Talk:White House Farm murders

message: * There were a couple of images removed by Eeng (Douglas Hurd, explained as "rm photo telling the reader nothing" and Chelmsford Crown Court, explained as "rm irrelevant image of nondescript building"), and I think these probably need further discussion too. My own take is that although such images don't directly aid reader understanding, they help break the article and thus avoid the 'wall of text' feel, which makes it more manageable on the eye. Having said that, I'll leave that point open for discussion too. – SchroCat (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed images

message: OK, I've had a look at this in a little more detail now, and I think it best if this section as a whole is discussed here, as I am in two minds about it. For those following the game at home it concerns These two edits.
There is good logic in both approaches, which is why I keep swaying between the two. One has the information contained in a standalone section, the other has the information shared in two of the sections above it where the finances relate to the subjects of the two sections. Both are valid approaches and I think it would be best if others comment on which they see is best and why. We may be able to reach a consensus if the merits of the different versions are examined. (And please, no re-running the histories of who deleted or reverted, let's just discuss the best placement for the text for the uninformed reader who visits this next year: what will work best for them). - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Extended family, inheritance section should be standalone. As the first sentence states: "The financial ties and inheritance issues within the immediate and extended family provided a motive and added a layer of complexity to the case." The issue has been a source of continued contact between Bamber and his cousins, as he has tried from prison to obtain a share of the money. It is part of his defence case that the cousins who found the silencer stood to gain from the inheritance. They, in turn, feel that he's harassing them from jail. SarahSV (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Extended family ("Retained") section

message: I've removed the name of Sheila's biological grandfather, which was added a few months ago. If you disagree, we can restore it. When I wrote this article, I decided not to name the extended or biological families. I did name David Boutflour, because he found the silencer, and he has made several statements (although always reluctantly, I think). None of them chose to be involved in this, obviously, and the continued effort by the campaign to highlight the cousins' names must have been very disturbing. SarahSV (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Family names

message: The current article's  ===Telephones_in_the_farmhouse=== section reads:
:
Whether Nevill really called Jeremy, whether the line cleared and so on, were central to the case and are discussed elsewhere in the article. In those discussions there's mention of the phone in the kitchen, off hook but apparently unbloodied. But none of the other phones, and the many facts about them given in the quoted passage, is referenced anywhere else in the article. SV says (in another thread)  and indeed I have little doubt that all the phones, whether each was bloodied, where they were, where they would normally be, what happened to the one out for repair, and everything else about them was meticulously examined at some point, but if any of it mattered in the final analysis there's no hint of it in the article. When readers encounter this meticulous inventory, they're naturally going to think: "OK, obviously this stuff matters. Just why will become clear at some point." But it never happens.  The reader is fed all this stuff for no apparent reason. The colors, the pile of magazines, which ones had redial, where they normally wereit's all for nothing and a complete waste of the reader's brainpower and attention. See WP:RISOTTO. Maybe later some material will be added added that bears on these other phones; for example, SV says . Well, when we have a source on that (a theory Jeremy intentionally put the phones out of reach, maybe?) and the source discusses the other phones, then add such detailsbut do it where it's needed to comprehend the source's point, not in some preliminary standalone section leaving the reader hanging. (My original edits, with summaries explaining all this, are .) EEng 04:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Were any of them "digital" phones? Or is what is meant actually "push button"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you mention it, given the date they're undoubtedly push-button telephones, not anything "digital"; in the edit here  the link to digital phone is clearly incorrect. The phrase digital phone apparently comes from a court opinion  penned by technically un-savvy jurists who didn't recognize the anachronism, but I'd be somewhat surprised if at least one secondary source doesn't recognize and clarify this error. It's a great illustration of why we're supposed to use secondary sources, and yet another example of this article's inappropriate reliance on primary sources instead.And I'm still waiting for an explanation of what any of this stuff about the phones has to do with anything beyond a endless accretion of tiny details. EEng 23:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently my request for an explanation of the relevance of all this detail was misinterpreted as a request to add to the article (a) the brand names of the phones and (b) the fact that the phone in the bedroom was, specifically, on the bedside table . EEng 03:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And to link to Telephony#Digital_telephony (), regardless of the issue I raised above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I tagged that . Listen, re my OP in this thread, do you see any function of all this detail about the phones serves? Am I missing something? EEng 17:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall that the location, serviceability and use of various phones was an issue in the case, but don't know the details. However, see  and the (more reliable?) documents  it cites. I note that Sarah mentioned this issue in her post timestamped "19:06, 19 July 202". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may suggest, please read more closely my OP. TLDR version: it's clear the phones had great significance; but since, as of now, the article says nothing whatsoever about that significance (other than with respect to the one bloody phone), the reader is fed all those many details for no purpose he will be able to discern, and is thus left scratching his head. Those details, therefore, do not assist the reader's understanding of the case but rather impede it, and should therefore be omittedfor the present. When discussion of the significance of the phones is added to the article, then such details about them, as are necessary to support that discussion, can be added as well. EEng 22:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Phones

message: I would oppose any changes to the lead (apart from minor changes like linking murder-suicide). I wrote it very carefully. Everything that's needed is there, and there's nothing unnecessary. The final "that he was the killer himself" is needed for the cadence.Also, re: the first point above: "found Bamber guilty on 28 October 1986 by a majority of ten to two". That has already been changed: "On 28 October, after deliberating more than nine hours, the jury found Bamber guilty by a majority of ten to two (the minimum required for conviction)." SarahSV (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's already been changed, I was suggesting a minor variation that replaced the brackets with a comma. - SchroCat (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Re the cadence, my internal reading voice hasn't had enough coffee to get the subtlety of cadence, so can you elucidate a little on that point? - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what SV's saying and himself may have a place here, but it depends on the context; I actually put himself back later (though by that time the rest of the sentence had been revised). But we've got bigger fish to fry. EEng 18:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Re: "A silencer the prosecution said was on the rifle would have made it too long..." Written that way because it is disputed that there was a silencer. SarahSV (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've struck my suggestion, given the explanation. - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Silencer

message: Diff   	Extant text                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            	Proposed text                                                                                                                                                                                                                        	SC's Comments
10     	It became a central plank of the prosecution's case that the father had made no such call, and that the only reason Bamber would have lied about it—indeed, the only way he could have known about the shootings when he alerted the police—was that he was the killer.	A central prosecution contention was that Nevill Bamber had made no such call, and that it would have been impossible for Jeremy Bamber to have known about the shootings at the time he alerted the police unless he was the killer.	(Extant version remains)
There is a nuanced difference between the two and the removal of the clause between the dashes changes it detrimentally, I think.
11     	Bamber was convicted of the murders in October 1986 by a 10–2 majority, sentenced to a minimum of 25 years, and informed in 1994 that he would never be released.                                                                                                      	Bamber was convicted of the murders in October 1986 and sentenced to a minimum of 25 years; in 1994 he was informed that he would never be released.                                                                                 	(Extant version remains)
This was altered with the es "I don't think the specific jury vote is leadworthy". I think it probably is noteworthy, given if it had been 9-3 he would not have been convicted
12     	Criminal Cases Review Commission referral information                                                                                                                                                                                                                  	Removal of list of grounds on which appeal was made                                                                                                                                                                                  	(Extant version remains)
Removed with the es "". Primary sources are not banned from WP (the policy states "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia", as long as the material is not analysed, evaluated, interpreted or synthesised), so we are all good on that score. Yes, they are phrases (not that there is a problem with that), and I am not sure if they are unelucidated: they are placed in context and phrases give readers a quick and easy view of the range of topics on which Bamber was basing his appeal (readers get a better idea from the phrases than from the replacement text "the remainder relating to failure to disclose evidence or alleged fabrication of evidence").
13     	it had been on the gun when she died                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   	it had been on the gun when she was shot                                                                                                                                                                                             	(Extant version remains)
Personally I would go with "shot", but it's a minor thing I wouldn't worry about either way
14     	but her arms were not long enough to point the gun back at herself and pull the trigger with the silencer attached.                                                                                                                                                    	but this would have made the gun so long that she would not have been able to point it at herself and still reach the trigger.                                                                                                       	(Extant version remains)
Again a minor difference between the two; I'd have a slight preference to the extant version
Sources	                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       	                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     	
These are the second batch of comments on the one-by-one review. - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: SV seems to be on a break, so let's try to put things on hold until she's back. In the meantime I have a question for you: what exactly do you mean by ? Since extant means "the thing that's now there/still there", it sounds like you're saying "the thing that's there remains". Clarify? EEng 04:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is a slight tautology, but it means the previous version (Sarah SV), as opposed to the proposed one (Eeng). I was trying to avoid personalising the versions to say whose it was, which keeps the focus on the words, rather than the editor behind them. - SchroCat (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Second batch

message: This entire section seems problematic to me for neutrality and repetition. It is sourced to a single book, rather than to the unspecified documents, and the topics included are all disputed, not determined one way or the other as presented here. Many of the subjects also are not new and are already discussed in the above text of the article with more objectivity. If there is new or additional discussion on these points it should be included at the relevant places in the body of the article instead and not presented as settled if still under dispute. KKThinks (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I was the one who wrote the section - apologies for it seeming to not be neutral, having read it again I can see that aspects of it are not appropriate. The reason why is that a lot of the language I used was taken directly from the documentary - for example the first line "vital documents from the investigation have surfaced, revealing alarming contradictions in the prosecution's case" uses the exact words of the programme, so may have unwittingly inherited that documentaries line on the case. I can also see that some of the information was already covered in other sections, although certainly not all of it. What I think would be appropriate was if I added some more sources, and then added the few things as of yet unmentioned in the appropriate sections. ErraticDrumlin (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  “New Evidence” 

message: Given that there are multiple people with the surname "Bamber", referring to Jeremy Bamber as simply "Bamber" (as opposed to "Jeremy") throughout the article is confusing and at odds with the manual of style, which says "To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to them by their given names for clarity and brevity" (emphasis added). I am going to start changing this to fix the problem. However, because the word "Bamber" occurs 300 times in multiple contexts, it would be incredibly tedious to do it all in one go, so it will be broken up into several separate edits, and any help would be appreciated. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jeremy" vs "Bamber" in text.