Talk:White House Farm murders

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? Cassianto^Talk 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", [1] 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 [2].

Beyond that, I'll let my recent edit summary (responding to SV's injunction [3] 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:

• BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
• BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.
• BRD is not mandatory. Neither are editors obliged to start it nor are they obliged to stick to it just because you started it. They may try one of the alternatives given below, or even an alternative not mentioned here.

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? Cassianto^Talk 07:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

As always you give no evidence. EEng 22:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think EEng has a point: this article is less than ideal. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  Roger, Roger! EEng 22:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Back to the proposed changes

Right, if I can drag people back to the text, rather than the "shame on you" aspect: I've gone over the first part in my sand box and tried to be as neutral as I can in looking at the changes that came up in the mass reverts of an hour ago. Not all Eengs edits are bad and there are some good parts in there, but there is also a lot that isn't an improvement on the previous, or is actually detrimental. I've only done down to the start of the "Bamber's visit to the farm" section, but if people see any value in what I've done I will continue to do the rest. If people think I'm being ridiculous, I'll bugger off and leave you all to your big love-in.

• This is my suggestion as it differs from Cassianto's edit of 7:03, 18 July 2020
• This is it as it differs from EEng's edit of 3:08, 18 July 2020‎
  • I've added one change to a point that I missed earlier.

I don't have a dog in this race, and I have only passing interest in the article, so you can take or leave what I have done, but I have tried to look at the changes as objectively as possible. (I have not read anything that hasn't been changed, and I haven't addressed the question around what company and the finances, as I think there could be a little clarification there, even if dropped into a footnote). – SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, it's very kind of you to do this, thank you. I'm happy to accept your text. The one thing I might argue for is the inclusion of Sheila's private schools, because the point was to show that the Bambers spent money on her education as well as on Jeremy's; they both attended Maldon Court prep school, for example. But perhaps that could be said without listing the names of all the schools. SarahSV ^(talk) 09:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

But see, SV, you've given a great example of the problem here. I removed the sentence about the schools ...

Sheila was educated in the local St Nicholas Church of England Primary, then at private schools, first Maldon Court Preparatory School in Maldon, Essex, followed by Moira House Girls School in Eastbourne, Sussex, and Old Hall School in Hethersett, Norfolk

... because that point is made earlier in the article:

The couple gave the children a good home and private educations.

And I pointed that out in my edit summary for that removal [4]:

That she and Jeremy received good educations at private boarding schools is mentioned elsewhere. As before, it's hard to see what the reader gains by learning the names of these nonnotable (but one) schools.

If you'd actually looked at my edits, as I've been begging you to do, you'd know why the material was removed. You might even think this point should be made twice, and if so we could discuss it; but I shouldn't have to type all the above, before we can even start discussing, just to explain to you what you would have instantly seen for yourself if you'd just looked through the edits.

EEng 21:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

SC, I appreciate the work. The problem, though, is that in the giant diff [5] the changes are a confused jumble and you cannot see their explanatory edit summaries. As a result it's often impossible to understand what was done, much less why. For example, there's a section you thought I removed; you commented Retained whole section: it provides a possible motive and is fairly important. But what you didn't notice is that I had not, in fact, removed the material, but rather moved it to an earlier section treating the same topic [6] (after moving one paragraph, which has nothing to do with the murders, to the article on Bamber himself [7]).

The only way to evaluate a set of edits is to look at the individual diffs with their explanatory edit summaries. You said Not all EEngs edits are bad and there are some good parts in there, but there is also a lot that isn't an improvement on the previous, or is actually detrimental; so of my 100 edits let's say (in an abundance of modesty) that 15 are improvements, 15 are detrimental, and 70 are the lot that you feel isn't an improvement. But "isn't an improvement" isn't a detriment; it's just different, and there's no reason to remove it. So the article is improved if we remove the 15 detrimental edits and leave the rest. If you'll simply step through starting at [8], and make a list below of the edits you think are detrimental (just paste in the url of each diff, maybe with a quick explanation), I'll do the work of removing them. If you don't want to go through them all, others who have concerns can do the rest.

EEng 21:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove the 15 and leave the rest? You know it doesn’t work like that: WP:STATUS QUO still means something for a start. The hypothetical 70 that aren’t an improvement include 101 little things like edits that make the reading experience more difficult, changes that alter the flow of the text and the nuance being removed.

I will have a look at the retained section again and try and find the diff, but largely I’m going to compare the two versions and see which I think is the better, or if I can see a third way that trumps you both. You will have seen that I am not just picking the older version and staying ignore Eeng’s edits - the point about the schools is just one illustration of that.

Eeng, will you agree to Sarah copying over the changes I’ve suggested so far? (I would do it myself, but it’s knocking midnight here and I’m too tired). If you can agree to that, I will look again at the Retained section and your rationale in the morning, as well as continuing to go through more of the text in the same manner as I’ve done before, and check the edit summaries if there isn’t a clearly better version. (Ps. If you are able to pos the diffs that relate to the Retained section, that would make things easier). - SchroCat (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

(SC, the "Retained" (finances) diffs are above, but here they are again [9][10]. BTW if I talk you into stepping through all the diffs you'll find they're all way simpler than those two.)

Again, I appreciate your willingness to step into the breach, and I don't think you've prejudged anything, but I really must press the point that the "giant diff" isn't a good approach. Many of my edit summaries are "ce" and "condense", but many others explain changes that otherwise, just from the diff, might seem wrong.

As for STATUSQUO, that's an essay, and it's an essay about the state to leave the article in during dispute; it does not say that there's a bias towards choosing old text over new text in the final analysis. In fact WP:DONTREVERT (another essay) has a really good passage on this:

Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, i.e. the edit does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.

So yeah, actually, if the score is 15-70-15 it makes complete sense that the 15 go and the 85 stay, but to be clear, if a change makes the reading experience more difficult or removes nuance or anything else, then that change goes does go in the detriment column for removal; I'm unlikely to push back on many such gut evaluations. But so far I keep hearing that such detriments are thick on the ground but I'm not seeing anything in the way of diffs.

So I'm asking you, out of respect for the work I've put in, to take the approach of starting at [11] and clicking Next Next Next so you can see the edit summaries. When you find a diff that you don't like just paste the URL into a list, with a brief explanation which might be as simple as Read better before. The diffs are mostly quite small, and I think you'll find it quick, and easier than scrolling around in one huge confusing diff. Then if any need discussing we can discuss. (I doubt there will be many.) EEng 00:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs - I missed them first time round. Too tired to take note properly. I'll go through the diffs one at a time and do the big comparison too. I'm not over fussed about the rationale you had in changing one version for the other as I'm only trying to ensure the better version from both editors (and others) remains at the end, but I'll add diffs if there is something that I think needs further explanation or clarification, or if one of your edit summaries needs more appropriate consideration. The problems with going through your edits one by one is that they jump around the article a bit (I prefer a run through from top to bottom to get the logical flow and to see where there is duplication or where the style changes markedly) and there are a lot of too minor points to go over (like you clearing up your own errors!) I'll do both approaches tho. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) SchroCat, I meant to add that I'd appreciate it very much if you would continue to do that for the rest of the text. In the meantime, I'd like to start adding some extra references. Should I add the suggestions you've made so far; or do you prefer to do it; or should I leave everything alone until you're done? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone will complain about the referencing being strengthened. I am only looking at the text at the moment, so it won’t affect anything I’m likely to do. - SchroCat (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, thank you. I will start adding more references. If I change the text, they will be minor changes only if I need to because of something in the extra references. Otherwise, I won't make textual changes. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

From comparing the two (haven't seen the sandbox yet), most of EEng's edits were not an improvement. However, the difference between schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder is pretty minor and often makes little impact on how a person is medicated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Which are detriments? A few diffs, please. EEng 22:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• OK, I've moved the first batch across as these seem to be agreed on for the present. There is one tag in there; in the Bamber family section under Daniel and Nicholas Caffell, para two: August which year?
  

I'll have a look at the retained section then go through both the comparing of the two versions and going through the diffs. My main aim isn't to try and understand Eengs psyche through reading the edit summaries, but to see which is the better way to have the article at the end of the day. More anon. - SchroCat (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've gone through the diffs one by one and gone through another chunk of the article. Again, I've tried to be neutral on who wrote what and when, and the only times I've referred to Eeng/proposed version against status quo/extant version is to clarify which one I'm talking about. I don't have proprietorial feelings for either version, and where I've added a different suggestion to either of you, it's because that is how I think it runs better. It's up to you (and any onlookers) if you accept, reject or ignore. The links to the second batch are below; I've done ‎from the start of "Bamber's visit to the farm" to the start of "Police investigation", and done the diffs against both the Eeng/proposed version against Cassianto/extant version:

• This is my suggested version as it differs from Cassianto's edit of 7:03, 18 July 2020
• This is my suggested version as it differs from EEng's edit of 3:08, 18 July 2020‎

Comments and suggestions duly welcome once again. – SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, I've gone through the first link above, and it's all very good, thank you, except that I would argue in favour of keeping the telephones section. Everything about phones became an issue. Someone had moved the rotary phone out of the bedroom to the kitchen, and sent another upstairs phone away for repair, so that anyone upstairs had to go down to the kitchen to find a phone.

I'll try to pin down "scientist". SarahSV ^(talk) 19:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added "a forensic scientist, Brian Elliot". I'd prefer to retain the name, at least for now, in case I add more from him, so that I can refer to him by his last name. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: telephones, it's worth noting that the 2002 Appeal Court decision has a separate heading for telephones. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Eeng, I'll wait until you agree with the changes or comment otherwise before I action any of them: I don't want to railroad anyone into changes they are not happy with. I have noticed that your changes included alterations to the lead and other places which were not present in the big reverts that were made. Once I've finished this side-by-side review of the changes, I'll go back over the single edits to reconsider the edits that haven't been covered by then. - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Apologies for my recent inattention. I've been babysitting my smart little nephew, and as the Favorite Uncle™ I bear an awesome responsibility. Give me another 24 hours. EEng 20:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  No problems. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• OK, I've transferred over those changes (from the start of "Bamber's visit to the farm" to the start of "Police investigation") as there seem to be no complaints except about the telephone section, but as this is being discussed below, I've left it in the article, pending a consensus on what to do with it. I'll do another batch of the text today for consideration. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, The final batch of diffs from the side-by-side comparison of the big reverts. Again, I've ignored who wrote what when I'm reading it, and gone with what I thought was the best version for the reader. Where there was no singular better version, I've mixed up the version to appease or annoy you both equally. There doesn't seem to be much contentious in this lot, as many of the major points that have impacted this section are being discussed in the sections below. I've done ‎from the start of "Police investigation" to the end of the article, and done the diffs against both the Eeng/proposed version against Cassianto/extant version:

• This is my suggested version as it differs from Cassianto's edit of 7:03, 18 July 2020
• This is my suggested version as it differs from EEng's edit of 3:08, 18 July 2020‎

I'll go through the diffs individually very soon as I know that there are some changes that were not covered in the mass reverts. I'll likely drop them on to this page, with an explanation, rather than into the litterbox version I've been using, as I think it would be a bit clearer for all. – SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• OK, no-one has complained about the last batch from the side-by-side comparison, so I've actioned those. That just leaves us with the points below. - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Points for further discussion

Area for further discussion on points I can't decide between or those changes that have been challenged. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Image size (throughout)

During the edits and reverts, there were several changes made to the size of the images (they seem to be the use of the "upright=" facility, but I haven't examined them all). I've ignored them in my comparison as I'm indifferent to them at this stage. As I think they were probably non-contentious changes that got caught up in the big reverts, perhaps this could be discussed and settled upon in this section. (As I've said below, please, no re-running the histories of who deleted or reverted: let's just discuss the size of the images for the uninformed reader who visits this next year: what will work best for them). - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer most of the images to be regular thumb size. I accept that File:Head Street, Goldhanger, to White House Farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy.jpg, a map, may need to be larger, but "thumb|center|upright=3" was too big, so I reduced it to upright=1.3 and placed it on the right. And I've increased File:Royal courts of justice.jpg to upright=1.1, because it seemed too small. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• With the exception of the map (being discussed below), are we all OK with leaving the images as regular thumb size? - SchroCat (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'm afraid not. "I would prefer" isn't a reason to ignore MOS' sensible guidance that images be sized in keeping with their aspect ratios and level of detail. As things are now we have a kind of Amazing Growing People display, running from unavoidably little-faced Nevill and June (unavoidable because of the nature of the shot, and the desire to show Nevill's height):

[Fair-use image removed -- to see this post in its original form, with all images visible for comparison, click here: [12] ]

to Sheila and the boys a little bigger

[Fair-use image removed -- to see this post in its original form, with all images visible for comparison, click here: [13] ]

to Jeremy significantly bigger (he'd be even bigger than this, except that our original on file is only this size anyway, and the software doesn't expand images, just contract them):

[Fair-use image removed -- to see this post in its original form, with all images visible for comparison, click here: [14] ]

to a comparatively gigantic Lord Hurd, whose head alone is almost as big as Sheila and the twins' entire bodies:

Nothing can be done about Nevill and June's faces being so small, and Sheila and the boys are about right at upright=1. My proposal would be that they be left as is, but Jeremy and Hurd be brought down to the usual width for portraits, 0.7:

[Fair-use image removed -- to see this post in its original form, with all images visible for comparison, click here: [15] ]

Meanwhile, here's Jeremy's residence at the current upright=1:

As with the map (discussed elsewhere) I'm not sure what the reader is supposed to get from this image – maybe something about small-village quaintness? Frankly, I'd drop it unless something more can be added to the caption e.g. "Prosecutors argued that the quiet setting of Jeremy's residence would have allowed him to leave and return unnoticed" or "There was much public discussion of the fact that Jeremy's parents had provided him a spacious private home at no expense" or SOMETHING. But if there's something the reader's supposed to see in this, then show it at an appropriate size per MOS; in this case, this image is moderately detailed and in portrait format, so 1.1 (at least) or even 1.2 would be appropriate:

EEng 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't follow the logic of trying to keep people's heads the same size, I'm afraid. We're dealing with groups of different sizes - one, two, three people in a photograph will change the size of the people in the picture, and shrinking or enlarging the image to force the fit will lead to a complete mess of image sizes - and that is distracting for a reader, who will be wondering why it looks so odd. There is nothing in the image use policy that the upright has to be used, so we're left with the guidelines (which are, of course, flexible on the point). - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

(Before I start: I installed your cropped map [16], and eliminated another map that duplicated the map in the infobox [17].)

I wasn't suggesting keeping everyone's heads the same size (though that would be an entertaining exercise), really it's just that Hurd comes out startlingly big, especially since he's kind of... um, pasty. As to the mess of image sizes, we already have that problem because the images on file for Jeremy and the Express cover are only 180px wide (equivalent to upright=0.8) so they come out no wider than 0.8 no matter what we do, and therefore won't match the others if we try to make everything upright=1.

As MOS says, uniformity of sizing matters primarily when images are nearby, especially on the same side of the page. So after moving two images to different sections [18] I think this will work very nicely: change Hurd and Tatchall to 0.8, and increase the appeals court to 1.3 to match the map above it. I've done that so everyone can see what it looks like [19]. As you'll see, every group of reasonably close images, on one or the other side of the page, are a single size (except Jeremy and the Express cover, which as I mentioned are inherently small so nothing can be done about them). EEng 03:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Image size (map)

• In terms of the large map (removed here with the edit summary "if you're going to show the reader a map, show it big enough that he has a fighting chance of seeing it (though this probably could be cropped, especially on the right"), I'm not sure I agree with having it so large and centralised, but I do think that this could be cropped a little on the top and right to focus on the main points. – SchroCat (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't removed, rather I made it larger. And the fundamental principle remains: presumably the map is there to help the reader follow some point about what happened, and it can't perform that function if it's the size of a postage stamp (upright=1):

A: Bamber's home in Head Street, Goldhanger 51.745857°N 0.755881°E / 51.745857; 0.755881
B: White House Farm, Pages Lane, Tolleshunt D'Arcy. 51.7591°N 0.8032°E / 51.7591; 0.8032

... nor should the reader have to click through to see the map big, then back to the text, and back and forth trying to read and look, read and look. So if you're going to show it, either show it big or rework it so that the essential information is conveyed without having to show it big. Having said all that, even if it's shown big, like this (upright=2.5):

A: Bamber's home in Head Street, Goldhanger 51.745857°N 0.755881°E / 51.745857; 0.755881
B: White House Farm, Pages Lane, Tolleshunt D'Arcy. 51.7591°N 0.8032°E / 51.7591; 0.8032

(a) much of it is water or marshes and stuff and (b) I actually can't see what the map has to do with anything in the text, except that it shows (unsurprisingly) that there are indeed roads connecting Jeremy's home to the farm, just as there are roads connecting any two points on earth not separated by unbridged bodies of water. It doesn't even seem to purport to show Jeremy's alleged routes, or the police's, or anything. Nothing explains what the meandering purple dotted lines and green patches are. Except for the two towns it doesn't even show any local features. The reader will have no idea what he's supposed to get from it at all. EEng 02:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

A: Bamber's home in Head Street, Goldhanger 51.745857°N 0.755881°E / 51.745857; 0.755881
B: White House Farm, Pages Lane, Tolleshunt D'Arcy. 51.7591°N 0.8032°E / 51.7591; 0.8032

An alternative version, which is the same map, but cropped. This retains the full road between the two locations and the names of the two main settlements in the are, while cutting off some of the superfluous countryside. I'm not a fan of the overlarge images dropped in the middle of an article (unless a panorama shot of something), so my preference would be to keep it pinned to the right and at about upright=1.2. This makes it clear enough for people to see the basic information. Like any other image on the page, they can click on the link for more detail if they wish. - SchroCat (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm no fan of giant images either unless (as you say) it's a panorama or something, but if there's something the reader should see then we need to present it so they can see it, whatever size that is. I originally enlarged the image on the the assumption it illustrated something in the text, but I say again that now that I've really looked I don't see what its function is at all. As you mention it shows there's a road, and as I mentioned earlier that's obvious – as I understand it, places in Britain have been connected by roads for quite some time now. If there's something that can be put in the caption to tell the reader what the point is (e.g. "The usual routes from Jeremy's home to the farm passed through town, so police theorized he rode his bicycle via [etc etc]") then great, and in that case the map can probably be cropped further to bring out the important detail. But otherwise I think it should be dropped. EEng 20:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed images

• 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)

(I can hardly believe the work you've put into this.) I agree it's pleasant to have images here and there to break the monotony, if instructive, informative, uplifting, or evocative images are available, but if not, there's a word for marginally (or less-than-marginally) useful images inserted just for the sake of having an image: filler. Here are two of the images + captions I removed:

Chelmsford Crown Court

Criminal Cases Review Commission, Alpha Tower, Birmingham, seen in 2006

OK, we've got a brick wall behind a No Parking sign and some pensioners waiting to cross the street with a glass tower rising slightly off kilter in the distance; as music swells up the narrator intones: Here! Behind these walls! The fate of Jeremy Bamber was decided! I mean, c'mon ... Really??? They're B-roll for a reporter's stand-up or to project behind the news presenter's shoulder. I perseverated about

Bamber's appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice was dismissed in December 2002.

because at least there's some architectural interest, and as an American I find the idea of a court that looks like an abbey kind of charming, but really it has no more to do with the murders than do the two just discussed. As for Lord Hurd:

Home Secretary Douglas Hurd decided that Bamber should never be released.

Well, what can I say? The photo was taken 20 years after his decision (according to the article – but see below) on Bamber. A photo of the judge around the time of the case might be one thing, or of Hurd, surrounded by victims' loved ones, announcing his decision to a group of clamoring reporters. But this is a nondescript photo of one of many officials somehow involved. EEng 07:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Again I'd keep them in place to break up the text. A wall of text is something difficult for the eye to digest; broken by images it becomes more manageable. They are all relevant to the text and although they may not be of aesthetically pleasing buildings, their presence is an aid to the reader. An image of the high court (that you want to keep) is as relevant as that of Chelmsford court (which you want to delete): both serve a function, (and it's not to remind American readers that our architecture is both historical and modern!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  At first I misread you as saying one function might in fact be to give Americans a smorgasbord of styles of judicial venues, but now I see you're actually saying not. So... what is the function? I honestly don't see it. But that's just for curiosity: I'm happy to retain the courts. Can you do without the glass office tower? That leaves Hurd (and Tatchell too, which we've overlooked until now) but I'll relent on that if you'll give due consideration to my final rejoinder on img sizes (not to say you haven't done so up to now). EEng 20:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'll circle back to this shortly - I'm a bit tied up with something else and pissed off with something else, so my patience is low and temper high - so looking at various image sizes won't have my full attention today! - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Neither faces are needed, they do not illustrate the article and are merely a detraction. It looks like they have been added for publicity purposes (SEO for example) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.8.154 (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hurd/Howard sourcing issue

Resolved issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BTW, the article text In December 1994, Home Secretary Michael Howard told Bamber that he would remain in prison for the rest of his life, following a decision by the home secretary of the day, Douglas Hurd is sourced to [20], which is dated 2008 and mentions neither Howard nor Hurd. The article's heavy and inappropriate reliance on primary sources is another matter needing to be addressed. EEng 07:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC) SchroCat, the High Court (Mr Justice Tugendhat) said: "On 15 December 1994 he [Bamber] was notified by the Home Secretary that the Home Secretary of the day had decided that the requirements of retribution and deterrence could only be satisfied by the applicant remaining in prison for the whole of his life." EEng argues that this source is not good enough for Hurd and Howard, so I've added The Guardian and Lee 2015. The only remaining images from the four above are Hurd and the Royal Courts of Justice. SarahSV (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "EEng argues"??? Are you seriously suggesting that this source could even possibly be acceptable for the article text I quoted earlier? EEng 01:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Ah well, it doesn't matter about what was or was not the case: the sourcing has been improved and we can tick something else off the list. - SchroCat (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Well, this particular point doesn't matter anymore, but the general problem I mentioned above i.e. the article's heavy and inappropriate reliance on primary sources is going to have to be addressed sooner or later, and probably sooner. EEng 20:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended family ("Retained") section

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)

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)

Sheila's schooling

The list of Sheila's schools was removed with this edit (Eeng's rationale: "that she and Jeremy received good educations at private boarding schools is mentioned elsewhere. As before, it's hard to see what the reader gains by learning the names of these nonnotable (but one) schools"). Sarah has queried this just above (her rationale: "I might argue for is the inclusion of Sheila's private schools, because the point was to show that the Bambers spent money on her education as well as on Jeremy's; they both attended Maldon Court prep school, for example. But perhaps that could be said without listing the names of all the schools"). Again these are both logical approaches. My thought is that while the facts of both being privately educated is worthy of mention and possible further work, do we need to know the schools as they are non-notable? Again. I'll leave it to others to discuss more fully. - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, thanks for looking at this again. I'd like to restore the schools for two reasons.

First, it was unusual in those days for families (unless they were very wealthy) to spend money on girls' education. Whatever money they could afford, assuming they wanted a private education, was spent on the boys, while the girls would be educated locally. That the Bambers spent money on Sheila's education is worth noting. Second, that Sheila and Jeremy were both boarders alienated them from the extended family (the cousins), and from any friends they might have made locally. They returned to the farm only during holidays, and with very different attitudes, which exacerbated the clashes with June. Lee 2015 mentions this (p. 150), as does Powell 1994 (pp. 29–30: "the two children who arrived at the farm each holiday were rapidly becoming strangers to their doting parents"). Therefore, I would like to add:

Sheila was educated at St Nicholas, a local Church of England primary school, then at private schools, first Maldon Court Preparatory School in Maldon, Essex, followed by Moira House Girls School in Eastbourne, Sussex, and Hethersett Old Hall School in Norfolk. After school she attended secretarial college in Swiss Cottage, London.

SarahSV ^(talk) 16:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Except the text you propose tosses all these names at the reader while still saying zero about what you say are the important points, instead apparently expecting the reader to apply their knowledge of British upper-middle-class child-rearing practices of the time in order to draw all these inferences. For readers to realistically learn what you say you want them to learn, we need something more along the lines of

Unusually for British parents of their class at the time, Nevill and June spent as much on Sheila's education as on Jeremy's, sending them both to exclusive private schools from the age of X. However, according to Felix Familyfriend, the consequent long separations increasingly meant etc etc.

And these statements need to be cited to sources specifically making those points; and then, once the points are made, the list of schools names are complete surplusage. Plus, as my original e.s. said, there's reference to the children's educations elsewhere in the article already, so this stuff should be consolidated there, not in the section on Sheila. EEng 00:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Family names

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)

Phones

The current article's [21] ===Telephones_in_the_farmhouse=== section reads:

There were three telephones at the farm on the night, all on the same landline. There was usually a cream rotary phone in the main bedroom; a beige digital phone in the kitchen; and a blue digital phone in the office on the first floor. (There was a fourth phone too, a cordless phone in the kitchen—the only one with memory recall—but it had been picked up for repair on 5 August.) The rotary phone had at some point been moved out of the bedroom and into the kitchen, where the police found it with its receiver off the hook. They found the beige digital kitchen phone still in the kitchen, but hidden in a pile of magazines.

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) Everything about phones became an issue 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 were – it'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 Someone had moved the rotary phone out of the bedroom to the kitchen, and sent another upstairs phone away for repair, so that anyone upstairs had to go down to the kitchen to find a phone. 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 details – but 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 [22][23][24][25].) EEng 04:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

Now that you mention it, given the date they're undoubtedly push-button telephones, not anything "digital"; in the edit here [26] the link to digital phone is clearly incorrect. The phrase digital phone apparently comes from a court opinion [27] 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)

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 [28]. EEng 03:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

And to link to Telephony#Digital_telephony ("Since the late 20th century, a digital core network has replaced the traditional analog transmission and signaling systems"), regardless of the issue I raised above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I tagged that [29]. 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)

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 [30] 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)

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 omitted – for 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)

Selected others

Some of the diffs have been dealt with in the side-by-side comparison, so these are the additional ones. I'm working from here; Eeng's first edit of 1:12, 14 July 2020. I'm ignoring any of the changes that are still in the text, unless I think a tweak should be made. If there are any that are still under dispute that I miss, please let me know and I'll have a look or open a new section for discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Caption text

Diff	Extant text	Proposed text	SC's Comments
1	After deliberating for nine-and-a-half hours, the jury found Bamber guilty on 28 October 1986 by a majority of ten to two; had one more juror reasoned that the evidence was not sufficient to sentence him, he would not have been convicted.	On 28 October, A=after deliberating more than nine hours, the jury found Bamber guilty by a majority of ten to two (the minimum required for conviction).	(Proposed version - minus typo - currently in place) I suggest changing the end to: "ten to two, the minimum required for conviction."
2, 3 & 4	The White House Farm murders took place near the village of Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex, England, during the night of 6–7 August 1985. Nevill and June Bamber were shot and killed inside their farmhouse, along with their daughter, Sheila Caffell, and Sheila's six-year-old twin sons, Daniel and Nicholas Caffell. The only surviving member of June and Nevill's immediate family was their adopted son, Jeremy Bamber, then 24 years old, who said he had been at home a few miles away when the shooting took place.	During the night of 6–7 August 1985, Nevill and June Bamber, their daughter Sheila Caffell, and Sheila's six-year-old twin sons Daniel and Nicholas Caffell, were shot and killed inside their farmhouse, White House Farm, near the village of Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex, England. The only surviving member of June and Nevill's immediate family was their adopted son, Jeremy Bamber, 24 years old, who said he had been at home a few miles away when the murders took place; police found the bodies at White House Farm after Jeremy alerted them that his father had called him to say that Sheila had "gone berserk" with a gun.	(Extant version remains) I've tried to do an article that didn't use the title as the opening words (Murder of Yvonne Fletcher, if memory serves), and it didn't take long before it was pushed back into the previous version; I think it may be worth leaving under the principle of least surprise. Although I don't mind whether it's there or not, I think readers expect titles to be used, so there will always be some pushback when they are not used. Most of the remainder of the changes relate to that, although I agree with removing the qualifier from "then 24 years old" (although I know of others who would want it in there); you could get round the issue with "their 24-year-old adopted son, Jeremy Bamber". The final part "police found the bodies..." I am not sure of and I'll leave that open for discussion (I wouldn't necessarily think it leadworthy, but I hate writing leads at the best of times). If it remains, it should be a standalone sentence, rather than post-semi colon, I think.
5 (5 edits)	The police at first believed that Sheila, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had fired the shots then turned the gun on herself. But weeks after the murders Jeremy Bamber's ex-girlfriend told police that he had implicated himself. The prosecution argued that, motivated by a large inheritance, Bamber had shot the family with his father's semi-automatic rifle, then placed the gun in his unstable sister's hands to make it look like a murder–suicide.	The police at first believed that Sheila, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had shot her family then herself. But after Jeremy's ex-girlfriend told police that he had implicated himself, authorities came to believe that Jeremy, motivated by a large inheritance, had shot the family with his father's rifle, then placed the gun in his sister's hands.	(Extant version remains) There are minor problems with both versions (and probably more with my version here), but I've taken a part way point of slimming down a piece or two of detail, retaining clarity between which "authorities", and using a link for m-s, which justifies the inclusion, which I think is beneficial for those readers who need to see terminology they may have been expecting. Suggested version: The police at first believed that Sheila, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had shot her family, then herself. But weeks after the murders Jeremy Bamber's ex-girlfriend told police that he had implicated himself. The prosecution argued that Bamber, motivated by a large inheritance, had shot the family with his father's rifle, then placed the gun in his sister's hands to make it look like a murder–suicide.
6	A silencer the prosecution said was on the rifle would have made it too long, they argued, for Sheila's fingers to reach the trigger to shoot herself.	In particular, they argued that there had been been a silencer on the rifle would have made it too long for Sheila to reach the trigger in order to shoot herself.	(Extant version remains) Again I think there are issues with both versions (try reading the sentences out loud and you're more likely to see where you trip up - and that's ignoring the double "been" in the second version). Suggested version: "The prosecution said that the silencer on the rifle would have made it too long for Sheila to reach the trigger to shoot herself." Conceded, given the explanation below
7	Bamber was convicted of five counts of murder in October 1986 ...	Bamber was convicted of the murders in October 1986 ...	(Extant version remains) Stick with the 'five counts'. Two extra words bring clarity (one wasn't self-defence, suicide or accidental, etc)
8	he was the killer himself.	he was the killer.	(Extant version remains) Drop "himself" - not needed ("he himself" and similar are rarely needed) Both parties have said they are happy retaining the extant text
9	When their father dropped them off at the house on 4 August, it was the last time he saw them.	Deleted	(Extant version remains) It does feel a little over-dramatic! It doesn't add much to the reader's understanding either. (Later: there is an explanation for the inclusion of this which covers an angle I hadn't seen) (What's the explanation? EEng) It's here: the comments near the end of the thread (Sarah's 19:35, 22 July post) - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Sources	Sources

This is the first batch only and I still have a way to go. It's taking a long time to put together because the diffs for one paragraph may be dotted throughout as the point has been revisited several times. I may, therefore, have missed a change or two to one of the above bits. - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Boys" section

Re: the section about the boys, and "When their father dropped them off at the house on 4 August, it was the last time he saw them."

A week-long visit to White House Farm had been arranged for August 1985 at the Bambers' request; the plan was that the boys would visit their grandparents with Sheila before going on holiday to Norway with their father. Daniel and Nicholas were reluctant to stay at the farm. They disliked that June made them pray, and in the car on the way asked their father to speak to her about it. In addition Daniel had become a vegetarian and was worried about being forced to eat meat. When their father dropped them off at the house on 4 August, it was the last time he saw them. The boys are buried together in Highgate Cemetery. Sheila was cremated, and the urn with her ashes was placed in their coffin.

I think it's relevant to say that the father didn't see the boys again after this point. I can't think of any reason not to say it. And leaving it out means the paragraph jumps from "forced to eat meat" to where they're buried. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, there's another solution, which is to omit where they're buried and the heartstrings-tugging detail about their mother's ashes. In fact, this brings us to a larger, more general problem, which is the excessive biographical detail. With respect to Nevill, June, Sheily, and Jeremy this is a bit complicated, because the family dynamics, finances, mental health and so on bear on the whodunnit question; but for these adorable boys, the whole section is full of stuff (a) that's already given elsewhere; or (b) would be just as well, or better, given elsewhere; or (c) is of no apparent function anyway and should be simply omitted:

• Daniel and Nicholas Caffell (born 22 June 1979, six when they died) were born to Sheila and Colin Caffell, who married in 1977 and divorced in 1980 – All of this is already given in Sheila's section
• Colin was an art student when he met Sheila – What in the world does this have to do with anything? Even if somehow it's something the reader needs to know, why isn't it in Sheila's section? Why is Colin's artistry relevant to the boys and not her?
• Both parents were involved in the children's upbringing after the divorce – This is already in Sheila's section
• although the boys were briefly placed in foster care in 1982–83 because of Sheila's health problems. For several months before the murders, they had been living with Colin in his home in Kilburn, north London, not far from Sheila's home in Maida Vale – Maybe some of this goes in Sheila's section, if it's somehow relevant to her mental health. Oh, wait, it is elsewhere in the article, in the ===Atmosphere in the house=== section. And this illustrates another, very serious, problem in the article, which is that fragmented yet overlapping information on any one topic is scattered over two, three, or even more places; for example, the foster care is discussed at four points, some mentioning that the boys had been in foster care, some mentioning the proposal to put them in foster care in future, and some both.
• A week-long visit to White House Farm had been arranged for August 1985 at the Bambers' request – Why does it matter why they were there?
• the plan was that the boys would visit their grandparents with Sheila before going on holiday to Norway with their father – Norway, Sweden, the south of France... what difference does it make?
• Daniel and Nicholas were reluctant to stay at the farm. They disliked that June made them pray, and in the car on the way asked their father to speak to her about it. In addition Daniel had become a vegetarian and was worried about being forced to eat meat. – So?
• When their father dropped them off at the house on 4 August, it was the last time he saw them. – Simply maudlin.
• The boys are buried together in Highgate Cemetery. Sheila was cremated, and the urn with her ashes was placed in their coffin. – There's a Funerals section later in the article and this can be mentioned there.

Voila! The whole section is superfluous. EEng 21:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Silencer

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)

OK, I've struck my suggestion, given the explanation. - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Second batch

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 "this list of issues is (a) sourced only to primary sources and (b) a bunch of unelucidated phrases". 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	Sources

These are the second batch of comments on the one-by-one review. - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

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 extant version remains? 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)

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)

TOC limit

There is apparently disagreement about the TOC. EEng put in a limit — {{toc limit|3}} — which shortened the TOC from 65 to 43 entries — still a long TOC, surely — which SlimVirgin immediately reverted without comment. Cassianto has commented in an edit summary here that there's a problem with the TOC limit for editors, who can't see the headings in read mode. I understand that disadvantage, but frankly I think editors can nevertheless manage. Shortening the TOC is surely a major advantage for readers — the people the encyclopedia is for. 65 entries is far too overwhelming for them IMO. Even 43 is a lot. Bishonen | tålk 17:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen, is that really the only thing you can see to comment on? How about EEng doing here what he did last July at Moors murders, the endless reverting, the null edit to insult me in an edit summary, the posting of a stupid image in a discussion about the dead boys, his adding "so?" after my description of their reluctance to spend time in the house where they died, adding headings above my posts so that I no longer feel able to post here, reverting when I remove them.

I protected Moors murders last year against his disruption, and this is his response. I now feel I have to abandon an article I spent years writing. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Sarah, as far as I remember the Moors murder brouhaha, I don't think I ever agreed about EEng being disruptive there, and I can't agree that his copyediting this article is in revenge against you and in bad faith. That sounds like a conspiracy theory. But you're right that I might have commented more on this talkpage — I was frankly daunted by everything going on above. I'm very glad to that SchroCat is putting so much work into mediating here, and I hope it works out. Meanwhile, since I did write about the TOC and that is the header here, do you have an opinion about it? Do you agree it's currently overly long for a reader's needs? Bishonen | tålk 17:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen, you could not have hurt me more if you'd grabbed me by the throat and punched me in the head.

What he did last year at Moors murders was pretty well a definition of disruption. I can only imagine your reaction if someone did that to an editor you regard as a friend.

Re: the toc, I need it when editing. How on earth does it harm readers? It allows them to navigate to exactly where they want to go.

You are daunted by everything that's going on? Yes, me too. And EEng is trying to make it seem worse than it is by adding headings to my replies, then reverting when I remove them. So I don't feel I can even reply here anymore. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

A TOC has three functions I can think of:

• (1) to provide the reader overview as he embarks on reading article;
• (2) to allow the reader, once he's read a ways in, to maybe go back and think about which sections he wants to read next and which he might want to skip;
• (3) to some extent, to help the reader find something specific he's looking for (though the TOC isn't an index and its abilities along these lines are necessarily limited).

The not-limited TOC with 65 entries, including all the dizzying subheadings down to level 4, pretty much nullifies functions (1) and (2); at the same time, all that sub-sub-detail does little or nothing to further function (3), which is the function you've specifically called out as desirable. For example, the not-limited TOC includes these entries:

5 Police investigation

5.6 Julie Mugford's statements

5.6.1 Background

5.6.2 Statements to police

Some readers might arrive at the article interested in reading more about the investigation; they'll click on Police investigation. A few readers might have heard about the role of Julie Mugford; they'll click on Julie Mugford's statements. But how many readers will be looking for, specifically, the Background to Mugford's statements? And even those that do will readily recognize that Julie Mugford's statements is what they need, and when they click on it they'll immediately see the sub-sub-headings (Background and Statements to police) right there in front of them, interlarded with the article text itself, allowing them to browse among the sub-sub-sections in context. Therefore the lowest-level headings should be suppressed in the TOC: to repeat, they ruin the TOC for two of its purposes, while doing nothing to enhance its performace of its third purpose.

Same goes for:

3 Police logs

3.3 Logs

3.3.1 Event log

3.3.2 Radio log

Surely anyone looking, specifically, for the police's Event log or Radio log will know to click on Police logs or Logs; the literal Event log and Radio log headings add to the TOC clutter in return for no benefit at all. So in this case, as before, there is no loss and some gain (reduced clutter) to suppressing the level-4 headings in the TOC.

You say Re: the toc, I need it when editing – how exactly do you need it for editing? Even when the lowest-level headings are suppressed in the TOC, they're still present in the article itself (including their [edit] links). If you're saying that you, who pretty much wrote the entire thing, can't find your way around without a 65-entry TOC to guide you, that's a real sign of trouble in the article's organization. EEng 05:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Followup: SlimVirgin, now that I see you're editing again, I wonder if you could take a minute to answer my question above i.e. you say Re: the toc, I need it when editing – how exactly do you need it for editing? EEng 01:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

“New Evidence”

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)

@KKThinks: 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)

"Jeremy" vs "Bamber" in text.

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)