Talk:Sarah Payne/Archive

This is an archive of past discussions about Sarah Payne. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"Sarah Payne's oldest brother Lee became a father in May 2005."

Is this really relevant to the article? Richardbates2002

As per the merger I believe that Wikipedia is best served with two SEPERATE articles. R!ch 23:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Updates: I have attempted to broaden the article with some more contextual material regarding the potential implications of "Sarah's law". I would tend to believe that we are best served by keeping the law article and crime article seperate, as we need to consider the law in an objective sense, and attaching laws, or even discussions laws, to a specific incident risks removing the debate from an objective to a subjective sphere.

--S ellinson 11:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done a merger without deleting the original article, just to have a look how it would read. I feel that this merger is a good idea, and I leave it to someone else to either revert my changes or redirect the otehr article. - Moitio ^(talk) 22:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

These articles should be kept seperate as they are distinct people who are connected through some dreadful circumstances. Regan123 19:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• How tasteful it would be to merge the two articles!!!!!!!!!!!! If there was a vote, I would vote to keep them separate. Wiki-is-truth 05:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Please elaborate on what you mean by tasteful? I think that there should only be one article as the whole sarah payne thing is only notable because of Roy Whititng and Roy Whiting because of Sarah Payne.--Lucy-marie 17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I must say that i see no problem with the merging of the two article. In fact I think it would improve the quality of subject in question.--Jjamesj 12:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I oppose a merge as these are bios and such an article would have to be Sarah Payne murder, SqueakBox 16:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The article would follow similar patterns to recently merged other articles such as Danielle Jones and Stuart Campbell which became the Murder of Danielle Jones. Please feel free to comment on how well you think that merger has worked.--Lucy-marie 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the close linkage of the two articles requires merging to pool information and i think eventually as one article this may even end up as a featured article.--Lucy-marie 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As per Lucy-marie, merging the Sarah Payne bio & Roy Whiting bio under the heading Murder of Sarah Payne seems eminently sensible. It might be pertinent, however, to have a separate article on Sarah's Law, as this constitutes a separate event. - Tiswas^(t/c) 16:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • I wholly agree.--Lucy-marie 23:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a way to avoid WP:BLP to me which I am uncomfortable with, SqueakBox 00:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how you think so?--Lucy-marie 00:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Whiting is subject to BLP but a merged article would avoid that, SqueakBox 04:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It would not avoid that as the already merged articles are still subject BLP it is just the article isn't primarily a BLP. The murder of Danielle Jones article the information regarding Stuart Campbell is still subject to BLP standards.--Lucy-marie 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This article isnt subject to BLP, for ovbvious and tragic reasons. Whiting isnt a very nice person but should, IMO, still be subject to BLP and perhaps more than most because of the strong feelings he inevitably provokes. But if you do merge I will accept that in light of Tiswas and your comments, SqueakBox 17:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now I think if we are going to merge or not we shoul;d stick with this and not create a separate article for Sarah's law, SqueakBox 17:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am coming to the conclusion that no strong opposition remains to merging of the tow articles, separating out Sarah's law will not be concluded with the conclusion of this merger debate. A separate debate on merging out of that section will take place after merging has proceeded. The guidelines for a BLP will be followed as far as is practicable when dealing with information regarding Whiting, in the newly merge article. If any strong opposition remains please voice opposition as soon as possible, the merging of the article will take place after five days of this post, if no serious opposition is voiced.--Lucy-marie 17:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with merging for the following reasons: Roy whiting is notable as an individual within the context of persistant sexual predators. Sarah payne is notable for specifically for the manner of her death and the resultant aftermath. The two individuals are not intristically related and should not be defined as being so. A good example for comparison would by Myra Hindly and the victims of the Moors Murders. should they be separated or merged?Sparkyboi 16:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

These argument over whiting being known as persistent sexual predator would not have come to light without the murder of Sarah Payne , PAyne was murdered by whiting and therefore only known because of being murdered by whiting. As for Myra Hindly and the moors murders I think the articles should be merged due to the ultimate linkage of all of the victims and Hindly to being notable only for the crime committed. The aftermath infamy was created only by the murders. The debate has also been concluded as a merge by numerous other editors.--Lucy-marie 09:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no possible way that a sex offender lives within a mile of every person in Britain, what idiot made up that statistic?

given that people in Britian Britain has a very high population density (one London Borough has a population density of over 15,000 people per square kilometer, and the city has an averge density of almost 4700 people per KM2), it might be close to the truth.

--perfectblue 15:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What about rural england?--Lucy-marie 18:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That would depend on the population density. With a population of 50m (approx), and 25,000 registered sex offenders, that makes 1 in 2,000 people a sex offender. Multiply the population density (from here) by the occurrence of offenders for an approximation of where they live. Not that geographical distance is a factor in any way. An be sure not to conflate sex offenders with child murderers - they tend to live in the same house as their victims. - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think we could safely even say a person lives within a mile of every person in Britain but anyway such a statement would have to be sourced or removed, SqueakBox 17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - even if demonstrable, the claim would still fall foul of WP:OR. My guess, however, is that it appeared in a red-top at some stage - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oddly, I came across a similar statistic, but this time to do with bees and mobile phones. The statistic looks to be safe - assuming a uniform population distribution, within one mile of you are (1^2 * pi * people / mile^2) == (3.14 * 640) == 2010 people, of which one is a registered sex offender. - Tiswas^(t/c) 10:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC) locks the door and hides under the duvet

The 'Subsequent Events' section says "The introuction of Sarah's Law is highly unlikely as it would breach the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act on the right to a private life." Which has already been included (with slightly better wording IMO) under 'Sarah's Law: Debate over Effectiveness', which is where I think it belongs. Any arguments against deleting the second mention?