Talk:Bradley John Murdoch

message: Surely all this stuff should be merged into the Peter_Falconio_disappearance article? It's about the trial, not the individual. Flapdragon 03:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prosecution/defence evidence 

message: There seems to be way too much info on the Murdoch parody. A short mention, if at all, would do. Georgeslegloupier 14:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Parody

message: "He stands 196cm tall."
As far as I'm concerned, his height is not relevant at all to anything.--Alhutch 10:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe it says that anywhere in the article. Perhaps that could be mentioned. I was just pointing it out because it seems like a non-sequitir where it's located now.--Alhutch 11:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess 196cm tall is a distinguishing feature you wouldn't forget and is impossible to conceal. ... Stumps 11:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  relevance 

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I have removed a large chunk of this article due to violations of WP:BLP. The subject of this article is a living person (being in prison does not lessen our obligations under that policy). The material I removed consisted of a long explanation of his arrest and trial and evidence used, with no citations provided which related that material to this article subject.
Also part of that content which I removed was a referenced bit talking about one of the DNA techniques used to identify the perpetrator, and how its reliability was questioned in the UK. This could conceivably be included in the article if the unreferenced material is re-added with citations, however in light of the material I have removed, its presence right now in the article would be redundant.
The final piece of content which I removed from the article was information about another crime which occurred near Carnarvon; the references which were provided about this did not even mention Murdoch. Wikipedia is not a place for speculation and the formation of conspiracy theories. If a reference can be found showing how that crime is relevant to Bradley John Murdoch, then perhaps this would be relevant to his article, but otherwise it should stay out, in my opinion.
Anyway, when adding back information about Murdoch's trial, citations should really be provided for everything. - Mark 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with everything you say Mark. Well done. —Moondyne click! 01:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too, and I added at least one of the deleted references. I had left the other crime stuff in as I wondered if there had been other news coverage I had missed that linked the new crime to Murdoch in some sense. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed uncited material 

message: Can we please consider removing the link "Did Bradley Murdoch murder Peter Falconio? December 2007"
This links to a commercial website owned by someone called S.C Lomax which promotes his books. The link takes visitors to the "Did Bradley Murdoch murder Peter Falconio?" page. This page contains serious inaccuracies that render the source incredible.
Sintch (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of link to commercial site