Talk:Cheshire home invasion murders/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

History

A previous article about one of the victims was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayley Petit WhisperToMe (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Image request

{{reqphoto}}

 DoneMy76Strat 15:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the images are currently subject to deletion for a lack of proper license. Therefor the 'done mark' is rather tentative at this point.My76Strat 15:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible to get a photo of the victims into this article? They are also important in this story. Is that possible? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC))
I agree and believe it may be possible under a claim of fair use, I will pursue this possibility and post an image if such becomes available.My76Strat 17:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Great ... thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC))

More sources

Notability

Is Hayes notable for anything besides the murders? Perhaps this article can be reframed to address the crime (Cheshire, Connecticut home invasion murders, or something along those lines) as is common with such incidents, ie Murder of Eve Carson, Murder of Meredith Kercher, and many others. Grsz11 05:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm also a bit surprised that the crime itself lacks an article. Another horrific Connecticut incident, the August Hartford Distributors shooting, does have one, so I see no reason why the Cheshire crimes should not. As for why this article about one of the perpetrators exists, I suppose it's because the crime he committed, as well as his trial and sentencing, was widely covered in Connecticut media and also got some attention by national media (I can attest to seeing it on the Fox News Channel, but I'm sure there were others). Likewise, Joshua Komisarjevsky will probably get his own article once he is (almost assuredly) convicted next year. Killers who attract media coverage seem to get articles; Michael Ross is another Connecticut example, though he is also notable for being the first person executed in Connecticut since the death penalty was reinstated. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing, as I was reading this article today. As this article is starting to expand, it is starting to sound more about the crime itself, and less about the biography of Steven Hayes. Perhaps this article should be renamed as "Cheshire, Connecticut home invasion murders" (or something similar) ... or perhaps a new article can be started on the crime itself. Much of the material in this present article belongs in an article about the crime incident, but not necessarily in an article on Steven Hayes. Thoughts? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC))
I dont know about the rest of you but I personally feel like this particular person himself deserves a own article like this one, and the case itself crime itself also deserves an own article. Both the crime and the person in questio has recieve alot of international and national attention so I do think that they are both inside the lines of inclusion on Wikipedia. I would support a Petit family home invasion article or something similar. Plus the current Steven Hayes article. The first focusing on the crime itself and the other focusing on Steven Hayes and some about the crime ofcourse.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Basically the current Steven Hayes article can stay as it is currently. And a new article like the one suggested could go more in-depth of the crime committed. Sounds good to me.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The issue is that Hayes only is notable, because of the crime, therefore it would be entirely possible (and appropriate) to merge his content into an article of the crime. This article contains no biographical information, only focusing on his crime, which is completely inappropriate for a BLP. Grsz11 15:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't we have a consistent way of doing things? Look at John Albert Gardner; the victim articles (Chelsea King, Murder of Chelsea King, Amber Dubois) were redirected there. Someone proposed makinga Murders of Chelsea King and Amber Dubois article instead, but that hasn't happened yet. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, it seems that in the case you mention, Gardner is encyclopedically notable for at least two things (two separate crimes). In this case, Hayes as an individual is not notable (or, rather, is only notable for this one crime). Thus, it is the Cheshire crime itself that is encyclopedically notable, and not necessarily its perpetrators. I think that's a distinction between Hayes and Gardner. So, at least in these two cases, Wikipedia is consistent. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC))

Photographs of perpetrators

Why were the photographs of the perpetrators removed? Aren't those public documents, without any licensing or copyright restrictions? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC))

Only the works from the federal government are guaranteed public domain. States may retain copyrights, but some (I know California) doesn't. I haven't seen the photos in question, so I do not know their origin. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The photographs were the typical run-of-the mill police mug shots or prison booking photos. See this link: [1]. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC))

Title of article

I think the title of the article is still somewhat unwieldy. Based on searching published news articles, I suggest something more concise like "Petit home invasion murders" or "Petit family murders". You can find good examples of articles of similar subject matter that have passed GA and FA review at WP:CRIME#Recognized content. KimChee (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The present title does seem a bit unwieldy, I agree. But, I guess that we have to go with the name by which most people would refer to this crime. It seems to me that the "Cheshire" murders is much more well-known (common) than the "Petit" murders. But, I could be wrong. What do others think? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC))

Tone of article

There are portions of this article that read more like a 'true crime' novel than an encyclopedia. For instance, do we really need to mention that they bought some balsamic vinegar before being murdered. I can see how details like these might be good for setting the scene of normality in a true crime piece, but this is an encyclopedia. The same goes for their inmate numbers. I'm not going to make changes for a while, in case people are utterly against me encyclopedia-fying the article. Ashmoo (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth ... here are my opinions on the above matters that you raise. (1) Yes, I agree that there are some parts of this article in which the tone needs to be cleaned up a bit. (2) I agree that the grocery list details are unnecessary. (3) As far as the inmate numbers, I can take them or leave them. I don't think that they are necessarily helpful or hurtful, either way. However, I do tend to see such inmate numbers show up quite a bit in similar articles. In fact, if you type in "inmate number" in the Wikipedia search bar, you will get dozens of relevant hits (e.g., Matthew F. Hale, Donald Harvey, Camilla Broe, George Ryan, Carl Panzram, etc.). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC))
I agree the article tone should be encyclopedic. I disagree that the above mention is un-encyclopedic. While it would be improper to label the family as "normal", it is not improper to present referenced facts which lead the reader to their own conclusion. I'll admit when I added the fact of their last meal, I hoped perhaps the reader would reach such a conclusion. Nevertheless this is a collaborative effort to tell this important story, in encyclopedic terms, as best possible. Therefore make changes, which can only serve to reach this desired end, without hinder. I am happy to have contributed and welcome the contributions of others. Cheers. My76Strat 02:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions. In the "grand scheme" of this story, the fact that they went to the grocery store is indeed important. (It gives the sense of normalcy to a normal, routine day and to the everyday mundane task of preparing dinner. It is also germane since that is where they were "stalked" by the killers.) But, the specific items that they actually purchased for the meal, I think, are not necessarily important in the grand scheme and the overall presentation of the story. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC))

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AGK [•] 12:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

Engaging and tightly-written, and covers all the bases of the subject matter. A definite plus is how well the article deals with the subject in a neutral way: it'd be easy to sensationalise the topic.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Everything referenced fine. Reliable sources for these topics are limited mainly to news stories (it takes a good decade for most crimes to make it into academic literature and at least five for journals, monthlies, etc.) so that's not a worry here.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Covers everything well.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    No licensing problems. Image usage is sparing but adequate.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Happy to grant this article GA status. AGK [•] 12:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Disappointing that this article made GA review. The presumption of guilt on the part of one of the defendants of an ongoing criminal trial is unacceptable. causa sui (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. The Home invasion section should be removed, along with some other parts involving Komisarjevsky.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP violations

Based on concerns expressed here (above) and at WP:BLPN, I've removed everything from the Home invasion section except the first sentence. The Komisarjevsky material throughout the section is a clear BLP violation as he has not been convicted. It doesn't matter that sources are reporting on these events. We can't outline criminal acts of a living person without a conviction or without it being phrased very differently from the the way it was described in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Judging by what ran recently in The New York Times, this is an overreaction: "Another defense lawyer, Walter C. Bansley III, began by conceding many of the facts but blaming Mr. Hayes for turning the crime into a homicide. 'Joshua Komisarjevsky never intended to kill anyone,' he said."[2] The essential description of events isn't contested, just a dispute between the two admitted perpetrators as to their relative culpability. The section needs careful review to eliminate certain unproven aspects of the description, but most of the contents were adequately sourced and apparently accurate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, it was a hatchet job (a poor one at that), to remove all of the information citing BLP concerns. You would be hard pressed to find any of the content that was not factually neutral in its presentation and supported by WP:RS! I'll revisit this soon, to ensure a correction is in place. My76Strat (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that removal of the entire section was an overreaction. However, valid concerns have been raised about that section. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I've made additional comments at BLPN on the problems with the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused as to how there are BLP violations in the article. The content that was deleted had legitimate references. In the references, the information regarding the details of the crime was based on admissions by the defendents, including Komisarjevsky himself. The only piece that seems to be at dispute is whether the individual responsible for the escalation of the home invasion to other crimes was Komisarjevsky or Hayes. That single point of contention does not warrant the deletion of the majority of the section. 134.186.130.250 (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The objections we are making are not over the truth of the claims. My understanding is that both defendants have confessed to more than has been published in any news article, and the circumstances of their arrest leave little reasonable doubt as to who was responsible for the deaths of those people. The problem with the section as it stood was that it the purpose was obviously to demonize the defendants. There is no critical encyclopedic need to document the crime in such excruciating detail. Maybe they deserve to be demonized, but Wikipedia cannot be the venue for that. I hope that we'll be able to draft a more brief, factual, and to-the-point narrative of the events. Additionally, while both defendants are banged to rights by anyone's reckoning, it is nevertheless never acceptable to presume guilt on the part of anyone who has not been convicted in a criminal trial. causa sui (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute

Why is Hayes listed as having children yet Komisjaresky has no listing when the texts exchanged between the two have Komisjaresky stating he is "putting the kids to bed"? Can we clarify if he has children or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.98.136 (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Komisarjevsky has (at least) one daughter. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Inmate numbers

I've started a topic at WP:BLPN on whether including inmate numbers is appropriate in this - or any other - article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand and will participate. A clear consensus will be helpful. I apologize if my edit summary disturbed you. It was not my intention to aggravate circumstances and I realize how I could have summarized the revert better. So let us now determine the best practice regarding inmates and their assigned number. My76Strat (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Your edit summary did not disturb me, and no apology is necessary. I can see you've commented at BLPN, so that's great.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
What became of that issue? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders → Cheshire, Connecticut home invasion murders – Unless I'm missing something, wouldn't it be grammatically to only have the first comma? Yaksar (let's chat) 02:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.


No. The state name is considered an appositive to the city name and thus is separated by commas. This is similar to a year being separated by commas when listed in a date, as the year is also considered an appositive. Another example is the use of "Jr.", which is considered an appositive to a person's name. For example:

  • The population of Denver, Colorado, has reached one million.
  • On May 7, 2012, the building was demolished.
  • John Smith, Jr., was elected chairman of the committee.

In all of these cases, the item in apposition is separated by commas. These include the state Colorado in the first example, the year 2012 in the second example, and the title "Jr." in the third example. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation?

This article states: "It is comments such as these that make the case open to interpretation as to the actual events." This sounds awfully like some misguided individual's POV as there is no reference for this statement linking it back to a judge, attorney, jury member, etc. - you know, someone who has seen all of the evidence, etc. who can make a knowledgeable statement of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

With friends like this...

This article also states: "Hayes' attorney Thomas Ullman told the jury that a sentence of life in prison would be the harshest possible punishment for Hayes, because he is so tormented by his crimes and would be isolated in prison. "Life in prison without the possibility of release is the harshest penalty," Ullman said. "It is a fate worse than death. If you want to end his misery, put him to death," he added. "If you want him to suffer and carry that burden forever, the guilt, shame, and humiliation, sentence him to life without the possibility of release."" Awfully odd position for a defense attorney to take seeking "the harshest possible punishment" for his client - maybe the attorney's political agenda here that should be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bare URLs

BabbaQ has asked me to take a look at the references for this article, and I am frankly disgusted. Good articles should not contain bare URLs - all FIVE of them have been fixed. Also, this article should be at "Cheshire, Connecticut home invasion murders" because "Cheshire, Connecticut" is the name of the place and not "Cheshire, Connecticut,". I note with consternation that this was discussed above and the wrong conclusion was reached; if this was in, say, London, the article would be at "London home invasion murders" not "London, home invasion murders" so why is this any different? I really have half a mind to demote this article.--Launchballer 19:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Motive?

Just out of curiosity, is anything known about the motives of the murderer(s)? I'm just wondering since it isn't stated in the article at the moment. Is it not known why the crime was committed, or is it being left out for BLP reasons? Robofish (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect that there really could be a motive for a crime like this. causa sui (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess so. I just don't understand what would make people do a thing like this, and was wondering if there's anything remotely comprehensible about it (say, if it was a robbery that got way out of hand). But it doesn't really matter, and anyway I'm violating WP:NOTFORUM, so I'll leave it there. Robofish (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
From the news reports ("Dateline", "Hartford Courant"), the motive was the rape and terrorizing of Michelea Petit. The mastermind saw her at the store with Mrs. Hawke-Petit earlier in the day and became fixated. The prosecution played a tape in court that he thought Michela "was 14 or 15"--because of course this would justify raping and torturing her to death--to justify his actions. I know it's not a forum, and it violates NPOV, but if you're "netural" about the calculated murder of four people, you're a physopath. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but at least I'd know how to spell psychopath. EEng (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah right, the real problem with this heinous crime is that someone with the right idea about the motives of the scum who perpetrated it misspelled a word... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
people like EEng make me sick, you really are scum of the world witn no lives of our won, unbelivalble piece of shit, and guess what, I dont give a fuck if its not spelt right you fucking prick

Jesus Camp shown at Joshua Komisarjevsky's trial

I found an article that might find you interesting and maybe you could add to the Jesus Camp and the Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders articles: Komisarjevsky's Demons: Witness Focuses on Family's Strict Beliefs --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure the lame attempts of the defense to justify the actions of their child raping murdering scum of a client is all that noteworthy. One has to wonder about the legal profession where lawyers waste the jurors time with such nonsense. Were the criminals' families arrested and convicted as accomplices because of this ploy? Doubt it. Why aren't there just millions and millions of similar cases out there where actions or inactions of parents led their miscreant children to act violently against society? Ultimately, these two are reaponsible for their actions and should pay the price. Quite frankly a nice comfortable prison stay with a sleepy demise maybe at the end is too good for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't the death penalty already abolished?

I'm wondering if there is a better way to word this sentence from the lead paragraph: "In August 2015, the state of Connecticut abolished the death penalty." In fact the death penalty had already been abolished, except for not applying the abolishment retroactively. Maybe that's too fine a point to put into the lead paragraph. It is adequately explained later. Ishboyfay (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You might be right, but from what I have read the abolishment happened in August officially. Until then technically the death row inmates still was on death row. Now they are in general population in the prison system.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed "See also" section

The "See also" section contained one link: Capital punishment in the United States. That link is already a piped link in the lead for "sentenced to death". Per WP:NOTSEEALSO, the "See also" section "should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." --momoricks 18:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders. 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:

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) 16:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

William Petit Separate Page

I noticed that William Petit redirects to Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders. I think this should be changed. Petit was elected to the Connecticut House of Representatives in 2016, and merits his own page as a state legislator. His new page should certainly reference the home invasion and link to this page, but he is more than just the victim of a horrific crime, and Wikipedia ought to reflect that.OnAcademyStreet (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Parole board

I think a significant point here was that they were released early from prison due to inadequate information given to the parole board about the nature of their past crimes Skysong263 (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2022

Change Hayes' pronouns from he/him/his to she/her/hers to be consistent in the article. Bklibcat (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Hello! To my knowledge, the article text already refers to Hayes using she/her pronouns. Are there any specific instances I missed? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 10:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Pronouns / Gender Identity

@TheXuitts I suggest you read up on the relevant Wikipedia rules, and educate yourself on gender issues in general. Hayes "was" not "a man" when she committed her crimes, Hayes is (and has always been) a woman. You getting knowledge of her identity late into her life does not invalidate the facts of her identity. The linked article itself already mentions that gender dysphoria was diagnosed early in her life. Please take a look at for example Elliot Page to see how this is done on Wikipedia, and refrain from further bad faith edits. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:B9FD:F9D:DB4E:720D (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It’s absolutely hilarious that you’re an anonymous user telling me what is and isn’t appropriate on Wikipedia. A change this major requires CONSENSUS. Elliot Page’s page has nothing to do with THIS one. THAT decision was made for THAT page, and it should be discussed here whether that sets the precedent for the entire article’s pronouns for Hayes to be changed. TheXuitts (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey TheXuitts! I believe (hope) you are merely misinformed about how these things should be handled nowadays, and the topic of gender in general. I am sorry if I came off accusatory; that was an overreaction on my part. Is there something wrong with me not having an account? If I created an account for this edit, you would've complained about me being a "new" user when I, in fact, have been contributing to Wikipedia for over a decade now :)
I was giving you an example of a page doing things right, so you can see for yourself how Wikipedia's clear and unambiguous rules play out in practice. I do understand and appreciate that you feel the need to reach "CONSENSUS" on an edit like this. But your personal opinions on this are irrelevant, and from the arguments made in your edit summaries it's obvious you are woefully uneducated about these topics - Hayes never "was a man", and you do not "become a woman". There is no need for consensus on something that is a clearly spelled out rule:
"Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification."
What you personally think about the topic is irrelevant. Hayes is a woman, and that is an undeniable fact of reality - it does not matter if you or the rest of the world "learned" this late, and it does not matter if you "like" or don't like her. This is about inalienable human rights that even criminals have.
As for how to proceed, I am certain someone more familiar with the bureaucratic proceedings of Wikipedia will be able to explain the rules to you more eloquently than me. As for now, I suggest reading the box at the top of this talk page, as well as MOS:GIDINFO while we wait for a third party to resolve this conflict. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:B9FD:F9D:DB4E:720D (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, stop adding “transgender woman” to the lead sentence, it’s completely irrelevant to the crime TheXuitts (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it is irrelevant to the crime and does not belong into the lede. I was trying to avoid confusion about the male-coded first name, but IMO her transgender status is irrelevant to the article. Unfortunately it has gained traction in reputable sources, so I feel it can't be completely omitted. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:B9FD:F9D:DB4E:720D (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
It is indeed correct to consistently use feminine pronouns in our writing about Hayes. A footnote should suffice to explain this, though I don't know if Hayes' experiences in prison are of interest for the Aftermath section in general. This doesn't need to be a distraction to the crimes described in this article at all. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
MOS:GENDERID is clear on this: Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise. Under this guideline, Hayes should be referred to as a woman even though she had not transitioned when she committed the crime. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The easiest way to handle this is to not use the pronouns at all in the article. Except the mention that Hayes transitioned later on. BabbaQ (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
There's no need to form convoluted sentences, presuming that the new sources are accurate on this. If anything the separate feminine and masculine pronouns for the two perpetrators would probably make the article slightly clearer, as a reader can more easily tell which pronoun belongs to which attacker. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Their last names distinguishes between them. BabbaQ (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
No, this is not the easiest way. The easiest way is to simply abide to the rules and basic human decency and use the correct pronouns. Refusal to do so and insisting on writing convoluted, unnatural sentences just to somehow get around using someone's pronouns is derogatory - not only to the subject of the article, but to all trans people. (same anonymous user as above, IP changed) 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:7992:DFBE:4F0D:5122 (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
There's zero ambiguity here. Hayes is a woman, and we refer to her as such, throughout her life, unless she has indicated a preference otherwise. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The relevant aspects of MOS:GENDERID are to avoid misgendering, explain gender presentation where pertinent without overemphasis, and avoiding confusing constructions. In cases where an individual's gender presentation at the time is relevant, the article requires additional clarity beyond just an initial explanatory footnote. Given the nature of the crimes described in the article (including rape) and the detailed way in which the events are described, this is such a case. I think the simplest approach to both avoid misgendering and avoid undue emphasis on Hayes' gender identity would be to not use gendered terms in the lead, background, and home invasion sections, then use she/her pronouns following an explanation in the perpetrators section that Hayes is a trans woman.--Trystan (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
So, how does one go about diagnosing "undue emphasis" on a subject's gender identity? I'm sure that isn't just when gendering a trans person correctly could make a cis person confused or vaguely uncomfortable? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
By "undue emphasis", I had in mind this edit, that added a mention of it to the lead sentence. (Though I do wish to acknowledge that the edit summary suggests the editor who made that edit also found it undue, and was looking for a better solution.)--Trystan (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
(notified via WT:LGBT) I see no strong reason this article should diverge materially from the advice given by MOS:GENDERID, which (I will remind TheXuitts) is the result of several RfC and thus represents a community-level consensus which does not (as implied in this edit summary) depend on local consensus to be implemented.
Assuming Hayes's gender identity is verifiable, the article (including the lede and all body paragraphs where Hayes is mentioned), should consistently refer to her using the correct pronouns, and at the first instance where this may come as a surprise explain it without overemphasis in the form of a {{efn}}. The further into the body this information is delayed, the more of a surprise it becomes. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with users here that the easiest solution here is to remove pronouns referring to Hayes altogether. TheXuitts (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

How is this easier than just using the right pronouns? Oh, you don't mean the solution is "easier", you mean the solution enables you to avoid the responsibility of growing as a person and overcoming the prejudices and bigotry you've made obvious in your edit notes here and elsewhere. At this point I no longer believe this is a case of being unaware of WP guidelines, but simply anti trans sentiment. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:EC75:AA79:65EB:5A37 (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
(This is a general note rather than making any specific opinion myself.) I don't really have an opinion as to the right option in this specific scenario but I do want to note that Wikipedia's guidance on this expressly says omission of pronouns altogether should be a last resort. Because I don't have an opinion (because I haven't looked into this enough), I don't know if this is at that point yet, but I wanted to note it. - Purplewowies (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What? Dude, Hayes is a woman, I completely understand that. But they were identified as a man when the crime was committed so it’s kind of rewriting history to refer to them as a woman in parts of the article discussing the timeline of the crime and legal proceedings and confuse readers. That’s all. TheXuitts (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Bigotry? I suggest that the IP involved in this discussion halts its combative attitude. And starts being a part of productive discussions instead. BabbaQ (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:GENDERID explicitly says that we should refer to people by their most recently expressed gender identity, even when discussing a time in their life before they came out as trans, unless reliable sources indicate that they prefer otherwise. (As for the "no source says that Hayes uses she/her pronouns", given that she identifies as a woman we should assume that she/her are the correct pronouns unless a source says otherwise. Yes, there are women who use he/him but they are vanishingly rare. We wouldn't refer to a cis woman as "he" on the grounds that "no reliable source explicitly says that they prefer she/her" so we shouldn't do it for trans women either!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I hate to have to defend myself in a discussion that is supposed to be related to the article, and I don’t like giving my views away, but trust me, I am very left-wing on the subjects of trans issues, probably more than you are. My issue here is that I feel as though it isn’t practical for readers to refer to Hayes as a woman before they ever began their transition. I also would like to note that I have not seen a single source stating that Hayes uses feminine pronouns, and the NYT article outright said they didn’t specify. Being a woman doesn’t mean you use feminine pronouns, you could be a woman and use he/him pronouns for example. TheXuitts (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, if you write things like "Hayes was not a woman at the time of XY", in regards to an individum that was diagnosed with gender dysmorphia a decade earlier, you are not "left-wing on the subjects of trans issues" (whatever that is supposed to mean), but either woefully uneducated or a bad faith actor. Why not just go by the Wikipedia rules then? 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:EC75:AA79:65EB:5A37 (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
IP, you need to stop with accusations and name calling like uneducated, bad actor, bigot etc. Immediately. I hope I won’t have to remind you again. This is a productive discussion otherwise.BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I would kindly suggest you stop the tone policing, especially since you are not a moderator - and suspiciously the only other user involved in this conversation that wants to "compromise" on what are clearly written rules. Concern trolling? You talk about a "constructive discussion" while trying to compromise on clearly, unambiguously worded rules. IMO some of what has been said here by anti-trans editors would be enough to warrant punitive action by administrators. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:EC75:AA79:65EB:5A37 (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree that WP:GENDERID applies here (everywhere) and we should be using Hayes' most recently stated gender identity. That said, I don't think we have much to go off of. Besides the NYT piece and a few others published at the same time, I'm not seeing anything about Hayes' gender. We know that Hayes said "I'm a transgender", described themselves as "feminine", was still using the name "Steven", and that they "did not say which pronouns were preferred". Unless there's more info out there somewhere, I think:
  • We should remove the part of the footnote that says "Hayes was a man when the crimes were committed". Even if we're going to continue using he/him pronouns, the "was a man" framing implies something incorrect about trans people.
  • We should either use no pronouns or they/them pronouns, the two best choices when any person's pronouns are unknown, especially a trans person. The NYT article avoids using any pronouns.
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
In the 2019 NYT article, Hayes mentions present[ing] as a female, and being diagnosed with dysphoria. From this, I feel ostensibly comfortable concluding that Hayes identifies as a trans woman. I respect the desire to not be presumptive wrt pronouns or binary identity, but (speaking from my own experiences), the hyper-cautious use of "they/them until proven otherwise" for people who evidently desire to be perceived as women (Hayes also began HRT) can also come across more insensitive than gracious. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Addendum: I've made this edit which inserts the invisible markup <!--HP--> (Hayes Pronouns) at the start of every instance where Hayes is gendered. This allows faster find-and-replace operations, in case we ultimately decide to omit pronouns, or something else. Because the continued use of he/him in the article bothers me, I've subsequently made this edit which changes all such instances to gender Hayes as female. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 22:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't object to she/her pronouns, but I do feel they/them would be an improvement. Regardless, thank you for standardizing and future-proofing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Per the interviews I quoted below, it definitely seems like Hayes identifies as a trans woman and uses she/her pronouns. My most recent diff also dropped the invisible comments in the process, but they can be restored if necessary. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 22:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Using they/them for Hayes seems reasonable since we have no official pronouns to go off of. TheXuitts (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I second that. Especially since Hayes has not stated anywhere that they use ”she” pronouns. Especially with a controversial subject like this one, they/them pronouns is a better option. If anyone can bring forward a source that supports otherwise. That’s my opinion.BabbaQ (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
From a more recent podcast interview (20 Mar 2021):

[00:01:12]
TOMASO: Hayes has come out as being transgender and has, in fact, been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and is currently receiving treatment for that. During this interview, you will hear me refer to Hayes as both Stephen as well as her preferred name of choice, Linda.

[00:04:24]
HAYES: I am a transgender, so I go by either S. Hayes or Linda Hayes at this point.

From another interview (23 Feb 2020):

[00:02:05]
TOMASO: This January of 2019 is when you actually started living as a transgender woman in the prison system and started receiving hormone replacement, correct?
HAYES: Actually, it was January 2018.
TOMASO: Okay.
HAYES: And I started receiving hormones in February 2018.

The fact that she now prefers Linda (or S.) means MOS:DEADNAME also affects this article, and will probably need some further adjustment. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 01:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Barring any opposition, I've added Linda's name to the lede, the Perpetrators section, and her infobox. The section-link Cheshire home invasion murders#Steven Hayes still works, although I don't think any enWiki articles rely on it. (the disambiguation page Steven Hayes links to the Perpetrators section). See Special:Diff/1131562492. Cheers. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks good. I removed the anchor, having confirmed that no page links to it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a thought re this ...

Having just semi-protected the article for a month, it occurred to me looking through it that maybe, just maybe, if someone discussed in an article has transitioned since the events described, we ought not to have a pretransition picture of them? I mean, it sort of looks ridiculous to be going to the lengths we have (that I just took further) to prevent the deadnaming of one of the murderers when we have their "deadface", so to speak, right there.

Frankly, CTTOI, neither booking photo should be in the article. Neither of them are the subjects of the article, they were not notable for their appearance before the murders, they are both likely to spend most if not all their remaining lives in prison and out of public sight ... and most importantly, as the products of a state criminal justice system rather than the federal government they are not free images. Daniel Case (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The photos alao have invalid fair use rationales (transformative use, which this is not). ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 06:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Nor are they on the whitelist. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
MOS:GIDINFO advises that it is preferable to have no image compared to pre-transition images (and there's some past discussions that seems to show general consensus for this). I have tentatively removed both File:Komisarjevsky, joshua.jpg and File:Hayes,_steven.jpg from this article's infoboxes. I'm not highly knowledgable about WP:NFCC so if you have a moment Maddy from Celeste could you tag these files with {{subst:di-disputed non-free use rationale|1=your concern}}? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
It's worse. They do not, I seem to recall, have any fair use rationale.

Frankly, now that we've removed them from the article, there is no need to tag them ... fair-use images not used in articles are pretty much automatically deleted after a week or so, and that's what these images should be. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Too late; already tagged :p ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Whatever ... same thing will eventually happen. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion, the images added value to the article by their presence and the circumstances of their placement were consistent with the fair use rationale stipulated. Having said these, I will not edit the article to restore my bias (being the editor who originally added them to the article) but will support any uninvolved editor who restores them of their own accord. In any regard, I appreciate being notified of these developments and this discussion. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The fair use rationale stated was never a valid one. I do not see anything at WP:NFCC that would justify it ... my original comment addressed all the possible rationales and found them wanted.
Any editor who would restore those images would be going against policy and IMO consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Followup to this: I had thought at first that once we removed the two pictures of the perpetrators as incarcerees, we should then get rid of the pic of the family. But while in its present position it does not meet the NFCC (I mean, it looks like a picture of, well, a well-off Connecticut doctor and his family, and the stated justification that if we have pics of the perps then we should have pics of the victims a) no longer holds and b) isn't a valid rationale for fair use anyway) it would be fine in the infobox (where we often put a lot of fair-use images of victims of killings; see Murder of Sherri Rasmussen and Chen family murders, both of which I've worked on. So I will move it there. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2023

Add that this Case is on the show Deadly Sins. 2607:FEA8:F420:F400:6CD0:CD81:16A0:73D3 (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Is Hayes notable?

Per WP:BIO, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." I believe that guideline has been applied correctly here; Hayes does not meet the relevant tests for having her own article, which is to say she is not notable for the purposes of the encyclopedia.

If Hayes is not notable, then it necessarily follows that she was not notable under her prior name. Per MOS:DEADNAME: "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page... even if reliable sourcing exists."

If the guideline indicates that her deadname should not be included in any article, is there a basis for overriding it in this article?--Trystan (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a really interesting thought. I know I recently changed up a lot of the names in this article, but I just want to clarify that I didn't add Hayes's former name.
I will admit I'm partially hesitant to dive that far into the meaning of DEADNAME (a bit ironic there), because the distinction between an event committed by a person being notable and and that person being notable for that event ... is a bit thin, even though I think you're correct that Hayes—probably neither then nor now—would warrant her own article. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I'm also a bit hesitant to stir the pot at this time. Still, interested to hear what other say.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you Trystan. This is a clear case of DEADNAME.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Obviously this is a bit of an OTHERSTUFF argument, but I do think what other articles do in similar situations is worth taking note of. I don't know many articles that discuss incarcerated persons who transitioned post-offense. All I can think of is Murder of Thomas and Jackie Hawks, which I haven't worked on (other than deleting some uncited statements) and which is a c-class article, so not the best indicator. But are there articles on such persons that don't include their name at the time of the offense?--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2023 (2)

In sentence "Hayes said in her confession that while she was raping Hawke-Petit on the living room floor..." there are incorrect gender references to "Hayes". "her" should be "his" and "she" should be "he". Sbwebonline (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Not done. Per MOS:GENDERID, when a person's gender could be questioned, we principally use the name and pronouns that align with the person's most recently expressed identity.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

The sentence beginning "According to Hayes's confession, she and Komisarjevsky had planned to rob the Petit house..." the word "she" should be "he" Sbwebonline (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See MOS:GENDERID. Tollens (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheshire_home_invasion_murders/Archive_1&oldid=1183106768"