Talk:Moors murders/Archive 12

Brady's general election rant
This is in the news, although it probably isn't notable enough for the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That won't stop some editors trying to add it. Kind of fits, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is notable enough for a single lineAusLondonder (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you need to look up the definition of "notable", clearly.  Cassianto Talk   20:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It fails WP:10YT. Brady has ranted about all sorts of things in letters in the past.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Cassianto - and you need to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NNCAusLondonder (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I did once, and I vowed never to read it again.  Cassianto Talk   20:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Charming. I can tell. AusLondonder (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As indicated above, Brady mentioning the election is not sufficiently notable to be worth including in the article. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 20:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it might be more notable if he was a Green supporter. Currently, of course, he can't vote. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with User:Sagaciousphil, this is not notable and should have never been inserted in the article. David J Johnson (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't help but me amazed by your dictatorial attitude User:Sagaciousphil - what gives you the right to declare 'Brady mentioning the election is not sufficiently notable to be worth including in the article'? AusLondonder (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's not just Phil, is it. At my count it's currently 5:1 against. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Make that six against; this is just fucking ridiculous. Eric   Corbett  21:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (The above edit generously sponsored by the Northern Party.) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not so ridiculous when you look at contributions which seem to be all geared around the May elections.  This user seems to be on a campaign trial on behalf of UKIP.   Cassianto Talk   22:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not *fucking* arguing for inclusion stringently User:Eric Corbett, I just said it was notable then I left it. Do you think your behaviour is WP:CIVIL?
 * User:Cassianto - are you saying I'm for or against UKIP in your paranoid mind? I cannot believe you have the brass neck to post the link to my contributions and blatantly lie that they are 'all geared around the May elections'. I have created several pages not related to the election and the majority of my contributions are NOT election related. AusLondonder (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Paranoid? Why would I be paranoid? What makes you think I give a fuck about your political leanings? My point was that you have spent a lot of time working on political articles only to then drive-by a featured article to deposit a piece of non-notable trivia in a section that has nothing to do with Brady on a subject for which you have written a lot about previously.  Are you saying that that was a coincidence or are you trying to make a point?   Cassianto Talk   01:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

AusLondonder (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 'What makes you think I give a fuck about your political leanings?' - er, you questioned them by saying 'this user seems to be on a campaign trial on behalf of UKIP'
 * Why is it non-notable trivia? Why did the media cover it then?
 * Why is it a 'drive-by' to add sourced material to the article? Is this article yours?
 * How does it having nothing to do with Brady when he himself made the comments?
 * Why couldn't you just be decent about it? Why all the swearing and accusations?
 * Ephemeral nonsense posted just before a general election is ephemeral nonsense and is not acceptable at Wikipedia. Someone with a three-week old account should do more listening. See WP:NOTNEWS, wait three months, and then propose an edit to this article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I know more about WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:BITE than many others. You guys don't really like new editors that much, do you? By the way, are you saying we wait three months for everything? 2011 England riots? September 11 attacks?AusLondonder (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to understand the situation please ask me later when things have calmed down. In brief, CIVIL is not intended to stop an editor from saying what they think about a situation, and the Moors murders case has nothing to do with the current election. If you stick around you will find that Wikipedia is based on pragmatism—things that help the encyclopedia are good, and things that don't aren't. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * AusLondonder, please don't start with the bullshit OWN accusation; this has nothing to do with ownership and more to do with protecting the article from non notable trivia. Also, I like the way how you take the moral high ground accusing me of incivility whilst at the same time assuming I have a "paranoid mind".   Cassianto Talk   01:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Brady's opinions on the general election are irrelevant to this article. They may be relevant to something like Convicted murderers and their opinions on General Elections though, so get writing if you'd like to see that. Parrot of Doom 09:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Brady knows that letters he sends to members of the public or the media always get published, no matter how infantile or non-notable the content. This is why his views on UKIP (or anything else for that matter) are not worth mentioning in the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess the situation could be worse - at least we don't have to monitor for Maghull IP addresses? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Brady's prisons
The addition of Brady's prisons here was reverted twice, first without any reason and the second time with an edit summary of "irrelevant detail." The second addition seemed to be supported by a reliable source. Is this detail irrelevant? For most biographical articles the location of the subject's residence is regarded as quite relevant to an account of their life history. I tend to see it as entirely relevant to Brady's later life and I'm not sure why it should be excluded. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Martin, I have not been involved in the recent edits, but in reading the article I see that several prisons that accommodated Brady are mentioned. Personally, I don't think the article needs to list every single institution that Brady has been in. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello David. Gartree and Durham are mentioned, but the other three are not. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is a laundry list and doesn't add significantly to a reader's understanding of the case.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree it certainly adds little to an understanding of the case. But this article is the only one about the lives of Brady and Hindley. Despite its title, it's also about them. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This kind of detail is irrelevant to this article as it is about the Moors Murders. I would have no problem however with it being added to Brady's article.   Cassianto Talk   07:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If he had one. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Has he not? That's odd, I'd have thought he'd have had one.   Cassianto Talk   08:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at the top of this page there was originally an article about him but it was merged into this one. Not surprising really as his notoriety is all because of the murders. No reason why you couldn't split off a new one if you feel it's necessary though. Richerman    (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, so it was; not sure I'd've necessarily agreed with the merger had I've known about it. In terms of him having his own article, I agree his notoriety was/is "notable", but he wasn't.  Having said that, and looking about at others like these, and him, all of whom equal the crime-soaked notoriety of Brady, spin off articles seem to be inconsistent across the whole site. Might it be worth red linking Brady in this article so as to prompt someone into writing about him? Alas, I'm a bit busy and unable to commit further at this time.   Cassianto Talk   12:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Anything encyclopedic about either Brady or Hindley is in this article. As you say he wasn't notable except for these murders why would he warrant an article? Ian Brady is a redirect to this article. J3Mrs (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say "anything encyclopedic" would include the prisons in which they were both held. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would Brady warrant an article of his own? So we can exclude trivial stuff like the moving of prisons to another article, which is more relevant to Brady and not to the Moors Murders themselves.  I'm not passionate about it, just opining for the sake of discussion, that's all.   Cassianto Talk   12:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As User:Richerman points out, Brady's article was up for deletion in 2009 and was instead merged into this article. I'm really not sure he's become any more notable in the past seven years, probably only less notable. So it's hard to see a new article surviving. But then, fashions can change when you least expect it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have felt for years that Brady requires a seperate article entry. I debated this issue but lost with a very obsessive user who obviously was opposed a she didn't want to increase Brady's profile. Many people are emotionally compromised as it is widely known that Brady thrives on his notoriety and attention. However as Wikipedia must present a consistent view. With Sutcliffe and countless other killers of arguably equal and certainly less notoriety having articles, there must also be one for Brady (and Hindley also) without question. The number of psychology students that require an extensive profile for their research alone would certainly be grateful! Let us move towards what is needed with this once and for all. If several of us are in agreement, we can present our arguments and keep the page from being removed/merged. Tom Green (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * By all means start a separate thread if you feel there should be a discussion prior to an RfC for separate article(s). In the meantime, what is your view on including mention of the other three prisons, in which Brady has been held, in this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My view is that the information would be excessive in this article (indeed a number of things about the two are), better serving in a profile page of the individual. Tom Green (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Brady stand-alone article
I do not believe discussions should be closed forever, and the 2009 settlement on the Brady article being merged is a considerable time ago. I know many are opposed to having a stand-alone article, but I have to ask why ones for Peter Sutcliffe and others far less notorious, are allowed to remain. Surely Wikipedia should be consistent in its approach. Brady is a subject matter that many need to research in terms of psychology and criminology etc. I also believe that some people are emotionally involved, and are wanting to reduce the potential for what they see as exposure for Brady, or the expansion of his notoriety. I have read no explanations other than that Brady is famous for the murders and nothing else. That excuse could be used for virtually any prolific killer throughout history. I feel it's time to settle this anomaly once and for all. Tom Green (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't have a separate article on the Yorkshire Ripper Murders. If we had a separate article for Brady, and indeed also one for Hindley, would there still be the need for this article? There could be a great deal of overlap between all three? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see why we don't have an article on the Yorkshire Ripper Murders. In my view we should have an article for each; Brady and Hindley and the event itself. Likewise for Sutcliffe and his crime spree.   Cassianto Talk   21:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the treatment is inconsistent, but that the position taken on this article is the correct one. The murders were notable, but the murderer was not - they were an unremarkable person known only for one set of crimes. I would be all for moving the Sutcliffe article to the page name suggested. Per WP:PERPETRATOR. -- ℕ  ℱ  21:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Martin, you raise a good point. I don't quite see why we don't have an article on the Yorkshire Ripper Murders. In my view, Wikipedia should at least be consistent and either have an article for both the perpetrator(s) and the event itself, or no biography and an article fo just the event.  Cassianto Talk   21:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Shucks. All I was doing was trying to add the names of three prisons, honest guv. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "I also believe that some people are emotionally involved, and are wanting to reduce the potential for what they see as exposure for Brady, or the expansion of his notoriety." - insulting anyone who might disagree isn't a very good way to start an argument. There's no need for a separate article as it would essentially repeat much of what is already written here.  And anything it didn't repeat would be trivia.  In simpler terms, it would be a crap article and a distraction. Parrot of Doom 07:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn't quite understand that either PoD., I don't see anybody exhibiting censorship behaviour. I think that was a stupid thing to say.   Cassianto Talk   07:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The real problem is whether the separate articles for Brady and Hindley would largely repeat material that is already in this article, leading to a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The separate articles would need to have a considerable amount of fresh material to prevent this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Tom Green's opening and closing sentences are contradictory. Echoing what PoD and Ianmacm have to say. I also agree with Nonsenseferret about the title of the Sutcliffe article. J3Mrs (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see that now. If one were written, then it should be about the person and not the subject. Having said that, and aside from the murders, would Brady really be notable enough so as to carry his own article?  I kind of think not now. I was just worried that this excellent article would still continue to be added upon with irrelevant details about Brady and Hindley.  Maybe the same now should be done with Sutcliffe and a new article created about his crimes rather than have an article based on him, the person?   Cassianto Talk   07:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends what you consider "irrelevant details", of course. There is already support at Talk:Peter Sutcliffe for a move. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Since it may be of some interest to this discussion, I have proposed a move on the Talk:Peter Sutcliffe to Yorkshire Ripper Murders. -- ℕ  ℱ  16:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)