Jump to content

Talk:White House Farm murders/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Campaign website

A recently-added link to http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/ was removed with the edit summary "there is no official website about the White House Farm murders" (which was odd, as it was actually labelled "Jeremy Bamber Campaign Official Website"). I restored it, with an amount of reformatting and a more NPoV link text. It has again been removed, with the edit summary "please gain consensus for this on talk".

Quite apart from WP:DNRNC, no cogent reason why the link, which is clearly relevant to the article, should not appear on it has been advanced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Bamber has been convicted of the murders, and the view that it was a miscarriage of justice is not one that current RS support. His websites are self-published, it isn't known who controls them, and over the years they've contained unsupported allegations against named living people. SarahSV (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
"His websites are self-published" As are many other external sites we link to. So what? "view.. not one that current RS support [...] unsupported allegations against named living people" Just like many other sites we link to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Inclusion of the website would violate UNDUE and WP:BLPEL:

External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and, when including such links in other articles, make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. ... In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline.

SarahSV (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
There is no breach of UNDUE involved, and your quote from BLPEL is clearly meant to refer to adding hate sites to their subject's biographies, not a case like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
BLPEL doesn't state or imply that it refers to hate sites; it means exactly what it says. SarahSV (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing word

In the section "Events outside", this sentence is garbled: "After the bodies were discovered, a Dr. Craig, was called to the house to certify the deaths, which he testified could have occurred at any time during the night." I think it needs to say "the coroner, a Dr. Craig". Fences&Windows 22:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It's Dr. Ian Craig,[1] and he seems to have been a police surgeon rather than a coroner (that was just my guess). Fences&Windows 22:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Another small issue: why are different pound signs used, i.e. ₤ for older amounts vs £ for newer? The pound has not changed as a currency over the time since these murders. Fences&Windows 22:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Citation style

Noting here, per WP:CITEVAR, that I'd like to introduce {{sfn}} for the 2002 appeal citations to create clickable links. Please say here if there are objections. SarahSV (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

BRD

Hi Simply-the-truth, re: the recent text removal and reverting [2] (marked as minor), please observe Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The article has been carefully written and has been stable for some time. If there's anything mistaken, please list it here with a source, or if there's something not in a source, please add a cite tag or add a better source yourself. But don't keep removing text. SarahSV (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Style consistency

I have made minor changes to the article to make it more consistent throughout in regards British English style conventions, ie. Dr rather than Dr., Mr rather than Mr., and 3.30 rather than 3:30. Aerach (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Alleged crime-scene damage section

White House Farm murders#Alleged crime-scene damage is very one sided, and should be amended or removed entirely. Mick Gradwell is very cautious in his comments, being sure to clarify that he has been shown portrays damage to the crime scene, and that it would be serious if that has happened, and that hasn't been disclosed. This was all brought up during the original trial, I refer you to the 2016 book The Murders at White House Farm: The shocking true story of Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family by Carol Ann Lee (ISBN 978-1447285755):

Page 185

The two men examined her more closely, noticing a bloodstain on her nightdress under her wrist. In order to see it clearly, Cook moved her hand and asked DC Bird to take shots of it. Crime scene photographs thus show Sheila's hand in two positions and from a slightly different angle. At trial, Cook explained that his aim had been 'to demonstrate the blood marks which were not readily visible under the wrist'. Bird confirmed that he was present and had already taken 'a series of photographs' when Cook moved Sheila's hand 'to show the marks on the nightdress'. Acting Sergeant Woodcock also mentions Cook's action in his witness statement

Pages 346-347

Queried about the different positions of Sheila's hand in the crime scene shots, he clarified that both photographs were taken at the same time, but Detective Inspector Cook had moved her hand 'because he wanted to show the mark on the nightdress'. He was also questioned about a photograph in which the rifle could be seen leaning against the master bedroom window. Bird told the court: 'I had finished taking photographs in the main bedroom. I had come out and photographed the top landing, and I stood on the middle of the upper set of stairs and took that photograph from up there.' He hadn't been present when the gun was moved from Sheila's body.

Detective Inspector Ron Cook was next into the witness box. He described arriving at the scene and directing his team, adding that he was under DCI Jones's directive. He agreed that he was responsible for moving Sheila's hand in order to view 'the blood marks which were not readily visible under the wrist'. When Junior Counsel Andrew Munday asked him about the rifle photographed in the master bedroom window, Cook replied: 'When we commenced work, I instructed Detective Constable Bird to commence taking a series of photographs. This is normal procedure. Before anything was moved in the main bedroom, I asked him to photograph it first, and then to continue to photograph the remaining parts of the house. This photograph would have been taken after he had taken his original photographs of the main bedroom.'

'Who moved the gun to that position?'

'I did sir.'

'Would that be before or after it had been checked by a firearms officer?'

'It was checked as we removed it from the body, and then stood there having been given a safety check.'

Any suggestions on how this rather important information should be incorporated into the article? 2.123.144.37 (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Image size

Why are the landscape-format images on this article set with |upright=1.2, overriding users' default preferences for image sizes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Having had no response, I've reset the images to default dimensions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Names

Several sections use the name "Bamber" or "the Bamber's". It is not always 100% clear who is being referred to. Generally 'Bamber' appears to relate to Jeremy Bamber, however in some areas when talking about other relatives it would be clearer if the first name was used to distinguish which relative is being referred to. e.g. "Bamber's call to the police" section is not clear when reading as there were 2 Bambers (father and son) involved in the various calls. Suggest changing name to Jeremy where he is being referred to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.138.69.40 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Reverting

EEng, please revert yourself. You've been asked several times to respect BRD. If you continue, I'll report it to EW. SarahSV (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  • ...and back to Sarah's version. EEng, take a read of WP:STATUSQUO. Your edits are mediocre and not up to the standard of what a GA should be. You seem to have a habit of taking a great article - à la Moors murders - and turning it into utter rat shit. You need to learn that although you may seem to think your edits are an improvement, others don't, and when that happens the place to discuss it is here, per WP:BRD. I will be counting the reverts and I will have no hestitation in taking this to a drama board; but I'd rather deal with this like adults, wouldn't you? CassiantoTalk 06:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:STATUSQUO is an essay, and your sweeping denunciations are your usual smokescreen for having nothing substantive to say about the actual edits. Ignored. EEng 06:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • EEng, some of the writing you've added has not been ideal, e.g. "that Nevill could not or did not call Jeremy as Jeremy claimed", [3] and you're removing sentences that link paragraphs and ideas. I put a lot of work into those linking sentences. You're removing details that matter and adding misunderstandings. For example, I named three officers: a PS and two PCs. You replaced the names with "three constables". There's a lot like that throughout that would take far too long to explain (e.g. "the psychatrist, Ferguson", which is odd). I'm pinging Casliber, who reviewed it for GA. SarahSV (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
You don't have to explain them; just fix or refine them. As for GA (a) it's a low bar to say the least, and (b) the article is a far, far different one from the one that passed GA years ago [4].
Beyond that, I'll let my recent edit summary (responding to SV's injunction [5] that I should "propose any further changes on talk first") do most of the talking for me:
No, I don't have to "propose any further changes on the talk page". I've made 100 changes, mostly surgical, over the last 4 days (while you logged in daily), each with an explanatory summary. It's not OK to simply mass revert to throw away all that work w/only blithe summaries such as "last good version" or "restored details". And it's not just my edits you've trashed, but clearly appropriate edits by others. If there are individual changes you feel aren't improvements, revert those of course.
Since you invoked WP:BRD I suggest you read it yourself and think about what it says:
Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen.
Did you go through my edits and revert only those that you thought weren't improvements? No. Did you even one by refinement? No. Did you revert only when necessary? No. You just blindly mass-reverted everything because ... because why, exactly?
Here are a few more things BRD says:
All good things to keep in mind the next time you're tempted to use please respect BRD as your reason for throwing away someone else's work.
What's that you say? You don't have time right now to review all these changes? No problem! There's WP:NODEADLINE. Take all the time you want to review my edits, and selectively revert or refine them. If in doing so you include a brief but substantive edit summary, I predict that in most cases I'll defer to your preference and that will be that, though now and then we may have to hash it out on the proverbial talk page. All very constructive and collegial. Excelsior!
So that just leaves one question: what state will the article be in while you're clearing time in your busy schedule to pass judgment on my work – the "pre" version or the "post" version? The arguments for the "post" version are that bold editing is encouraged and edits should not be reverted without some reason. The argument for the "pre" version is that my edits all unsalvageably bad, which you know because you've looked at them all. Except that's not true of course. If you had, you'd just have reverted or refined whatever needs to be reverted or refined.
So go ahead, report me somewhere and we'll see what the community thinks. You may recall we went through this on Moors murders, and it didn't end well for the article's owners – though this time the threadbare "It's a featured article, a precious flower" fig leaf isn't in play so that should speed things up. Nonetheless please save everyone a lot of trouble and just do what you know (or ought to know) you're supposed to do: look at the edits and selectively revert or refine them, or raise them for discussion. But mass trashing of another editor's careful good-faith work? Shame on you.
EEng 06:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
But that's what you do, EEng. You destroy other people's work. Look how tightly you've controlled Phineas Gage—2,779 edits since 2008—with all its idiosyncrasies. But elsewhere you insist editors make way the minute you arrive. I was the admin on the Moors article. I protected it against your tag-bombing, which had made parts of the article unreadable, and I asked you to stop the personal attacks. That was in August 2019. I don't like conspiracism, but it's hard not to wonder whether this is payback. In your shoes, I would not have followed that admin to an article she had put a lot of work into (or done anything that looked like following), in case she felt it was connected to the Moors article. SarahSV (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I must say, you're certainly dancing as fast as you can. Do you anticipate, any time soon, having anything to say about the 100 edits, other than the sergeant I called a constable, the "not ideal" phrase, and the unspecified missing "linking sentences"? EEng 22:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
EEng, however much you may want it to, this website does not revolve around you and your mistakes. People do not volunteer to fix your mistakes. If your edits are crap they are reverted and it is discussed on the talk page. This is the adult way of dealing with it. The way you are choosing to deal with it is to introduce a shed load of mistakes and bad writing and then expect others to go around after you and fix it all. That is not how it works. Also, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to issue personal attacks (the article's owners). Keep it clean and civil otherwise it's a slippery slope. You single-handedly took Moors murders from a featured article to a C-class. How is that improving the encyclopaedia? CassiantoTalk 07:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
As always you give no evidence. EEng 22:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_House_Farm_murders/Archive_3&oldid=1254991784"