Talk:Mark Speight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Mark Speight has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject BBC (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Does anyone else think we're reaching the point where the page needs to be semi-protected? One IP has been blocked for adding nonsense, but I see another has turned up to claim Speight has "A RUBBER FACE" or words to that effect. --Popplewick (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems fair to say that only 2 (possibly 3) people are taking part in the updating of this page. Forgive me putting it this way, but surely the only protection which is needed is a little restraint from those few contributors. It is not as though this is a widespread problem with large numbers of people taking part in the amendment process. Informed Owl (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl
Check the page history. While this article had been relatively quiet and easy to manage from its creation up to the 3rd of January, once Speight's fiancee's death and his arrest hit the news, it turned into a vandal magnet, with anonymous IPs making all kinds of non constructive edits (105 edits were made over roughly 25 hours). Semi-protection was requested in order to give things chance to settle down. --Popplewick (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I did and that is why I said what I did. I accept that a very large number of edits took place over a short period of time (quickly deleted by you on almost every occasion) but as I say, the numbers doing so is very small in the context of this site's usage. We should be very slow to censor Wikipedia. For whatever reason, you have done a very good job of ensuring that unreferenced (often potentially defamatory?) edits were removed / changed. I admit to having watched this over a short period last night when I first came to the page to see who this guy was as I was suprised then at the number of edits.
Anyway, I have no argument with you on the substance of this (ie, we should stick to referenced comments only, particularly when a criminal investigation is underway). I am not going to get into counting up the numbers, I agree that there were a lot of edits, but feel that as it was not at the hands of a large body of people, we should be very slow to censor. Informed Owl (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl
31 separate IPs edited the page. I don't claim they were all vandals, but most of those edits had to be cleaned up, one way of another. In this cooling off period, good faith anons are still capable of suggesting improvements to the article. --Popplewick (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, untabbed) For your information, it was actually me that requested this page be protected. As Popplewick points out, 105 edits were made in just over a day, and the majority of those from anon. IPs were vandalism, thus it easily, easily qualified for protection. I've had articles protected for much less vandalism, and to be frank, I was suprised to see this article still floating about unprotected when I got here. Now, with regards to censorship: be sure of your definitions. It is most certainly not censorship to ensure that incorrect and potentially libellous material is removed as quickly as possible - see Jimbo's comments here. To sumaries his words, it's preferable to remove poorly cited material, especially that that is libellous, than to tag it as needing a citation. TheIslander 21:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been confirmed as Speight by the police, shouldn't this be in the article now?

[1] - Conformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birchington (talkcontribs) 14:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Mark Speight was born in 1965, seeing as the page is locked temporarily, could someone more authorised add this information to the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for his year of birth? --Popplewick (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I heard it on the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I really think he is the best —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

False statement[edit]

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

Sorted. --Popplewick (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Speight 'cleared'[edit]

The article says "and on 19 March, the BBC reported that Speight had been cleared of all charges relating to the death". Quite aside from there being no reference for this (I have searched BBC website without success although its search engine is not always entirely reliable), I would suggest that talk of him being "cleared" is not encyclopaedic.

It is an important principle in English law that any person is innocent until proved guilty in court (or makes an admissible confession). The police do not "clear" people. Even juries do not really "clear" people: they just state that the prosecution has not proved guilt to their satisfaction. Mark Speight was and remains innocent until a court decides otherwise.

Doubtless the posting was well intentioned, but I think it (a) needs referencing by the person who posted and (b) tidying up a bit. It may well be of course that the BBC spoke of him being "cleared", but that does not mean Wikipedia has to perpetuate the inaccuracy! :-) Informed Owl (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

Honestly, if you believe that anyone is innocent until proven guilty by the courts you are living in your own world ! Sadly trial by media is all that counts these days, the press will let you know whether anyone is guilty or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that is POV. Legally a person is innocent until proven guilty in the UK. Yes, I accept that the media is prone to speculate and that this is all that many people will ever believe, but the encyclopaedic reality is as set out above. Informed Owl (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl
He was clearly arrested on suspicion and bailed pending further enquiries. Presumably the reference to "cleared" is that the CPS decided not to pursue those charges, and his police bail was revoked. He hasn't been "cleared" in any meaningful sense because he's ever faced any charges before a court of competent jurisdiction. However, that does not mean that he can never be charged, if evidence is later discovered. Informed Owl is entirely correct. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


CCTV images of missing children's TV presenter Mark Speight have been released by the Metropolitan Police.

Speight, 42, disappeared three days ago and was said to be in a "vulnerable" state following the drugs overdose death of his fiancée, Natasha Collins, on January 3. - Woogyman (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Will this do as a source? --tgheretford (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly it is now getting to a point where we cannot add sources any more to the article. I withdraw the above statement. --tgheretford (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It is still unconfirmed that the body found is Speight's. Therefore, WP:BLP still applies. The article will be unlocked when a reliable source confirms this. "The Sun" is not a reliable source, and even they don't say for sure it's him. No rumours, please. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
BBC? --tgheretford (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sky News?,,30100-1312756,00.html. I'm hoping these are good enough sources, because half my articles are gone otherwise. --tgheretford (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, both of those are reliable. I'm waiting to hear back from Rodhullandemu, but if I don't, I'll unprotect the article shortly. TalkIslander 16:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Correction: I'll lower the protection back down to semi - it still warrents semi. TalkIslander 16:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
They are reliable sources, but: "The body of a man, believed to be missing TV presenter Mark Speight" - surely means it cannot be included at this stage. Because, it hasn't been officially confirmed that it is his body... although it's likely it is. Surely at this stage we should just include that a body, believed to be his, has been found, but there is no confirmation it's him? Gran2 16:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:V --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
According to Sky News, the British Transport Police believe the body found at Paddington was Mark Speight; typically formal identification of a body takes a day or so. I think it does at least warrant inclusion that a body believed to be his has been found. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sam, I wish I could share your optimism that it will stay as just that! However, I've no objection to protection being lowered to semi. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec x 2) WP:V does not apply here, as both the BBC and Sky are indeed reliable sources. Gran2, I agree with you - we cannot state that he has died, but we can state that the body is believed to be his. We can say as much as the reliable sources state. TalkIslander 16:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

With the agreement of Rodhullandemu, I'm going to move it back down to semi, but heed this: it has not been confirmed that Speight has died, and the article should only mention that it is believed to be him, until confirmation is given. TalkIslander 16:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC),,30100-1312756,00.html - death confirmed Littleone77 (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

For some reason I can't edit the page but the Telegraph is saying he hanged himself: Shookster21 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Telegraph has death report as top story with no inverted commas around "found dead": —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Half of the news stories, like [2] say he's dead, so can't we trust them? Star Garnet (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not official. There's no confirmed, official statement about this story - newspapers/websites will always go for the sensational, shocking title. It's more than likely it is correct, but until it's announced we can only use the word "suspected". Booglamay (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
"Investigating officers believe the deceased to be that of reported missing person, 42-year-old Mr Speight. A formal identification is yet to take place but will be confirmed on Monday." TalkIslander 17:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If his family, and Carmen Collins, have been informed of his death, surely that's confirmation it is him. If it wasn't Speight, or they weren't sure it was him, then his fmaily wouldn't have been told, would they? Pullshapes (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Oh, for Christ's sake people, even if the media reports that he is dead are true, we can't put a date of death until the POLICE confirm the date, since he was missing for 6 days, which I'm assuming will be in the next day or two, so let it rest for now.Lukeitfc (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Most news sources are now saying it is the body of Mark Speight so why does it still say "Mark Warwick Fordham Speight (born 6 August 1965) is a British TV presenter." We all know he is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TwentiethApril1986 (talkcontribs) 11:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[3] - Conformation.

It has been confirmed! I changed the article and you change it back. Why? "The body has now been formally identified by Mr Speight's family." —Preceding unsigned comment added by TwentiethApril1986 (talkcontribs) 14:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened to not saying 'was' untill his body has been formally identified? It is yet to be formally identified still. - (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I know that a few papers have said the police have confirmed it, but they're probably tabloid speculation. Since I haven't heard it from any trusty news sources. - (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? Why was the fact he was found in Paddington station removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djedwardsmith (talkcontribs) 12:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

admins please move[edit]

The blip about his death is stuck in the "references" section, it needs to go in the section before. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed, pending confirmation. TalkIslander 16:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Will this do, or should we wait for the formal ID to occur? Here's the latest BBC piece (timed at 16:37): MeegsC | Talk 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, just read the above, which must have been entered while I was typing! MeegsC | Talk 16:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
ITV News also stating it categorically under the headline "Mark Speight Found Dead"--Whimsical Oracle (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
From that article: "Investigating officers believe the deceased to be that of reported missing person, 42-year-old Mr Speight. A formal identification is yet to take place but will be confirmed on Monday." - in other words, it's not completely confirmed, so we cannot confirm it either. TalkIslander 16:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The television ITV News just reported the headline without qualification. "His body was found..." etc. DWaterson (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, then again, the outside broadcast journalist at Paddington did qualify that the identity is unconfirmed. Meh. DWaterson (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sky news says it's him: [4]. ~Eliz81(C) 18:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight is now dead, somebody with a little more wiki knowledge than myself please update the page accordingly. (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Every news source going is reporting Mark as being 'found dead'. (e.g. There is no realistic chance otherwise, and any further IDs to be made are surely a formality at this point. --TomFriend08 (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you're bang-on - it's just a formality. However, unfortunatly, it's a formality that we must wait for. We base this encyclopaedia on fact, and until this formality has gone ahead, it's not fact. TalkIslander 19:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TwentiethApril1986 (talkcontribs) 14:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is Ridiculous[edit]

God have some respect people (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

He is dead, ffs. You wouldn't have every national TV channel and newspaper reporting that his body has been found if it was unidentifiable. He was last seen at a tube station and he's been found at Paddington Station. Why is "Islander" having all the influence on this page? He seems to have an agenda, being obsessed with children's television (note all his edits on Konnie Huq. Can a sensible Wiki-editor please put he's dead, rather than wait another 3 days for the 0.00000001% chance that coincidentally it was another body that looks like Mark?! (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not ONE responsible, reliable news outlet is saying he is dead. They are all saying a body that is believed to be him has been found. If it has not been officially identified, we CANNOT publish that he is dead. Ged UK (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Islander is not having all the influence on this page; neither am I. Wikipedia policy is, and that's what Admins will apply. We wait until it is 100% confirmed that the dead body is his, per WP:BLP & WP:V & WP:RS. We are not a blog or a newspaper, we are an encyclopedia and we print facts, not unconfirmed rumours. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Trust me, if the majority of Wikipedia's admins didn't agree with my (or Rodhullandemu's) actions, we'd both have been stopped dead by now. We are merely ensuring that Wikipedia policy is followed which is, after all, one of the primary aims of an admin. I can quite see that, from the viewpoint of someone not familiar with Wikipedian policies, it would appaer that one or two users are policing this page, and preventing the information from being added for no apparent reason, but please trust us. As you, I, and everyone know's, we can be almost 100% sure that the body found is Speight's. However, we cannot be 100% sure, and we won't be until it is confirmed by the authorities.
Once again, I appologise for what to some must appear 'policing', but unfortunatly, in order to ensure that WP:BLP is not violated, it is necessary. TalkIslander 19:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
NO need to apologise as far as I'm concerned. :) Ged UK (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Same here (: Its understandable you can't publish hes dead until its confirmed, we all know it probably is him, but better to wait and see. (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, both of you :). Like I said, I can see that this looks stupid to some people, I really can, but I ask those people to read through everything here carefully, and hopefully you'll understand. If anyone has any more questions, they're welcome to ask me on my talk page, or email me. TalkIslander 19:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Break 1[edit]

What does it matter? Really? What does it matter that instead of "Mark Speight is a dead TV presenter" the article says something like "Police believe a dead body to be that of Speight, though a formal identification is yet to take place"? It's the truth, after all. We're not the news, we're not in competition for the latest scoop. What's the harm in holding off adding some of this stuff until we know what's fact, and what's speculation from a press eager to out-sensationalise one another? This is for the ages, people. Let's tackle it calmly and without competing to be the first to shove the confirmation in there. Steve TC 19:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So the likes of Sky News, ITN News and The Sun having headlines "Mark Speight Found Dead" is not sufficient? Because they are working-class tabloidy and you're waiting for a "respectable" paper like The Times or Telegraph to say it?! It is standard common practice when someone is found dead that it is never 100.0% confirmed by Police. Hey, it's not definite Princess Diana's dead, there's a 0.00000001% chance that's someone else's body in her grave. Same with Elvis Presley. Wish there was common sense applied with Wiki's policies! At the moment this interactive encyclopaedia is out of date. (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
And will the world end because of this? Steve TC 19:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget, Wikipedia has in the past been (and will undoubtably in the future be) used by some of the less reliable news sources (once sadly including the BBC) to further their stories. What if it was written here that Speight was dead, and a news team picked that up, and (tiny chance, I know) the body turns out not to be that of Speight? In an indirect way, Wikipedia would be responsible there. We have to stick to the facts - nothing more, nothing less. TalkIslander 19:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud: Get Real! Wikipedia is not setting the news agenda here - in fact with the actions of 'Islander' and 'RodHull' it's dragging it's arse half a mile behind everyone else. Every news agency in the country is reporting that Mark Speight is dead. the ONLY source in denial is Wikipedia - thanks to the over-earnest efforts of a couple of misguided 'editors'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if we have somewhat higher standards than the news services; but we are not a news service. See Wikinews for that. We report verifiable facts here. And nothing else. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Who is "we"? In fact, all you are doing is making wikipedia appear to be childish and nigglingly pedantic. Seriously, you may think you're upholding some important moral principal but actually you're simply wasting everyone's time... Several hours ago someone thought it helpful to add the fact that Mark Speight was dead to his wiki entry. After all, it has been common knowledge all afternoon. You and your pal have appointed yourselves to spend hours continually wiping it off . The net result is a huge swell of bemusement, frustration and annoyance at the inadequacies of the Wikipedia project at times like this. You really are not serving the project well with your antics.....
It's not about "upholding a moral principal", it's about taking our time to craft the best possible article from tragic circumstances. This is not a news website. For the latest information, please try the BBC or Sky. Please try to understand that. Steve TC 19:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
We're writing an encyclopedia. Niggling pedantry is a virtue for an encyclopedia author. -- Cyrius| 22:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Also bear in mind that we're 'reporting' what everyone else is 'reporting' - that the body is believed to be Speight, and not that it is. TalkIslander 19:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice call, BLP protectors, we need to be 100% sure, people forget we are not a newspaper we are an encyclopedia and our reputation will be damaged by making what then proved to eb false claims and will not be damaged by waiting. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
"our reputation will be damaged" - what reputation??? Wikipedia is notorious for being unreliable. By it's very nature, nothing in Wikipedia can possibly be set in stone and it's completely futile - and somewhat idiotic - to pretend otherwise. What it is is a fast-moving, dynamic, source of information from all sorts of sources (with all sorts of agendas behind them). We know that a lot of it is mis-information, vandalism, propaganda and so-forth and anyone with half a brain can make an intelligent reading and still get useful information from it. We don't need self-appointed Nannies standing by the door vetting every dot and comma. It makes the project stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2008

Break 2[edit]

What I find rediculous is this entire debate. Rules are rules and one of the things that makes Wiki the respected resource it is is because it is reliable and accurate, protected by specific guidelines and admins assigned to protect that. So what if you don't like it, it is what it is! Please move on.OneHappyHusky (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, "the things that makes Wiki the respected resource it is" - oh come on, pull the other one. It Is NOT a respected source and never will be - it's something else entirely and you're trying to stifle that with your misguided edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2008
OK, question: If that's your view on Wikipedia, why on Earth do you care whether or not it's right when it comes to the as of yet unconfirmed death of Mark Speight? TalkIslander 20:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably because I have an innate mistrust of self-appointed censors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, though that argument breaks down on two scales: firstly, and much less importantly, I am not self-appointed - the community voiced it's opinion on me, and it was decided that I was a suitable candidate for adminship. Secondly, and much, much more importantly, my first point is moot, because all I'm doing is upholding the policies Wikipedia already has in place. If it wasn't myself and Rodhullandemu, it'd be any other two admins from the 1,700-odd that there are. TalkIslander 20:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
"I was a suitable candidate" - you're definitely a suitable candidate for something.... sorry that was a cheap shot, it's a dirty job and someone's got to do it I guess. Anyway, I see now that the article has finally acknowledged that the poor sod is dead, so I guess it's panic over and we can all relax now. Unlike his unfortunate family.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Whoops! Spoke to soon. Someone has just removed it again! This really is a farce you know.... Talk about the Chuckle Brothers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this should be pointed out: under WP:BLP, there is probably sufficient reason to completely protect this article, i.e. set it so that only admins can edit. We've not done that, yet, 'cause we feel that there are people out there who want to make valid contributions. It's an unfortunatly side effect of not protecting it that we get arguments like this. TalkIslander 20:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Break 3[edit]

Sky News have the Breaking News bar saying: Mark Speight's Father: Mark was a wonderful son and will be very sadly missed. Surely that is confirmation enough. Ammera (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, for Ammera's sake, Sky News does not rate above the Police in terms of reliability and authority. Sky news cannot claim that Speight is dead before the Police can. Does that make sense? TalkIslander 20:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
WHAT?! Thery are reporting it over and over again now. The BBC website even has it! WTF is wrong woth you people?? Do you need it written in blood on your doorsteps! Everyone is always banging on about Wiki not being reliable - IT ISN'T! Especially when sourced information is being taken as unture! Ammera (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll just point out that I had set aside this afternoon and this evening to put together a new, large article. Because some editors don't seem to understand Wikipedia policies, or even what Wikipedia is, and insist on it being something it is not, that article will now have to wait until I next have some spare time. I don't mind Admin duties, but would prefer them to be necessary. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You make it sound like people prevented you from saving a life or discovering a cure for cancer. YOU made the decision not to do some typing and do something else instead. Big deal! Smurfmeister (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Er.... What is it you're trying to say? That we're all the losers then?

And what are those policies then - that only certain editors can edit pages? I think not. ANYONE who is posting on an article, aslong as it is sourced can make an edit Ammera (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BLP. TalkIslander 20:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and which rule did i breach???? Ammera (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey come on, Ammera, we do already mention it, we are merely not stating as fact that he is dead. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes wikipedia isn't yet Sky News, BBC News etc are saying it has now been confirmed. That is what i am saying Ammera (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
But have the Police confirmed it at all? They're the only one's who really can. TalkIslander 20:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I Would have guessed YES!! Why else would the News channels be reporting it??? They are not that sick! Ammera (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Because, I hate to break it to you, that's the way the media operate. They like to sensationalise, they like to 'out-scoop' one another. They cannot be trusted like certain authorities can. And besides, most of them are still reporting that the body is believed to be that of Speight. TalkIslander 20:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I work in the media, and this is NOT the way we operate, we do NOT as you say 'out-scoop' each other when it comes to someones death. With Mark Speights death, we work closely with the police to make sure we get our facts right, we wouldn't of broadcast it otherwise. Mark Speight was found hanging in a quite part of Paddington Station yesterday morning at 10am by someone from British Transport Police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That's fair enough, and if that's the way you roll, I believe you. But in that case, what accounts for the discrepancies between a few of the reports I've read this morning? You're not telling me that the editor of a newspaper, faced with the possibility of out-scooping a rival based upon information he was only 85% sure was reliable, wouldn't at least consider publishing it? There's no doubt he's dead; the article says so. But we should still hold off on adding both the date of death and the full circumstances. Steve TC 09:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The parents have now confirmed that the body found was that of Mark Speight, so you can put that in the main article now, should of been done yesterday, but everyone was getting their knickers in a twist as to weather the media were "sensationalising" a tragic death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

" trusted like certain authorities can" - okay, it's maybe a different argument, but are you really saying that the Police in this country can be completely trusted? Do you really believe that they don't manipulate figures and statistics for their own ends. That they don't make false statements and tell outright lies? The honesty and reliability of the Press and the Police is on a par I would think...
If you can find a ref to confirm formal identification please do so, what I read is headlines "he is dead" followed by text saying "it is believed....."20:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Ammera, completely understand where you're coming from. But you just can't argue with these couple of clowns. Unfortunately it's their well-meant (I assume) but misguided zealotry that's making wikipedia a laughing stock.... "Ve are only following ze guidelines"... Yeah, tell it to the nuremberg trial....
I'll just remind you that a breach of Godwin's Law is very likely to get you blocked for breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


From that very article: "Mr Speight's relatives have been informed of the discovery, police said, but a formal identification has yet to take place.". Need I say more? TalkIslander 20:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
"a body believed to be Mark Speight". Give it a rest. If you look at the previews for each article here, you will see that every one says "it has been reported" and/or "body is believed to be". Until you find a source that says that it positively is Mr. Speight, just forget it, because it is not going into the article. J.delanoygabsadds 20:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
And "The body of a man, believed to be missing TV presenter Mark Speight" That's all it's a source for. Nothing more. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Every news source is reporting he is dead (and there is overwhelming evidence to support this) yet according to wikipedia he is alive. This is incredibly unimpressive. (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, should the article be updated to include the fact that the body was found hanged? [5] ~Eliz81(C) 21:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps - but that may just add to speculation (I'm sure tomorrow will bring all the facts). Are there any other sources that list this? Telegraph quotes "police sources suggested". It's all speculation I'm afraid. Booglamay (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

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

date of death[edit]

how do we know he died today? we cant put todays date as his death until we knoe for sure —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't list that fact - and won't do until a formal announcement of his death is issued. There may have been edits that did include a date, but until there is categorical evidence to this, nothing can be added with authority. Booglamay (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why can the article not state the month and year of death? It is obivous he died this month of he as seen in April and obivously he died this year! Why did a user removed/undo my edits which showed the month and year of death! There is no good reason why these two facts cannot be added!! --Energizer07 (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the body found has not been officially identified as his, we cannot yet report him dead. Please see the WP:BLP guidelines. -- The Anome (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It has not yet been formally cofirmed that the body that was found is his. We are reporting what reliable sources are saying, namely that the body is believed to be his. Because of WP:BLP, beyond that we cannot go, and all this messing about has resulted in the article being fully locked for a while. Not ideal, but if people cannot understand policy, they should begin to try. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
There are reliable sources stating the body is him: [6]. Majorly (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Rupert Murdoch's money-grabbing ventures are "reliable sources"? The Times, perhaps. Sky, I doubt it. All we can say until the legal formailities have been attended to is "it has been reported that..." If that will keep the Tricoteuses happy, fine. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The Telegraph seems clear. I do believe that's considered "reliable". Majorly (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As there is no way to say for sure when he died, surely the date of the body's discovery is the most practical alternative? Smurfmeister (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipedia I know when he died it was Tuesday 6 April 2008 I read this in yesterdays The Sun this is infact true... so for e.g. this is what it should read (6 August 19656 April 2008) hope this helps -- (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Article protected[edit]

I've now fully-protected this article for a period of two hours. -- The Anome (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

well it is blatantly obivous that the body found is in fact that of Mark Speight and personally I think it is ridiculous that the date of death can not be added when the entire country knows he is dead --Energizer07 (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow, when the formal identification is made, we can update the article as necessary. -- The Anome (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It is of him according to The Telegraph, BBC, Sky, and others. Majorly (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the BBC: "The body of a man, believed to be missing TV presenter Mark Speight... Mr Speight's relatives have been informed of the discovery, police said, but a formal identification has yet to take place..." - where in that is the confirmation that it is him? TalkIslander 22:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, (and I appologise - this is a rather horrific topic), how do we know that today is the date of death? The body was found today - no mention of when he died. TalkIslander 23:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
According to BBC News 24 - the headline on the TV was "Mark Speight Found Dead". And the Sky and Telegraph articles seem to be saying it's him. Majorly (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but this is entirely the problem - BBC News is contradicting itself. News 24 is saying one thing, whilst is saying another. Which do we believe? Do we err on the side of caution? Also, my above point still stands - we don't know the date of death, even if we know he's dead. TalkIslander 23:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
What about the Telegraph article? Majorly (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
What about the Telegraph article? It's a reliable source, yes, but then so is the BBC. Perhaps moreso. What rates the Telegraph above the Beeb? Until all sources agree, we really cannot be sure of the facts, and therein lies the problem - we cannot be sure. Until we can be sure, the facts should just be omitted. And, surprise surprise, my point on the death date still stands. TalkIslander 23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
And the BBC say he has died... so that's 2 reliable articles, plus Sky. That's 3 sources agreeing. Just because the BBC haven't updated doesn't mean it's how things stand. Anyhow, the date is irrelevant. He has died. Majorly (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Break 1[edit]

With all dew respect this is hardly the general register office but instead it is just a website (very beneficial one at that) whose contents will have little or no bearing on any conclusions or outcomes of this case so I think that is important to remember.--Energizer07 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)..and this website has policies to be followed, although not stupidly. One of the principal ones deals with living people, and it requires care to operate. We cannot go beyond what is reported by reliable sources, and when they differ, we should default to the least contentious report. It will all come out in the wash tomorrow (or, to be precise, later today), and this unseemly rush to cram any available gossip into what is meant to be an encyclopedia, rather than a blog, is disheartening. It can wait. Festina lente, as they say. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Although I don't agree with the policy as such, we have to abide by it and wait until any conference/statement (i did make a change myself but that was in good faith- i assumed by teletexts wording it had been confirmed). maybe the lock should be more like 10-12 hours as it won't happen before 9am Chocobogamer (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I've now extended the block until 9 AM tomorrow morning, UK time. -- The Anome (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Today's newspapers say that Speight died on 7 April, but I guess that can't be published until the police confirm it. Steveweiser (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you got any hardcore evidence to substantiate such a claim? If not you can expect to be pounced on by a number of administrators/editors whose daily lives sadly revolve around editing Wikipedia. It is important to remember that we will all be dead someday and god I would not like to be on my death bed and when reflecting on my life just looking at how I wasted so much of my life making very minor pointless edits to a website such as this – I say life is too short! I am assuming this comment will generate a bit of movment on the admins behalf--Energizer07 (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Break 2[edit]

Now The Guardian says it's him. I've unprotected it. Majorly (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
All dead one day? That is WP:CRYSTAL though I think the protection is ridiculous especially in the current version that holds an open mind as to whether he is alive or not, which is not the wrong version it is a BLP violation and a bad judgement. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The BBC, Telegraph, Guardian and Independant say he is dead. Majorly (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI the BBC still says Mark Speight 'found dead' and 'believed to be' him. thats not confirming. Chocobogamer (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) For a start, the BBC can be removed from that list - their website still states that the body has yet to be formally identified. TalkIslander 23:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not interested in what the site says. BBC News 24 states he's died. It's not my fault they don't update their site. Majorly (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hahahaha thats very a silly thing for a 'higher level' Wikipedian to say. If you are using the BBC as a reference then you have to refer to them. That means a source, and if their site is out of date, then you have to wait until it is updated to use it as a source. You should know that. It isn't updated therefore you saying the BBC say he's dead is inadmissible Chocobogamer (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a higher level Wikipedian. I'm not using BBC as a reference, as it's unreliable. I'm using the Telegraph, Guardian, Independent... and lots more news sources. Majorly (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, myself and many other Wikipedian's would rate the BBC website above the rest of them put together. TalkIslander 23:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If you're not using them and they're 'unreliable' (which is the most insane thing I've ever heard! and bear in mind they were his employer) then why did you mention them here AT ALL??
Also, look at the Alexa ratings for and I think the BBC, having well over 6 times as many hits per day, would ensure they are far more reliable. Chocobogamer (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Alexa only hits the main site, not the subdomain. High amount of visitors means nothing in terms of reliability. Majorly (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The BBC site is out of date. I can't very well prove it, but they announced it was him on BBC News 24. The BBC article is hours old. There's a ton of new news sources confirming it's him. You can't very well ignore them. Majorly (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If you cant prove it, don't use it Chocobogamer (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC) home page states: Body found at railway station believed to be that of missing television presenter Mark Speight, say police. BELIEVED TO BE. Chocobogamer (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, you're picking semantics. And stop shouting, it doesn't help discussion. Majorly (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not just semantics, that's a careful choice of wording that clearly reflects what they believe to be the truth - that the body is believed to be Speight, but not that it is. TalkIslander 00:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It also states: "Missing children's TV presenter found dead at Paddington" and "The body of missing television presenter Mark Speight was found at Paddington railway station yesterday morning.". Majorly (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what you're reading, but I can't see anywhere that states "believes". [7]. Majorly (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Their home page. Another case of one organisation giving different information in two different places. In my opinion (and my opinion alone), the fact that this is occuring shows well that facts are still not confirmed, hence the news groups aren't 100% what to write. They're just trying their damnedest to 'out-scoop' one another. TalkIslander 00:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe they forgot to update their front page. The main article seems pretty certain it's him. Majorly (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
But why would the BBC fail to update their website, and the Guardian fail to update their homepage? It's a tad unprofessional, it's not exactly how they operate. Certainly the BBC site tends to be the most updated around. TalkIslander 00:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
They don't update articles once they've been created. I expect the same is with other news sources. You're basing your facts on out-of-date articles. Again, I've just watched News 24 where they state it's him. Do you want me to upload a photo of the TV, or a recording to youtube to prove it? Majorly (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(untab) No, I believe what you're saying - News 24 is saying one thing, whilst is saying another. However, your statement "They don't update articles once they've been created.", with all due respect, is utter rubish. The will constantly update an article, with every new piece of confirmed evidence they receive, which is why this is an odd irregularity. TalkIslander 00:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Break 3[edit]

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

Ahh finaly some saniity has to the article c. april 2008 - genious! hope that settles the dispute!-- (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Ahh finaly some saniity has to the article c. april 2008 - genious! hope that settles the dispute! WELL SAID ME! --Energizer07 (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being indelicate, there is a reason that a celebrity, with a well known face that has been all over the news this week has not been officially identified (I am an American and would know him on the street) It is very probable that the police made a tentative ID based on clothing, ID on the body or even a note of some kind, however, if the body was hanging for as long as a six days I think we can safely say that at visual identification is simply not possible. The authorities are holding back on officially stating it is Mr Speight for a reason and I believe we must respect that and follow their lead.OneHappyHusky (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree - it should be left that it is only suspected to be him until it is formally announced who it is. What if it turns out not to be him? BananaNoodle (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Try telling that to the users/admins who disagree, and want Wikipedia to publicise the fact as much as any other news source. You won't win. TalkIslander 00:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
So be it, but that does not make us wrong in trying to do the right and responsible thing. I respect you and others fighting for that concept and felt I needed to speak out in support of that. What harm comes in waiting for official word? I truly do not get all the fuss. OneHappyHusky (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
In which case I thank you for your attempt. I'm tired, and about to go to bed. This has far and away been the most, err, 'active' time in my time on Wikipedia, and it's been stressfull. So much so that I'm starting to wonder whether I should ever have bothered. What with a number of sources contradicting themselves, I'm still not convinced that it has been officially confirmed, and as such I believe that per BLP the information should be witheld (better no information than incorrect information, where biogs are concerned). However, it seems that there are a greater number of users who view Wikipedia as another news source, which is sad. All that aside, thanks for the respect - after nine hours of this, it's much appreciated. TalkIslander 00:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Wiki has policy for a reason, and it needs to be adhered to. There are sources "confirming" and others not yet. This is probably a grey area. Lets just leave it as whatever it is until a press conference. Lets just remember at least people aren't vandalising the page. :) Chocobogamer (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop censoring wikipedia!! (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Might this here be a valid source as to his official death? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Body identified[edit]

"The body has now been formally identified by Mr Speight's family. ", "Missing TV presenter Mark Speight was found hanging in a building adjacent to Paddington railway station, British Transport Police have confirmed.". [8] Updated article accordingly. Computerjoe's talk 14:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Updated Drumnbach (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, article is unprotected. You're on your own. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    I'll let the masses and tidy it up when it's quietened down! Computerjoe's talk 14:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cause of Death[edit]

it is believed that Mark Speight was found hanged at PAddington station —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddebie (talkcontribs) 16:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

British Transport Police have confirmed TV presenter Mark Speight was found hanged on the roof of a building next to Paddington railway station. The body was found at 10am on Sunday morning. A spokeswoman said: "Network Rail staff located the body hanging on the roof of a building next to the station (MacMillan House) at 10am yesterday and alerted police. The body was in a remote area out of public view. ( - Woogyman (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • So what killed him? The hanging or the overdose he took beforehand or the exposure to cold weather when the hanging and the overdose failed to kill him? No speculation, please, wait for the post-mortem before specifying this. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You people have behaved like a pack of animals over the death of another human being, haggling over your petty laws and procedures. I hope you are proud of yourselves, and this new level of inhumanity you have all achieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The great majority of work on this article has been to prevent it looking like a pack of animals has been at it. Steve TC 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't have put it better, Steve. Anon IP: please explain how preventing unconfirmed information about the tragic loss of someone's life from being 'published' on Wikipedia is in any way similar to the behaviour of a pack of animals? If anything, I would like to think that we have been respecting the legacy of Mark Speight. TalkIslander 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you would like to think that. I regret to inform you, however, that based on your actions here, you have been doing no such thing, and have no general clue about, apparently, much of anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Place of Birth[edit]

Some sources state Wolverhampton [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] or just outside Wolverhampton at Seisdon, Staffordshire [14] or alternatively at Trowbridge, Wiltshire [15] [16].

Does anyone know for certain which one of the three options are correct? Ignoring local media, the BBC and The Times plump for Wolverhampton, the Guardian suggests Seisdon and the Telegraph says Trowbridge. Fingerpuppet (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

His BBC obituary says he "called Trowbridge, Wiltshire his home", which suggests he was actually born in Seisdon, as the Guardian obituary says, but grew up in Trowbridge. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
However, he apparently attended Tettenhall College and Regis School in Wolverhampton. I suspect from the balance of the evidence that he was born in either Wolverhampton or Seisdon (which is a Wolverhampton commuter village), and lived in Trowridge as an adult. Fingerpuppet (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
From the inquest report "born on August 6, 1965, in Wolverhampton." For What it is worth. OneHappyHusky (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC) [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by OneHappyHusky (talkcontribs) 13:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The register of births says he was born in the Bilston registration district which would include Seisdon. So I would say this is correct. (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


I'm seeing most sources are the BBC but would a little variety hurt? Could some people maybe use some different news outlets? Computerjoe's talk 20:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I get what you mean but you have to remember 2 things, is an incredibly popular, and frequently updated website, and that BBC were his employer, so they will probably know more than other sites. Chocobogamer (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I do realise it's reliable and they were his employer (although this may lead to bias). However, it doesn't seem very encyclopaedic to use only one source, if that makes sense. Computerjoe's talk 20:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
All true points, however, the source doesn't matter, its the content of the reference itself, you want to go for the accurate and detailed one. EG, look at any games console page, without looking the odds are that most of the sources used are from the manufacturer itself. Chocobogamer (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, it just looks slightly odd when you look at references and they're nearly all from the Beeb! Computerjoe's talk 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I get what ya mean and I'm not saying it doesn't look odd, but at the end of the day accuracy is the most important thing, not who its from Chocobogamer (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Aye, I'll add some more sources just to support current ones later. Computerjoe's talk 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is a link to sky news' most recent report - may be useful to back up the BBC? [17] BananaNoodle (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can actually expand the "Career" section? At the moment, the article just mainly focuses on the man's death. This article is meant to be about the man's life and so on, and not just how his life came to an end. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Suicide note[edit]

It probably should be noted that a suicide note was found on Mark's body, and a further note was left at his North-West London flat. ( TomFriend08 (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, added. I will also be going to Trowbridge register office later today to confirm (or otherwise) Mark's place of birth. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 10:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


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

I am so shocked by his death. It is just unbelievable he would do something like this. He had such a good career and a good life. I watched SMart alot and it's just so unreal and sad.

What a refreshing change to see some genuine concern over a human life. It is, as you say, a terrible tragedy. Smurfmeister (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph[edit]

Do we really need a paragraph in the opening explaining Speight finding Natasha Collins's body?

"In January 2008, Speight discovered the body of his fiancée and former colleague Natasha Collins at their London flat. He was arrested in connection with the death, but released without charge. On April 8, 2008, Speight was reported missing by family and friends, after having failed to attend a meeting the day before. On April 13, his body was found hanged on the roof of MacMillan House next to London's Paddington railway station."

I think this should be put into another section. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, whilst at the moment it may be what's in the news I don't think it's a good start to have it as an opening section. I think perhaps that there should be more detail of his achievements in this section.BananaNoodle (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Mark's life being over, this tragedy is one of the things that makes him notable for our purposes, however it could be reduced to essentials in the lead and dealt with in more detail in the body of the article. Some more detail about his professional career would balance that. Perhaps recast as

In January 2008 Speight's fiancée and former colleague, Natasha Collins, died at their London flat and he was initially arrested but released without charge. In April, Speight was reported missing and found hanged a few days later

That covers the essentials without unnecessary detail for a lead. Thoughts? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that sounds better, there just seems to be too much detail in it for the opening paragraph at the momement when it is covered in detail later on.BananaNoodle (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I suggest we leave it for comments. If nobody objects, it can be changed within a sensible time frame. I have the article watched anyway. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


should we add this? w_tanoto (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Tonywalton Talk 16:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) w_tanoto (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I don't think the YouTube link should be there. I'm pretty sure it violates the BBC's copyrights. See here for more information. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and it's gone. Would fail Featured Article review with that in, and it doesn't add anything. --Rodhullandemu 17:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
You mean one link which could be removed in a couple of seconds could cause an article to fail? -- how do you turn this on 19:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Didn't make it as a clear as I might; I meant that it would be removed as failing part of the WP:FARC. Generally any breach of copyright, fair-use defects, etc. are potential FA fails, and this applies to links to copyrighted material, IMO. --Rodhullandemu 19:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)