Talk:Mark "Chopper" Read

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Move[edit]

This page was moved by copy and paste from Chopper, and chopper was made into a disambiguation page. See the history of Chopper for the original author of this page. Maximus Rex 00:40, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Slang?[edit]

"They have won a son at the circus, Roy Brandon." What the Hell does this mean? Is it Ozzy slang I don't get? Disambiguation please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pageantmalarkey (talkcontribs)

No. It's vandalism. I'll correct it. Thanks. -- Longhair | Talk 01:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Name[edit]

If his name is Chopper Reid, why is the article title Chopper Read? -- 125.238.205.112 13:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

His name is spelled read, got his book and its on the front page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.98 (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely Read. Chopper Reid should be redirected though. Done. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Books[edit]

I think the book titles are partially incorrect, especially the 4th book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.96.203.23 (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Organized (sic) crime[edit]

There have recently been several changes to the Organised Crime categories without any consensus for the change. This has apparently been initiated by one editor's decision to nominate an existing category for deletion.

Instead of simply reverting edits and becoming embroiled in an edit war, I encourage all interested parties to comment at The Cat for deletion page.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, how could they walk around in long coats with weapons IN PRISON??? Something's wrong here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.108.52.23 (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Separating the truth from the fantasy in Read's writings is no easy task. Sometimes it seems as if his books were written by a second-rate crime-fiction author/journalist who paid Read for the use of his name, and used bits of his story... surely not? Frankly, I find much of it simply bulldust. 2001:44B8:3102:BB05:B873:7C54:15CA:1B25 (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Toe-cutter[edit]

The main villan in "Mad Max", an Australian film with a cult following, is "Toe-cutter". This must be in homage to Chopper. Perhaps more can be said about his cultural influences. Though, I'm not Australian, so I'm not one to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.223.153 (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt this is the case, the term is widely used before this (see Reg Withers) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.42.242 (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think that the Mad Max villain is a homage to Mr. Read. Mad Max was made in 1979, and would have been in planning before then. I doubt that Read would have been well known in 1979. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources & reliability[edit]

This section contains lots of information that has stood for long periods without any source. I'm going to start chopping it as per WP:BLP. Additionally, since Read is, my his own admission, prone to embellishing the truth, I think any statement that is only sourced by something he has said or written should be marked as 'Read claims that...'. Only reliable 3rd party sources should be used to make absolute statements of fact. 213.201.175.114 (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Proceeds of Crime[edit]

The reference to a Proceeds of Crime Bill 2001 needs updating by someone familiar with it. The Bill was enacted in 2002 and has been amended since then. --Rofish (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes - the article currently states: "Read's success in selling tales of his criminal past has prompted widespread calls to amend the Federal Proceeds of Crime Bill (2001)—which confiscates the proceeds of drug deals and robberies—to also apply to indirect proceeds of crime, including book sales, TV appearances, and the like."
But the law apparently does apply, at least to book sales. It's been applied (with limited success) against Schapelle Corby and against David Hicks. Read's case looks much more straightforward than Hicks', so I wonder why it hasn't been applied? --Chriswaterguy talk 06:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Page protection due to vandalism after death[edit]

I wonder if this page should not be protected, at least for a day or two? There has been some pretty crude vandalism by IPs, though it has also been reverted by IPs. --220 of Borg 13:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Page title etc[edit]

It's currently Chopper Read, yet the lede starts out: Mark Brandon "Chopper" Read .... The obvious question is: Is Chopper a name or just a nickname? We currently have a foot in both camps.

The infobox is labelled Chopper Read, and within it we see his alias was ... Chopper Read. How can an alias be the same as the person's name? This is somewhat Monty Pythonesque, I have to say.

Sure, he was widely called Chopper Read, and even just Chopper, but is that a suitable title? Compare this to Louis Armstrong, who was widely known as Louis "Satchmo" Armstrong, Satchmo Armstrong or often just Satchmo. Yet his article is titled Louis Armstrong.

I'd support the article being moved to Mark "Chopper" Read and the infobox being relabelled accordingly. That would make me happy. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I support the move, with a redirect on chopper read. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
My impression was that "Chopper Read" was the usual form and, though not an actual stage name, it was covered by WP:STAGENAME, like Bill Clinton. However, looking at the recent sources, 'Mark "Chopper" Read' seems to be at least as common. William Avery (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the discussion on this name, I would like to get consensus on this. Proposal change article name to Mark "Chopper" Read with a redirect from the current title and alias listed in infobox as Chopper Read. The only other title I could find with a well known alias in the title was "Weird Al" Yankovich. We semed to have consensus on this before but it was never enacted. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

So Flat Out the page was moved, yes? Good job! JDanek007Talk 18:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Mark Read"[edit]

The usage of Mark Read (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Mark Read (singer) -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

So it appears that from the talk:Mark Read (singer): "The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion..." Ok. JDanek007Talk 18:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes that was the consensus, not to remove {singer} from the title. Flat Out let's discuss it 20:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark "Chopper" Read. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark "Chopper" Read. 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 05:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox - Cause of death parameter[edit]

Death by liver cancer might not be notable for an aged and long-retired violinist but, given the article subject’s chaotic and violent life on the edge, the manner in which he lost it is notable if only for its incongruity. It is valid to note that he didn’t die by lethal injection or in a hail of bullets or by his own hand as might be expected.

The ability of the reader to rapidly locate key facts supersedes the dry issue of whether some round snippet fits a square hole in the template documentation. The guidelines are in service to the encyclopaedia, not vice versa. There is a solid argument for including the cause of death in his infobox whereas the argument against is bureaucratic.

I say IAR isn't even necessary because this qualifies on its own (inverted) merits. Captainllama (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. It's (unfortunately) not at all unusual for someone to die of cancer in their 50s. It's appropriately described in the article text, no one's suggesting removing it from there, but there's no indication in this particular case that his cause of death is significant to his notability. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)