Talk:Moors murders/Archive 19

Should Brady's accounts of the murders also be added?
I noticed under the 'victims' section that it mostly describes Hindley's version of how the murders took place.

Since Brady's passing, a doctor that visied Brady for 25 years has revealed Brady's version of what happened, which describes Hindley as much more of a participant than she was letting on. Should this be added just to balance out the perspective for the reader?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4516340/Picture-Ian-Brady-said-PROVES-Myra-Hindley-enjoyed-killing.html#comments

§Tombo671 (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There may be a case for balancing the accounts. But we'd probably need a much better source than the Daily Mail, which is now "slightly frowned upon" in these parts, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the Mail sourcing (at which point some people will say no immediately) the real problem is that neither Brady nor Hindley is an independent or reliable source about what happened. As soon as they were arrested, Hindley started saying that it was all Brady's doing and she was a minor player, and carried on saying this for years in the hope that it would win her parole. Brady contradicted her, insisting that she had been a full and willing participant in the murders, and the court agreed with this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wholly agree. But that's no good reason to let one set of lies overshadow the other. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, well the primary source of what the Daily mail was highlighting has now been released, titled 'Ian Brady: the untold story'

I will leave the link to the ebook here, https://books.google.com.au/books?id=vfsjDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=ian+brady:+the+untold+story&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvxJqSqOvWAhXHS7wKHfcXAyYQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=pauline&f=false

§Tombo671 (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The book is Ian Brady: The untold story of the Moors Murders by Alan Keightley. Dr Keightley was Brady's sole visitor for 25 years. Woops, another Daily Mail link there. I wonder if Keightley has a book to sell, after 25 years of waiting? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The main point here is that Hindley always tried to downplay her role in the murders to get parole. Here she is in 1998, going into full "It was all Brady's fault, he forced me to do it" mode. The court in 1966 did not accept this, neither did the public. Keightley was one of the few people who knew Brady well, but I'm a bit worried about promoting his new book, which he has gleefully published now that Brady has snuffed it. I'm also puzzled about whether Dr Alan Keightley is a medical doctor, because he isn't registered to practice in the UK. Possibly it's a Doctor of Philosophy.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Or possibly a Doctor of Divinity? I suspect what will irk editors most is that he's a regular contributor to DM. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think its a matter of promoting his book though, or whether it matters what sort of doctor he is? But rather just giving a more balanced objective. Why just use Myra's version as cannon for the reader, leaving out the other side? It's an interesting part of the whole case that both gave different version of events, and i believe that should be worth nothing this article. §Tombo671 (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
This edit seemed to me to be an improvement, both in terms of content and readability. I'm not sure why it has been so quickly reverted. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem like that to me. Eric   Corbett  01:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like an improvement to me, too, .--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not an improvement it added nothing but poor prose. Graham Beards (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, overcomplicated prose was introduced. Simpler is usually better.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed it because large edits to featured articles ought to be explained and certainly should be incremental. The prose was not improved. The art of writing featured articles is knowing when to stop not to continually add material, even with references. J3Mrs (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely it depends on what that material is and what the references are? The article is currently at 102,491 bytes. Is that some kind of hard limit? I guess we could consider each of the IP's edits one at a time. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No ceremony for Brady
It has been reported in the UK that a High Court judge has ruled there must be no ceremony to mark the disposal of Brady's remains: the fifth movement of Symphonie fantastique by Berlioz is specifically mentioned by the BBC after Brady's executor requested leave for it to be used. I've started a discussion on the symphony's talk page over whether this is significant enough to warrant a mention in the article ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Given how some people have moaned about "we mustn't have anything that isn't about the murders", this could be seen as off topic. The musical request is interesting, though; it makes a change from "My Way".-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at the BBC source, I'm not sure what could be suggested as sufficiently notable to warrant addition here: the fact that Brady's body is still not disposed of after 5 months? the fact that matters are being taken out of the solicitor's hands? the piece of music requested by the solicitor (and presumably by Brady)? and/or the fact the judge has ruled there can be no music or ceremony? Given that the fifth movement lasts about 10 minutes, I'm surprised it would even be allowed at most crematoria. I'm sure Oldham and Tameside councils must have considered other options. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Moors Murderer Ian Brady's ashes have been buried at sea in the middle of the night after a cremation last week, it has been revealed." I think this is worth a brief mention, as Hindley's ashes being scattered in a park is mentioned. Perhaps some people will now boycott the sea because Brady's ashes are in it.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hindley gets a lot more. Just like her, local funeral directors refused to handle Brady's body and his cremation was not allowed music or flowers by order of the High Court. That's all quite unusual and I think it should be mentioned. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Gorbals
This edit removed the detail that Brady was born in the Gorbals area of Glasgow. This seems to be a basic biographical detail, comparable with the description in the section for Hindley which says she was "... born in Crumpsall ... and raised in Gorton." What was the reason for this removal, as no edit summary was given? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought I had typed "enough details" but obviously something went awry so I apologise for the lack of an edit summary but this article is not a biography. It contains enough details about Brady, you could remove the details about Hindley without detracting from its main purpose if you feel strongly about equal treatment. J3Mrs (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the article is one that contains two small biographies. And I'd suggest that the additional tiny amount of detail for each is equally useful. Some might say essential. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * And some might say what's this got to do with the murders? How is it either useful or indeed essential? This is an encyclopedia article not a book and really interested readers will find a plethora of sources to consult for added information. J3Mrs (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's of borderline relevance. The Gorbals has a reputation as a place where even the muggers have to go round in pairs, but saying that Brady was born in Glasgow is enough.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there were nice parts of Glasgow, even in 1938, but this certainly wasn't one of them. It was a city of about 1.1 million people at that time? But the Gorbals was quite notorious for its poverty, crime and squalor. I really think four extra words would be worth quite a lot here. I'm still not getting the constantly repeated "this has nothing to do with the murders" argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The real point of that Herald story is the suggestion by Sir Peter Topping that Brady may have also murdered an English victim in Scotland. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Copied over from Iridescent's talk page
Perhaps I'm missing something, since you reverted this | edit. The use of "disillusioned" here doesn't make much sense to me, since Hindley was attracted to Brady, making fascinated entries about him in her diary and wanting to go out with him. How is that the correct word here? It seems the exact opposite of her feelings. Grandpallama (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're going to completely reverse the meaning of something in one of Wikipedia's most-visited Featured Articles—an article that's been reviewed and assessed pretty much continuously for the past decade—the onus is on to provide a source for the change, not to unilaterally rewrite it because you do not think that word means what you think it means. Hindley initially found Brady interesting when she met him in July 1961; she became disillusioned and began to find him unpleasant, although she still considered herself in love with him, as time went on (I've given up with Ian, he goes out of his way to annoy me if you want Hindley's own words); he asked her out on 22 December and she decided to give him a chance. This is one of the most documented relationships of all time, and if you want to make a change that goes against what every source says—including the subject herself—then it needs a spectacularly good source, not just your personal speculation. (Even  a spectacularly good source, since it would disagree with every other source we'd need to just give it as an alternative view and not change the main narrative unless you could demonstrate that mainstream thinking on the relationship had shifted.) &#8209; Iridescent 17:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're going to completely reverse the meaning of something in one of Wikipedia's most-visited Featured Articles—an article that's been reviewed and assessed pretty much continuously for the past decade—the onus is on to provide a source for the change, not to unilaterally rewrite it because you do not think that word means what you think it means. Hindley initially found Brady interesting when she met him in July 1961; she became disillusioned and began to find him unpleasant, although she still considered herself in love with him, as time went on (I've given up with Ian, he goes out of his way to annoy me if you want Hindley's own words); he asked her out on 22 December and she decided to give him a chance. This is one of the most documented relationships of all time, and if you want to make a change that goes against what every source says—including the subject herself—then it needs a spectacularly good source, not just your personal speculation. (Even  a spectacularly good source, since it would disagree with every other source we'd need to just give it as an alternative view and not change the main narrative unless you could demonstrate that mainstream thinking on the relationship had shifted.) &#8209; Iridescent 17:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * So, first, you're responding with an unneeded degree of belligerence here to a good-faith editor who obviously isn't being unilateral since he brought this to you for discussion. I would've thought my initial question revealed that I'm not trying to change any overall meanings, but that there's a clearly confusing moment in the paragraph the way it is written. Right now, the way those two sentences are phrased, we go directly from "entries detail her fascination" with Brady to "she continued to make [the presumably fascinated] entries and grew increasingly disillusioned". There's no explanation for where that second part comes from. If there was a dip in her feelings (which your extra verbiage here explains really well), then I'd like to strongly suggest adding that as a qualifying phrase. Your language "she became disillusioned and began to find him unpleasant, although she still considered herself in love with him" would make a lot more sense in this spot, which has a weird, unexplained break as it mentions this disillusionment that's never alluded to beforehand and isn't addressed again. I was fixing what looked to me like a typical longstanding, long-overlooked minor typo, hence my light-hearted edit summary. I wasn't out to change any overall meaning, so my apologies if that's how it was perceived, but perhaps a bit more clarity in that spot to smooth the current disconnect between infatuation and disillusionment would help. I really, really like the additional verbiage you provide here, and something like "Over the next few months she continued to make entries, but she became increasingly disillusioned with him and began to find him unpleasant; however, on 22 December when Brady asked her on a date to the cinema,[126] she decided to give him a chance and they watched the biblical epic King of Kings" would absolutely make more sense to readers who aren't already exceedingly familiar with the evolution of their relationship. Any objections to my changing the sentence to reflect that clarification? Grandpallama (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hindley's Open University degree
This is a fact, as reported in The Guardian in 2002 here. I'm pretty sure many other sources could also be found. But should it be included in the article? It was reverted here with the edit summary "Sorry but this article is about the murders, so irrelevant". But we've looked at that argument here many times before – that's not strictly valid, is it? If it were, then the article would have no biographical information about the two murderers at all? Or is the argument that the degree came after the murders and so is wholly unconnected? I think many would see Hindley's achievement of an Open University degree as an indication that she was prepared to occupy her mind usefully during her life imprisonment. What do other editors think? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. it seems this topic has been briefly mentioned before, at Talk:Moors murders/Archive5 in 2011, but has not itself been fully discussed.


 * What needs to be considered is where that material could be properly integrated, rather than just tagged on as an apparent afterthought. As far as I'm concerned it's no more relevant than whatever job she was allocated as a prisoner. Eric   Corbett  00:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% convinced it needs mentioning. It doesn't add significant context to a reader's understanding of the murders. Separate biographical articles for Brady and Hindley have been ruled out in the past, because there would be problems with WP:BLP1E.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So why do Brady and Hindley face potential problems with WP:BLP1E, while very many other serial killers, like Fred West, Stephen Port, Harold Shipman and all these don't? And serial killing is just "one event"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I said in my edit summary, "Sorry but this article is about the murders, so irrelevant". The article is not a biography, she is only notable for the crimes she committed with Brady. J3Mrs (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly agree that both are notable only for the crimes. But I don't see that means all other biographical detail should be removed. Their long lives in prison proved to be sagas, for campaigners and tabloid journalists alike. There's the continued question of Keith Bennett's body. I also think a university degree is somewhat more notable than a prison job (assuming that Hindley had one). So on balance I think it should be added, although I'm really not sure how it could be better "integrated". A brief mention, in the right part of the chronology, would seem quite reasonable Martinevans123 (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If you think it should be included then I'd be interested to see your suggestions for where and how. Just tagging it on as an afterthought simply won't do. Eric   Corbett  08:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see that where it was was "tagging it on as an afterthought". But thanks for your polite question. I'll see if I can suggest something. better. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that Stanford in The Guardian also says that Hindley "became a voracious and intelligent reader, and a keen student of politics." The Open Univerity also mentions the degree themsleves here. There's also an audio file of a interview here which seems to date the award of the degree to October 1989. Most of the existing biographical material concerns Hindley's sentencing and pleas for parole. Chronologically it would come after the "pack of lies" item near the start of the third paragraph. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That Hindley studied for an OU degree is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not it's relevant that she studied for an OU degree. Eric   Corbett  23:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If it is mentioned, it should be in her segment of the incarceration section. If the article, particularly in this section, mentions thwarted prison escapes, walking around Hampstead Heath, her attempts to portray herself as a "reformed Catholic" and at Brady's mercy prior to her arrest and her general attempts to depict herself as a reformed character, then a brief mention would be apt especially given her efforts to show she could reintegrate into society and be productive. Why not? I support its inclusion but think only a sentence or two harking to this would be appropriate.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That Hindley was actually awarded an OU degree is not in dispute. I agree it's a notable part of her much-discussed "rehabilitation". So I'd suggest adding this, at the end of the existing third paragraph, or possibly as a new separate fifth paragraph:
 * "During her imprisonment at Holloway, Cookham Wood and Highpoint, Hindley studied for an Open University degree in Humanities. She became a voracious and intelligent reader, and a keen student of politics. She was awarded her degree in 1989. "
 * The Daily Mail published a photo of her in her gown here. But I can't imagine we'd want to link to that. Carol Ann Lee's book may be a better source, so I'll check to see what she says, if anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I remember the photo of Hindley in her graduation gown. It was (sort of) designed to say "I'm respectable and can be released now". But of course she died in prison. Many prisoners do Open University degrees, but I'm still not sure if it is needed in the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * p.s. do you think it's relevant that Hindley was imprisoned at Highpoint? Currently the article doesn't even mention that. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Lee (2010) includes quite a few details about Hindley's studies, including the fact that she herself "scoffed at the idea" a degree would help her chances of parole.
 * Page 342 covers the furore surrounding the publication of that photograph, for which Rev Peter Timms was reponsible. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hindley was moved to Highpoint in 1998 and remained there until her death in 2002. Again, I'm not sure if this adds significant context to an understanding of the murders.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 16:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the entire sections on Incarceration, for both Hindley and Brady, don't "add significant context to an understanding of the murders", and so should be removed? Surely these were there when the article attained a Featured article status? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a biography, how Hindley occupied herself in prison has no relevance to the subject of this article. Lee is not the author of this article which doesn't need to parrot everything she wrote. Read the title Moors murders not Moors murderers. J3Mrs (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did manage to spot the difference between those two words, thanks. You seem to be suggesting quite a major trimming. And I'm certainly not suggesting that we "parrot everything Lee wrote". I was assuming that her biography of Hindley was regarded as one of the better sources used in this article. Perhaps that's a mistake on my part. As for other prisoners who gained OU degrees, perhaps you'd see that as "of no relevance" in the case of Bobby Cummines, John McVicar and Erwin James? It seems very odd to me that we shouldn't include biographical information about Hindley and Brady just because a certain article name has been chosen here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have added her final prison, Highpoint, and her place of death, West Suffolk Hospital, as I think these are two short, basic, non-contentious facts, which are already included in those two respective articles. 86.190.109.253 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)