Talk:Lundy murders

Notability

After a brief look at this article, I'm afraid that it might not pass WP:CRIME, and should therefore be nominated for deletion. Is there any evidence that these killings were of any historical significance? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see the WP:CRIME thing before I made the article. The Mark Lundy case is quite well known in New Zealand and is quite controversial as significant elements of the crime have been disputed. This is the first Wikipedia article that I have written and I find the whole writing internet code/jargon for references quite tedious, hence I have only written a little bit at a time. There is more that I will add in the next few days that I believe will make this article a worthwhile addition to wikipedia and hopefully make the subject fall within the guidelines for a crime article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rommeltop (talk • contribs) 00:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The WP:CRIME page says: For perpetrators "The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities." I would say that Mark Lundy became a renowned individual for committing the crime. New Zealand is a small place and his crime is well known, he is mentioned in the media now and then.

"The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." I would say the execution of the crime was unusual and the controversy around the crime makes it noteworthy. There have been a few documentaries made about the case which I plan to mention on the page in coming days. The "North and South" article - written about 9 years after the murders, show that it is a crime still talked about and that the case still sparks interest with the New Zealand public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rommeltop (talk • contribs) 00:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your reply. Actually, after having a look through the North and South article, and some of the other references, I can see that you're right, and that the murders have remained in people's consciousness many years afterwards. How about putting some of this stuff into the article? It would be interesting and relevant to know that doubts about his conviction were brought up years after the fact, and you could also make reference to specific protests like the "Lundy 500". Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article does not currently meet WP:NPOV. Its tone is reminiscent of a tabloid rather than an encyclopedia, and it is strongly biased in favour of one viewpoint regarding the subject's alleged crime. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Also, this article appears to have been the victim of a copy-paste move that has left the edit history split and the talk page at a different title than the article itself. The article is an amalgam of the two topics. One needs to be chosen and the histories/moves need to be fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this article needs going over. Obviously it is notable that his conviction is being challenged, but the article at present does read very like the case for the defence, rather than a neutral summary of events. It could do with someone who knows a bit more about the case providing a more balanced view. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

New material has been added describing Lundy's financial problems and suggesting a possible motive. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. Offender9000 22:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not having written an up-to-scratch article. I tried my best to represent things right and abide by Wikipedia's terms and rules for articles. As for bias - Personally I am quite convinced of Lundy's guilt, I guess I was so determined not be biased against him that I wound up being biased for him! Yes, I realise how stupid it makes me look. Kudos to whoever fixed this thing up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rommeltop (talk • contribs) 19:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid this still reads like a tabloid, still has a problematic history, and still hasn't decided whether it's an article about the man or the case. Needs serious cleaning up. Perhaps a post to WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN would be helpful? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Your comments are too vague to be any real help. What does "problematic history" mean? What does "reads like a tabloid" mean? Since these are your concerns, and you think a post to WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN would be helpful, perhaps you would like to make such a post. In the meantime, I have removed the tag about tone as there is nothing under WP:Tone which suggests there is a problem. Pretty much all it says there is that "it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner" and not to use colloqialisms. There is nothing under that topic about tabloid style... However under WP: writing better articles, I see it says: "Some Wikipedians prefer using a news style." This appears to be totally legitimate. Offender9000 18:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I assumed you had read and understood my previous post - I see that must have been an incorrect assumption. Look at the name of this talk page, and compare it to the name of the article we're discussing. You see how they are two different things? You notice how the revision history of the article is at this title from January 2012 until 10 March 2013, and then splits to this title from there? As I mentioned above, that's because of an improper copy-paste move. The current article tries to cover both topics; one needs to be selected and a history merge performed to fix the damaged history. "Reads like a tabloid" means that the article is not neutral: it uses judgemental language, does not clearly distinguish between facts and opinions, uses biased language, gives undue weight to certain perspectives, and is not objective. In short, it does not achieve an impartial tone. The page you mention, WP:Brevity, defines "news style" as an organization technique characterized by "a placement of important information first, with a decreasing importance as the article advances"; that is a completely different topic and is not what this article does. I suggested posting to a noticeboard as a way for you to get help understanding and dealing with the issues present in this article, as you don't appear to be able to recognize and fix them yourself. However, until these issues are fixed, the tag must remain on the article (and having only a single tag is, frankly, generous given the number potentially applicable). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concerns relating to the actual topic - is it about the murders or is it about the murderer? The problem is the murderer is notable solely because of the murders he has been convicted of - so as far as I can see, it is not really possible to unmerge them. In regard to the talk page title which is different from the article title, I don't know how to fix that. If you do, please go ahead. Offender9000 22:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

In regard to neutrality, if you think the article "uses judgemental language, does not clearly distinguish between facts and opinions, uses biased language", once again please be more specific. Which language is judgemental? Where is there a lack of distinction between fact and opinion? Offender9000 22:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've flagged some specific places, but the problem is also a more general bias towards the "innocent, police incompetent" view, likely because of the bent of the sources used most heavily. The problem of topic, meanwhile, is not as impossible as you suggest: it would be quite possible to discuss the man, for example, without going into the details of each side of the case, or discuss the case without the discussion of the man's early life. I can't fix the titling until we decide which title is the "correct" one for the article's content. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Reading the article for the first time I agree it is not very scholarly and appears dominated by bias towards support for Lundy's innocence, both prior to the retrial and reporting of the second trial, especially selective information eg there is no discussion of prosecution arguments related to Lundy's vehicle mileage and petrol consumption records, arguably key aspects of a second guilty finding. The Lundy case is an interesting one where the various facts present interesting conundrums of their own and would be better presented without bias. Stuzzo (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Judgmental language

You claimed the article uses judgmental language and that there a lack of distinction between fact and opinion. You say you have flagged specific places. Where? I don't see any sections that are flagged...? Please be more specific. Offender9000 19:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Try either checking the history or looking in edit mode - they're inline. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Please put your points about judgmental language, etc on the Talk page so that everyone can see whether they impact on the neutrality of the article - and they can be discussed. If you cannot back up your claims, then the tag about neutrality should be removed. Offender9000 19:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are the specific examples, and as I mentioned above there is also a pervading problem with neutrality throughout the article. Removing the tag at this point would be inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You claim that the article "uses judgemental language, does not clearly distinguish between facts and opinions, uses biased language". When asked to provide specifics, you flagged 14 different points. Only two of them suggest the use of judgemental language. Where it says “At trial, police admitted they found a broken latch", you claim the word ‘admitted’ is judgemental. I have removed it - but you could have done this yourself if it bothered you. That's what most editors would have done.

You then flagged the following sentence: "His kitchen sink business was also in debt - to the tune of $120,000”. You claim the words "to the tune" are colloquial. I have removed them. Once again you could easily have done this yourself. You also flagged square quotes around the word ‘brain’. I’m not sure how square quotes indicate bias but I have removed them. Once again, you could have done this yourself. These are the only three points you make about language and all three have now been fixed.

In regard to distinguishing between facts and opinions, you flagged this sentence: “The jury was not told that seven unidentified fingerprints and a palm print were found at the house." You claim the statement that the jury was not told is "biased". If the jury was not told, the jury was not told. There is no bias in this statement. It is simply a fact.

You flagged this sentence: “The police said Lundy was wearing overalls - but no overalls (and no weapon) were ever found” You claim this is POV. Once again, if no weapon was found, no weapon was found. It’s a documented fact and there is nothing POV about it.

You flagged this sentence: "Detective Sergeant Ross Grantham had to go all the way to Texas to find a pathologist". You claim this is biased. Once again, if he had to go all the way to Texas, he had to go all the way to Texas - since there was no pathologist in New Zealand willing to make the exaggerated claims that the Texas pathologist made. This is just another fact. If you want, you could simply say: "Detective Sergeant Ross Grantham went all the way to Texas to find a pathologist".

In two other flags, you claim that the magazine North & South is an 'unbalanced; editorializing source'. I gather you are Canadian. And I like Canadians - but, as such, you are probably not familiar with the reputation of the investigative journalist who wrote this article nor the excellent reputation of North and South magazine. I would suggest you are in no position to judge whether or not this is a valid source.

Finally, none of the statements you have flagged were in dispute at Lundy's trial. The only issue that was disputed - is whether or not he could have driven the round distance between Petone and Palmerston North in the limited time period. This is the most contentious issue in the case and in the article - but you have not raised any concerns about that. Instead, you have tagged only minor issues. So unless you are able to show that the statements you have flagged have a significant bearing on the case or are actually disputed by other sources, your allegation that the article does not clearly distinguish between fact and opinion, does not stand up to scrutiny. Offender9000 (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Facts can be true and still be biased in the way they are presented, Offender9000. A good journalist can write an editorial. And why on earth would I try to fix issues myself when my previous efforts to do so have been reverted? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

So you admit that these facts are true. What's biased about "the way" this statement is presented: “The police said Lundy was wearing overalls - but no overalls (and no weapon) were ever found” What's biased about the statement: “The jury was not told that seven unidentified fingerprints and a palm print were found at the house." What's biased about the statement:“The jury was not told that seven unidentified fingerprints and a palm print were found at the house."Offender9000 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Nikkimaria on this, Offender9000. There are significant problems with the tone of this article regarding NPOV. The tone of the article suggests that there is significant and sustained doubt about the guilt of Mark Lundy. That is not supported by evidence. I have just removed a reference to a theory by Lundy campaigner Geoff Levick, as it is entirely speculative. Including untested speculation to support a non-NPOV theory of yours that Lundy is wrongly convicted is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I note that Offender9000 and Nikkimaria appear to have descended into an edit war.

Offender9000, it is clear in the comments to your edits that you have no intention of presenting this article in a NPOV. For example, your edit: 19:39, 16 April 2013‎ Offender9000 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,343 bytes) (-13)‎ . . (→‎The brain tissue: That he had to go to Texas is just another fact - he couldn't find a pathologist anywhere else to make such dubious claims) (undo)" suggests that your deliberate intention is to cast Lundy as wrongly convicted. VNTrav (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreeing with Nikkimaria does not mean either of you are right. Nikkimaria lives in Canada and has no concept of the road between Petone and Palmerston North. There is significant and sustained doubt about the guilt of Mark Lundy because of the total impossibility of anyone driving the distance concerned (and back again) in the short time frame between the two phone calls - both of which took place in Petone. Every commentator on the case said it was not possible - including the police. Clearly, neither of you have read the article in North & South magazine which points this out. North & South also describes the enormous effort the police went to, including going "all the way to Texas to find a pathologist willing to support their claims". Offender9000 (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)h

It isn't necessary to live in New Zealand to understand that the distance between two cities is not relevant to a wikipedia article, Offender9000. The purpose of wikipedia is to present notable, well-sourced, factual information in an encyclopedic way. You are using this page to push your view that Lundy is not guilty of the crime for which he has been convicted. Wikipedia is not a campaign site for your point of view.VNTrav (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The distance between Petone and Palmerston North was a key factor at the trial - and whether or not Lundy is guilty. So of course it is relevant. Doubts about his guilt are a legitimate concern raised by Mike White in North & South - largely because it is totally impossible to drive between Petone and Palmerston North in the allotted time frame. Everyone involved agreed it was impossible - and even the police couldn't repeat the drive between the two cities in the time they claim Lundy did it. I am just presenting the facts that White identified as significant. Offender9000 (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight

Your concerns about tone and neutrality have been addressed. Even though they have been addressed, you have tagged the article yet again (as if nothing had changed) and also added a tag about undue weight. The only undue weight I can see is that given to the facts. What are your concerns about undue weight - undue weight given to what? And I ask you once again - please be specific. Offender9000 (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As the article is still using the subject's name as its title, it gives undue weight to the details of the case. Those details would be appropriate if the article used the same title as this talk page, but then the details about his early life would need to be removed. As to the other tags, you have made some minor changes but have not adequately addressed the issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point about undue weight. However, the murders of Christine and Amber Lundy are not particularly notable. They are just one of 50 to 70 murders committed in NZ every year. What makes this case notable is that Mark Lundy appears to be innocent and has made an appeal to the Privy Council. His case is not dissimilar to that of David Bain, another New Zealander who was also convicted for murdering his whole family but 13 years later found not guilty after appealing to the Privy Council. Therefore the title clearly needs to be Mark Lundy. Since what makes the case notable is the possibility that he is innocent - details showing this possibility need to be provided.Offender9000 (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That is just rubbish, Offender9000. "What makes this case notable is that Mark Lundy appears to be innocent and has made an appeal to the Privy Council." Lundy has sought leave to appeal to the Privy Council. That does not provide an appearance of innocence. The application to be heard by the Privy Council does not mean innocence. He has been found guilty by the High Court, which has been upheld again in the Supreme Court. There is no significant movement behind him trying to establish his innocence, apart from himself, and a few fringe supporters. It is not factually correct that there is significant doubt about his innocence. The claim that there is significant doubt is extremely contentious, not widely supported by references, and is not NPOV.

What provides the appearance of innocence is the distance between Petone and Palmerston North. This was a key factor at the trial - as it is totally impossible to drive between Petone and Palmerston North in the allotted time frame. Everyone involved in analysing the case agreed it was impossible - and even the police couldn't repeat the drive between the two cities in the time they claim Lundy did it. Sorry but it is "factually correct" that there is doubt about his guilt. I suggest you read the article in North & South. Offender9000 (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Mark Lundy is only notable for one thing. Not his life prior to the murders. Not for the non-notable campaign to have him declared innocent. Not for anything he has done subsequent to the murders. He is notable for one event: the murders of his wife and daughter, for which he was convicted in the High Court, and subsequently upheld in the Court of Appeal, which increased his sentence. If you want to set up a campaign to convince people that Mark Lundy is innocent then you should set up a website for that purpose. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia. VNTrav (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There is already a website for this purpose. See The Truth about Mark Lundy. Offender9000 (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

And why do you think the murders are notable? Why are the other 50 murders which occur in NZ every year not notable. Whats so notable about this particular murder that it deserves a page in wikipedia. Since you are unable to answer this question, the obvious conclusion is that it is notable solely because there are huge doubts about Lundy's guilt and there has been yet another miscarriage of justice in New Zealand. For other notable miscarriages in NZ see: Arthur Allan Thomas, David Bain, Teina Pora. These are the only cases considered notable enough to get into wikippedia. Offender9000 (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not me who decides whether the murders were notable. It is whether there is a significant amount of well sourced, independent, published material on the case. There have been two major television documentaries on the murders, widespread newspaper coverage of the trial, and significant analysis since. That makes the murders notable. Nobody had heard of Mark Lundy until he murdered his wife and child. He became a household name afterwards, which is why the murders are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VNTrav (talk • contribs) 23:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If he became a household name because of documentaries and widespread media coverage, then he became notable didn't he. Offender9000 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"Doubt about his guilt"? I don't think there has ever been a case in the history of the planet where it is more certain someone is innocent. Sure, I'm biased (and so apparently is the Privy Council -- all of the Privy Council law Lords who unanimously quashed the verdict). It is a biased article that states as fact matters that simply are not fact. The paint in the victim's hair is a case in point. The prosecution claimed it came from Lundy's shed but that is highly unlikely to say the least. Would saying that this was disputed by the defence be biased? Many may argue that that point was quite definitely disputed. The only reasonable argument for Lundy's guilt is that he is the woman's husband -- statistically that makes him a likely suspect. The case against him was farcical. Quite apart from driving like a manic-depressive Michael Schumacher on speed, he is supposed to have savagely bludgeoned his wife and child to death and despite being saturated with blood -- the killer left a blood shadow on the wall -- he somehow disposed of all trace of the blood, etc, then donned a woman's wig and clothes and ran -- despite a prosthetic in his foot that made this near impossible at all -- at some speed 500 metres to his car and 500 metres back. Here was a grossly obese sedentary man who was supposed to have done something a member of the SAS would find impossible. Hence the theories he killed them later. Oh, yes, he is supposed to have killed them at 7ish but altered the computer clock to make it look as though it was turned off at about 10 pm.

Having had my little rant, it's doubtful he meets the stated Wikipedia criteria for someone to be included in the Encyclopedia. And maybe it could be written in a more neutral fashion, but that, in my opinion, would include saying something is disputed if it is in fact disputed... or is the Wikipedia intended to act as a member of the prosecution? Is the fact that convictions are sometimes disputed and -- whisper it not in Goth (to paraphrase holy writ) -- courts may make mistakes something that Wikipedia must not even hint at? Stunz (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality again

I've tried to do a bit of a tidy on the article. To explain to Offender9000 what is causing difficulty about the neutrality of some of the language used;

• Repeated words like "alleged" and "claimed" are words to be avoided. This is because they tend to cast doubt on what is being said. Wikipedia doesn't have any opinion on veracity of their statements, so just saying "said" is more neutral.
• Describing the police search as "extensive" is again voicing an opinion. The reader is asked to agree that surely if anything was to be found, and "extensive" search would have found it. Better to just say the police searched. The thoroughness of it is a matter of opinion.
• "Evidence that has been brought into question includes.." Brought into question by who?
• "big plans" - a matter of opinion. Better to simply state that it was a $2 million scheme, which is factual. Let the reader decide if that's big.
• "the threat of financial ruin pushes certain types of men, usually with no previous history of violence to react." - no indication why this speculative opinion is notable.
• Nigel Latta - could we have a clearer explanation who this man is and why his thoughts are notable?
• "described by most experts" - Unattributed. Which experts? What makes them "most"?
• "had to go all the way to Texas to find a pathologist, Dr Rodney Miller, who was willing" - this is a highly leading statement. It suggests the police set out to get a pathologist who would say what they want, found it difficult to persuade any, and so had to get one from distant Texas. This is all speculation and opinion. Pathologists with the necessary expertise may be rare, so locating one in Texas may be more an example of their diligence. The pathologists may not have been "willing" to follow what the police required, he may have been stating his honest, unbiased export opinion. Better to simply say where the pathologist was from, and let the reader decide if that was unusual.
• "Lundy became a committee member of the Manawatu wine club and enjoyed playing golf." How is this in any way relevant? Unless it is trying to convince the reader that he's not the type to commit murder?

I don't doubt Offender9000's good intentions here, but he/she needs to take great care over whether the slightest opinion or biased could be getting reflected in the descriptions of this case. No matter how good a case you believe there is for Lundy's innocence, Wikipeida must strive to avoid any suggestion of having an opinion either way. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the original tag about neutrality was posted, this article has been ediited by Nikkimaria, Escape_Orbit, and VNTrav. All of you have made some constructive edits. Between the three of you, I'm sure you have managed to cover all the points related to neutrality and balance. There is no need to keep posting the tag. If there is still some aspect you think is not neutral - what is it? And why have you not addressed it? Please discuss.

And some of the edits we have done have been reverted by you, without explanation. So you are in no position to suggest the issues have been resolved. You do realise that this just gives the impression that you have no explanation for reverting, other than the change in content doesn't sit with the point of view you are pushing? Stating in the lead sentence "but maintains he is innocent" is not a notable part of being a convict and suggests that Wikipedia sees his insistence as being on a par with the conviction itself. A large percentage of convicts say they are innocent, it is not unusual, but you will not find Wikipedia giving this level of prominence to their claims in their articles. And the challenges to his conviction are dealt with in great detail in the rest of the lead and throughout the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Lundy maintains his innocence and has an extremely good alibi are facts. Wikipedia is pretty keen on the presentation of facts. It does not mean that Wikipedia thinks he is innocent - but the facts are the facts - and thats what Wikipedia likes to present. Wikipedia definitely gives attention to claims of innocence where it is appropriate - such as Arthur Allen Thomas, David Bain, and Teina Pora. Offender9000 (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that a convict maintains his innocence is so common place it hardly needs mentioned, let alone in the lead sentence. The quality of his alibi is not a fact, it is an opinion. And of your three examples, two of them were found innocent and the third doesn't mention it in the lead sentence. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be remarkably uninformed about the justice system. Most offenders plead guilty. Those who maintain their innocence long after being found guilty are few and far between. Offender9000 (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Not true. Every defended murder trial in which the defendant pleads not guilty maintains their innocence.VNTrav (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

About 90% of offenders plead guilty - only a small percentage plead innocent and go to trial because pleading guilty helps them get a reduced sentence. Murderers on the other hand plead innocent before the trial because there's nothing to gain by pleading guilty - they're going to get a life sentence anyway. But after being convicted, very few continue to maintain their innocence. Offender9000 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very few of those convicted of murder ever continue to maintain their innocence. Apart from anything else, to do so would jeopardise their chances of parole. Contrary to the absurd claim that most people in prisons claim they are innocent, most do not. A handful of people in New Zealand have maintained their innocence and have lost their right to be paroled as a consequence.

"The fact that a convict maintains his innocence is so common place it hardly needs mentioned". Pure, utter, absolute nonsense. Of course they will plead not guilty until they have exhausted their appeal possibilities, but very few continue to maintain their innocence. I know of five cases in New Zealand where convicts have maintained their innocence and three of them have had their cases overturned and the others all have large numbers of the population including prominent people -- top lawyers, MPs, etc support them. This is not to say that everyone who maintains their innocence is innocent, but very few do it. Most hardened crims are more likely to exaggerate the seriousness of their offences than to deny them. That Lundy has a good alibi is a fact. The police and no one else who has tried have been able to duplicate his driving feats, let alone the other matters. A lot of the current article needs to be thrown out in my opinion. I haven't edited it myself because I know I have strong views on the case that may cloud my judgement. But I am sure I could do a better job than what is their and a much better job than those who evidently believe the article should parrot the prosecution case. Stunz (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I have restored the NPOV tag for the second time. The NPOV tag is supposed to remain in place until the dispute regarding the neutrality of the article has been resolved. This dispute has not been resolved. It is unlikely to be resolved in the short term, as long as Offender9000 continues to revert everybody else's edits, and continues to use this article as a forum to push his theory on Lundy's innocence.VNTrav (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It is unlikely to be resolved until editors discuss their concerns on the Talk page and are able to back up their arguments. And you are way off track assuming I am using this article to push "my theory on Lundy's innocence". I don't have a theory. But there are some facts. The distance between Petone and Palmerston North is a fact which has a huge bearing on whether or not Lundy is guilty. Doubts about his guilt have been raised by Mike White in North & South - largely because it is totally impossible to drive between Petone and Palmerston North in the allotted time frame. Everyone involved in the case agreed it was impossible - and even the police couldn't repeat the drive between the two cities in the time they claim Lundy did it. Read the article in North & South. I am just presenting the facts that White identified as relevant. Rather than "pushing a theory" what I am doing is presenting well-sourced reliable information. If you want to be a constructive and helpful editor on WP you need to do the same.Offender9000 (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A court has already decided whether he is guilty or not. The appeal court will confirm or change this. Whether the distance between Petone and Palmerston North plays any part in this is not for you or Wikipedia to decide. And clearly "everyone involved in the case" did not agree it was impossible, or even relevant, otherwise he would not have been convicted. Clearly, for a reason that you personally may not be aware of, and isn't presented to the reader in this article, this distance did not concern the jury or the judge. It's not Wikipedia's place to suggest that it should have concerned them.

No-one is saying that this "fact" cannot be in the article, as it has been raised by sources, but it cannot be presented as "proof" of anything other than some people's opinion and should not be given undue prominence. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read the North & South article. It makes it very clear that pretty much everyone who analysed the possibility of driving between Petone and Palmerston in the alloted time agreed it was impossible. The trip required an average speed of about 120 kph through built up areas in peak hour traffic. Former police detective, Paul Bass, made three attempts to match the travel time driving in peak hour traffic, at the same time of day Lundy made the trip. The quickest time he could do the distance one way was 1 hour 56 minutes - and he averaged only 77 km/h because of the traffic. Documentary maker Bryan Bruce, thinks Lundy is guilty, but still said it couldn't be done. Brian Edwards also said it couldn't be done.

Apparently the jury got distracted by the Texan's evidence about brain tissue - which is also highly contentious. I suggest you wait until the Privy Council has made its decision before deciding whether or not he actually committed these murders. This would be appropriate under WP:BLP. Offender9000 (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• "pretty much everyone" - who exactly?

Read the preceding paragraphs. Offender9000 (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Apparently the jury... " - pure speculation. Yours? You do understand the relevance of your speculation?

Read the North and South articles - get informed. Offender9000 (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• "wait until the Privy Council has made its decision before deciding" - I am not deciding anything, because what I decide is irrelevant. What is relevant is that to-date courts have decided he is guilty. Anyone's else opinion is secondary to that. Your and my opinion comes way, way, down the list of importance to the point of no-one-cares. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm completely in agreement with Escape Orbit on this. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• We don't have to wait until the Privy Council makes a decision on whether Lundy committed the murders. Lundy remains in prison for the murders. Two courts have established that he a double murderer, and have convicted him of this. The conviction doesn't become a non-conviction just because the Privy Council is considering an appeal. Until the Privacy Council determines that Lundy is not a convicted double murderer, then he remains a convicted double murderer. Until that point, saying that Lundy is not a convicted murderer is untrue. VNTrav (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes he has been convicted. But that doesn't mean he did it - remember David Bain? The fact the courts convicted Lundy does not define him a double murderer - that's what the media does. Although Wikipedia uses media as a source, it tries to be neutral. Saying he has been convicted of two murders is both accurate and neutral. Labelling him as a double murderer is not - because it may eventually be disproved. If it is disproved then the statement that he is a double murderer is innaccurate - which is not acceptable on WP. See WP:BLP which says: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Offender9000 (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The fact that the Courts have convicted him as a double murderer does mean he is a double murderer, until higher courts decide otherwise. A murderer is a legally defined term, decided by the Courts. It remains a valid term if and when the convictions are overturned. It is not sensationalist to describe somebody who is convicted of two murders, as Lundy has been twice, as a double murderer. There is nothing defamatory in describing Lundy as a convicted double murderer. It does not do harm to Lundy's reputation to describe him in the terms of his criminal convictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VNTrav (talk • contribs) 00:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's define what we mean exactly by "guilty" and "innocent" before we argue about them. Let's no say that someone being convicted of murder means they actually did the deed. Lundy has been convicted but that no more proves he is "guilty" than his acquittal would prove him innocent. If you define a "murderer" as someone who has been convicted of murder, you are using the term in a highly technical fashion. I wonder if you would be so dogmatic about an acquittal proving someone innocent? That he is "guilty" is only the opinion of a few people -- the jury's opinion. We don't really know what the judge thought. What we can be sure of is that he was bound to have been acquitted if it hadn't been for the junk science rubbish about the "brain tissue" (my reason for saying this would take about three pages to explain, but I'm sure it's true. By the way, the Privy Council decided that evidence need not be "fresh" in this instance. They argued it was "fresh" in that the jury hadn't heard it. Usually, appeal courts demand genuinely new evidence -- in the sense that it wasn't available at the time of the original trial. Many people who aren't familiar with the details of the case are astonished the Privy Council quashed this conviction while upholding others. It is plain the law Lords had very very serious reservations about this case. Stunz (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRIME

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Murders of Christine and Amber Lundy → Mark Lundy –

• Asked in my user talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Voting

• Oppose As I've outlined below, I'm not sure whether the individual would meet the notability threshold at this point. He may or may not, but it's also not really relevant, as this article is mostly about the murder case, and not a biography. In my view, a better article name would be Lundy murders, but given that this move request is about turning this into a biography, let's sort this one out first. If the article does not get moved to Mark Lundy, we can then test in a separate request whether the simplified article name finds support. As for Mark Lundy, the test whether he is notable could simply be done by setting up a separate article for him, and then see whether anybody will AfD it, and if so, whether there is community consensus to keep it. Schwede66 22:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:BLP1E if it's renamed, then it should be deleted as a 1E notable person. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support There is nothing notable about the murders - there are about 50 murders a year in NZ and this is just another one (or two). However Lundy is notable for the same reasons that David Bain is notable. He appears to be innocent and years later has taken his appeal to the Privy Council. He meets the criteria for notability under WP:Crime. Thats the only guide in this case. Offender9000 (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CRIME, the article should usually be about the crime, not the victims or the perpetrators. The article needs to be rewritten (particularly the lead sentence) because it is currently written as if Mark Lundy was the subject. "Lundy murders" would be an acceptable title, and the present title also meets WP guidelines. Those who are arguing that he "appears to be innocent" are POV pushing; that POV should certainly not be incorporated into the article title. --MelanieN (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E. I also think that the whole lot should be merged to the background section of an article on the up-coming Privy council case, which I believe is actually genuinely notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. Article should be about the crime. The man convicted of it might, in future, become notable in himself, but isn't presently. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - the crime has sufficient press coverage to pass WP:GNG; the man has coverage only within the context of the crime, so does not meet WP:BLP1E. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support The crime itself does not meet criteria: Wikipedia:Notability (events) which says: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage... Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." JaggerAgain (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat surprised by what you say. Here are three sources: [1] [2] [3] If this doesn't constitute significant coverage, what does? Schwede66 11:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'm suprised you didn't notice that all three sources are about Mark Lundy and have his name in the title. The first is called Mark Lundy; the second is called The Lundy murders: what the jury didn't hear; the the third is called Lundy's last chance. What do they all have in common? Mark Lundy. JaggerAgain (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• As far as I can tell, this is all routine coverage and the subject does not meet WP:CRIME. I was going to AfD it, but thought a discussion here would be a good first step. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• There is a discussion above about an inappropriate cut and paste move, and that article histories need to be merged. I would agree that Mark Lundy as a person does not meet notability. I suggest that Lundy murders would be an appropriate article title, and that the case will meet notability. Meanwhile, I have requested a history merge. Schwede66 01:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• It doesn't make much sense to say Mark Lundy does not meet notability, but if you change the title to Lundy murders, it does. Lundy clearly meets WP:CRIME which specifically states: "The criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: For victims, and those wrongly convicted of crime: The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role."
• Lundy has been in prison for ten years. There is on-going discussion on radio, TV, print media and blogs about whether he is innocent including articles comparing his case to that of David Bain. Very few NZ cases are heard by the Privy Council and the fact that they have agreed to hear Lundy's case also makes it significant See: Offender9000 (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Under WP:CRIME I don't see that coverage as enough. See for example List of people executed in Texas, 2010– which shows that even executed criminals are not always notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Are there specific naming conventions for murder cases? If yes, I'd like to have a look at them. I'm inclined to put a move request forward to Lundy murders, but see in the various categories that most cases are named 'Murder of xyz'. I'm not convinced that Mark Lundy himself is notable, too (he would probably meet notability if his conviction got overturned), but you could of course set up a standalone article about the individual. As it stands, this article is rather thin on biographical detail, and that may well be because the media (or public) don't appear to be too interested in the person, but in the case. Schwede66 19:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• The criteria for notability does not mention overturning convictions as a criteria. David Bain was notable long before his conviction got overturned although I grant you there was a lot more interest in his case. Offender9000 (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) There are no specific naming conventions for murder cases. There are specific naming conventions for court cases, where we use the legal referencing standard in the appropriate jurisdiction, see for example Gregg v. Georgia. Conceivably we could argue that all Privy council cases are notable, but it would be WP:COAT to rename that current article as being about the pricy council case. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• The murders are notable. They have been the subject of two major television documentaries in New Zealand. Lundy himself is not notable. The campaign to overturn Lundy's conviction is not notable. Even the North and South article admits that Lundy's campaign to have his conviction overturned is confined to a small group of supporters and Lundy himself. That is very different from the David Bain situation, in which books were written asserting Bain's innocence. VNTrav (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes but the books were all written by a small groups of supporters - in fact by one supporter - Joe Karam. Do you have to have a book written about you to be regarded as notable? I don't think so. Offender9000 (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Bain's convictions were overturned. Clearly a book written by one of Bain's supporters is not an independent source, which means that Bain should not have been considered notable prior to his conviction being overturned. Lundy is only notable because he is a convicted double murderer in one of the most widely-discussed murder trials of that decade. That does not meet the criteria for an article about him, as opposed to an article about the crimes he committed.VNTrav (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• You have acknowledged that Lundy is notable. Enough said. Offender9000 (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Limb specific grief

Offender9000 reverted an edit I made regarding Nigel Latta's assertion that Lundy was suffering from "limb specific grief" at the funerals. Since much of Lundy's defence consists of speculation that somebody else committed the murders, including the speculation that it was done by a mystery P addict, I was very surprised that Latta's analysis of Lundy's behaviour at the funeral was deleted by Offender 9000. Latta is a distinguished criminal psychologist who made a documentary series on the behavioural makeup of New Zealand's most notorious criminal offenders. One episode, devoted to Lundy, included Latta's insights into Lundy's deceptiveness and disassociation with his crimes. Latta's analysis is legitimate and notable, and far more legitimate and notable than the claim from Lundy's few supporters that a meth addict may have committed the murders. VNTrav (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The term 'notable' should only be used here to describe a topic that passes WP:GNG or similar. I think you mean 'reliable' above. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

In that case Mark Lundy is notable. He clearly passes WP:GNG.Offender9000 (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no such condition as 'limb specific grief'. The only scholarly articles where grief and limbs are mentioned refer to grief over the loss of a limb. However this does not apply to Lundy. Nigel Latta has made this term up. He makes up most of the nonsense he spouts on his TV as he never actually interviews any of the criminals he makes programmes are about. He relies almost entirely on digging up gossip by the perpetrators friends and family. So he is not a distinguished criminal psychologist. He's a pop TV psychologist for whom reputable psychologists have little or no respect. Offender9000 (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Latta is a widely published expert in his field. You might not like his diagnosis of "limb-specific grief", but Latta is a distinguished and notable clinical psychologist in his own right. His reference to limb-specific grief in describing Lundy was published in Latta's documentary on the case, and in commentary in the NZ Herald. If you do not like Latta's description of Lundy's funeral performance then you can hardly argue that a minor campaign to have Lundy's conviction overturned is a significant issue that needs to be covered on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VNTrav (talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no such diagnosis of limb specific grief recognised by the medical profession. Latta made it up and Wikipedia does not validate pseudo psychological disorders on behalf of populist TV psychologists trying to make a buck out of other peoples misery. The "diagnosis" suggests bias and contravenes WP:BLP which states "Unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing".Offender9000 (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

References

Campaign to overturn verdict

VNTrav has acknowledged that Lundy is notable but claims that the campaign to overturn his conviction is "minor" and that therefore he is not notable. This is a contradictory stance. If he was already notable because of media coverage, then a campaign to overturn his conviction (whether big or small) simply provides more media coverage and adds to his notability.

The fact that the Privy Council has agreed to look at it also means Lundy's campaign is not minor. It is extremely difficult to bring a case to the Privy Council and persuade the law lords to examine it. In fact a spokesman for the Privy Council has already made it clear they see it as a significant case; the DomPost says "Given the high profile of the case, Ben Wilson, head of communications the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, said the court would look at making arrangements to live-stream the hearing." Offender9000 (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that they referred to "the high profile of the case". Not the high profile of Mark Lundy - the high profile of the case. That's why the article is properly named for "the case", not the person. MelanieN (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That's called splitting hairs. The case is about Mark Lundy! Offender9000 (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the case is about the Murders of Christine and Amber Lundy, which you may notice is also the title of this page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Its about the murders of Christine and Amber Lundy by Mark Lundy - which is too long winded for a title.Offender9000 (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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. 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: Moved. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Murders of Christine and Amber Lundy → Lundy murders –

• Asked for in my user talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposed new name has a double meaning (both 'the murders of the Lundys' and 'the murders that Lundy did'). Only the former is notable as per previous discussion and we shouldn't muddy the waters further. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment also Category:Murders has standard forms [[<place> Murders]], [[Murder of <person>]] and [[Murders of <person> and <person>]]. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

In other words there is no standard. Any kind of article name is possible. Offender9000 (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Its shorter. Offender9000 (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support change The Lundy Murders describes the case nicely. It covers who was murdered and who did the murdering all in one go. Clever suggestion by Schwede66 in earlier discussion (see previous voting above).Cleverdickie (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Might as well add my vote, for reasons outlined in the previous move discussion. Schwede66 04:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support As noted by Cleverdickie, this name is not only briefer but covers all three of the people involved in the case. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2013 (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.

Arbitrary removal of sections

I have endeavoured to add further sections providing greater balance to this article, including the Court of Appeal findings on Amber's DNA and the matching paint of the murder weapon, and the statements by Nigel Latta in what he described as "limb specific grief" by Lundy at the funeral. Each of these sections have been arbitrarily removed by Offender9000. It is exceptionally difficult to work constructively on editing a balanced wikipedia article if Offender9000 chooses to delete parts of the article that do not conform to his personal opinion on the Lundy case. VNTrav (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Latta's comment about limb specific grief has not been arbitrarily removed. It has been deliberately removed as it does not meet Wikipedia policy. FreeRangeFrog agrees with me. On the BLP Noticeboard I wrote: "You seem to be saying that Latta's diagnosis is an opinion - is therefore original research and should not be included. Is that what you meant?" Offender9000 (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

In response, FreeRangeFrog wrote: "Look at it this way: You find a video or article by John saying XYZ about Jane, and you include it in a BLP context (in this case, an article that talks about about Jane). That's original research and POV, because you as Wikipedia editor, supposedly neutral, are making a value judgement as to the weight of Johns's opinion re: Jane. On the other hand, if you find an article by Mary@ReliableSource that confers that weight and validity by virtue of coverage, then it's fine - assuming the material does not violate WP:UNDUE to begin with. So in that sense, inclusion is a non-starter. Does that make sense? And in this case, it sounds like it's just made up since it's not even a real medical term, so no dice either." §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Offender9000 (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog then added: "I will note that "limb-specific grief" comes up in Google only on this article and mentions of Latta's comments, so realistically it's fair to say he made that up somehow, and giving it too much weight would be silly at best. It could even be considered "gossip"... Offender9000 (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't original research. It was comments that Latta made during a major television documentary on the subject. Latta is an independent source. Latta never presented "limb specific grief" as an established medical condition. He used the expression to describe the symptoms that Lundy was presenting as a basis for his conclusion that Latta was faking his grief at the funeral. There is no basis for claiming that the inclusion of Latta's comments constitute original research. Original research applies when a wikipedia editor writes things that tehy made up, which is not dependent on independent source. On that basis, I have restored the reference. VNTrav (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The entire internet, FreeRangeFrog and I all agree he did make it up. You are outvoted. On that basis I have reverted it. Offender9000 (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That is an arbitrary edit and constitutes vandalism. FreeRangeFrog did not agree with your edit. You don't understand what original research is. Original research is by a wikipedia editor, not by an independent source. Latta is an independent source. He characterised Lundy's symptoms as "limb specific grief". He did not hold that characterisation as a diagnosis of a specific medical condition, but a description of the symptoms that Lundy was exhibiting at the funeral. Offender9000 is now just arbitrarily removing parts of the article that are inconvenient to him. VNTrav (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"maintained his innocence" in Lead

Again we are at an impasse over over Offender9000' POV emphasising in the lead.

"Lundy has always maintained his innocence and has appealed to the Privy Council of the United Kingdom"

This contains unnecessary detail and emphasis. A convicted murderer claiming his innocence is so common place it is hardly worth mentioning. The fact he is appealing his convictions tells us he claims he is innocent. It would hardly be the case that he had admitted his guilt, but was appealing anyway, would it? We don't need to be told he has always said he is innocent. He is unlikely to have first admitted guilt and then changed his mind.

The sentence is unnecessary undue weight on Lundy's claims. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with with assessment of POV here. The article is about the murders, not Mark Lundy. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hair splitting again. I repeat. Most offenders plead guilty. Those who maintain their innocence long after being found guilty are few and far between.Offender9000 (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I would have to see some evidence of that. Many criminals do plead guilty as part of a plea bargain, but failing a plea bargain, many continue to insist that they were innocent - they were framed, they were somewhere else, they were acting in self defense, they had an incompetent lawyer, etc., etc. Many file multiple appeals, some becoming "jailhouse lawyers" so they can file appeals no attorney will take on. Regarding Lundy, the fact that he is appealing his conviction does not make him unusual at all. If the Privy Council overturns his conviction, then we can talk. But for now, this is about a case of murder, not about the man who was convicted of the murder and whose conviction currently still stands. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the Sensible Sentencing Trust "more than 90 percent of all criminal cases do not go to trial because the offender pleads guilty to a lesser charge." Offender9000 (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Sensible Sentencing Trust is not a reliable source here, and even if they were I don't see how that statistics matters. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight

P.S. I have made a few minor edits, but the article needs major work. It gives vastly undue influence to points and arguments from the "defence" or innocence side, while devoting only a few sentences to the prosecution's case. --MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because the prosecution case is entirely unconvincing. The article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. Balance and objectivity do not always require equal space to opposing points of view. Offender9000 (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to stop pushing your POV; it violates one of the WP:PILLARS. The prosecution case was convincing to a jury, and to an appeals court, so it's not exactly equivalent to a Flat Earth opinion. The article right now reads like a brief for the defence. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Its not my POV. Its that of investigative journalist Mike White writing in New Zealand's North & South magazine - here and here. Offender9000 (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Then his POV is way over-represented in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What if the Privy Council overturns Lundy's conviction? Then his POV would not be over-represented would it. I don't think you can say a particular POV is over-represented until all the facts are in. Offender9000 (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the Privy Council overturns his conviction, that will be important - and it will materially affect the thrust of the article, which will need serious rewriting. And if they do, then all the "argument for the defence" stuff will be unnecessary anyhow, because a court of law will have spoken. But in the meantime, that's all it is: argument and POV pushing. BTW it's clear that you have severe ownership issues with regard to this article. I would like to see some other opinions here, about whether all that detailed arguing for his innocence belongs in the article, or whether it is WP:UNDUE. --MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you completely on this MelanieN, it's clearly WP:UNDUE. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Reading the comments above, I see that Nikkimaria and Escape Orbit and VNTrav also felt the defence-type material was excessive. I believe we have consensus on that point. I will begin to trim the argumentative content to a more reasonable scope.

Personally I believe the article should be reorganized completely. Earlier I did move a couple of paragraphs into more logical places in the article, but the move was reverted by Offender9000. I think the best organization would include these sections: "Background" with what is known about the family before the murders, "Murders" (facts about the actual murders), "Trial" with factual reports on exactly what the prosecution and defence contended at trial and the result of the trial, "Appeals" with the results; and a section (not sure what to call it) about the website and newspaper campaigns to establish his innocence. That's where we could put any arguments that were not brought out at trial. But for now I will start with the existing format and just try to trim it down some. --MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing / r/m Other Issues section

After reviewing the previous discussions above and seeing that there is obvious consensus with trying to rebalance the article - I've removed some of the detail from the appeals section and the whole of the Other Issues section. It is clearly pushing the POV that he is innocent and there are issues with his conviction, when in reality he has been convicted and had his sentence increased during appeal. Pending the outcome of the Privy Council then appropriate bits of this section might be able to be put in. Clarke43 (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a help; there was way too much of that argumentative stuff. I have reorganized and expanded the information about the murders and trial. I tried to use sources that were contemporary with the murders and trial, since the case has been heavily reassessed by all kinds of people in the years since. --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I removed the Neutrality and Undue tags; I think we finally have an encyclopedic article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Broke in?

Is the claim Christine's brother broke in correct? I noticed in the latest trial it was said a door was ajar, although it wasn't stated this was how he entered or even when he noticed this [4] Nil Einne (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Glen Weggery's statement to police reads: "When I got to the conservatory I noticed that the side entry to the conservatory was open about a metre. This struck me as unusual as it is not the entry normally used." --Mervmatthews (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

References

proposed new section: legal documents

I'm thinking that we should have a new section listing, in chronological order, the legal documents (in so far as they're public available) and similar legal documents. While these are primary sources and can't be used to support article content, we can make them available to readers. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection

As this article is still being targeted by de-facto banned editor Offender9000, I've semi-protected it. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lundy murders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130919023751/http://lundytruth.com/files/LUNDY-N-S-Original_u7yf893y.pdf to http://www.lundytruth.com/files/LUNDY-N-S-Original_u7yf893y.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Time of death/stomach contents

It's been a while and I can't be bothered reviewing this now, but my impression is there's an important detail which the article doesn't really seem to cover very well namely time of death. During the initial trial, the prosecution was claiming that the deaths occurred something like within an hour of the last meal [5] which meant time of death was in the early evening. I think this was based on controversial stomach content analysis. I think this evidence was disputed by Lundy's defence but it ended up being a mixed bag. By the time of the second trial, the prosecution was no longer saying the time of death was so soon after the last meal which was actually quite significant since it's why they no longer needed to assert Lundy made the trip in 3 hours as they were now putting time of death in the very early morning. While I don't think it was a big deal at the appeal, as our article indicates within NZ the 3 hour thing seemed to be something which tended to cause doubt about the conviction. BTW on the 3 hour point, while we mention open road, the speed limit and rush hour traffic, I wonder if it might be worthwhile briefly mentioning some detail on the roads if it can be sources in relation to these murders. I don't personally know what the particular roads are like but living in NZ I can imagine but I sort of wonder whether some overseas readers may be confused imagining roads more designed for high throughput than these probably are. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Lundy 500

I am thinking of removing the section headed Lundy500. It has nothing to do with the murder of Christine and Amber, but is an attempt to make fun of the case. Any objections. Straining (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think that material needs to be removed, but it could certainly be incorporated into a more general section on the public response to the trial, including Levick’s campaign. — HTGS (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I am struggling to follow your thinking. There is a section on the role of the media but the Lundy500 has absolutely nothing to do with the media response or with Geoff Levick's campaign to overturn Lundy's conviction. It is frivolous material which is neither notable nor relevant to the case. Straining (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that it is wholly irrelevant, as it gives insight into public reaction to a very public case. The media reaction isn’t the only thing we need to cover; the fourth estate doesn’t matter more than the third. But I would certainly agree that it has an undue amount of attention within the article. Let’s just pare it down and merge it into the above section. — HTGS (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The Lundy500 was not a response by the media. It was a response by a couple of idiots, making fun of Mark Lundy. So I don't think it belongs under the media section.

Please explain what insight you think it gives to the case. The only insight I see is that the organisers were very immature.

IMO, it is entirely irrelevant because it is not about the topic which is the murder of Christine and Amber Lundy. It has nothing to do with the murders. Straining (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Arguably Lundy's parole has nothing to do with the murders either, but it is all on the periphery, and informs us about the proximate and enduring aftermaths to the crime. If a reader, 50 years from now or 15,000 km away, reads about the case, knowing that there were multiple attempts by members of the public to re-enact the drive will tell them something about the place the case held in the public eye. The reaction to the “attempts” also informs the reader of the cultural context that these events were proposed in. And of course we certainly aren’t participating in mockery by reporting on it.

If the section on the media does not belong in a ‘Public response’ section that’s fine. We can structure the page however we like—and it certainly needs an overhaul at the moment. — HTGS (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

There's usually a section on 'Trivia' added for stuff like this. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Roger8Roger agrees that the material is trivia. WP:Trivia says "Trivia sections should be avoided". That would be appear to be two votes in favour of removal. Straining (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not trivia, we are not voting, and it would take a huge leap to see Roger’s comment as a “vote” to remove.

@Roger 8 Roger, I don’t think it makes sense to have a trivia section for this article, and I don’t think the “races” are trivial (for reasons raised above, to do with covering the public reaction to the murders and the case). — HTGS (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

So far, only three editors are contributing to this discussion. Two of them think the Lundy500 is trivial. Decisions on wiki are made by consensus and at this point, the consensus is that its trivial. Straining (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:Consensus. The discussion is not over, and the goal is not to “win”. — HTGS (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't voting and by trivia I meant a section for side issues, usually called trivia, that get into the media. They can usually be treated as trivia that happens to get into the media which creates a sort of notability. The section on public reaction is such a section, although I don't think it is properly named, whith 'trivia' also not being appropriate in this article. Three issues fit into it, the Lundy 500 and the later 300 version, and the drama at the funeral. I think they warrant a mention because of the sources, but the section name should change and the Lundy 500 should not have its own section. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Once again you agree the Lundy 500 is trivia and that it doesn't belong in the article.

The drama at the funeral is not trivia. His lawyers claim it is one of the main reasons he was found guilty by the jury. However, the Lundy500 has nothing to do with the murders or whether Mark Lundy is guilty. That's why its trivia - its totally irrelevant. Straining (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I will pare it down, as per HTGS' sugggestion - even though I don't think it belongs in the articel at all. Straining (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)