Talk:Albert Pierrepoint

message: "From entering the condemned man's cell to opening the trapdoor took him a maximum of 12 seconds." Impressive! Maybe 12 minutes? GreatCaesarsGhost 03:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember seven seconds was his record. But he never took more than a minute and usually it was less than thirty seconds. Pierrepoint was a master at his craft. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This most definitly is not the sortathing you want to be a master at however RJS001 (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Quite right, Ad Orientem, the record was seven seconds. Pierrepoint considered that if you dallied getting the prisoner bound and made them wait on the scaffold, it was cruel - too much mental torture for them, so he considered that speed and dignity was best. His assistant at the Lord Haw Haw execution remembers that Pierrepoint left his cigar burning while they went to the cell, carried out the execution and returned before any ash had fallen. - SchroCat (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  As lead executioner 

message: In the fourth paragraph, it says:
"He wrote his memoirs in 1974 in which he concluded that capital punishment was not a deterrent, although he may have changed his position after that."
I mean, of course he might have, but is there a reason to believe he did, granting the inclusion of this sentence? Or is it just someone's opinion?
edit
ok, I saw now the reference to a later interview, I still think that phrasing sounds unclear, perhaps something like "although later statements might suggest a change of position"?
--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 18:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As it's the lead, it's fine as it is. The detail is in the article, if people want to read. - SchroCat (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Although he may have changed his position after that" 

message: "He approached his task with gravity" - very funny, for a hangman, but hardly appropriate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.171.47.88 (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravity 

message: Hi yes had my link that I say we have the correct number of executions 433 removed (This 433 is not the same 433 that is also mentioned in paragraph) - how do I challenge that it has been removed thanks Matthew Spicer .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Spicer True Crime (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was removed for a couple of reasons, not least that the magazine does not appear to be of a WP:RELIABLE standard. You adding it as one of the authors is a bit of a problem with the WP:COI policy too. As I said on your talk page, as the same figure is also provided by a reliable source, this addition is, in any case, superfluous. - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK:) This is far too complicated for me - but thanks for your time:) BTW my 433 is not 'superfluous' as 433 is Albert's total executions, whereas the so-called 'reliable source' has 433 men and 17 women so is incorrect - he actually hanged 433 people including 16 women .... m:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Spicer True Crime (talk • contribs) 16:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As there is some debate over the number by several parties, I don't think any of them can ever actually be deemed to be "complete and accurate". - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

text: No, it wouldn't. As I've said above, the magazine does not appear to be of a WP:RELIABLE standard. - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed article (unreliable/COI