Talk:White House Farm murders/Archive 2

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Discussion closed by Nobody Ent. The result of the discussion was split and move.

Reviewed per request at WP:AN, current consensus was for a split. Nobody Ent 23:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Bamber → White House Farm murders – Proposal to split Jeremy Bamber into two articles: one about the murders and a biography. Please see and Talk:Jeremy Bamber. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 08:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

First proposal
I would like to get this up to FA standard if possible, which means it has to adhere to the policies and the most common guidelines. The current title, Jeremy Bamber, is problematic because this is not a biography, and we have very little biographical information about him. It is an article about the murders, the police investigation, and Bamber's attempts to secure a new trial.

The name given by the media to the killings in 1985, and in the years that followed, was the "White House Farm murders." Examples of some books and book chapters are (for more examples, see User:SlimVirgin/WHF):


 * Murder Casebook 7: The White House Farm Murders. Marshall Cavendish, 1990.
 * Powell, Claire. Murder at White House Farm: Story of Jeremy Bamber. Headline Book Publishing, 1994.
 * Wilkes, Roger. Blood Relations: Jeremy Bamber and the White House Farm Murders. Penguin, 1994.
 * D'Cruze, Shani; Walklate, Sandra L.; and Pegg, Samantha. "The White House Farm murders," in Murder: Social and Historical Approaches to Understanding Murder and Murderers. Willan, 2006, p. 117ff.

We have a free image of White House Farm, so that's the one we ought to use in the lead – rather than a fair-use image of Jeremy Bamber — but it looks odd to introduce an apparent biography with a picture of a farmhouse. In addition, I have found the lead easier to write by focusing on the White House Farm murders, rather than introducing it as a biography:


 * Lead as "White House Farm murders"
 * Lead as "Jeremy Bamber".

We normally call articles by their event name, rather than singling out the key figure and writing it as his or her biography. This is particularly true when we don't know much about the central living character (where there is one) outside the event that made him or her notable. For example, 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt, not Raoul Moat, though Moat was the highly notable focus of the event. See the list below for more examples.

(Where there are notable people involved in these events, they may have separate biographies if enough is known about them, but we do not know enough about Jeremy Bamber to warrant that.)

An additional consideration is that Bamber has always maintained his innocence, and continues to seek a retrial; this places an extra burden on us, per WP:BLP, to ensure our approach to the article is scrupulously neutral. However, even without that issue, I would still argue that it ought to be given the name the media used for the murders, rather than singling out the convicted killer's name as shorthand for the entire event. There would, of course, be a redirect for readers looking for "Jeremy Bamber." SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 08:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support as above. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 08:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support BIO1E, and that this article is mostly about the murders. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose As previously agreed on this page, "Jeremy Bamber" is a title much more widely associated with the crime. "White House Murders" is the title preferred by those arguing Bamber was wrongly convicted and this proposed move would look like part of a WP:CAMPAIGN WP:SOAPBOX. Exok (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen no evidence that people who think he was wrongly convicted call this the "White House Farm murders," rather than something else. Do you have an example? On the contrary, people involved in his campaign are keen to remind the public of his name, rather than the event. For example, a book by a supporter of his, Scott Lomax, is called Jeremy Bamber: Evil, Almost Beyond Belief?. But books by writers who do not question his guilt are called, as I wrote above, Murder Casebook 7: The White House Farm Murders (1990), Murder at White House Farm: Story of Jeremy Bamber (1994), and Blood Relations: Jeremy Bamber and the White House Farm Murders (1994). And a recent academic paper, also not questioning his guilt, is called "The White House Farm murders," in Murder: Social and Historical Approaches to Understanding Murder and Murderers (2006). The point is that it may be difficult to get it to FA status with the title "Jeremy Bamber," because it is an obvious error to name it as though it were a biography, when it is an article about the murders and the investigation. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I agree with Exok, the proposed new article name would be quite confusing. Jeremy Bamber has reached the level of notability to have his own article without it being named after the crimes itself.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment in that case, the crime itself should be a separate article... 70.24.247.54 (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A similar example is Death of Caylee Anthony, which is about the death, the investigation, and the court case. A separate article about the accused killer, Casey Anthony, was created only after she had been aquitted, because a great deal of coverage focused on her post-acquittal activities. Similarly, we have an article called Murder of Meredith Kercher, and had no article about Amanda Knox until Knox's conviction for the murder was overturned on appeal. Another British example is Murder of Joanna Yeates. We don't have an article about the man convicted of killing her, Vincent Tabak, and even if he were to spend years campaigning for his release, I don't think we would ever move the article about Yeates' murder to Vincent Tabak. Yet another example is Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins. I believe that article was never named after Sion Jenkins, who spent years in jail for her murder before the conviction was overturned. The Soham murders are not named after Ian Huntley, the man convicted of them. Murder of Lesley Molseed, not named after Stefan Kiszko who served 16 years after being wrongfully convicted, or after Ronald Castree, the man who was later convicted. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Any proposal to move should await the outcome of the current leave to appeal. Featured article status is a less urgent goal than retaining neutrality. Exok (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on what the connection is between the page name and an appeal? In any event, it doesn't appear that there will be an imminent announcement about the appeal, either yes or no, as people believed might happen last year. The Criminal Cases Review Commission seems to have left the issue open indefinitely. Again, the point is that this article can't have special status, but should be named the way events such as this are normally named. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If - as advocate for the move - you also agree with 70.24.247.54 that the article should be WP:SPLIT, I don't quite understand your preferred outcome. In the light of this confusion and to avoid accusations of WP:CAMPAIGN WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RECENTISM it seems better to let consensus stand. That's my view, anyway. Exok (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Exok, I'm having difficulty understand the points you're making. I asked a couple of questions above, which perhaps you missed. (1) You wrote that "White House Farm murders" is preferred by his supporters. Could you give some examples? I offered several examples of books and book chapters with that title, from 1994 to 2006, by writers who do not question his guilt. And (2) you wrote that any page move should wait until the issue of the appeal is decided. Could you say what the connection is between the page name and an appeal? And now (3) I don't understand how this is connected to SOAPBOX or RECENTISM. It has been called "White House Farm murders" by the media and by at least some academics since 1985. I'd like to discuss this with you, but I can only do that if you reply to the points that are raised. As for splitting the article, I didn't say it ought to be split. I said it ought to be called "White House Farm murders." But if someone can find sufficient biographical information about Bamber that is not only about the murders (as was done in some of the examples I listed above), they are welcome to create a separate biography. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, Slim. I can only express my opinion and give the clearest justification for holding it that I can; which I have done. Our history on this talk page suggests to me that we are not good collaborators and do not tend to persuade each other, no matter how carefully reasoned our arguments. Could you please demonstrate you've initiated this discussion in good faith and await its outcome, before reimposing the cosmetic changes you've made recently? They seem primarily to be aimed at reconfiguring the article as if it had already been moved. Exok (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, you have indeed managed to persuade me on a few points (e.g. the importance of the phone log). But I find I can't persuade you (in part) because it's difficult to get you to reply to points, so our discussions seem not to make progress. For example, you wrote above: "'White House Murders' is the title preferred by those arguing Bamber was wrongly convicted." This is false, to the best of my knowledge. Therefore, could you please either give some examples, or strike the comment?


 * Regarding my recent edits, the lead can't be written as though it's a biography, because it is not a biography; we know very little about Bamber himself. Therefore, no matter the title, the lead must sum up the article. There is no firm rule that the first paragraph has to reflect the title. If this discussion chooses his name as the title, the lead will have to work around that with joint highlighting. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Break 1

 * In the UK - where the crimes were committed - the name that immediately contextualises the article's contents is "Jeremy Bamber". This means readers are more likely to identify the topic cognitively, are more likely to be interested and are more likely to be assisted by that title. Despite the notoriety of the case in Britain and the iconic image of the location of the crime, "The White House Murders" would have most people flummoxed. Several editors have made this point to you in response to your long-held wish for a move. What I personally say in addition to that point, is that renaming the article carries the added danger of appearing to look as if you may have the intent of decisively relocating Bamber as simply another figure in the events, away from his alternative identification as the perpetrator of them. That is not balanced; and you are doing this at an especially sensitive time, when external events may have a radical effect on what the article says. Moving does not help a reader's understanding, it's unnecessarily contentious, it may become moot in the short term and it gives Wikipedia's voice the accent of a campaign. I can't be more responsive to you than that. Exok (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First, I disagree that "White House Farm murders" would have people flummoxed. That's the name the event is known by. Most of the books and book chapters written about the murders use that term. Bamber's name is also well-known.


 * Second, and this point is crucial, this article is not about Jeremy Bamber. It is about the murders, the investigation, the conviction of Bamber, and -- toward the end of the article-- his campaign to have that conviction overturned.


 * Third, please explain why Wikipedia ought to make an exception in this case from our usual best practice. You would not move Soham murders to "Ian Huntley," though Huntley's name is extremely well-known in the UK as the man convicted of the murders. See above for similar examples. Therefore, please say why you feel Bamber is a case deserving of special treatment. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 03:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First, merely restating our difference of opinions on this matter is pointless. Second, the article is about murders for which Jeremy Bamber was convicted, the investigation that led to Jeremy Bamber's trial, Jeremy Bamber's conviction, Jeremy Bamber's time in prison, Jeremy Bamber's appeal, and Jeremy Bamber's campaign to overturn his own conviction. An absence of whatever biographical material you feel is essential to turn an article about murders into whatever you feel connotes a biography does not mean that the article is not about Jeremy Bamber. Thirdly, even if there was a clear naming guideline - so far unapplied - to be followed in this case, now would not be the time to suddenly start observing it because it would carry the danger of looking as if we have the intent of decisively relocating Bamber away from his hotly contested identification as the perpetrator of them. That is not balanced; and we would be doing this at an especially sensitive time, when external events may have a radical effect on what the article says. Can I ask why you are confronting me in particular on this issue? Wouldn't it be better to give some space to other voices? I wish you would. Exok (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel I'm confronting you; that isn't my intention. I'm just replying to the points you raise, and asking for examples, because some of what you are saying is inaccurate (e.g. that his supporters tend to use "White House Farm murders," when the opposite is true). I would also appreciate if you would not make any more ad hominem points about what you believe people's motives are. For the record, I have no opinion about Bamber's guilt. The case is very complex. My interest lies only in trying to make that complexity accessible.


 * As for this being a sensitive time in the case, there's no evidence of that. Bamber has been trying since 2004 to persuade the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer his case to the Court of Appeal. They provisionally turned down his latest submission one year ago, but gave him indefinite leave to respond (which just means he can keep on submitting new evidence without having to close one application and open another). There's no indication that any definitive response is imminent.


 * Anyway, if they were to confirm their provisional rejection, the article would not change at all. And if they were to order a new trial, it would take a year or two to get that organized. So either way, this is not a sensitive time for the article.


 * I would like us to approach this as Wikipedians, not as people with opinions about external events, and to do what Wikipedia normally does in cases like this. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 05:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Examples of how similar articles are named

 * Moors murders, not named after the people convicted of the murders, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady (redirects only).
 * Soham murders, not named after the man convicted of the murders, Ian Huntley (redirect only).
 * Hungerford massacre, not named after the killer who committed suicide, Michael Ryan (redirect only).
 * 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt, not named after the killer who committed suicide, Raoul Moat (redirect only).
 * Bradford murders, not named after the man convicted of the murders, Stephen Griffiths (no redirect, dab only).
 * Dunblane school massacre, not named after the killer who committed suicide, Thomas Hamilton (no redirect, dab only).
 * Cumbria shootings, not named after the killer who committed suicide, Derrick Bird (redirect only).
 * Lady in the Lake trial, not named after the man convicted of the murder, Gordon Park (no redirect, dab only).
 * Murder of Joanna Yeates, not named after the man convicted of the murder, Vincent Tabak (redirect only).
 * Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins, not named after the man convicted, then acquitted, of the murder, Sion Jenkins (redirect only).
 * Murder of Stephen Lawrence, not named after the men convicted of the murder, Gary Dobson and David Norris (redirects only).
 * Murder of Sarah Payne, not named after the man convicted of the murder, Roy Whiting (redirect only).
 * Murder of James Bulger, not named after the boys convicted of the murder, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables (redirects only).
 * Murder of Rachel McLean, not named after the man convicted of the murder, John Tanner (redirect only).
 * Murder of Linda Cook, not named after the man convicted of the murder, Michael Shirley (no redirect).
 * Murder of Lesley Molseed, not named after the man convicted then acquitted of the murder, Stefan Kiszko (redirect only), or after the man later convicted, Ronald Castree (separate biography).
 * Murder of Rachel Nickell, not named after the man convicted then acquitted of the murder, Colin Stagg (redirect only), or the man later convicted, Robert Napper (separate biography).
 * Murder of Meredith Kercher, not named after the woman convicted then acquitted of the murder, Amanda Knox (separate biography).
 * Death of Caylee Anthony, not named after her mother who was acquitted of murder, Casey Anthony (separate biography).

SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 07:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a straw man. Nobody has suggested that all crime articles use the name of the supposed perpetrator as their title; why refute a view that has not been expressed? Those opposing your proposed move appear to believe that in this case Jeremy Bamber is the most logical, more helpful and least contentious title and that it should remain as such for now. Surely your hope of obtaining FA status will, in any case, fail on the grounds that the article is the subject of recent edit wars and is not stable? Just as you tried to stack the argument in your favour by making cosmetic changes supportive of your viewpoint immediately prior to opening a debate about moving; so you have undermined the work you've put into improving the article by being over-protective of it. In both cases an attempt to manipulate appearances in order to bring about the outcome you want seems likely to defeat your ultimate goal. This is aside from the (in my opinion) damage done to the neutrality of the article and to the collaborative ideals of Wikipedia. Exok (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, would you please avoid the ad hominems and the assumptions of bad faith? This is the article before I started editing it. I've done nothing but improve it, and would like to continue.


 * With respect, the onus is on you to explain why the article about the murders of Nevill and June Bamber, and Sheila, Daniel and Nicholas Caffell, about Sheila's illness, and the investigation conducted by the cousins and the police, must be named after the person convicted, as though the article is a biography.


 * Best practice for a long time on Wikipedia has been to name articles after the event. See, for example, 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt, a name Wikipedians invented for it, rather than the infinitely better-known Raoul Moat, which is just a redirect. Please address that point. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose as per Exok & BabbaQ. The case is known in the UK overwhelminingly by Bamber's name, not the location. I particularly disagree with SlimVirgin's claim that: "Most of the books and book chapters written about the murders use that term. Bamber's name is also well-known." Most people in the UK will not have read any of the books or magazines about the crime, but will still recognise the name of Jeremy Bamber. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Similarly, as I wrote above, Raoul Moat is a household name in the UK, but we still don't name the article about the events he caused as though it were a biography. That is the sole point here. Could you please address it, and say why Bamber should be approached differently? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Bamber is not unique in this respect, despite your attempts to suggest otherwise. We have Hawley Harvey Crippen, not 39 Hilldrop Crescent; John Christie (murderer) and Timothy Evans, not 10, Rillington Place; Fred West and Rosemary West, not 25 Cromwell Street; James Hanratty, not A6 Murder. No doubt it has been easy for you to cherry-pick all the "Murder of..." pages precisely because it is not hard to find pages which start with those words. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But what about the ones at the top of the list that do not start with those words? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * How about rather than trying to side-step it, you actually address the self-evident fact that some cases are known by the name of the alleged, actual, or subsequently exonerated perpetrator/suspect? Nick Cooper (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There's also a series of articles about notorious long term prisoners: Charles Bronson (prisoner), Archibald Hall, Dennis Nilsen. The list is really endless. As you say, the examples above are cherry-picked and indicate nothing significant about the Bamber article. But identifying a precedent was never an issue. It's a pointless debate and not raised or questioned by anyone other than Slim. Exok (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Can I ask where these constant ad hominem points and assumptions of bad faith come from? I keep asking you to focus on the arguments, but you keep commenting on what you think are motives. It's very discouraging. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose what you perceive in my attitude here is either an expression of a malign personality coupled with a destructive intent towards the article, or it is the result of trying to reason with you over a very long period. If you look back at our initial exchanges, that might help. Exok (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Compromise?
Would you support splitting the page into two articles, a biography and an article about the murders and investigation? We would then summarize each on the respective pages, summary-style. We don't have a lot of biographical material about Bamber, but perhaps more can be found.

The advantages are that it would give you a bio under Bamber's name, rather than a redirect or a murders article named after one person. And it would shorten the murders article, which is too long and yet is still missing material. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 06:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Another option would be to simply use Jeremy Bamber case (cf. Sara Thornton case, Derek Bentley case, Stratton Brothers case, etc.). Nick Cooper (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You mean have just one article and call it that? For the article about the murders, we ought to use the name the media gave it, White House Farm murders. It's fine to make up an event name when one doesn't already exist, but otherwise not. Books and films below that use it:


 * D'Cruze, Shani; Walklate, Sandra L.; and Pegg, Samantha. "The White House Farm murders," in Murder: Social and Historical Approaches to Understanding Murder and Murderers. Willan, 2006.
 * Whittington-Egan, Richard. "The White House Farm Massacre," Neil Wilson Publishing Ltd, 2006.
 * Plimmer, J. "Detective's Casebook: The investigation into the White House Farm murders of 1985," Police Review, 2 January 1998.
 * Powell, Claire. Murder at White House Farm: Story of Jeremy Bamber. Headline Book Publishing, 1994.
 * Wilkes, Roger. Blood Relations: Jeremy Bamber and the White House Farm Murders. Penguin, 1994.
 * Internet Movie Database. The White House Farm Murders, Yorkshire Television, 1993.
 * Murder Casebook 7: The White House Farm Murders. Marshall Cavendish, 1990.
 * Smith, Ken. "Murder at White House Farm," The Heart, the Border. Bloodaxe Books, 1990.


 * SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your willingness to compromise, but would the long campaign for innocence come under the case article or the biography? Are the appeals aspects of the murders, or of Bamber's determination to clear his name? I think there would be a lot of repetition and readers are most likely to be interested in the case as a whole, rather than the crime and Bamber as separate entities. As you know, I don't see a problem with a murders article named after one person, so having two articles wouldn't really solve anything from my point of view. The problem with length could be resolved if the article was less fascinated with narrating the most arcane detail of claims advanced in favour of a miscarriage. Many of these are aspects of sensationalistic media coverage, have sources generally frowned upon such as The Daily Mail and may have no bearing at all on any eventual appeal or in over-turning the verdict. All that said, I would support a split if it was a straight choice between split or rename. Exok (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems an obvious solution. You want the article about the murder to be called Jeremy Bamber, because you say he's very notable. I want it to be called White House Farm murders, because it's not a biography. So the best thing is a split. 70.24.247.54 said he would support that too, so that would give us consensus.


 * By the way, almost all the sources in the article are broadsheets. The Mail is included because it mentions Bob Woffinden's material, but it's only five times, and two of those are just "see also"s. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have failed disastrously in my attempt to communicate the reasons behind my opposition to a move if what you have understood is that my preference for Jeremy Bamber as a title is based on the view that he is "very notable". Exok (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * SV, of your eight examples, only five actually use "White House Farm Murders," two have the purely descriptive "at White House Farm," and the last "White House Farm Massacre." In two titles, Jeremy Bamber's name is included. In addition there are also:


 * Dossier Meurte 12 - Le Massacre De L'Essex - Jeremy Bamber. (French edition of Murder Casebook or equivalent?)
 * Lomax, Scott. Jeremy Bamber. The History Press Ltd, 2008.
 * Miller, Frederic P.; Vandome, Agnes F. and McBrewster, John. Jeremy Bamber. Alphascript, 2010.
 * Real-Life Crimes. Jeremy Bamber - The Family Murders (Vol. 1 Part 2). Eaglemoss Publications, 1994.


 * So that makes twelve articles or books, of which only five use "White House Farm Murders," while six include Jeremy Bamber's name. In addition, on the basis of the archives I have access to, the news media are similarly far more likely to use his name rather than what you claim is the prevalent term for the events:


 * "White House Farm Murders" only appeared in The Times four times (up to the end of 2006), three of which were references to the 1993 documentary. Jeremy Bamber's name appeared on 115 occasions. "White House Farm" only appears on 39 occasions in the context of the case.


 * "White House Farm Murders" only appeared in The Guardian or The Observer twice (upto the end of 2003), both references to the 1993 documentary. Jeremy Bamber's name appears on 95 occasions. "White House Farm" only appears on 11 occasions in the context of the case.


 * "White House Farm Murders" only appeared in Daily Mirror, Daily/Sunday Express or Daily/Sunday Star four times (to date). Jeremy Bamber's name appears on 232 occasions. "White House Farm" only appears on 62 occasions in the context of the case.


 * "White House Farm Murders" does not appear on the BBC news site at all. Jeremy Bamber's name appears 67 times. "White House Farm" only appears six times in the context of the case.


 * Your claim that "White House Farm Murders" is "the name the media gave it" is totally without foundation. In only a minority of reports is the location even mentioned. In fact, in this context the lead sentence claiming that the events, "became known as the White House Farm murders," is highly misleading, because clearly they generally didn't! Nick Cooper (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Guys, can I ask for the umpteenth time for the aggression to end? There's no need for "totally without foundation" and "highly misleading," and all the other nastiness.


 * I was living in the UK when this happened and I remember it very well. It started out as the Bambi murders, named after the sister, then when the focus switched it became the White House Farm murders. This is evidenced by the books and book chapters that use that title – including a 2006 academic paper called "The White House Farm murders" by Shani D'Cruze, Reader in Gender and Women's History at Manchester Metropolitan University – and the 1993 television film by Yorkshire Television, the "White House Farm Murders". So it's obviously not "totally without foundation" to say that's what the murders became known as.


 * I'd like to discuss content only, rather than with each post having to ask for the bad-faith comments to end, so could we please just stick to content? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There is nothing "bad faith" in saying something is without foundation or highly misleading, an editor is entitled to express that view if they hold it. Exok (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course there is. He is saying that I'm adding material that is without foundation and highly misleading. And he is saying it despite the numerous written and film sources, including an academic source, that use the title the murders did indeed become known by.


 * It's more of the same assumption of bad faith (or assumption of stupidity, or assumption of an inability to read sources, or whatever), rather than focusing only on content. So please, no more comments about me and my doubtless wide-ranging lack of skills and intelligence. Let's all agree I'm an idiot and move on.


 * The question is: are you willing to compromise and split the article into a biography and a murders article? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To be frank, it's beginining to look like you've got an idea in your head, and refuse to accept the mass of evidence that you're wrong. The simple fact is that "White House Farm murders" is only used in a tiny handful of the mass of newspaper articles, books, and articles about the case. Most newspaper reports don't even mention White House Farm at all. Of course it's misleading to claim that the case, "became known as the White House Farm murders," because all the evidence points to that not being the case to the degree that such a statement suggests. If it was a commonly-recognised name, we would expect to see it used in most or at least a substantial minority of news report, but it simply isn't. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, how about " almost totally without foundation"? You say, "when the focus switched it became the White House Farm murders." I would say that it clearly did not. The Times used it once in 1986 (in the sentence, "The jury trying Mr Jeremy Bamber for the White House Farm murders were sent to a hotel last night..." rather than a headline), and then never again until and only in relation to the title of the 1993 documentary. Having checked further, one of the Daily Express appearances is actually merely an advert for the Wilkes book in January 1995; the newspaper did not use the term directly until November of that year, and then for the third and final time not again until February 2010. The Daily Mirror used it only once at the same time. As already noted, The Guardian/Observer has never used it outside of references to the 1993 documentary, and the Star never at all. So four books/articles and one documentary have used it, either in isolation, or as part of a longer title. So what? The fact that the news media did not pick up and further propogate it further is clear. As for your new claim of "Bambi murders," that only appears in the Daily Mirror on three occasions (two in 1986, one in 2010), and not at all in the Express, Star, Guardian/Observer or Times. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't want to start asking people their ages here -- especially after requesting no more ad hominems myself! -- but anyone who was an adult in England in 1985 will surely recall that it was named the White House Farm murders. That's why Yorkshire Television and the rest chose that title. They didn't pull it out of thin air. Plus, we have a scholarly chapter with the same title. If your archive searches aren't showing this, Nick, then the archives are wrong, because I remember it very clearly. (Also, you say it's not in the Guardian archives, but I recall seeing that phrase in the Guardian quite recently.)


 * But again, the question is: are you willing to compromise by splitting the article in two, with summary-style coverage in each of the other? The uncertainty has halted the article's development, so I'd like to resolve it and get back to fixing it up. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Nick Cooper has raised legitimate doubt for me about whether The White House Murders would be the right title for the crime article and I think there would have to be a new proposal: a decision to split should not come out of the current Move debate, especially as it has been so prolix. Could you just clear up whether you see the half of the current article that covers the miscarriage campaign and appeals as fitting into the crime or the Jeremy Bamber article? Exok (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The detail would be in the murders article, but it would be included in some form in the biography article too. See WP:SUMMARY for how this is done. A biography would focus more on his personal circumstances, less on the ins and outs of the investigation. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll happily admit to being a month short of 19 at the time of the murders, which I was very much aware of, and as I recall it was Jeremy Bamber's name that was the most used reference point for the events.
 * I am absolutely stunned that you suggest, "the archives are wrong," because searchs of them of them bring up only a tiny number of references to "White House Farm murders," yet many times more for "Jeremy Bamber." "White House farm" and "Bamber" together produce a substantial number, so there are no grounds whatsoever for believing that searches for "White House Farm murders" bring up hardly anything at all, other than that the phrase was and is simply not in widespread use. We have 509 newspaper and BBC mentions of Jeremy Bamber's name, 118 where it appears with "White House farm" (i.e. the location is only named in 23% of articles), and "White House Farm murders" only 10 times, mostly as references to the 1993 documentary title or Wilkes's book. The searches don't bring up "White House Farm murder" for the simple reason that the term was not used to anything like the degree that you claim.
 * Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you think you remember, because all evidence shows that you're wrong in this case, and I'm rather startled that an editor of your experience could seem to suggest that one person's uncorroborated memory is an acceptable standard of proof for Wikipedia. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Nick, please read what I have written. I've given you books with that name, a scholarly chapter, and a film. PLUS, I remember it well myself. Please let's stop all the rhetoric. It's not a battle.


 * The reason I'm relaxed about saying the newspaper archives could be wrong is that I've used them myself often enough over the years, and searches regularly don't return everything.


 * To give an example, you wrote above: "As already noted, The Guardian/Observer has never used it [the term "White House Farm murders"] outside of references to the 1993 documentary ..."


 * Well, here is just one example of The Observer using it a couple of years ago: "Analysis of police negatives by one of Britain's most eminent photographic experts has found them incompatible with the principal prosecution case used to imprison Bamber for the White House Farm murders 25 years ago (bold added)".  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Break 2

 * I clearly stated that the Guardian/Observer archive I searched goes up to 2003, and the Times to 2006 (the other newspapers are effectively to date). Obviously the "current" website for the latter is firewalled, but for the Guardian/Observer website "White House Farm murders" returns only two hits (one being the one you mention), but "Jeremy Bamber" produces a massive 1,430 and his name plus "white house farm" only 22. In fact the website appears to go back to at least 2001, so there is obviously an overlap with the print edition archive (to 2003), and no unaccounted for gap where there may be lots of instances of "White House Farm murders". All evidence suggests that the Guardian/Observer has used the phrase on only four occasions, two of which were references to the 1993 documentary, in contrast to at least 100 reports relating to the events without that phrase.
 * Nobody is disputing that "White House Farm murders" has been used, but it has been in only a tiny number of instances of reporting of the case, and in fact most don't mention the name of the location at all. That you have managed to find the few where "White House Farm murders" does appear does not somehow mean we can ignore the many many more occasions on which it wasn't. We simply cannot say that "White House Farm murders" is the accepted or common name for the crime, because it clearly isn't. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're only getting 1,430 hits, you're missing a lot because there was saturation coverage. Look, even the police called it that, e.g. Plimmer, John. "Detective's Casebook: The investigation into the White House Farm murders of 1985," Police Review, 2 January 1998 (my bold). Plimmer was a detective with West Midlands police.


 * So I've given you several book titles, one scholarly article, one article by a detective, one film, and there are numerous newspaper articles, not online most of them, but we don't need them because we have the rest. The chapter by the academic, the paper by the police officer, and the Yorkshire Television film (ignoring the books) are actually enough to establish that name, because there are no other contenders. The reliable sources who named it used that name. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Right.... so you're now disputing the Google results for the Guardian/Observer site? Well, here they are:
 * "Jeremy Bamber" + www.guardian.co.uk
 * "White House Farm" + "Bamber"
 * "White House Farm murders" + www.guardian.co.uk
 * You have identified "White House Farm murders" being used in title of one book (not "several"), three articles/chapters, and one TV dramatisation. Across the print editions of six major national newspapers, "White House Farm murders" appears on only ten occasions, six of which are references to the titles of either the TV dramatisation and the book.
 * There are seven books or magazines that do not use "White House Farm murders" in titles, while six titles incorporate Jeremy Bamber's name. There are something in the order of 500 instances of Jeremy Bamber's name appearing in newspaper reports, clearly all without "White House Farm murders" in the same report; the BBC has never used the phrase. The name of the farm only appeared in just over a hundred reports across the newspapers and the BBC website. The Guardian/Observer website had well over a thousand instances of Jeremy Bamber's name, but "White House Farm murders" appears only twice, and the name of the farm only 33 times.
 * I don't inderstand your claim that, "there are numerous newspaper articles, not online most of them..." I searched the online archive for The Times that goes to 2006; the one for the Guardian/Observer to 2003, but also their website that goes back further than that date; and the collective one for the Mirror, Express, and Star'' that is effectively complete to date.
 * In addition, "White House Farm murders" appears only twice on the Daily Mail website, but Jeremy Bamber's name 8,650 times. Similarly, while obviously a limited site, the Telegraph has 51 instances of Bamber's name, but "White House Farm murders" never.
 * Please stop suggesting that we have to accept what you say is your own memory of events as proof, not least because I can't begin to imagine that you would accept such a claim from another editor on any other subject.
 * It seems very much that you are now desperately trying to move the goalposts. First you claimed that "White House Farm murders" was in widespread use, but when presented with overwhelming evidence that it clearly hasn't been, you now claim that just because your small number of cherry-picked sources used it - whilst ignoring all those that don't - we have to do so because "there are no other contenders." As has been pointed out repeatedly, the name of Jeremy Bamber himself is sysnonymous with the events in question, and that is the reference point most used by the news media and other sources. Because you insist that current page name makes it look like "a biography" I offered the obvious and sensible alternative of Jeremy Bamber case, a form which is already used elsewhere. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nick, your post would have conveyed the same information without the aggression, and without the "you are now desperately trying to move the goalposts." As you said yourself when you stopped editing in December, life's too short. I'm here only to write an article, not to look for trouble or drama.

All I can do is repeat that I feel I've provided enough sources, which I've listed at User:SlimVirgin/WHF, to show that this became known as the White House Farm murders. The sources include a Times editorial from 2001, i.e. something written in the newspaper's voice, which says: "The White House Farm murders became one of the most infamous criminal cases of the past 20 years ..." 

It's not a question of numbers because there is no other name that was used. Anyone who used a name used that one, so we don't have to make one up.. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Slim, why would you make that remark about "when you stopped editing in December"? Why would you mention an editor's history when you have repeatedly asked for no ad hominen attacks and when you yourself have only recently returned from a break? Exok (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't see a problem in referring to an editor's break. What I was drawing attention to was his comment that "life is too short for this," which I agree with. Can you address the point that having a scholarly source, a Times editorial, an article by a detective in Police Review, a film by Yorkshire Television, and several book titles establishes that the murders became known as the "White House Farm murders"? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't establish anything of the sort, given that it is clearly not a term used on any significant scale by the news media, and hence of which the general public would be aware. As I said previously, if you ask most people if they have heard of the "White House Farm murder," the majority will look blank, but many of them will be quite familiar with the name Jeremy Bamber, and the crime jhe was found guilty of. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it is very much a matter of numbers. You initially claimed that the page should be moved to "White House Farm murders" on the basis that it is a common term for the events in question. It is now clear that this is far from the case. That you have now added a piece that is wrongly attributed to The Times, when it must actually have come from The Sunday Times (i.e. not being in The Times archive, and 18 March 2001 being a Sunday), does not significantly change that position.
 * If the phrase had entered common usage in the way you suggest, we would expect to see the news media using it regularly and repeatedly, but we don't. The overwhelming majority of sources do not use the term "White House Farm murders" and in fact the vast majority do not even name the location at all. In this context it is inappropriate to name this page and include text that misleadingly claims that it is the name the case is generally know by, when clearly it isn't. Saying that nobody has come up with any other name is not a valid reason for using the one used on a tiny number of occasions. If people are aware of the case at all, it will be overwhelmingly by way of Jeremy Bamber's own name. This is fairly obvious when one considers the first twenty reports in The Times from the case:
 * Inquiries reopen on shot five. The Times (London, England), Tuesday, Sep 10, 1985; pg. 3
 * Burglary charge man gets bail. The Times (London, England), Saturday, Sep 14, 1985; pg. 2
 * Son charged with five farm killings. The Times (London, England), Monday, Sep 30, 1985; pg. 1
 * Napley to take over defence in 'Bambi' case. By Michael Horsnell. The Times (London, England), Thursday, Oct 31, 1985; pg. 3
 * Remand in farm murders case. The Times (London, England), Thursday, Dec 19, 1985; pg. 2
 * Bamber will. The Times (London, England), Monday,  January 06, 1986; pg. 3
 * Bamber hearing. The Times (London, England), Thursday,  January 16, 1986; pg. 3
 * Murder charge man's legacy. The Times (London, England), Friday,  January 17, 1986; pg. 3
 * Bamber sent for trial. The Times (London, England), Thursday,  May 08, 1986; pg. 5
 * Son 'slaughtered family to inherit £436,000 estate'. Michael Horsnell. The Times (London, England), Friday,  October 03, 1986; pg.
 * Bamber son 'talked of fast car dream' as family lay dead. Michael Horsnell. The Times (London, England), Saturday,  October 04, 1986; pg. 3
 * Detective rebuked over 'lost' clues. Michael Horsnell. The Times (London, England), Tuesday,  October 07, 1986; pg. 3
 * Son 'boasted he could kill'. Michael Horsnell. The Times (London, England), Wednesday,  October 08, 1986; pg. 3
 * 'Rats died in murder rehearsal'. The Times (London, England), Thursday,  October 09, 1986; pg. 1
 * Bamber strangled rats to test courage says girl friend. Michael Horsnell. The Times (London, England), Thursday,  October 09, 1986; pg. 3
 * Bamber tears. The Times (London, England), Saturday,  October 11, 1986; pg. 1
 * Bamber near tears as mother's 'darling Jem' letter is read. Michael Horsnell. The Times (London, England), Saturday,  October 11, 1986; pg. 3
 * Accused's parents 'fought for life'. Michael Horsnell. The Times (London, England), Tuesday,  October 14, 1986; pg. 3
 * Bamber in witness box today. Michael Horsnell. The Times (London, England), Wednesday,  October 15, 1986; pg. 3
 * Bamber was calm after bodies found. Michael Horsnell. The Times (London, England), Thursday,  October 16, 1986; pg. 3
 * None of the reports use the phrase "White House Farm murders" but what we do see again and again are references to Bamber. The focus of the case has almost universally been on Bamber himself, not the location, and not the victims. In this respect it is no different from so many cases where the Wikipedia page which documents a crime or crimes is named after the person found or deemed to be guilty of them. I don't understand why you are having such difficulty accepting that in this case. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Slim has shown that the murders have been called "The White House Farm murders" but not to the exclusion of anything else and there is no dispute (is there?) that "Jeremy Bamber " is used far more frequently as a key term for sources relevant to the contents of this article. Exok (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, of course, that Jeremy Bamber is well-known by his name. But it is the name of a person, not an event. Our article is about an event. So I'm suggesting that we handle it the way these issues are commonly handled on Wikipedia nowadays -- 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt, not Raoul Moat; the Soham murders, not Ian Huntley; the Hungerford massacre, not Michael Ryan, and so on. That has been best practice for some time on Wikipedia, per WP:BLP1E.


 * Then if people think Bamber ought to have a biography over and above the main article, we can create a separate one. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh. I thought your Move proposal was abandoned and you were now suggesting a compromise of splitting the article. But the compromise you're suggesting is to retitle the current article as you originally proposed and then to allow a Bamber biography if people subsequently think there should be one? That's pretty close to where we were at the outset of this long discussion. I still don't believe there's any good reason to make a move, but I would agree to "Jeremy Bamber Case". It's a better title than "The White House Farm Murders" because it reflects the unique longevity of his miscarriage of justice claims, a feature of his biography rather than the original crime. Surely "Jeremy Bamber Case" is a modest enough proposal and would satisfy everyone? Exok (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to make what I'm suggesting any clearer. I am suggesting (a) per WP:BLP1E, that we host an article about the murders under the title White House Farm murders, because that is the name reliable sources gave it. And that (b) if someone then wants a biography, rather than a redirect, under the title Jeremy Bamber, that can happen too. The advantage of having two articles would be that the murders article would be slightly shorter.
 * There is no need to invent a name, Jeremy Bamber case for the murders of the Bamber and Caffell families. You would not suggest that Soham murders be called Ian Huntley case. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That example helps to clarify why White House Farm Murders would be wrong. Soham - like Hungerford or Dunblane - is a place name with a very strong association to a single event. "White House Farm Murders" doesn't have remotely the same impact. You're also missing my point about longevity. The name Jeremy Bamber has remained a highly potent news term for nearly 30 years, dramatic developments in his case occur on a regular basis. It is wrong to ignore this factor, which is an aspect of his determination to clear his name, not of the murders themselves. Exok (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason this discussion is going round in circles is that you pick apart whatever example I give, without taking the overall point. If you don't like Soham, then look at 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt. We do not name all the terrible things that happened during that event after Raoul Moat, even though his name is infinitely more recognizable to Brits.


 * The point is that, for several years on Wikipedia -- particularly since we have had a BLP policy -- we have tried not to name events after people, and especially not living people.


 * I do take your point about Bamber's effort to secure a retrial being given repeated coverage. This is why I would not object if you wanted there to be a separate bio. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. BLP1E definitely does not apply in this case. As Bamber's "Did You Know?" appearance on the Main Page demonstrated, he has a claim to notability far beyond the murders; reliable sources do not cover him only in the context of that one event in 1985 and he is not "a low profile individual". And could I point out that a separate biographical article was your proposal, there's no need for you to say you wouldn't object to it, that's assumed. My proposal is no split and no move per discussion above. Exok (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you read BLP1E? "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented ... a separate biography may be appropriate (bold added). That is the split that was suggested as a compromise: an article about the event, which is not just about Bamber, and a separate biography, per BLP1E. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Did I read an article that I've quoted from directly? Could you hold back on the facetious questions? Bamber is not an individual who is significant solely for his role in a single event, BLP1E is a policy that applies to such individuals, so it does not apply to him. Exok (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * SV, I don't understand your resistance to Jeremy Bamber case, given that your objection to Jeremy Bamber is that that form automatically suggests it is a biography and therefore subject to WP:BLP1E. If we were dealing with a murder-suicide in which JB himself also died, there might be an argument for that, but the case goes far beyond the events in 1986, and all subsequent developments all inherently relate to JB himself.
 * As I have already pointed out, the "... case" form is used to deal with Sara Thornton, Derek Bentley, the Stratton Brothers, etc. Similarly, we have Kray twins and no Murder of George Cornell, Murder of Jack "the Hat" McVitie, and so on. Meanwhile, other famous crimes are named after those convicted of them, such as Hawley Harvey Crippen, John Christie, Timothy Evans, etc.
 * I'm not sure if the examples you have given are as appropriate as you think. In the case of Hungerford and Soham, the names we use are those quickly adopted by the press, and so commonly understood and recognised, years and months respectively before the Wikipedia pages were started (the same applies to Dunblane/Thomas Hamilton). In the case of Raoul Moat, the page was begun as Raoul Thomas Moat while events were still unfolding, and subsequently changed. If that page was being created now retrospectively, there would be a strong case for using Moat's name because it really is all about him in the sense that the pages for Crippen, Bentley, Evans, Christie, the Krays, Thornton, etc. are.
 * I do not think there is any reason to have a separate page for the murders, simply because pretty much every detail about them would also be relevent to a "biography" of JB, in the context of whether or not they conform or conflict with the prosecution case against him. Perhaps it would be useful if you could outline examples of which information you think would properly need to appear on only one page, and not the other? Nick Cooper (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've asked for uninvolved opinions at the BLP noticeboard here. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose White House Farm murders is not as well known or used as the guys name. Why not rename it as the bambi Bamber murder case. I seem to recall seeing that widely used when he butchered his family. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * SV, I note that your summary on the BLPN goes to great lengths to state your case, but barely pays lip service to the extensive counter-arguments put forward here, in particular as regards the numerically overwhelming coverage of the case that does not use the name you are proposing. I also note that you have not yet addressed my request above that you explain which parts of the current page should properly reside on the two pages you now propose. If it isn't immediately obvious that each would have sizable unique content not on the other, then that calls the suggestion to split into question. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence
The article should begin with a description telling non-specialist readers who the subject of the article is. The subject of the article as indicated by its title is currently Jeremy Bamber. The clear guideline WP:LEADSENTENCE should be respected. It is not right for such an important feature of the article to be used as ammunition in the current Move debate. The move has not yet taken place. Exok (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Bamber is not the subject of this article. The article is about the murders. Regardless of the title, the lead must sum up the article. And there is no need for the title to be in the first sentence; that's a common misperception.


 * Look, Exok, I don't want to fall out with you. But I've been trying to fix the article for some time. It's not easy, and this really isn't helping. It's not only about getting the details and the sources right. The writing has to flow well too. So there's a lot of work still to be done. It's not even close to being ready. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be better to respect the guideline rather than trusting to what you say is a common misperception. As well as making more sense, it would remove any suspicion that the new opening sentence is an attempt to rig the debate. Exok (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your more recent lead sentence edit. I strongly prefer it. Exok (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The guideline makes clear that it does not have to be adhered to, and it's well-known that first sentences need not contain the title. Anyway, I've restored your preference for now, though I tried to fix the flow, and I removed the dob because it's not a bio. I've added an infobox for him in his section.


 * We won't get the article to FAC like this. To get FA status, one person has to be allowed to impose a narrative flow on the text (or at least a couple of like-minded people). It just doesn't work otherwise. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why the obsession with FA status? Nick Cooper (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why do you see it as an obsession? It's just an article milestone, a way of making sure it's as good as we can make it. And the process gets fresh eyes on it from reviewers who are very experienced in checking sources, writing and neutrality. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the title for now, does Lead 1 not seem to flow better? SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For me, Bamber's name immediately contextualises the rest. Its power to focus attention is not remotely matched by the first version which seems preoccupied with explaining its own terms. The unfamiliar term comes at the end of the sentence in the second one, a more logical place for it and the departure point for the next sentence. Exok (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Remember that we're writing for a global readership going into the future, not a British readership now. It's best to try to forget what you know about it, and look only at the way the narrative flows. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not a very realistic proposition, the cognitive vacuum you're suggesting doesn't exist. I wish it was possible to simply express an honest opinion here, without being worked on afterwards in the name of conforming to a different position. These are subjective rather than absolute judgements. Exok (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I read the article & am watching this page because a friend mentioned "the Jeremy Bamber case" in an email. Rothorpe (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Rothorpe, thanks for mentioning that. I noticed you used the edit summary, "keep name". Does that mean you prefer the title "Jeremy Bamber" to "White House Farm murders"? Exok (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, yes, keep the name "Jeremy Bamber" for the article. Rothorpe (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * One proposal is to have a separate article about the murders and investigation, and to keep this article (the one called Jeremy Bamber) as a biography of him, which we would extend with more biographical detail. Is that something you would support, Rothorpe? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 07:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's enough material for two articles, that would be a good compromise, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Rothorpe. I first thought a move would be best, but I'm increasingly thinking that splitting it in two is better still, because it would reduce the length of this one. That would make developing it a bit easier. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: further discussion took place at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jeremy_Bamber. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Summing up for the closing admin 1
There was no consensus for a straightforward move of this article to White House Farm murders, because inter alia it was felt that Bamber's name was more notable.

However, a compromise suggestion did gain consensus, namely that we move the current Jeremy Bamber to White House Farm murders, and create a biography under Jeremy Bamber. This will have the added benefit of allowing us to shorten the murders article, which is getting too long, then do summary-style in each. I've created a draft of the biography at User:SlimVirgin/Jeremy Bamber.

I'm going to ask an uninvolved admin to close the discussion and oversee the move. For his or her benefit, the issue was discussed in this thread, and at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jeremy_Bamber.

Those supporting the article split and rename are 70.24.247.54, Rothorpe,  Captain Screebo,  Viriditas,  BabbaQ,  and myself.

Those opposing are Exok and Nick Cooper. 

So the requested moves are (a) Jeremy Bamber --> White House Farm murders and (b) User:SlimVirgin/Jeremy Bamber --> Jeremy Bamber. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Given the length and complexity of the move debate any split should be the subject of a fresh, explicitly declared proposal on this talk page. This is a major change to a long established article and should be given proper scrutiny, not be the subject of a compromise never properly announced, cobbled together at more than one forum, tallied by the editor proposing it and shepherded by obvious canvassing. Exok (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be overkill to require yet more discussion about this. This is a straightforward issue, or should have been. (a) We avoid naming events after people nowadays on Wikipedia, so this should not be called Jeremy Bamber. (b) We split up articles when they get too long, which is what we're doing here. And finally (c) we routinely create separate biographies when a key player in an event is notable enough, as is the case with Bamber.


 * Six editors have agreed to this. We can't keep asking people to comment again. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We can present the compromise as a proposal and give the community a fair chance to clearly address the change you want. There would be no harm in doing this and the advantage would be a clear agreement moving forward. Exok (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It has already been presented as a proposal twice: here on this talk page, and here on the BLPN — and people said yes. This is standard operating procedure on Wikipedia, Exok. Article about an event is called after the event. Separate biography where very notable key player is concerned. Summary style in both. I can't see why anyone would object to it here, and despite the long posts (or perhaps because of them), I still haven't understood what your argument is.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If this is the right thing to do the community will back it. There is no need to try forcing such a significant change through without having a proper debate. The closing admin should agree to no consensus on the move proposal; the split compromise should then be proposed and discussed fairly. Exok (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you say what your argument against the split is? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, Slim. I'm asking for a proper proposal and debate regarding the split. If you have a sincere interest in views on the split, allow the debate. Exok (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please say what your argument against the split is. Without that, you're asking for more process for the sake of it. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're achieving your aim of retitling the substantive article "White House Farm murders" even though you concede the outcome of the proposal to do this was no consensus. Rather than accept this outcome you have cobbled together a disperate and over-complicated collection of views, some of which you have canvassed or shaped and none of which is the result of a clear, simple description of the changes you want. This is unfair and coupled with long-standing accusations of your own ownership of the article, POV pushing and the manipulation in which you engaged before starting the current move debate, disallowing this simple step casts a very poor light on your pattern of editing. The best way to improve the article is on a basis of clear consensus. The best way to deepen long-standing resentments and arouse suspicion that you are forcing your way rather than building support is to evade the proper scrutiny of the community. Exok (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again, please stop the personal attacks and personal comments. It isn't reasonable to insist on more process for such a simple matter. So please say here what your argument is against splitting the article.


 * As things stand, article development has come to a halt because of your objection. I can't get it ready for GA or FA unless I can start moving material over to the bio, tightening it, updating it, and perhaps restructuring it. If you are going to do this, you must say why you are against the split. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal attack to note the pattern of your editing. I am in favour of a proper proposal and debate because this is the best way to resolve disputed changes to an article fairly. A very significant and contentious change should not be made without the involvement of all interested editors and this can only be achieved by properly notifying everyone of the change you plan. Please address the point I'm making rather than demanding the particular responses that you want. Exok (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Exok, in 100 words or less, what is your best argument against the split and move? To me, an uninterested observer, this appears to be more of an ownership issue. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean disinterested? I don't think I can be accused of ownership of the article; I gave up attempting to make any significant change to it soon after it became clear Slim Virgin would only tolerate her own point of view. I don't see the need for a split. I think the current article is too long because it dwells at excessive length on sensationalistic claims advanced as part of a campaign to overturn Bamber's conviction. It insists on these claims and interpolates them into the chronology of the case in a way that has a disastrous effect on comprehensibility. I saw Slim Virgin's original move proposal as the culmination of an attempt to construct a new narrative in which novel claims asserted only in newspapers - often as opinion pieces - have the same weight as evidence tested in court. When consensus was not supportive of a move Slim then leapt on this supposed compromise as a means of achieving the same end by different means. Jeremy Bamber is a highly emotive subject in the UK and this is a critical moment for the case, just as the CCRC may rule on the admissibility of his claim for a fresh appeal. We should be striving to achieve better balance at this time, not making a decisive move in the direction of separating the name of the currently identified perpetrator of the crimes from the crimes themselves. Exok (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am also disinterested, but I mean uninterested, as I really have no interest in violent crime topics as I rarely edit them or find them interesting on the legal end. I'm much more interested in the neuropsychology of criminal behaviour, so this subject isn't my thing. As for the wrongful conviction claims, this is based on new evidence, is it not?  It sounds to me like you are resisting a change in the direction of this topic based on new evidence.  Please remember, technology has advanced a great deal since 1986, and this is changing the entire criminal justice system around the world.  I'm not sure if you are aware of these developments or not. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misunderstood you, then. A distinction needs to be drawn between evidence accepted into a court and what is called evidence but what may prove merely to be argument. I'd be delighted if decisive evidence emerged; it would solve a fascinating mystery. But until that happens we should give greater weight to the original trial and its subsequent appeal judgements than we should to the frequent sensational claims of Bamber's campaign. Exok (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to split this article into a murders article and a biography
Exok has objected to the closure of the move discussion, and has asked that I make another formal proposal to split the article. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jeremy_Bamber for previous discussion.

The proposal is that the article about the murders (currently titled Jeremy Bamber) be moved to White House Farm murders, and that a biography be created under the title Jeremy Bamber. I have created a draft of the biography at User:SlimVirgin/Jeremy Bamber. There is a selection of reliable sources using the term "White House Murders" at User:SlimVirgin/White House Farm murders.

There are three advantages to this: (1) the article about the event (the deaths of five people) won't be named after one person; (2) we will have a dedicated biography of Bamber, who is notable enough for one, with the murders covered in it summary-style for readers wanting a quick overview; and (3) we can shorten the murders article, which is currently too long, by moving over material that is mostly biographical.


 * Support for the reasons given above. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I think it is a great suggestion to split the article into two.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - As far as I can tell, this is best practice and recommended for an article this size.  I am unaware of any issue or reason why it should not be split, nor has anyone explained how it could be detrimental to the subject.  Because this can only be described as a positive development, I support it. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support rename, oppose split. Per WP:CRIME we should generally avoid writing biographical articles for criminals. Whilst SV's demo article is well-drafted in many respects, it does not work well as a spinoff article. The body of the demo is about 1300 words, but only about 350 of those are words that would otherwise be contained in the "Jeremy Bamber" subsection of the parent article (i.e. not a lot of text would be cut from the parent article). Most of those 350 words cover incredible trivial details (he once took a scuba course, he once has his GameBoy stolen, he drew pictures of famous models whilst in prison, he's handsome) and do not justify the creation of a new article.
 * The remaining 950 words of the article basically precise various details, without any obvious criteria for their selection, from the parent article. This seems like exactly what WP:CRIME and WP:PSEUDO are supposed to avoid - biographical articles basically covering the same ground as the related event articles, but which place the criminal, rather than the crime, at the centre of the story.--FormerIP (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Oppose Jeremy Bamber - the established, most evocative and most logical title of the article should remain, especially at this time. Why has this proposal emerged now, why particularly now? Wikipedia should not become involved in what may be interpreted as a decisive value judgement in such a contentious issue. Issues of length can easily be addressed through less contentious means. Exok (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment "Jeremy Bamber" is a bad title, as this isn't a biography article. "Jeremy Bamber murders" would be more appropriate for the crime article. A split solves that problem. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - My principal objection to renaming was that the suggested name - i.e. "White House Farm murders" - does not reflect the fact that the case is rather known primarily by JB's name, and WHFM is not widely known/used, hence I favoured Jeremy Bamber case. I recognise that if the article is split, there will be little choice than to name one WHFM, but I feel there should be an appropriate choice of words to explain the prevalence of the various names that have been applied to the crimes (including "Bambi Murders" and "White House Farm Massacre"), but also that the case is primarily referenced by JB's name alone. Readers who wish to know more about the case will, for example, not get particularly far if they Google WHFM, in contrast to searching for JB. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Sorry to take so long to get over here but what's the point of dragging this out? We have already all made our points at BLPN and this is just persnickety (and tedious). Right, Bamber has become well-known (i.e. rises above BLP1E) due to ongoing campaign to clear his name, support groups, appeals and so on.
 * Split to bio about him and rename article. "White House Farm Murders", why not? Yes, I know, bla, bla, bla about occurences in the press and so on of the "Bambi Bamber murders/massacre" or whatever, has it ever occured to you that reporting standards have evolved and they don't tend to report stories like 'Moat's murdering mayhem' anymore? I think this is highly relevant and Wikipedia should follow precedent set by all the cases mentioned over at the BLPN, okay just tried John Hinckley, Jr. and Reagan assassination attempt, we again have two articles, one with an objective summing-up title and one about the (now well-known) perpetrator. And so what if some newspapers at the time referred to the "Lovestruck loony" (okay I'm making this up), the point is the trend is to separate major crime articles and the person's bio, cf. Dominique Strauss-Kahn and New York v. Strauss-Kahn. That's all folks!  Captain Screebo Parley! 22:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you've missed my point. I wasn't objecting to the use of WHFM for the split article, just pointing out that some reference should be made to its relative lack of use. The general principle on Wikipedia is to use the most common name, and if for some reason we do otherwise, it merits acknowledgement and explanation. Regarding changing reporting standards, that has little bearing on historical cases, otherwise there'd be a case for changing Jack the Ripper to something more innocuous. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Googling "White House Farm murders" brings up 94,800 hits where I live. And there are book titles that use it, one television film, a scholarly article, an article by a former detective, a Times editorial, several newspaper articles. See User:SlimVirgin/White House Farm murders for a selection. As for "Bambi murders," that was used by the media only for the first month, when it was thought Bamber's sister had done it. She had been a model, so the tabloid press in particular was very interested, and either gave her that nickname or used one she already had. But once Bamber was arrested on 8 September, that name faded away. The brief use of "Bambi murders" is discussed in a scholarly paper: D'Cruze, Shani et al. "The White House Farm murders," in Murder: Social and Historical Approaches to Understanding Murder and Murderers. Willan, 2006, p. 120. They write: "The popular press was very quick to seize upon the fact that Sheila Caffell had done some modelling; rapidly these became labelled as the 'Bambi' murders." But as you can see, the writers call their paper "The White House Farm murders," which is the only name that stuck. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Googling the exact phrase "White House Farm Murders" returns 45,700 hits. However, as I noted here back in 2010, many of these are simply, "multiple mentions of the same documentary, book, and magazine titles, including torrent sites, sale listings, etc." If one adds "nevill" or "shiela" to the search criteria - i.e. to focus on mentions that are actually discussing or reporting the case - we get a mere 5,230 and 5,660 hits respectively.


 * In terms of use in titles, we have the following:


 * Titles incorporating "White House Farm Murders" or "Massacre":
 * Scholarly
 * D'Cruze, Shani; Walklate, Sandra L.; and Pegg, Samantha. "The White House Farm murders," in Murder: Social and Historical Approaches to Understanding Murder and Murderers. Willan, 2006.
 * Police
 * Plimmer, J. "Detective's Casebook: The investigation into the White House Farm murders of 1985," Police Review, 2 January 1998.
 * Books
 * Whittington-Egan, Richard. "The White House Farm Massacre," Neil Wilson Publishing Ltd, 2006.
 * Wilkes, Roger. Blood Relations: Jeremy Bamber and the White House Farm Murders. Penguin, 1994.
 * Magazines
 * Murder Casebook 7: The White House Farm Murders. Marshall Cavendish. 1990.
 * Television
 * Crime Story: The White House Farm Murders, Yorkshire Television/ITV, 1993.


 * Titles not incorporating "White House Farm Murders" or "Massacre":
 * Books
 * Lomax, Scott. Jeremy Bamber. The History Press Ltd, 2008.
 * Miller, Frederic P.; Vandome, Agnes F. and McBrewster, John. Jeremy Bamber. Alphascript, 2010.
 * Powell, Claire. Murder at White House Farm: Story of Jeremy Bamber. Headline Book Publishing, 1994.
 * Smith, Ken. "Murder at White House Farm," The Heart, the Border. Bloodaxe Books, 1990.
 * Magazines
 * Dossier Meurte 12 - Le Massacre De L'Essex - Jeremy Bamber. (French edition of Murder Casebook or equivalent?)
 * Real-Life Crimes. Jeremy Bamber - The Family Murders (Vol. 1 Part 2). Eaglemoss Publications, 1994.
 * Murder in Mind 6: Jeremy Bamber. Marshall Cavendish. 1997.
 * Television
 * The Amazing Story of Jeremy Bamber, Channel 4, 2003.
 * Real Crime: Jeremy Bamber, Anglia Television/ITV, 2004.
 * Crimes That Shook Britain: Jeremy Bamber, Crime & Investigation Network (UK), 2011.


 * As noted above, the news media hardly ever uses "White House Farm murder" and does not mention the location at all in the majority of reports:


 * {| class="wikitable"

!align="left" valign="top"|Newspapers (print editions): !align="left" valign="top"|"Jeremy Bamber" !align="left" valign="top"|"White House Farm murders" !align="left" valign="top"|"White House Farm"
 * align="left" valign="top"|The Times (to 2006)
 * align="left" valign="top"|115
 * align="left" valign="top"|4
 * align="left" valign="top"|39
 * align="left" valign="top"|Guardian/Observer (to 2003)
 * align="left" valign="top"|95
 * align="left" valign="top"|2
 * align="left" valign="top"|11
 * align="left" valign="top"|Mirror/Express/Star (to date)
 * align="left" valign="top"|232
 * align="left" valign="top"|4
 * align="left" valign="top"|62
 * align="left" valign="top"|Websites:
 * align="left" valign="top"|
 * align="left" valign="top"|
 * align="left" valign="top"|
 * align="left" valign="top"|BBC News
 * align="left" valign="top"|67
 * align="left" valign="top"|0
 * align="left" valign="top"|6
 * align="left" valign="top"|Guardian/Observer
 * align="left" valign="top"|1,430
 * align="left" valign="top"|2
 * align="left" valign="top"|19
 * align="left" valign="top"|''Telegraph
 * align="left" valign="top"|51
 * align="left" valign="top"|0
 * align="left" valign="top"|16
 * align="left" valign="top"|Mail
 * align="left" valign="top"|8,650
 * align="left" valign="top"|2
 * align="left" valign="top"|41
 * }
 * align="left" valign="top"|0
 * align="left" valign="top"|16
 * align="left" valign="top"|Mail
 * align="left" valign="top"|8,650
 * align="left" valign="top"|2
 * align="left" valign="top"|41
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * Even if we end up with the "events" page being called "White House Farm murders" by default, it needs to be explained that the term is not in widespread use in relation to the case. The name only "stuck" in the sense that a very small number of sources have used it in the absence of any other name, not because it is in widespread use elsewhere. I just don't see what the objection is to actually acknowledging and explaining this, in the same way for example, that the Siege of Sidney Street is also known as the "Battle of Stepney." Nick Cooper (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Summing up for the closing admin 2
This is a summary for the closing admin as the discussion has been somewhat meandering.


 * 1. I proposed here on 12 February that this article, Jeremy Bamber, be moved to White House Farm murders, because it is an article about the event, not a biography. (There is a selection of sources calling it "White House Farm murders" at User:SlimVirgin/White House Farm murders.) There were objections to this on the grounds, inter alia, that Bamber's name is widely known.


 * 2. A compromise was therefore proposed to split the articles into a biography called Jeremy Bamber and an article about the murders called White House Farm murders. I wrote a draft biography at User:SlimVirgin/Jeremy Bamber. This proposal did gain consensus in discussion here and on the BLP noticeboard from 16-20 February. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jeremy_Bamber.


 * 3. Those supporting the split and rename at that time were 70.24.247.54, Rothorpe,  Captain Screebo,  Viriditas,  BabbaQ,  and myself. Those opposing were Exok and Nick Cooper.


 * 4. Exok objected to the closure of the discussion on the grounds that it had been fragmented, and asked that I make another formal proposal on this page to split and rename. That discussion took place, beginning on 20 February, at.


 * 5. The results of that discussion were:


 * Support rename and split: BabbaQ, Viriditas,  CaptainScreebo,  SlimVirgin . And I believe 70.24.251.71's comment was supportive of the split.
 * Support rename, oppose split: Former IP
 * Oppose both: Exok
 * Comment: Nick Cooper

It would therefore be appreciated if an admin could decide whether there is consensus to make the moves, and if so to go ahead with them: (a) Jeremy Bamber --> White House Farm murders and (b) User:SlimVirgin/Jeremy Bamber --> Jeremy Bamber.

Many thanks, SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bambi Murders not White House Farm
I see the sourced Bambi Murders. has been reverted, under what grounds? Is there a source for "in what became known as the White House Farm murders"? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added sources. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No you have engaged in WP:OR. Those sources use White House Farm murders the ydo not seem to say however in what became known as. Unlike the source I provided for Bambi Murders which does say this. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That would be a misuse of the NOR policy. We can show that it became known as X with high-quality examples. It was briefly called the Bambi murders when it was thought that Sheila did it, but that was only a few weeks. The source you used explains that this name was used while Sheila was the suspect. The title of your source (the chapter) is "The White House Farm murders" (p. 117). SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Films" section
As a digression, a couple of points on this section. Both the productions listed are television programmes, rather than "films," which in UK terminology - which we should obviously be using here - is reserved for cinema productions.

The White House Farm Murders was an episode of the series Crime Story, first screened by ITV on 22 December 1993. This was a dramatisation, rather than a documentary, written by Jane Fitton, and produced and directed by Mike Cocker. I have a more complete cast list than the IMDB listing.

IMDB incorrectly attributes the second programme to True Crime and gives a date of May 2003, whereas in fact the series was called Real Crime, and the episode first screened by ITV on 5 January 2004. This appears to be a documentary, mixing straight interviews with some dramatised scenes, as per the IMDB cast listing. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I remember the Real Crime episode; it dramatised the switch from Sheila to Jeremy as a suspect in a very dramatic way. There was also a 2010 Helen Tonge production for "Title Role" called Crimes That Shook Britain: Jeremy Bamber. I suspect all three of these were not much over 60 minutes long, if that. They're programmes, rather than films. Maybe we could head the list "Other media". Or is that even worse? Exok (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Bamber's website gives the first transmission on Crime & Investigation Network (UK) as 10 April 2011. It doesn't look like the channel is still showing it, although it's on YouTube in several parts.
 * Also just found another: The Amazing Story of Jeremy Bamber, Channel 4, 29 April 2003. The Radio Times preview mentions "reconstructions," although there's no cast list.
 * These are all TV programmes, so should be labeled as such, although there is some video on the Guardian website that could also be appropriately sub-headed, if we go for "Other media". Nick Cooper (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

And another, which I've just obtained: The Jeremy Bamber Story. This was a Redback Films production for Sky, and while the copyright date is 2005, it was subject of an Ofcom judgement based on a Sky Three broadcast in September 2010. It could be that it was held back as initially being too soon after the Real Crimes episode. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. Thanks. Exok (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Inheritance
It is not clear if the £436,000 includes the farm house or is separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.11.202 (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

GA suggestion
If anyone feels up to the task of nominating this article for GA-status please do. Because I think this article could be a GA article.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, BabbaQ. I'm in the process of making sure it flows properly, and that all the sources are in the right place. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Note for Nick
Hi Nick, just making sure you can see the messages on your user page. You've directed your talk page to your user page, and I think that means you don't get the big yellow message box. :) SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS
 * I've addressed that now, although this is the first time I've logged on since Tuesday, anyway. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Clarification needed
"The Bambers were wealthy and gave the children a good home and private education, but June in particular was conservative and intensely religious, and reportedly tried to force her children and grandchildren to adopt the same ideas. She had a poor relationship with Sheila, who felt June disapproved of her, and her relationship with BAMBER was so troubled that he had apparently stopped speaking to her." Is "Bamber" Nevill or Jeremy? Arrivisto (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just saw this. "Bamber" in this article should always refer to Jeremy Bamber. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Evidence
Where is it all now? Has the silencer and the blood ever be retested with modern dna techniques? 31.52.31.234 (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Makes no sense
"But weeks after the murders, ***(1)the ex-girlfriend of Nevill and (2)June's adoptive son, Jeremy Bamber*** – the only surviving member of the immediate family – told police that ***he*** had implicated ***himself***." Subject of the sentence is in the plural, does not agree with "he had implicated himself". So what is the girlfriend's name? Where does she fit it? Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 29 October 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus is 'not to move (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk ) 16:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

White House Farm murders → White House Farm Killings – Following BRD process I propose that we change the title to 'Killings', as opposed to 'Murders'. There is at least some doubt that these were murders (and we may consider is significant that JB is the only life-tariff prisoner in the UK protesting his innocence) - but they were undoubtedly killings, hence according to article naming policy we should use a non-judgemental descriptive title for the article. It will mean that the title remains valid whatever view is taken about the merits of the police case or Jeremy Bamber's defence. A further reason for the rename is that this is effectively a BLP topic, hence NPOV is of prime importance. Springnuts (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. A couple of thoughts: Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear that there was some type of premeditation and some type of motive in that several people were deliberately killed, it's obvious that these deaths weren't a result of some horrific accident or of a paramilitary operation (one understood definition of "killings")...the courts decided that someone was Jeremy Bamber. The only other suspect put forth has been one of the dead, Bamber's sister Sheila (and then her crimes could be described as patricide, matricide, filicide and suicide).  It seems to me that - regardless of motive or whoever did the acts - that changing the title from murders to killings is in and of itself a value judgement and glosses over the fact that 5 people are now deliberately dead at the hand of a single person.
 * Keeping WP:COMMONNAME in mind, "White House Farm murders" is more commonly used to refer to this subject than "White House Farm killings".
 * If the objection is that characterizing these deaths as "murders" is somehow too POV-ish and not precise enough, then in my opinion changing this article's title to "White House Farm homicides" would be more appropriate than changing the title to "killings".
 * A definition of Killing is "an act of causing death, especially deliberately". A definition of Murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another".  These deaths were definitely not lawful and if the title were changed with the thought of going with the English law sense of "(unlawful) killing", the perpetrator is not unknown, and someone is being held responsible - either Jeffrey Bamber (in the eyes of the courts) or of his sister (according to Bamber & his defense lawyers).
 * Also, however this RFC ends up, changing the last word's capitalization (as in the RFC box up there) doesn't seem to be completely according to WP:MOS.


 * Oppose. The common name is White House Farm murders. Jeremy Bamber was convicted in 1986 of five counts of murder, and since then support for his miscarriage-of-justice claim has waxed and waned. The Criminal Cases Review Commission rejected his latest submission in 2012. I'm unaware of any support in reliable sources since then for Bamber's claims. Examples of sources using the common name (chronological):
 * Murder Casebook 7: The White House Farm Murders, Marshall Cavendish, 1990.
 * The White House Farm Murders, Yorkshire Television, 1993.
 * Roger Wilkes, Blood Relations: Jeremy Bamber and the White House Farm Murders, Penguin, 1994.
 * Claire Powell, Murder at White House Farm, Headline Book Publishing, 1994.
 * Shani D'Cruze, et al., "The White House Farm murders," Murder: Social and Historical Approaches to Understanding Murder and Murderers, Willan, 2006, 117–123.
 * Carol Ann Lee, The Murders at White House Farm, Sidgwick & Jackson, 2015.


 * SarahSV (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose the caps. We are not in the business of making up proper names.  As for the word choice, go with whichever is more common.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per SarahSV. Most people reading the details would assume someone had committed murder. Yes, I know that's not how the law works, but we really can't second guess the outcome of a legal process to assuage personal doubts. As for "making up proper names", I'm really not sure. In some cases, such as Aberfan Disaster and Moors Murders I think the proper name is already out there. Or at best it's borderline. But we wouldn't want to open the floodgates, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose because (a) the conviction of Jeremy Bamber and (b) the multiple sources listed above justify the calling these murders. If anything, calling them killings would be be a point of view because it would implicitly cal into doubt the murder conviction.  MrStoofer (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.