Talk:Moors murders/Archive 14

Keith Bennet.
I'm not sure why but there are a few sites,yours included,that have got Keith Bennet's last movements wrong.Keith lived on Eston St close to Victoria Baths,Longsight.He was on his way to see his Grandmother who lived in Gorton,he was abducted whilst walking down Stockport Rd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehop69 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We need a citation of a reliable source to do anything with this information.  General Ization  Talk   02:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Moors 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/i-have-no-compassion-for-her-i-hope-she-goes-to-hell-i-wanted-her-to-suffer-like-i-have-609095.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0509/1224315801299.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Concatenation of circumstances
The pronouncement that the murders arose from a "concatenation of circumstances" seems ponderous and not very meaningful. What event in human history isn't due to a concatenation of circumstances? 85.255.234.210 (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree. It's rather meaningless twaddle. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Combination of circumstances" is plainer English. However, concatenation is given as part of a direct quote so it is hard to change it without removing the entire quote. In fact, the "concatenation" quote could be removed from the article without a great loss and consensus seems to lean towards this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 23:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The phrase is designed to indicate that, were it not for their chance meeting, the two would almost certainly not have murdered these children in such fashion. Brady may have murdered on his own, but Hindley - not so much. Parrot of Doom 08:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is often said that if Brady and Hindley had not met, the Moors murders would never have occurred. To some extent this is stating the obvious, as 85.255.234.210 points out. The phrase "concatenation of circumstances" also has an element of unnecessary use of jargon or twaddle, as Martinevans123 points out. It would be better to find a reliable source which expresses in plain English the widely held view that if Brady and Hindley had never met, the crimes would not have occurred.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against adding quotes by professors of forensic psychiatry where appropriate. But it's a shame MacCulloch didn't just say e.g. ".. were it not for their chance meeting, the two would almost certainly not have murdered these children in such fashion". Maybe a more straightforward quote from MacCulloch could be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a rather more enlightening quote from MacCulloch in this 2000 Guardian article: "MacCulloch says that Hindley's personality is not unique: "There are lots of people with very tough personality types who do great and brave things or who are extremely brave. Under other circumstances they might be labelled as abhorrent psychopaths and do dreadful things. It's really a question of whom you meet and what happens in the circumstances."-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds a lot clearer. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing how the quote from the Guardian is saying the same thing? I don't actually agree with the removal of the original quote. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 10:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's not the same thing. But it's still added value from an expert, as far as I can see. Maybe he also said "the same thing" in a clearer way? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is similar to Leopold and Loeb. Some crimes occur because two people met. Brady might have killed without meeting Hindley, but the specific nature of the Moors murders is the result of them acting together. I don't think that "concatenation of circumstances" is clear or informative, or in plain English.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The original quote seems to have been in the article since it passed at FAC without needing to be changed to "plain English". As I've already stated, I don't see why it was removed and don't feel consensus to do so was established. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 10:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * FAC ≠ This article is perfect and must stay the same forever. Several editors have expressed a desire to clarify what "concatenation of circumstances" actually means.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sagaciousphil, by all means explain what you think that phrase means here and why it adds value to the article. Parrot's paraphrase looked much clearer to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Parrot of Doom has already explained it for you. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 12:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Then I assume you agree with him. It's rather unfortunate that it needs explanation. In fact, that rather defeats the object of including it? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing wrong with a few difficult words, especially in a quotation. Strange consensus. J3Mrs (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not "jargon" and it's certainly not "twaddle" - we're not writing for half-wits here, if anyone doesn't know what it means they can google it. Funnily enough the the first definition that comes up uses the example "a concatenation of events which had finally led to the murder". I'm against using over technical language in articles where it's unnecessary but concatenation is not that and not particularly obscure. There has to be a good reason to remove a cited quotation and you haven't given one. Richerman    (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of all non-half-wits here, could you possibly provide an example or any murder which is not "a concatenation of circumstances"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The significance of the quotation is that's how Brady's psychiatrist described the murders. You may wish he had said something else but the fact is he didn't. As I said, I don't see any reason to remove it. Richerman    (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that's where any significance lies. I just think it's comparatively dull - he has said clearer and more interesting things. If consensus is to restore it, so be it. I just think the article could do better. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ditto, I'm not going to edit war if someone's day will be ruined without the concatenation quote. I don't think it's ideal though.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Brady and Hindley on SNP poster
The Scottish National Party has featured the duo on one of its posters. Or was it Boris Johnson and David Cameron? This set off criticism about poor taste. Maybe not notable enough for the article, but it shows how instantly recognisable the 1965 mug shot photos are.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * SNP? Poster?/ The article is a little unclear as to who posted that image on Facebook. The political fallout seems to have all come from the supporting comment from local agent Philomena Donnachie, who seems to think that Hindley and Brady buried their victims "in the basement"? I think Ms Donnachie might be getting confused with that other Coatbridge folk hero. Agree not appropriate for the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, it doesn't seem to be officially endorsed by the SNP but was praised on a Facebook feed by one of its election agents. According to the article, "Ms Donnachie had praised the picture of Mr Cameron as Ian Brady and Mr Johnson as Myra Hindley after it was uploaded to Facebook by a fellow SNP member." The post was at https://www.facebook.com/groups/1517533961824266/ but has since been deleted. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And Hindley on a pillowcase
The latest controversy is hereand here. Again, not all that notable.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A pillow, in fact, so no case to answer? Surprising what people will do to try for that Wikipedia article notability. But designer Paul Nelson-Esch and American website society6 seem to have both failed this time. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC) p.s. don't forget the hoody, the t-shirt, the phone case, the tote bag and the stationery cards. Can't wait for the designer kitchen knives.
 * Surely people should know by now that putting the October 1965 mugshot on any piece of art will cause a fuss. Paul Nelson-Esch either didn't know or care. Surprisingly, this article doesn't mention Myra (painting) which is the best known example. I've added it to the see also section; let's see how long it lasts. There is a good piece in The Guardian about the latest fuss.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, Ian. That link certainly deserves to be there, as far as I can see. In fact, such a solid article might deserve a line of two of explanation, perhaps in the "Lasting notoriety" section. That's where Kevin Coyne's Babble project once appeared, I seem to remember. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm always a bit wary of "in popular culture" mentions as they can become trivia magnets. Myra (painting) is notable enough for its own article, which is why it was added to the see also section. There are several songs which reference the murders, of which "Suffer Little Children" is the best known.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is all just trivia and I would be totally against including any form of an "in popular culture" section. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 07:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As it has nothing whatsoever to do with the murders, I only left it because it wasn't included in the body of the article. This article is already a trivia magnet. J3Mrs (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've said, most of this would have problems with WP:POPCULTURE. However, Myra (painting) has picked up such a large amount of controversy that it has its own article, and is worth a see also mention.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I somehow doubt that Marcus Harvey would have painted that portrait had it not been for the murders and the police photograph. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:TOPIC is also involved here. This article is about the murders, and Marcus Harvey's painting was created thirty years after the event. The painting does need some sort of a mention due to the huge controversy that it caused when it was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1997, and a "see also" seems to be enough for the interested reader.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

9 May 2016
The case is back on the front page of the Mirror today. Doctor Alan Keightley says that Brady has told him where Keith Bennett's body is buried.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keightley says he can only "reveal all, in his book, when Brady dies". So just an early book plug really. (Not that I would ever read a tabloid story like that, of course.) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Biographical detail in info box
Apparently this article shouldn't have the individuals' birth places in the infobox (like every other article on Wikipedia), and shouldn't include Hindley's mother's maiden name or grandmother's name? Can anyone explain why any of this should be the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.185.73 (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is about the murders, not a biography. J3Mrs (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

So who was it did murders?? It's like they are protected around here. Pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchester Truth Facts (talk • contribs) 18:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have given you advice on your Talk page regarding editing, please read and edit in a constructive way, comments such as "Pathetic" are not considered constructive.. Also please sign your contributions. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Nothing new in the reports from recent days, which are made up of regurgitated information and quotes to create fanfare surround the 50th anniversary of their sentencing. Still maintain my long-standing view that there should be separate pages for both of the killers, you know, like every other serial killer on Wikipedia. Tom Green (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No objection in principle. But there would be just too much overlap? Surely Brady and Hindley are unique as a serial killing couple? Or are there others (who get separate Wikipedia articles)? This has been discussed before and I doubt consensus would change. So we have to work within this compromise. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There's not much consistency on Wikipedia. Fred & Rose each have their own biographies, as do Charles Starkweather and Caril Ann Fugate, but there's no stand-alone "Gloucester murders" article or "Nebraska murders", nor is there any obvious title at which standalone articles could be created; Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka get separate biographies but were both 'independent' enough that combining them wouldn't be practical; Raymond Fernandez and Martha Beck and Gerald and Charlene Gallego each have a combined joint biography; Everett Applegate, bizarrely, redirects to Mary Frances Creighton. This is something of an exceptional situation, as usually with serial killers the articles on the murders is combined into the biography of the murderer, but for obvious reasons no rational person is going to suggest that "Moors murders" isn't the common name here. &#8209; Iridescent 20:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Raymond Fernandez and Martha Beck looks like the most similar of those cases to me, and of course that could be called "The Lonely Hearts Killers", except that's also the name of a general modus operandi. But "the Moors murderers" is also pretty common isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that's a variation of the same. Nobody calls them "Brady and Hindley murders" or similar, and because both are only notable for one thing, which they did entirely together, then other than brief "early life" and "later life" sections, separate biographies would be largely identical. A radical solution might be gutting out the current "backgrounds" sections into standalone Early life of Ian Brady and Early life of Myra Hindley articles, and starting the main MM article in 1963; there's been enough written about both that it would be feasible to expand these sections into full-length bios, and it would solve the problem of how much relative weight to give to the murderers, the murders, the victims and the wider impact. &#8209; Iridescent 21:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's quite an easy and elegant solution, even though the early life of both is entirely non-notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There are precedents on Wikipedia for standalone "before they were famous" articles in which nothing of much interest happens but which are necessary to stop the main bio being overloaded; Early life of Ricky Ponting and Early life and career of Gene Roddenberry are probably the most spectacularly dull, but we also have Early life of Vladimir Lenin, Early life of José de San Martín, Early life of Jan Smuts, Early life of George W. Bush, Early life of David Lynch... It would be work, but it would be do-able; the sources exist, and in Wikipedia's terms the fact the sources exist implies the topic is notable. &#8209; Iridescent 21:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a very convincing argument. I can't think of any major objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)