Talk:Wayne Williams

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

Vandalism[edit]

This page has repeatedly been the subject of childish, sometimes racist or homophobic, vandalism. I'll be keeping an eye on it, but others should, too.Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 23:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== More Vandalism This article has clearly been heavily vandalised, I don't know anything about this subject but anyone who does should try and fix it.

Continuing Vandalism[edit]

This article needs to be locked from anon IPs. I added the unreferenced template, because it is sorely lacking, and in fact has NO citations. I'll try to work on it in the near future, but oh BOY is this a hot topic. I cleaned up vandalism today, which stated that he had escaped from prison! Anyone wanting to work on this with me, just say so on my talk page. Supertheman (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Escaped from prison? Ha! I’m watching it. Miss E Kelly 15:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELKelly23 (talk • contribs)

NPOV[edit]

Wow, this whole article seems to be lacking a neutral point-of-view; it seems very "pro-Wayne-Williams", like the author doesn't believe he committed the murders (which is fine, but that bias shouldn't show in the article). 162.136.192.1 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection denied[edit]

Despite the fact that this page has been under vandal attack for 6 years now, and is regularly vandalized (was vandalized again today), this page was denied semi-protection for "insufficient disruptive activity". Some editors may want to watch this page to revert as necessary. 0x0077BE (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source?[edit]

I have raised concerns about a source which is being used in this article at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Editors are invited to participate.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convictions[edit]

The first sentence of the first paragraph reads: 

Wayne Bertram Williams (born May 27, 1958) is an American man convicted for committing most of the Atlanta Child Murders of 1979 through 1981.

Later in the first paragraph reads: 

he has never been formally indicted nor tried for any of them.

So which is it? Was he convicted or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousTube (talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 July 2015‎

Good point. I've rewritten the lead to reflect the body of the article. Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was convicted of two of the murders. The two murders that Williams was convicted of were adult men and had been placed on the official list of victims. So both statements are both true and false at the same time when read out of context. I believe the idea was that he was not convicted of more murders so that the Atlanta DA could try him for more later if he got off on these. Following the trial, the FBI task force concluded that there was enough evidence to link Williams to another 20 of the 29 deaths. Miss E Kelly 15:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELKelly23 (talk • contribs)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wayne Williams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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) 23:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serial killer[edit]

The lede says Wayne Williams is "an American serial killer". However, since he was only found guilty for two murders and is controversially suspected of 23 others, it seems that that would it would be inappropriate to state even in the introduction that he's a serial killer without any elaboration. I would suggest changing this to "murderer" or "alleged serial killer." Snorepion (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per reliable sources, that "the Atlanta Police Department announced that Williams was responsible for at least 23 of the 29 Atlanta murders of 1979–1981" is enough for us to describe him as an American serial killer. General Ization Talk 22:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He was convicted - it is no longer legally "alleged." Note also that the murders ceased once he was in custody. Someone removed those RS cites - they should be reinstated.50.111.50.240 (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serial killer redux[edit]

Since the edit warrior hasn't yet started a discussion, I will. In the interest of objectivity, at this point I'm not supporting either side of the debate. My main goal here is to point out that there are several issues at play. I ask other editors to add to these issues if I have omitted any. "Serial killer" (SK) has been in the article a while, making it the default consensus. As we know, however, consensus can change. From my understanding a source cited in the article identifies him as a SK. On the other hand, I suspect there are sources out there that do not identify him as a SK; but then we have the problem that it's generally impossible to prove a negative. Ideally Wikipedia's content should reflect the general consensus of reliable sources that know what they're talking about. The killings stopped after he was arrested, but should Wikipedia be synthesizing its own conclusions based on convictions that didn't happen? Serial killer cites several reliable sources that SK is defined as committing three or more murders. Sometimes sources disagree. Consistency on Wikipedia isn't mandatory but it's great when it can be achieved. Another issue is: where do we draw the line? If murdering two people defines SK, I suspect that are many, many articles about murderers that could become elevated to SK. Thanks in advance for the discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose: What in the name of facts could you possibly be talking about? That something is featured for any period of time in non-peer reviewed articles doesn't mean there is consensus. It means that people take for granted that the content creators/editors know what they are talking about and don't themselves feel it necessary to question it. As for consensus, this is not something subject to popular opinion. There are facts in this case, many of them undisputed. Among these is that the criminal justice system, not mere popular publications, used to support anything in such articles, defines (not opines) a serial killer as having murdered more than 2 people over a period of time. I'm confused- are you trying to contest a standing legal definition? Even is so, that's nullification at best. You state that you're sure there are other sources that do not consider Mr. Williams a serial killer, in conjunction with the 1 cited that allegedly does. Except the former is the whole of the United States justice system. The FBI, the Justice Department, the courts, law enforcement, and forensic psychologists, form the bases for such "consensus." Popular opinion among the populace does not. Again, the difference of fact vs. opinion. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that they carry the same weight. They do not. As for the supposed impossibility of proving a consensus, again countering fact with opinion does not render consensus asunder. It is not impossible to prove to the negative, as there is a standing definition that is agreed upon by its pertinent experts, and objectively Mr. Williams does not fit that definition. The killings having stopped at any point is circumstantial, and therefor has no bearing on the assertion that Mr. Williams is a serial killer. The convictions that "didn't happen" as you state, are where your whole effort comes undone. Those convictions didn't happen. Therefor, he is NOT GUILTY of them, because they didn't happen. Accordingly, with no convictions, he meets no standard of a proven serial killer. A standard set forth by the whole of the justice system. There's your consensus. And as for where to draw the line? Again, legal definitions are at play to supersede ill/misinformed opinion. It is not a standard of 2, but rather 3 or more, and I honestly don't know what you're talking about when you suggest the number is 2. You seem to be dealing exclusively in some notion that there is a debate to be had here when no facts whatsoever support that. It is disturbing that this must be explained to someone who edits an informative platform on a routine basis. Wikipedia is meant to reflect facts. The facts in this case are established to the extent that there is no room for doubt that Mr. Williams is simply not a serial killer, and that to assert otherwise in writing, while also being blatantly wrong, is in fact libel. There's no threat in that. It is, again, a statement of fact. I submit that anything short of this scrutiny is a failing of the facts, and possesses undue potential to defame a living human being. This does not reflect an opinion of you. That's the point- none of it does. Opining and establishing facts are two entirely different things with entirely different weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.233.114.227 (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."

It is breathtaking the extent to which a few lay editors are taking it upon themselves to defame a living man as a serial killer of children, a notion that is objectively false (see all the credible sources that keep being deleted). This is a misleading label that does not apply to the man in question, by any credible stretch, that carries with it the potential for real world consequences that unduly affect the man in question. Editors, sitting behind the shield of a computer screen, toying with the life of a human being to make their point, pretending that there is some obligation to them (not the man who stands to reap this potential damage) to have them be consulted so that they may agree upon a falsehood that is ill-sourced and potentially libel. Facts have no such obligation. It is a clear violation of the site's own policies. It is not protected by this website, and is in fact potentially damaging to the site and its reputation. 47.233.114.227 (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP 47, thanks for responding to my request for more opinions. If you wish to discuss how an unchallenged consensus on Wikipedia is determined, this is not the appropriate venue; go to WT:CON. To discuss what Wikipedia considers a reliable source, got WP:RSNB. To discuss libel and legal implications of Wikipedia content, go to WP:BLPN. Sundayclose (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, IP user, please read WP:NOTAFORUM as well as WP:CIVIL. Please keep commentary focused on the content; you veer off into denigrating your fellow editors, which is unnecessary, uncivil, and doesn't further discussion - focus on edits, not editors, please. We can disagree on these matters in a collegial spirit, it may take some effort at times, but it is worth it in the long haul.Anastrophe (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t need the serial killer definition on this page - maybe it should be on the talk page of the serial killer wiki? Miss E Kelly 15:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELKelly23 (talk • contribs)

Aftermath[edit]

I think the Aftermath section should be reworked. Here is what I propose to change.

The first part of the opening sentence that reads "Williams was not tried for most of the Atlanta Child Murders" is factually incomplete and misleading since in fact he was not tried for any of them. I propose changing this sentence to read "Williams was never tried for any of the Atlanta Child Murders. However, police attributed 22 other deaths, including those of 18 minors, to Williams." This statement is supported by the currently referenced CNN "Victims..." article.

The second part of that sentence, plus the next sentence, currently reads "including that of Curtis Walker, age 13, whose body was dumped into Atlanta's South River in 1981. However, it was Walker's death which prompted the Atlanta Police and the FBI to conduct surveillance on Atlanta's bridges." This information is not appropriate for the Aftermath section, so I propose to remove it. Although I think it is extraneous to this article since it makes a statement about the police investigation into the murders rather than a statement about Williams, the subject of his article, I wouldn't object to adding something to the same effect in the "Atlanta murders" section. I'll leave that for another editor to do if they like.

Finally, the text reading "Williams became a suspect in May 1981 after being encountered by police near one of the bridges and was arrested the following month" is also not a statement about the aftermath of Williams' crimes, and it simply restates a fact that was more completely and clearly explained in the first paragraph of the earlier "Atlanta murders" section, so I propose to remove it.

I welcome any comments on this proposal. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please defend your request to remove "it was Walker's death which prompted the Atlanta Police and the FBI to conduct surveillance on Atlanta's bridges". Are you claiming that Walker's death and the event that prompted law enforcement to conduct surveillance that eventually helped identify Williams are not notable? Sundayclose (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the argument is not that it is not notable, it's that it's not 'aftermath', as the section is entitled. It needs to be discussed elsewhere in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, Anastrophe, thanks. I don't agree that it "needs" to be discussed elsewhere in this article (as it would in the Atlanta murders of 1979–1981 for example) because it doesn't bear on Williams himself, but as I said, I don't object to someone else choosing to state that fact elsewhere. This proposal is purely about the Aftermath section. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IP 67: Except you stated that it should be removed, and, in fact, you did remove it completely -- twice. Please restate your proposal, including where the information about Walker should go in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sundayclose, you are in error. Please review the edit history. You will see that I've only made one edit to the article, and that edit did not remove the first sentence in the section. My proposal is clearly stated. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you denying that this edit removed the sentence "However, it was Walker's death which prompted the Atlanta Police and the FBI to conduct surveillance on Atlanta's bridges."? Sundayclose (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I deny that I did it "twice" as you claimed at 01:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC) above. Please address the substance of my current proposal rather than obsessing over my original bold edit, which you have already reverted. We have moved on to "discuss" now. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am addressing the substance of your proposal. You proposed to delete the information I quoted above, even though you have denied that you did so.. If you have rescinded your proposal to delete it, please restate your proposal to include where that information should go. Sundayclose (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all take a step back, this is becoming unnecessarily confrontational. I don't see any demands in the proposal, only a request for comments. As such, the proposal can be ignored, addressed, dismissed, accepted, or reworked. At the moment it appears to be a mountain and molehill matter. The material quoted in the proposal has nothing to do with the _aftermath_. As such, it belongs elsewhere, whether here in this article or other associated articles is immaterial. I have no objection to its removal from the _aftermath_ section because it is non-sequitur in that location. Where else it might go, I don't really care.Anastrophe (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anastrophe, thanks for the additional comments. Nothing needs to happen quickly here, so I'll let the matter rest for a few days to see if there are any other comments. If I see no stoppers, I will proceed as I proposed. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IP 67, do not remove the sentence "it was Walker's death which prompted the Atlanta Police and the FBI to conduct surveillance on Atlanta's bridges". That has been challenged, and you don't have consensus to remove it. Either move it to a different place in the article, or leave it where it is. And please be mindful of WP:CANVASS. Sundayclose (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sundayclose, please explain why that sentence needs to be in this article. This article is about Williams, and that statement does not contribute anything to that topic. There is a separate article at Atlanta murders of 1979–1981 that describes the progress of the investigation, and that article is linked from the very first paragraph of this one. At this point I still intend to implement my proposed changes, and I am on firm ground in doing so unless you can offer an argument based on reason rather than demands and threats. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable because it was a major event that eventually led to the arrest of Williams. That makes it relevant to Williams. One sentence certainly doesn't violate WP:WEIGHT. This information has been in the article over nine years, which clearly makes it the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, and that's enough to make your "firm ground" argument irrelevant. So a new consensus is needed to remove it since your proposal to remove it has been challenged. At this time there is nothing close to such a new consensus. The information stays somewhere in the article without that consensus, and it would be a policy violation for you to remove it. That's not a "threat"; it's a statement of policy. If you've edited as long as you say you have, you should already know this. This is why I repeatedly asked for the proposal to be restated to indicate where the information would be placed in the article. And I'll remind you again: Be mindful of WP:CANVASS. Sundayclose (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sundayclose, please assume good faith. IP user did not canvass; I responded here _before_ any contact took place; advising a fellow editor of further discussion does not constitute canvassing; for the record, to the best of my knowledge I've never interacted with IP user before on Wikipedia, but at this point, I'm feeling like I should also add that I've never been a member of the Communist Party.... IP editor is engaged in good-faith discussion, and is not running roughshod over other editors. Please. Be. Civil. IP user has been entirely reasonable in their discussions here, making no demands of other editors, instead requesting comment and input.

Above, you have actually made the argument for the information being moved elsewhere, because you state "it was a major event that eventually led to the arrest of Williams" - precisely! It has nothing to do with AFTERMATH.

Here are the two paragraphs that constitute 'Aftermath':

Williams was not tried for most of the Atlanta Child Murders, including that of Curtis Walker, age 13, whose body was dumped into Atlanta's South River in 1981. However, it was Walker's death which prompted the Atlanta Police and the FBI to conduct surveillance on Atlanta's bridges. Williams became a suspect in May 1981 after being encountered by police near one of the bridges and was arrested the following month.
Williams is serving his sentence at Telfair State Prison. On November 20, 2019, Williams was again denied parole. He will next be eligible for parole in November 2027.

Only the second paragraph constitutes "Aftermath". Sundayclose, you are welcome to move the information elsewhere, but as it is currently placed, it is non-sequitur and inappropriate. It is not aftermath. It's a snippet of commentary pertaining to the investigation of the Atlanta Child Murders, not 'aftermath' pertaining to Wayne Williams BLP, and since he was neither tried nor convicted of Curtis Walker's death, it literally adds nothing factual to the article. It belongs in the aforementioned Atlanta murders article. Anastrophe (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anastrophe: Thanks for your comments. Just to clarify, I did not accuse IP 67 of canvassing. I was actually trying to avoid their unintentional policy violation because they have not seemed to understand some policies based on their edits in this and other articles. IP 67 is certainly free (and entitled) to remove the proposed material with the exception of "it was Walker's death ... surveillance on Atlanta's bridges". That would be a violation of the current consensus unless a new consensus is established. And, respectfully, I disagree that the sentence adds nothing to the article, as I have stated above. Relocating it is not the same as removing it, so IP 67 can move it elsewhere within this article without violating consensus. If IP 67 doesn't know where to relocate it, it should be discussed here. The issue of where to move it is why I repeatedly asked for the proposal to be restated. Sundayclose (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately I may have discovered a bigger problem with the sentence in question: I can find no sources that back up the claim that 'it was Walker's death which prompted the Atlanta Police and the FBI to conduct surveillance on Atlanta's bridges." The existing source linked in the article is a dead domain. No problem, visit archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20070208173240/http://truthinjustice.org/wayne-williams.htm Problem: That article says precisely nothing to corroborate the claim that Walker's death was the specific catalyst. More searching...nope, not adding up. Walker was found dead March 6, 1981, in the Chattahoochee River.

  • Joseph Bell, March 19, 1981, South River.
  • Timothy Hill, March 30, 1981 Chattahoochee.
  • Eddie Duncan, March 31, 1981, Chattahoochee.
  • Michael McIntosh, April 20, 1981, South River.
  • Jimmy Ray Payne, April 27, 1981, Chattahoochee.

surveillance of twelve bridges was established April 27, 1891.

I can find no attribution it was Walker's death that spawned the proposal; going by the fact that bridge surveillance was established the same day as Jimmy Ray Payne was found, that would tend to suggest his death was what prompted the proposal; however, that's speculation absent a source. Here's a link to the article with the above statistic, note, it's a PDF: https://fbistudies.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/FBI-Grapevien-Atlanta-Child-Murders-Susan-Lloyd.pdf

I could be wrong. This is not an exhaustive investigation on my part, but I have spent roughly an hour poking around. As I see it now, we have an unreferenced assertion, in the wrong place, in the wrong article. Again, I could be wrong and would welcome being corrected on the matter if so. Anastrophe (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anastrophe: Thanks for finding that and for looking for a source. I'll also look. In the mean time, we should put a "citation needed" tag after the sentence, wherever it ends up. If no one finds a source in the next week or two, the sentence can be removed. For that matter, I see no harm in leaving everything in place for a week or two, but I won't insist on that. Sundayclose (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also did some looking around. This article says Walker's body was found in early March and was the second body to be found in a river. This article also says five more bodies were found in the Chattahoochee by the end of April and that the bridge surveillance had been going on for "over a month" before May 22, when Williams was first stopped. (I will note that the latter article's opening paragraph says this happened in April, but that is inconsistent with all other sources as well as the same article's later reference to May 22; I assume the reporter just made a mistake in the lede.) So at most, Walker was just one of several victims whose discovery led to the bridge surveillance program, and is not individually notable. Because WP:BLPCITE says unsourced and contentious statements should be removed immediately, not marked with "citation needed," I am making my proposed changes now. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The unsourced material has no bearing on the one living person related to this article: Wayne Williams. So a "citation needed" tag is acceptable for a while. Sundayclose (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? If that is the case, then the previous argument that it was relevant and notable to Williams was moot; it can't be both. It directly mentions Williams. It is directly related to him, and directly mentions him. I'm not understanding this argument. It is a BLP, and there's no source. Out it must go, that's a hard policy - unlike elsewhere, where a cite needed is tolerated, that is not the case on BLP's. Anastrophe (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for updating the article. Anastrophe (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Serial killer"[edit]

I think it's utterly repulsive to refer to this man as a serial killer when he proclaims his innocence. What proof does Wikipedia itself have that he is such? None, I bet. I'm going to put it in quotes, because it's obviously just the opinion of the police. I swear, some naive people seem to think that the police can always be trusted, and any statement they make must be the "official" truth. Authority worshippers are truly pitiful. 139.168.130.225 (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions of doubt, using quotation marks to imply doubt, also known as scare quotes, is a form of editorializing, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please find reliable sources which discuss Williams' innocence. If reliable sources dispute the description of serial killer, then the article should be updated based on those sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dumb fuck a jury of his peers found him guilty. many other serial killers have also proclaim their innocence. 50.231.171.186 (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wayne_Williams&oldid=1210434511"