her autobiography, X claimed that...). Where shall we go from here in addressing any issues in bringing the article to hopefully at least GA nomination status? Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Aiming for GA

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 stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail); 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:

The trial of Rose West lasted seven weeks. Having heard closing arguments delivered by both prosecution and defence between 13 and 15 November, Judge Mantell delivered his final instructions to the jury on 16 November. In this final address, Judge Mantell warned the jurors of the need to set aside any prejudice in their deliberations, before emphasising the legal fact that, if two individuals take part in a murder, then both are equally guilty regardless of which of the two actually kills the victim. He also stated that the lack of any direct evidence did not classify as an obstacle to their reaching a guilty verdict. The jurors began their deliberations on 20 November.

On 21 November, Rose was unanimously found guilty of three murders: those of Charmaine and Heather West; and that of Shirley Robinson. She displayed no emotion when she heard these verdicts, although the aunt of Charmaine West burst into tears of relief and was led from the courtroom, sobbing. The following day, she was found guilty on each of the seven remaining counts of murder. Rose again remained expressionless upon hearing these verdicts, and would remain unmoved as Judge Mantell sentenced her to 10 terms of life imprisonment for murders he branded "appalling and depraved". This formal sentencing was both direct and damning, with Judge Mantell simply stating: "Rosemary Pauline West, on each of the ten counts of murder of which you have been unanimously convicted by the jury, the sentence is one of life imprisonment. If attention is paid to what I think, you will never be released. Take her down."

She was then transferred to HM Prison Low Newton in County Durham to begin her sentence.

In my opinion:

1. 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.
2. 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.)
3. 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.)
4. 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?
5. 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.)
6. 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:

After seven weeks of testimony, the judge instructed the jury, emphasising that if two individuals take part in a murder, then both are equally guilty regardless of which of them actually kills the victim; and that circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for a finding of guilt. On 21 and 22 November Rose was found guilty of all ten murders. Terming her crimes "appalling and depraved", the judge sentenced her to life in prison, emphasizing that she should never be paroled. She has since been at HM Prison Low Newton.

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

The quality of GA reviewing is extremely variable, and GAs are notorious for deteriorating after gaining that status; since Bundy passed GA in 2011 it has gone from 9300 to 11500 words -- that's +25%. (I'm not going to even check 9/11, because there's no possibility it even remotely resembles what it was when it gained GA.) If other articles meander, that doesn't make it OK for this one to as well.

I'm not sure what your New Year's reference is. If you're suggesting the Rose and Fred articles (what you call "both articles"?) should be merged ("should be one article only") I agree, but I also repeat that most of the details-of-crimes stuff should be spun off into a separate article. EEng 02:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Squints

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)

Well, "energy" is another way to put it

Um, are we all sure that we're not substituting [5] one euphemism for another? What, exactly, does the source say? Context before and after, please. EEng 01:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

So where did "virility" come from? EEng 02:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

Did you come up with the word virility, or does it come from one of the sources? EEng 03:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

How 'bout if we just drop that bit? EEng 01:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything detrimental in the content, but I've done so.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty

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)

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)

Although

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)

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)

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)

Who is "they" in this sentence?

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)

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)

Congratulations

This is a very thorough and well written article. Well done to the lead team who have put in so much work to make it so clear and comprehensive. Anna (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. :)--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, well done Keiron, you put the rest of us to shame here. You are the lead team, lol.Martinevans123 (talk)

We get there collectively, Martin. You, EEng and LookingYourBest and others all chipped in. We all did our bit. I still think this should qualify as a GA article. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Shirley Robinson's baby

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)

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)

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)

The Devil in Detail

I've just removed a source that had no details here. If it was intended to be this book, that's a work of fiction by Brian Stableford that seems to have nothing to do with West. Any ideas? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. Some online sources state the ashes were scattered at Much Marcle. It may simply be a rumour they were scattered at Barry Island. In the book Inside 25 Cromwell Street (pages 169-171), Stephen, Anna Marie and Tara attempted to scatter the ashes at Much Marcle on 3 November 1995. Due to intrusions etc. they were unable to do so. The book does not detail whether they subsequently scattered them at this location. This book may not count as a reliable source anyhow as it largely comprises of verbatim recollections and accounts by Stephen and Mae West.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

But the author says that, "the true story can finally be told of my participation in the investigation of a haunted bookshop in Barry, South Wales, organized by my good friend and fellow science fiction writer Reverend Lionel Fanthorpe"! What could possibly be wrong with that?! JezGrove (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It's gone, and that's what counts, isn't it?--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely! And yes, a very good catch, Martin. JezGrove (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Someone will be wanting to check who added it and follow the trail of IP breadcrumbs. Won't they? False refs, who needs 'em. I'm just hoping it wasn't LouisAlain, translating from German, using an unnamed translation machine. Alas, page 24 is missing from my permitted preview. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

West's Glasgow allotment

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)

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)

Way too much detail

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)