Talk:Disappearance of Don Banfield

request edit
Sorry about that!genuinely don't know what happened there!

Could someone else please look at this again. All my edits have been completely removed. They're all verifiable sources and information. Mr Clegg gives his legal perspective, and careful about the suggestions that this is anything but accurate and honest. There are the judges findings and reasoning (that have now been removed), as well as verifiable information regarding the successful defence arguments.Some people are interested in the legality of the case and would benefit from all information available. Regarding information left here, it doesn't accurately reflect the sources cited, and where it is completely contradicted by equally verifiable sources, only one version is given. Please see my contributions and previous edits that have been completely removed by this person, without concessions given.They included information from the court papers, plus court reporters.thank you.If my writing is in anyway inadequate, please feel free to amend it. Sorry if that's the case, I didn't realise it was awful. Thank you Beautiful Rosie (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Beautiful Rosie, you are just going round in circles here. There is already a discussion about this content above which you and other editors can comment on. There's no need to just open up more and more discussion sections on the same topic. ErraticDrumlin (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * you seem oddly and overly obsessed. overly interested in limiting all information available. The request is  to neutral fair people.
 * I believe that fair people will look at this and say no this isn't right.  full freedom of information.  please can you not limit and dominate the discussion process.The information doesn't relate to the sources cited, and the judges findings and reasoning and the decision-making process of the defence is excluded, as reported in court papers and by the  court reporters in the harrow times, and local London press.Please see my previous edits.  All information should be shown if it is from verifiable sources. Thanks for looking at this again, please could someone who doesn't have an interest include information regarding the judges findings and the successful defence arguments. Thanks so much. I believe in freedom of information and expression which is verifiable, not suppression of all information. Please can someone neutral include this. Thanks!Beautiful Rosie (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Overly obsessive? Are you kidding? YOU are the person who has constantly been begging these users to add back your edits, even though they've declined. Also, the statement that all information should be shown if it's from a verifiable source is untrue. Read EVERYTHING. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I was wrong to say that to erratic. I just wanted someone to look again. I have  acted badly, because it's frustrating.That's no excuse. I lost perspective,  I realise that. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * there is no edit request here. Edit requests should show the content to be changed and the sourcing to support the change Slywriter (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.mylondon.news/news/local-news/don-banfields-wife-daughter-murder-5964345
 * https://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/10585245.wife-and-daughter-accused-of-killing-wealdstone-man-don-banfield-have-murder-convictions-quashed/
 * The judges reasoning is in the court papers, but also found here. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17371761
 * This is the only secondary source I could find regarding the early drawing down of a lump sum. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/10585245.wife-and-daughter-accused-of-killing-wealdstone-man-don-banfield-have-murder-convictions-quashed/ Beautiful Rosie (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.mylondon.news/news/local-news/don-banfields-wife-daughter-murder-5964345 Beautiful Rosie (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Request edit
The judges findings and reasoning were summarised by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1144954012, I'm worried that this will not be seen. Thanks for taking the time to look again. If there is an issue with the book, (although it was on the best seller's, and acknowledged by legal experts), then cut it from the main article completely. That's absolutely fine. There are only a few lines quoted from it directly, but anything related to it, I think that there are 3 inserts?...but why exclude the court papers evidence, and most crucially the judges findings and reasoning (at all the very end ) which court reporters recorded at the time, as reported in the harrow times and a local London paper.It's important to show how it was reported at the time, and the 3 judges thoughts about how they came to this conclusion. This information is from verifiable sources. Cut Mr Clegg, as per Erratic, and Erratic has suggested that he could be briefly summarised at the end, seeing as he is actually being misrepresented in this article. That's a possibility, if Erratic thinks so. He wrote a book 6 years after the trial and explains what actually occurred, obviously from his perspectives. He was a central figure. But I think it's fair enough to cut him on the grounds that have been raised.My main concern is that I think that the judges findings and reasoning (included in the very last part before erratic reverting,) has value. Thanks.I think that the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Beautiful Rosie (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion started at WP:RSN about the use of the Court Document
Reliable_sources/Noticeboard is where it can be found. The document is overused in this as article, seeking community input on what is usable Slywriter (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to editors
This talk page is for discussing how to improve the related article, not for discussing the persons mentioned in the article in general. — xaosflux  Talk 14:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Talk header added above. Heavy Water (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The material in here is wrongful, completely made up in places. It isn't sourced to the cites attributed to it.
The content of this article is incorrect information.it doesn't even relate to the sources cited. No-one has bothered checking. It also creates a bias narrative, but I don't care anymore, or the fact it is deliberately malicious and dishonest and omits information about the case, but it states made up information and then cites a source, but you'll notice it doesn't have the information stated in the source given. Wikipedia foundation cleverly accepts no legal liability for this article. You are responsible for this defamation Beautiful Rosie (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)