Talk:Moors murders/Archive 2

Moors murders or Moors Murders?
Hiya to all. A question on the titling, as this article came up in a discussion about use of capitals in article naming on Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide; specifically, about the capitalization of titles of events like these. Is Moors Murders a proper noun, and if so, shouldn't it be Moors Murders? Here's my sense of it, copied from over there at the RfM, [where the proposal (not mine, I had questions that led to you) was to move the page from Denial of the Armenian Genocide to Armenian Genocide denial]: This was my first question, because I thought, "Well, this would conform better to the Manual of Style (which does not cover this specific point...YET):
 * "However, should it not be Armenian genocide denial, unless there is some legitimate reason why in this case genocide should be capitalized? Further, why should not (for examples) the articles Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Srebrenica Genocide, Rwandan Genocide follow the same naming conventions as do Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, and Burundi genocide?  I have the same question concerning titles containing the word massacre: Why Parsley Massacre but Rohingya massacre?  Perhaps if such topics are considered events and as such are considered proper nouns...but I'd like to see all such titles conform across the board, to a coherently stated convention, whichever convention is supported by either clear policy or robust consensus.  I haven't looked hard for it at all, but maybe someone else has: Is there any established WP policy, guideline, or village pump decision on precisely this?"
 * The response was:


 * "I'll explain my vision. In the titles it is a name of an event ("Greek Genocide"), a term and not word-combination (adjective + noun) to mark the belonging of the event. The same way the terms for Cuban Missile Crisis or Caribbean Crisis and not Caribbean crisis with Caribbean as an adjective and crisis as a noun. Or the Berlin Blockade, for another example."
 * to which I queried further:


 * "Is your vision... supported by a WP policy, and if so, please point me to that policy. I studied WP:Article titles and WP:Naming conventions to no avail.  Where is this 'an event, or series of events, is a proper noun whose terms shall be capitalized' policy, if there is one?  Declaring that something is an Event (not to opine in any way that this E/event isn't one) and thus is a proper noun that should be capitalized, could be controversial to some, and might encompass different scopes for different folks, so please explain also, if you can, why (as examples--there are a vast number of 'E/events' that might have this issue) the E/events currently titled (and capitalized like this-->) Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, Burundi genocide, and Rohingya massacre should not be capitalized as you propose for the move to Armenian Genocide denial, if there is a good reason to handle each differently. Staying arbitrarily within the narrow category of death and dying-themed events only, why Moors murders and Soham murders, but Parker-Hulme Murder?  (the current examples suggest, somewhat irregularly, that single death is an Event, but multiple death is an event, unless it's a whole lot of death, in which case it's an Event??)  What is the WP policy, if there is one, that sets these sorts of boundaries (or not) for E/events of all flavors?"
 * and got this answer:


 * "I do think that massacres or genocides you noted above should be capitallised. Those are events. A murder is an event, a pogrom is an event, a mass murder (massacre) is an event, a genocide is an event, but an article "Mass murders" is not an event, an article "The genocides of Europe" is not AN event or Sexual disorder is a collective word-combination and a collective article but Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder is a name of one disorder. the same way Greek, Assyrian or Armenian Genocides are separate events and not some variety of genocides or something. I don't even thing this was ever discussed. Just all the WP:RSs write it with a capital letter so no doubts."
 * Please share your thoughts on the idea of changing the name of this page to Moors Murders, a proper noun, recognizing the significance of the event. Yes, I do get that the Moors Murders were events, but so are all the events that comprise any given genocide or massacre.  I'm going to try to edit the Manual of Style to address this question, and before I do, I'd like to find out what community consensus is on the matter.
 * Sorry so long-winded. =)  Duff (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the present title (Moors murders) is correct, for the reason expressed above. It wasn't an event, it was a series of separate and unrelated events over a period of more than two years. Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Confusion over content
im new here so im not sure if you do this here but on this article it says that Brady attempted to strangle John Kilbride but ended up stabbing him and burying his body but in the Myra Hindley article it says Brady attempted to stab him but ended up strangling him so which one is it?? oh and the myra hindley article doesnt mention anything about sexual assualt with John Kilbride but this one does.

i noticed that - one says the string didnt work so the knife was used, and the other is the other way round. this needs clearing up in my opinion, especially because it is such a sensetive subject that some may not feel is given enough...how shall i put it, respect as it needs if there is a mistake.

The victims of the Moors Murders need to be remembered, and so an article is appropriate. The pieces of shit that committed the murders do not need their own articles. The Anome


 * A biographical article is not a reward, to be given only to good people. Anyone of historical significance should have a biographical entry in the Wikipedia, in my opinion, whether their significance comes from good deeds, bad deeds, or anything else. Do you think we should also remove the articles on Genghis Khan, Vlad the Impaler, and Adolf Hitler? These people are almost universally agreed to have been bad, too. -- Oliver Pereira 12:04 Nov 17, 2002 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There is far too much selectivity in Wikipedia as it is. Everything which needs dealing with encyclopedically should be dealt with.user:sjc


 * However, there are serious doubts about the NPOV about the speculative paragraph. We are either going to strive for NPOV or we're not. user:sjc

Evil people such as Genghis Khan, Vlad the Impaler and Adolf Hitler are historical figures, and their deeds deserve articles becuase of their historical importance. The Moors Murders, the public outrage and the legal controversy resulting, deserve an article because of their impact as a British historical event. The Moors murderers are not interesting as people, only as cases of psychopathology: they did nothing of note in their sad and pathetic lives except kill people, and they only need to be mentioned in an article on the killings, in as much as their pathology is of forensic interest. The Anome

While I am sympathetic to what you are saying, Anome, I think the correct procedure in this circumstance is to have a separate article for the Moors Murders and discrete biographical articles relating to Hindley & Brady which fully show their culpability in this dreadful series of crimes. They undoubtedly form a part of British social history; this is incontrovertible since they have occupied a large part of the nation's consciousness for the last 40 years or so. A hundred years hence, without their being dealt with properly by contemporary social historians, and they will be merely shadow figures without context and relevance. You may wish to argue that this is no bad thing and in one way I can accept this. Nevertheless, I would argue strongly and cogently for them to be dealt with on a par with Jack the Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, Ted Bundy et al: a comprehensive and coherent biographical analysis which sets out clearly their crimes and places those crimes in a fully developed social setting. A failure on our part to do this properly is inexcusable, and is to the disadvantage to those readers who turn to Wikipedia for information. user:sjc

Yep, what he said... If an event or series of events is historically important enough to be included in the Wikipedia, and that event or series of events is inextricably tied up with the lives of a small number of people, then it seems sensible to include biographies of those people, if for no other reason than that the events of their lives would throw light on their actions. One should not let one's emotions get in the way of one's objectivity when writing for an encyclopaedia. I'm not directing that only at Anome - it's something that everyone needs to bear in mind when writing on topics they feel passionately about. -- Oliver Pereira 15:39 Nov 17, 2002 (UTC)

Hindley got a far from glowing obituary in The Guardian, so I guess a wikipedia article is also appropriate in that context. I'm not sure I like the bit about the campaign of revulsion against her being 'tabloid driven'. Read again the description of Leslie Ann Downey's murder and the tapes they made of her crying for her mummy to realise why ALL of the UK population, not just the Sun readers, revile this woman and her memory. quercus robur

Thanks whoever it was for making the change to 'massive'- I was having trouble refreshing the page so didn't see the alteration at first quercus robur

While I can see what you're saying, you should remember these are events which occurred 40 years ago; nearly half the population of Britain was not even alive at the time when the murders were committed and many more were too young to be aware. The point I am making by saying that much of the awareness was largely tabloid-driven (a hard fact) is that had it not been for a mainly gutter-press media campaign the significance of the Moors Murders would have been relegated to the footnote of social history which it should have been. You will also note that the manufacturers of thalidomide which killed and mutilated the lives of many, many more children than Hindley or Brady affected walked off with large pensions without a fraction of the calumnny heaped upon Hindley or Brady (and whilst the facts of the dangers of the drug were firmly in their purview). This is not relativism, merely placing them in some sort of sensible context. Yes, they were evil and unpleasant people; no, there are many worse people than them. user:sjc

Well thank you for your patronising remark sjc. I am well aware that the murders happened nearly 40 years ago, I live in England. This does not diminish the evil of what happened. Most of the population of the UK find the act of taping a little girl crying for her mummy while she is being raped and murdered utterly vile beyond belief, however long ago it happened, and whatever paper they read it in. We arnt all Sun Readers, and I find your condesension offensive. And drawing comparisons with the Thalidomide disaster is irelevant and dishonest. I find it very difficult to retain a NPOV over such a matter, and hope that I never become so cold and out of touch with my own humanity that I ever do. quercus robur

This is simply a pathetic argumentum ad hominem and is really beneath my dignity to reply to it. However, since it promulgates a considerably stupid myth, I will. The national media circus have made vast sums of money off the back of the Hindley/Brady story: fact. It sells/sold newspapers better than anything else. Now you may care to ask yourself why this might possibly be. An intelligent person would come to the conclusion that the caring British public are living vicariously on the back of it, and they would probably not be very far wrong. I hope I never end up on the same vacuous level as a Sun reader. user:sjc

''The tabloids make money from the moors murderers, of course they do, they also use Hindley and Brady to divert attention from currently relevant issues... How often would Brady or Hindley appear on the front of one of the papers in order to generate some outrage whilst the government were sneaking through some bill or bad news Jo Moore/9:11 style on another page? they are slimey shit rags and I wouldn't wipe my arse with the Sun. That doesn't alter the fact that anybody who continues to find the acts of Hindley and Brady appalling even after 40 years is not automatically a brainwashed Sun Reader who is incapable of thinking for themselves. That is my point, sorry if you consider that a considerably stupid myth or mawkish behaviour. Just what, in your view, is an acceptable point at which the lives of their victims or the severity of their crime ceases to matter beyond being a 'historical footnote', or indeed that it becomes passe to continue to be moved by such events? quercus robur''

PS. sjc- i take on board your comments that the tabloids have had a role in fueling public revulsion against H & B. my point however is that the revulsion is no less massive, real and justified for that. Hence I hope you will accept that my current revision is an acceptable compromise, acknowledging that the revulsion is indeed 'massive' and to some extent may be 'tabloid driven' as well. I think this is more NPOV than either of the original texts as they stood. quercus robur

It is an improvement, I can only concur. I would still like to question this allegedly massive repulsion which (speaking only from personal experience) is perhaps not as widespread as you suggest. It was of considerably less interest to Joe Public than the West Ham/Man Utd game or the putative gas attack on the Tube yesterday, judging by the conversations I heard as I was out for my lunchtime pint, I can assure you of that. The word "Hindley" didn't even make the event horizon in the office today. I can only conclude that the adjective apathetic would be more apposite. user:sjc

''Maybe it's a generational thing. I certainly remember it from my childhood, and certainly amongst my mother's generation there is still massive genuine revulsion for H & B. However, can we agree to leave the page as it currently stands? quercus robur''

It possibly is a generational thing as you suggest and your proposal is fine by me. I think the important thing that should not be side-stepped in this is the significant role played by the media. user:sjc

fair enough quercus robur

I think a redirect from Myra Hindley to Moors Murders is fine quercus robur


 * Not if the article is a biographical one on Myra Hindley, which it was originally intended to be, and which it still is. It starts, "Myra Hindley (July 23, 1942 - November 15, 2002) was an English woman". If this article is rewritten as a general one about the murders, then the biographical information specific to Myra Hindley would be better off on a separate page. A biographical page. Entitled "Myra Hindley". -- Oliver Pereira 16:09 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to write biographies of Pauline Read, John Kilbride, Keith Bennett, Lesley Ann Downey, and Edward Evans, then. Or are they less important than those noted historical figures, Hindley and Brady?


 * I have no problem with that; they certainly had a tragic role to play in this. But please none of this mawkish and inarticulate bullshit being promulgated by the likes of quercus robur. If you are going to do it, do it properly, they deserve no less. user:sjc

This article was originally about Myra Hindley and it has been modified to be an article about the Moors murders with a redirect for Myra Hindley. This means that the recent death entry now points to this page. I think this change is in appropriate and confusing.


 * You are quite correct. The people who are messing around with redirects etc should sort this out now. Clearly the Moors murders is not the same as an article on either Myra Hindley or Ian Brady as is World War II clearly not an article about Adolf Hitler, much as he was largely culpable in it. Exercise some common sense and sort it out people. user:sjc


 * Agreed. Move stuff on Myra to Myra Hindley. I would go so far as to say she is more important than the Moors Murders -- most people know her name but not the name of the atrocities she committed. The 60s photograph of her is iconic and will likely remain so for a long time. -- Tarquin 16:56 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)

Additions Re John Kilbride come from Hansard discussion in the House of Lords about Myra Hindley's application fro release.

Brady was evil and evil should have its own page. To study evil is to understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.196.38 (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection
As this article is scheduled to appear on the main page on 27 September, I have semi protected it. The consensus at TFA was quite clear that this should only appear if was protected from vandalism was guaranteed. As there will still be a very prominent link on the main page until 1 August, the protection expires a couple of days after this article is TFA. Do the main editors think this is sufficient? Nev1 (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm fine with that. Malleus Fatuorum 10:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * that's fine with me too. Parrot of Doom 11:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Announcement
I think something should be posted on the Keith Bennett website forum to give prior notice that this article will be featured on the main page on the 27th. to give Winnie Johnson and anyone else who watches the site prior warning. What do think? Richerman (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems like the proper thing to do. Malleus Fatuorum 17:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I posted on there a while back, asking for some feedback on the article. I'll see if I can do this. Parrot of Doom 20:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm my account there is inactive or disabled, and it won't let me re-register. Can someone else do it? Parrot of Doom 20:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've created an account (Pedro) but awaiting moderation approval. Or we could just use the contact page to send a message. It would seem common courtesy to advise them - and indeed it may even bring benefits to the fund raising campaign. Pedro : Chat  20:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a friendly tip: make it clear they may be inundated with correspondence for a couple days. When Ann Bannon was on the main page, she got 500 emails or so. Similarly, when Museum of Bad Art was on the main page, their membership for their newsletter increased by 400 and they sold a whole bunch of stuff from their gift shop. This topic is clearly more emotional than either of those two subjects. There may a significant spike in readers because of the (how shall I say without sounding like a douchebag...which is going to be impossible) "juicy" nature of the topic. The folks who watch Bennett's website should know this and be prepared for the practical response from this article being TFA. And I'm sorry for sounding like a douchebag. --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You certainly don't sound like a douchebag Moni (I'm trying to imagine what a douchebag might sound like - nasty I guess!). Sound advice and fact gathering - thank you. From your evidence above there's a strong probability of increased contact / enquiries etc. Whilst clearly we are not here to help that, we need to be honest about the likely (and hopefully positive) side effect of the article at TFA. If I get verified in the next day or so I'll add to the forum and post here; I'll send an e-mail to the site anyway I think. Pedro : Chat  20:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pedro. Who knows, this being on the main page may actually do some good for once. Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think something on the chat page would be best. Just one thought - I know we're not here to help with fundraising but could something be added under Aftermath to say that Winnie Johnson is trying to raise money for another search? It could be done as a factual statement. Richerman (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's difficult. I'd prefer not to, but I'll defer to PoD if he feels differently. It sounds strange, but we tried very hard to give as neutral an account as possible, not taking sides despite the obvious horror of these murders. I worry that drawing attention to fund-raising efforts may compromise that neutrality. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that completely. it is of course, part of the aftermath that she is still trying to raise money for a search, but at the same time there is the 'slippery slope' argument. That's why I asked the question.Richerman (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A simple "privately-funded search" somewhere would probably be ok? Parrot of Doom 23:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One other thing - should a 'British English' template be added to this page before it becomes TFA? It may save a bit of work on the day. Richerman (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually there's a bit right before "Perpetrator's backgrounds" that already says something close. Parrot of Doom 23:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, for me then we've already covered it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry, I just read that bit myself. One minor point - does 'vet' mean the same thing to our friends across the pond or is it exclusively used for veterans? If so, should it be either expanded to 'veterinary surgeon' or wikilinked? Richerman (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In US English, "vet" means to filter or check someone out, like vetting a candidate for a job. Vet as an abbreviation for veterinarian or veteran should be spelled out. If it's a normal term in UK English, then let it stand I guess. --Moni3 (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It means the same in "proper English" as well when used as a verb, but it's also a common abbreviation for veterinary surgeon, so I can't see any harm in expanding vet to veterinary surgeon. "Veterinarian" is definitely one of those whacky American words like "faucet" though. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * or anesthesiologist :) Richerman (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Notified
I've addded a thread as promised above - Pedro :  Chat  06:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Minoes' reply to your posting is one of the things I was afraid of. It's difficult for non-wikipedians to understand that we have to reflect what the sources say, not the truth as they perceive it to be. If the police officer in charge of the investigation, for instance, says that Smith refused to divulge the name of the newspaper that was paying him for a conviction we can hardly replace that with a claim that he did, sourced to an anonymous forum posting. I don't particularly disbelieve all of the claims made by Minoes, but clearly (s)he is something of an apologist for David Smith and hardly an impartial observer. Malleus Fatuorum 14:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. I saw the post earlier this evening but haven't had a chance to reply yet (kids bed time, food etc.) I'll try my best over there but I sincerely hope we haven't accidentally created problems in the hope of doing something good. Pedro : Chat  19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied at the forum in a manner I hope will help them and not hinder us. Pedro : Chat  19:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - Malleus and PoD - if you have a moment you may wish to review the posts by Minoes at the forum who has identified as the author of One of Your Own: The Life and Death of Myra. I've invited her to join in here (with caveats). I do have concerns regarding WP:OR - if parts of her book are referenced to other works it might be okay but if a lot has come from her own investigations (as she states) then ... well .... we all get the idea what problem we could get. Pedro : Chat  07:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thinking it might be best to have this discussion with the author on the forum rather than here I've registered for an account. I've never read Lee's book, as it wasn't published until April this year and this article was promoted back in October last year. We'll obviously need to get hold of a copy to see what credence we can put on it in comparison to the other sources, which I'm quite prepared to admit may incorrect in some of the details. Malleus Fatuorum 12:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to correct any mistakes. Perhaps she could provide a copy of the book to Manchester library? The easiest way to correct any errors elwould be for her to post them here, and to supply page numbers where these errors can be cited to her book.

Note that I'd already tried to get a copy of this book, see malleus's talk page. Parrot of Doom 12:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As Pedro said on the forum, she'd obviously have to reveal her RL identity if she posted here, so I just wanted to give her a choice. Malleus Fatuorum 13:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. When you mentioned this book before I checked Manchester Library's online catalogue and didn't find it. I've just checked again and I see that they've now got 14 copies, so I've reserved one. Hopefully it'll turn up next week. I'm still waiting for the Flying Dutchman book I reserved about three weeks ago to turn up though. :-( Malleus Fatuorum 13:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a delicious irony that a book about the Fyling Dutchman never arrives.... :) On balance Malleus, you're probably right to see if some further discussion at the forum might be helpful. Certainly of course a perusal of the book would be the starting point. Thanks (as ever) for you and PoD's dedication. Pedro : Chat  14:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then we should ask that the TFA be delayed until we can check the article with this new source? Parrot of Doom 23:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why, as much of the disputed stuff seems to centre around David Smith and his family, who are hardly central players. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How about a footnote or such then, explaining that some of the details surrounding Smith are disputed by the new book? Ok I realise that 99% of readers won't care, but maybe someone who knew or knows Smith might? Parrot of Doom 07:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object if you wanted to do that, but I'd certainly feel more comfortable about it once I'd had a chance to read the book. Malleus Fatuorum 08:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the privately funded search, I wonder whether it would be appropriate to place a sentence about that in the lead, after this sentence: "The body of a fourth victim, Keith Bennett, is also suspected to be buried there, but as of 2010 it remains undiscovered." With a footnote to the appeal. That would draw most attention to it, and not in a POV way, but as part of a perfectly legitimate point about what this family continues to have to do. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand why you're suggesting that, but I'm really torn between presenting an encyclopedic account of this series of murders and promoting the efforts of Keith Bennett's family to find his body. On balance I'd be against, but PoD may feel differently, and if he does I wouldn't object. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see what you mean, but the lead explains that Hindley has died, and that Brady is still in Ashworth. I see no difference between that and explaining that Keith Bennett's mum is still looking for him. That's a fact about the case just like any other. It's up to you and PoD, of course. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I reworded it slightly, but in truth its the crimes that remain notorious, not the fate of Keith Bennett's body. I don't mean that to sound callous. Parrot of Doom 21:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)