Talk:Nine O'Clock Service

Crap

HI, I'm not 100% shure why the article ends with CRAP? IS someone exclaming? Anyway I'm going to delete it -if its there for a good reason I'm sorry... james.

Matthew Fox

Seems that Matthew Fox was more than 'consulted'. He was massively influenced by NOS, saw it as revelatory and visited Sheffield to attend the service. He was helping Brain export the service to San Francisco. His Techno Cosmic Masses were directly influenced by Brain and were a continuation of the NOS. I think this could do with highlighting in the article. http://www.equip.org/articles/the-planetary-mass

Spelling

"I think Chris Brain's name is misspelt throughout this piece - there should be an e at the end of Braine."

An IP posted it to the article page; I have moved it here for them. a13ean (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the correct spelling. Although I wasn't involved with NOS, I did know many people who were, and I also knew Chris Brain when he played bass for the band Tense. SamXT (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

FAR too much detail of Brain's trial

This is a long-term work of reference; there is hugely too much detail in the section on Brain's trial. I have suggested, as a hidden comment there, much shorter wording for the section. Just enough references to support the text need to be added (from the many already cited), and the job's done. If there's agreement, someone can just replace existing text with the shortened version, edited as necessary; I don't want to do it right now. Maybe wait for the final verdict and sentence to avoid the need for continued editing. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I have four points swiftly in reply (precipitated by the "Bold trim" by Fedjmike at 16:35 today, which did not wait for the final verdict, or agreement between contributors, as Pol098 - in my view rightly -suggested):

(1) The section about the prosecution of Chris Brain has been on this Wikipedia page since I created it on 3 February 2024, some 19 months, and no one has, before Pol098’s comment at 15:31 today that “a few lines are enough for an encyclopaedia, a reference work rather than a news source”, suggested that detailed accounts of court trials are inappropriate on Wikipedia. Indeed, there are numerous Wikipedia pages devoted wholly to particular trials. If the main objection to this section is that it is too detailed for this particular page then one solution would be for the section to be moved to its own Wikipedia page, to keep the Nine O'Clock Service Wikipedia page uncluttered. If the main objection to this section is that the information contained in it is too trivial for Wikipedia, then perhaps editors can say what information they regard as being below the significance needed for Wikipedia.

(2) The comment made by Pol098’s at 15:05 today that this section should be reduced in detail “with a link to a source with the major detail” is all very well, but no such (other) webpage was mentioned and I am not aware of one. This Wikipedia page was such a source (before Fedjmike’s “Bold trim” at 16:35 today) and could be used – by those who wished to – to find the details about the course of the trial.

(3) I appreciate that Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative and I am sure the section can be improved and shortened but, in my opinion, there is a difference between an edit to improve readability or to tighten things up etc., and essentially deleting a large portion of what another contributor has spent the last 19 months writing.

(4) As regards the number of references appropriate for “a long-term work of reference”: I cannot predict which links are still going to be working in years to come. I would prefer not to have to keep checking and editing the references for years to come, but if other contributors would be willing to take on that task, they would be welcome. Meanwhilethoughtfullysubconsciousbriskly (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

When I originated this thread I said everything that I needed to say, so won't discuss further beyond saying that I maintain my view. I clarify simply in response to point (2): I said the trial section should be reduced in detail "with a link to a source with the major detail". I didn't mention any source as my intention was simply to reduce the large number of existing references to just enough to provide the necessary information, not to seek new sources. My suggested minimal text, without references yet, remains in the article as of today, section Trial of Chris Brain, as hidden text if anyone wants to see it, and Fedjmike's longer version is in the History for today. Over to others, and out. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that we do not need the minutiae of all the preliminary hearings and what date people testified. This is hard to read and irrelevant detail. Fences&Windows 08:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

If the majority of people interested in the Nine O'Clock Service Wikipedia page no longer wish to see on it a record of every step of the Chris Brain court proceedings (which, from recent comments, appears to be the case), that’s fine by me.

If anyone still wants to see all the details, they can always go to the “View history” page and view for themselves the version as at 20 August 2025 at 14:59, after my last contribution. Meanwhilethoughtfullysubconsciousbriskly (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The extraordinarily excessive detail about the trial is a nightmare rabbit-hole of unhelpful legal procedure. It contributes nothing important to an understanding of the course of events.

All we need are the basics: 1. The trial began on such-a-date. 2. The accused pleaded guilty/not guilty. 3. Verdict and sentence. Spideog (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)