Talk:Lenny Murphy

message: I've reverted the category again. To quote the text on the category page: "Serial killers are individual people who have a history of multiple slayings of individuals usually unknown to them beforehand. Their crimes are committed as a result of a compulsion that invariably has roots in the killer's (often dysfunctional) youth, as opposed to those who are motivated by financial gain (e.g. contract killers) or ideological/political motivations (e.g. terrorist)." Stu ’Bout ye! 07:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is your issue the lack of the requisite slaying or the motivation? John (User:Jwy talk) 21:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mainly motivation. The description of a serial killer specifically excludes terrorism. There are terrorist incidents listed in Mass murder, but they are all single incidents with large numbers of victims. I don't think there's a category that fits Murphy, unless someone wants to create :Category:Scumbags who are better off dead. Stu ’Bout ye! 07:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article currently doesn't directly claim him to be a terrorist (it used to, but its been toned down).  There does seem to be a continuum between "political terrorist" and "homicidal maniac."  If I had to draw a line (based on this article, its my only introduction to the "gentleman") I'm not sure how far, if at all, toward the terrorist side of the line he would be on.  It seems as if his psychological problem just happened to line up with one side of the political battle.  So I would suggest he might fit the category. John (User:Jwy talk) 12:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I see your point, although the google thing is not really applicable unless we want to question the definition of the category.  The issue rests, then, on how much his motivation was "ideological/political."  Sorting that out from a personal obsession about Catholics is beyond what I am motivated to do.  I'm not that interested in delving much further into this "scumbag."  Thanks for your considered responses.  John (User:Jwy talk) 14:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *To categorise him as a serial killer you need a reliable source that describes him as such. If done otherwise, it's just drawing an OR conclusion from (currently) unsourced info. Malick78 (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Serial killer

message: :Image:LennyM.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:LennyM.jpg

message: :Image:LennyM.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 19:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:LennyM.jpg

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 06:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Although Dillon claims that Murphy fathered six children in all, there must be some doubt over this since he was in prison from 1972 to 1982 apart from 10 months in 1975-76. A possible explanation is that he took full advantage of occasional compassionate home visits, if such were granted. However, as his wife divorced him in 1981, this is stretching credibility. Billsmith60 (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Murphy's Children

message: Neither of these assessments are subjective.  It's not uncommon for a mother to judge the son "not a bad man" but there is no real value in such a statement.  The assessment of Murphy as a psychopath is attributed to "an unnamed loyalist paramilitary leader from the UDA", hardly an objective source.  Neither statement belongs in the lead.  Really they don't even belong in the article at all.  --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. Both statements belong in the article. We are encyclopedians not journalists. We present the cold, hard facts and let the readers evaluate the information we provide. We do not judge nor condemn, instead we must strive to remain neutral. We also need to add as much information about the individual as to give the article proper balance and perspective. Therefore the description of Murphy as a psychopath needs to be here, especially as it came from a person who obviously knew him, which is how journalists and authors obtain their information. His mother's description of Murphy (no matter that it's obviously incorrect) provides a counter-balance, which coupled with the known facts about Murphy-his crimes, life, etc. thus enables a reader to form their own judgement of the person without any comments or editorials from us.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that both statements have no place in the article. Whether they are appropriate to the lead is another question. But it is hard to refute the assertion that, from what the article tells us about the subject's life, he wasn't "normal" by any standards! Hence the balance created by two views on him. Anyhow, I'll tweak it slightly and move up the bit about being killed by the IRA in 1982. Billsmith60 (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Murphy's shooting death by the IRA needs to be in the lead.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murphy "not a bad man" vs. "a psychopath" 

message: In the Early Life section it says Murphy was a "hoodlum in school". To my eyes that sounds a bit dated and 1950s-ish; wouldn't delinquent read better and convey the same message?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "hoodlum" is not an uncommon expression in British English, and in Belfast where he came from - and he was raised in the 50s and 60s. It sums him up perfectly! Does everything have to follow the all-conquering American style, a la "delinquent?" Do we have to be robots? Not getting at you in any way but think we can leave it alone. All the best, Billsmith60 (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually when I lived in Dublin, I never heard hoodlum. Hooligan, thug, yobbo or the Dub gurrier were preferred terms. My Belfast boyfriend never used hoodlum. It actually sounds 50s American!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoodlum?

message: More details should be given in the article for Murphy's paramilitary funeral.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Murphy's paramilitary funeral

message: Dillons book, and Daily Record (Scottish Newspaper) front page article three days after Murphy's death it was called ' Evil Fun Of The Butcher'. It is not necessary to reference every sentence or part of a sentence that contains an allegation. If the para has a ref at the end of it that is the ref. Overagainst (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid you are mistaken. A citation needs to be provided for any allegation or statement of fact that is likely to be challenged. How would the reader know that the Dillon ref is covering every allegation in the entire paragraph?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite me a featured article that has the same ref repeated for every assertion throughout each sentence. A definitive book on the case is good for all allegations/statements in a para. Like I said, please feel free to ref Dillons book for every assertion in the relevent para except the last one one. Of course feel free to ref Dillon for the last allegation, statement, or assertion on your own account if you think it justified.Overagainst (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article I brought up to GA Class: Miami Showband killings. I added citations for every allegation or fact that I felt might be questioned or challenged.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "A continued allegation in the case has been the presence of British Army officer and member of 14th Intelligence Company, Captain Robert Nairac at the scene. Former serving Secret Intelligence Service agent Captain Fred Holroyd, and others, suggested that Nairac had organised the attack in cooperation with Robin Jackson and the Mid-Ulster UVF.[43][58] In his maiden parliamentary speech on 7 July 1987, Ken Livingstone MP told the House of Commons, "it was likely" that Nairac had organised the attack.[59]". I can see why you would need a lot o' refs when you venture into those waters. (It may be a GA with that kind of stuff but it would be even better without it IMO.) Anyway, I don't have anything that far fetched mentioned in my edits. You obviously have read Dillon so feel free to remove anything you think is unreferenced and/or wrong. If you think it my edit is accurate and verifiable but just not yet referenced, add any missing refs you wish. Overagainst (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added several refs. The statements about the three murders he committed after his release from prison in July 1982 and the beating of a disabled man should have refs, IMO. Are they in the Dillon book?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing, page numbers need to be included with the citation. I notice that some of the Dillon citations are missing page numbers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is reference to unspecified brothers of Murphy backing him at school. If any of his brothers are living then a ref from Dillon may not be sufficient to mention them in the article. Overagainst (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs for allegations 

message: The source Dillon p.17 states a policeman said that, given his leather jacket gloves and scarf, Murphy reminded him of a WW1 flying ace. Not that Murphy actually sought to create that impression. The essential point is that Murphy was unconcerned about his high profile and being known to police.Overagainst (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The source does not mention Biggles but *does include all the things Jeanne mentioned, which I have restored and reworded a little - and added the correct page no. Please do not revert this referenced fact again, thanks. I agree with your point about Murphy's (ostentatiousness and) high profile, so add it in. Billsmith60 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That he affected that look was wrongly asserted, my intervention was aimed at that error, which I got  corrected. I am not all that bothered about whether the article is detailing what he wore, though it seems to me rather detailed text for an article of this length. IMO it would be better to say he was a flashy dresser, easy to pick out in a crowd. This relates to the point that he was unconcerned about keeping a low profile. (Making himself conspicuous by attending court so much, and  putting on gloves to shake hands with the police he met there ect). And this high profile further relates to the suspicion voiced in the BBC documentary that he had a closer relationship with the police than the police have ever admitted. Overagainst (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The  rewording by User:Billsmith60 looks fine the way is it, why change it to "flashy dresser" which can mean different things to different people?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people might think it means Murphy's high profile, and insouciant attitude to the police knowing who and what he was, represents an anomaly - unless he had some reason to think the police would not target him.  But suit yourself.Overagainst (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there is merit in the point about Murphy enjoying a high profile - though questions of his having nothing to fear from the police are a separate question - and have added a word or two about it in the previous paragraph. I've also slimmed down the physical description a fraction and moved that para. down to fit a little better with the chronology. I trust this is satisfactory. Billsmith60 (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks fine.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dressing like Biggles

message: Fatefully, Lenny did not notice that the IRA van was following him.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.44.27 (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Van 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lenny Murphy. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060213022816/http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/shankill_butchers/index.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/shankill_butchers/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Was He Ever Professionally Diagnosed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.202.204 (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASPD