Talk:Brian Blackwell

Vandalism
This page has clearly been vandalized. Can someone please revert or edit to something more respectable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.144.46 (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
VfD failed per Votes_for_deletion/Brian_Blackwell. --Woohookitty 9 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)

Notability

 * I still don't see this guy's notability. He's a psycho and killed his parents. That's it. And he got his face in the papers. So what? JFW | T@lk  19:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Why are you arguing with a new user after the VFD failed? Joaquin Murietta 15:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I wasn't arguing with Candice at this point; I wasn't aware she was the principal author, and gave a normal response below. I was only pointing out that I wasn't sure of the subject's notability. JFW | T@lk  16:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well when you put it up for deletion it was voted to be kept, so I don't see the point in still debating about it's notability. I see it's even made your user page as 'VFD in a while'. Is it really the worst thing on here? I've seen so many pages of way less notability than this one. Candice 02:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You're allowed to disagree with me, but some things shouldn't be here. Call me a deletionist. You are correct that episode lists of marginally notable TV series are also not very encyclopedic. JFW | T@lk  11:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that episode lists of marginally notable TV series are not very encyclopedic. The only one I've contributed to is notable - it's the most famous show in British TV history, the longest running soap opera in the world outside America, the number 1 show in the British TV ratings again in it's 45th year and I thought it would be nice to help someone pad it out a bit. But I guess if 30 year old Vangelis albums are considered encyclopedic, almost everything has a case to stay. Candice 11:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

A lot more people care about Vangelis' old albums than about Brian Blackwell. Honestly. PS that comment about episode lists was not aimed at you; in fact, I was not aware you'd made that contribution. I was just mentioning another recent pet peeve of mine. JFW | T@lk  00:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sure they do, but this was voted to stay so I don't know what else I can say. You're a moderator so if you have the power to delete it and don't want it to stay, I won't mind Candice 00:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Ohh, I just realised you'd created this article. OK. Right. Of course I will not delete the article - that would be abuse of power. JFW | T@lk  00:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That's rude. Shame on you Herr Doctor Wolff!! Joaquin Murietta 15:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There is nothing rude about this. I was actually explaining that I was going to be collaborative. And I don't like being called Herr Doktor, given that I'm not German. JFW | T@lk  16:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * To be honest I was at work one day and our system was down so we were waiting for it to be started up and I was just surfing the net in the meantime. I had used Wikipedia before but never started an article and this story was all over the front page of a few papers so thought I would try starting a page and as this was recent news it probably was something that was not on here yet. Maybe I could have read the guidelines a bit closer before starting though and I will in future make sure it's perhaps more clearly notable :) Candice 01:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Your article is fine. Some of us like True Crime Articles. Joaquin Murietta 15:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I came across this article because of a new article on Amal Saba. (There was no point in having an article dedicated to Saba so I redirected that article here.) Having looked at the Blackwell article and various press sources (BBC, London Times, Guardian, etc.) I saw no bias in Candice's writing.  Since Robchurch made no comment as to why he tagged it for POV in the first place, I removed the tag. --Wine Guy 09:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

First example of NPD in British case law
Brian Blackwell is a valid subject for an encyclopaedia if only because his is the only case in English legal history where a diagnosis of narcissitic personality disorder has been accepted as a valid defence to murder - this means that whatever peoples views about him may be he is not a murderer - I have edited the article to remove the references to him being a murderer. You may disagree with this but Wikipedia is a forum of fact and not opinion. user:badtypist

I think you'll find he is a murderer as he deliberately murdered his parents without provocation. The fact that he had a mental illness does not exempt him from his status as a murderer. This is not a matter of opinion it is simply a fact. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * actually he was charged with manslaughter, not murder. This is precisely because of diminished responsibility because of his mental illness. --81.158.147.41 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Josef Stalin had NPD. Does that make him any less a murderer? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt very much Stalin was ever diagnosed as having the disorder, so we obviously can't say one way or the other. He was also never convicted of any crime as far as I'm aware. However in this case we know for sure that Blackwell was not convicted of murder, but of manslaughter, because of his diagnosed personality disorder. --86.135.222.11 (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Stalin was a notorious mass murderer, genocide being a crime against humanity. Furthermore, despite Narcissistic personality disorder being a mental illness, those with it are still in control of their actions. It's not a form of psychosis. Therefore Brian is still very much a murderer and a vicious one at that. What's become of him now by the way? Is he in prison or a psychiatric institution? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are confused. Stalin was never diagnosed with the disorder, or ever convicted of a crime. I accept it is your own view that he was a mass murderer, I personally agree with you as I'm sure most other people would. I don't know about him being a Narcissist, but I'm willing to believe it was a possibility. However our own views are irrelevent - the status of murderer is one conferred by law (murder being unlawful killing), and the status of Narcissitic personality disorder is conferred by psychiatry. Stalin was never convicted of murder or diagnosed with the disorder. So the example of Stalin is irrelevent to this topic.


 * In the case of Brian Blackwell, he was diagnosed with the disorder, but was not convicted of murder. Therefore he is not a murderer. Additionally, your assumption that those with NPD are "still in control of their actions" is flawed. The very fact that Blackwell was not convicted of murder because of his illness shows that the disorder *is* considered, at least in this particular case, to have meant that his actions were out of his control. --86.135.177.33 (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * These are trifling technicalities. Blackwell and Stalin both killed people for no reason other than to protect their own selfish interests and are therefore murderers. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They are not "trifling technicalities". Assuming we are still discussing this article, then the facts of the definitions involved can only come from reliable, confirmed sources, with clear neutral definitions in mind of the potentially emotive terms such as "murderer". Of course, there is another definition of murder, a religious or philosophical one that defines "unlawful" in terms of a law of God, or some other innate absolute definition, not one relative to human society. In that case he could be said to be a murderer. I personally would agree with that, as perhaps you would. But of course there's no way that point of view can be in the article.


 * I can completely understand the way you feel about this. The idea of "diminished responsibility" seems to fly in the face of most peoples' innate sense of justice. I too have difficulty with the idea that this man was not found guilty of murder because of a personality disorder; that we can so simply draw a line between mental illnesses and someone simply being a bad person. But outside of our own views, the concrete, reliable facts on the matter are clear: he was not convicted of murder. He was instead diagnosed with a mental illness, which led to him being convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.


 * EDIT: And I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't call what I'm saying "left wing nonsense" (your edit summary). I could probably be called a lot of things, but I would hope "left-wing" wouldn't be one of them ;)--86.135.177.33 (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see your point. I know we shouldn't put POV in the article, I was just a bit thrown by your statement that Blackwell isn't a murderer. I'm sorry I called you left wing as you're obviously not. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

BBC
The BBC Have a number of pages about this man, eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4634401.stm In addition to the individuals own notability, these events also serve to illuminate NPD,  Scruffy brit (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Blackwell's fate
What's become of Blackwell now? Is he in prison or a psychiatric insitution of some description? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)