Talk:Death of Gareth Williams

Title

It seems to me that the article is about Gareth Williams. He is notable due to the circumstances of his death. Why is the title not something like Gareth_Williams_(british_mathematician)? Tcass64

Simply because the manner of his death and his secret work with MI6 and GCHQ are relevant, not the fact that he was a "mathematician". Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Rumours and speculation

There is a autopsy that is underway to determine the cause of death, the first one was inconclusive and the second is ongoing and toxicology results also, adding the speculation from channel f and other sources is of no encyclopedic value at all, the cops said it was a neat job but they didn't know how he died, please keep this and similar rubbish out until there are some actual correct details to report. Off2riorob (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

O2RR you are quite right, but as the police are still not officially identifying Williams' death as murder so one could argue that the title given to this page is currently inappropriate. Channel 4 News are a reliable source and we only need verifiability (not truth) to add details. As some early reports suggested he was stabbed and last nights C4 News provided evidence against the sensationalism, I would argue we need to have these details to discourage other editors froom adding them or users generally accepting them as fact. Philip Cross (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we could change the title, you don't put yourself in a hold all but we don't know he was murdered, I would support a name change. IMO we should keep all the speculation out, that should be easy to do. I have heard that his family are very upset about the speculation surrounding his death, although this is not a BLP they are living people. You could say as regards the speculation surrounding his death that adding it is an all or nothing situation, we couldn't just cherry pick one part and yet exclude another. It is all press attempts to sell newspapers, until there is an official cause of death no one knows. The discovery of Gareth Williams body - Off2riorob (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Murder categories

We currently have this added to a lot of murder related categories when we don't know if he was murdered. Seems to me to be a bit speculative. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. As bizarre as the possibility may seem, it's possible that his death could have been accidentally self-inflicted. The murder categories should be reserved for cases where it's certain that someone was murdered; I'll remove them, and they shouldn't be restored unless that's what the investigation decides in this case. Robofish (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Given the possibility that a Russian mafia-like organisation was involved, should Gareth Williams' ritual murder be categorised as a form of "incaprettamento?" NRPanikker (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I found in the "Investigation" section of the accompanying article

Forensic experts calculated that the temperature inside the bag would have risen to 30°C within three minutes, and Williams would have suffocated within half an hour.

I removed it for two reasons that each would suffice alone to justify removal, and in combination scream for it:

1. No source given
2. The first dependent clause has no apparent connection to the second, and in fact no stated relationship to the second or the topic.

Suffocation is deprivation of O₂ and temperature of the air is irrelevant to it. In fact, 30°C is 86°F, an uncomfortable ambient temp for many people, tho less than body temperature and in any case unconnected to suffocation -- not to be confused with hyperthermia, which BTW becomes dangerous around 104°F.
--Jerzy•t 21:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)<br /

I believe that both 30 centigrade and 86 Fahrenheit are uncomfortable for many people - since they are the same temperature! The conversion to imperial measure is unnecessary and irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Article is Unclear/repetitive

Just about every section of the article includes 1: A reference to Williams interest in bondage and 2: A statement by a professional stating that he couldn't have locked himself in the bag. Could we maybe condense this into a section or paragraph that states that while Williams had an interest and previous incidents with bondage and restraints, that professional opinion is that he couldn't have locked himself in the bag? It would help condense the multiple references to both facts into one place and make the article a little less repetitive.--96.29.243.67 (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

He could have locked himself in the bag, regardless of what the experts said. There are YouTube videos which clearly show how this could be done. In contrast, I saw an official video showing one of the experts trying to duplicate the feat: he got himself into the bag, but failed to lock the padlock - and I could see that he was completely failing to use a simple method by which it can be done, as shown in those other YouTube videos.

Since this does at least cast doubt on the validity of the professional opinions (that he couldn't have done it by himself), is there some way it could be mentioned? I guess YouTube videos are not seen as reliable sources - but a few I've seen really do cast another light on this particular aspect. I can provide links if anyone's interested. M.J.E. (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The coordinates in this article are leading to a cemetery where he is buried. Shouldn't the coordinates, according to the article's name, lead to the place where he (probably) came to death? --Friechtle (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes - bit daft/Non-MoS. This text was at the top, I've moved it here for discussion:--78.148.52.202 (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Google Earth Co-ordinates showing precise location of Ynys Wen cemetery, where Williams is buried. Allows aerial view via Googlemaps etc. As with so many aspects of Williams's life, simply finding the cemetery where he was buried is difficult. There are no details of the cemetery's location on the internet. 53°16′52.01″N 4°33′12.38″W

Actually, it's not "daft" at all. Anyone or anything can have geographical co-ordinates - so long as those coordinates never change. Gareth Williams will still be at those coordinates 100 years from now - as permanent a fixture as Stonehenge or Silbury Hill. Do a Google search and try to find the cemetery where he's buried. Good luck with that because you won't find anything. For just about any other UK cemetery there's an address or map or details re. burial costs/services etc which give the location. However, there's nothing re. Ynys Wen cemetery. Future investigators (typically freelance journalists, because nobody else cares) may well find it useful to visit Williams' grave and find out what tributes/clues have been left by mourners. Sure, it's a long-shot - but can anyone else suggest a better avenue of investigation when so many doors are not only locked but bricked-up? Removing the geographical coordinates just makes it harder to find the burial place. So many facts have been suppressed that *ANY* information (now matter how minor or "daft" someone thinks it is) can be potentially important for future investigators. Those geographical co-ords weren't added for the reasons people can think of, but for the reasons they can't. Still, I'm sure you know best...

The article's name is Death of Gareth Williams, not Grave of Gareth Williams. ;) It is okay for me to offer the coordinates where he is buried, but this can be done by showing the coordinates in the text. At the top there should be the coordinates where he came to death (if available). Don't you think so? --Friechtle (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree - the coordinates of the cemetery where he was buried should be shown in the text of the item. The coordinates (or address & postcode) of the apartment where his body was found can appear to the top of the page. That's a reasonable compromise I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.31.157 (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Express Exclusive

Shouldn't this be included? --Diblidabliduu (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Coroner's finding

The article ambiguously states that the coroner was: "satisfied that on the balance of probabilities that Gareth was killed unlawfully". And also that "There was insufficient evidence to give a verdict of unlawful killing". This is not possible. Either there was sufficient evidence to find on the balance of probability unlawful killing or not. The article as written states both.101.98.140.129 (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death of Gareth Williams. 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://archive.is/20120731091442/http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2010/09/25/funeral-of-anglesey-mi6-code-breaker-gareth-williams-55578-27338999/ to http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2010/09/25/funeral-of-anglesey-mi6-code-breaker-gareth-williams-55578-27338999/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20220512121139/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/single-hair-could-solve-gareth-williams-spy-in-bag-case-with-new-dna-technique-tsn6l93vk. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20220720. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)