Talk:Moors murders/Archive 6

Edit request on 21 August 2012

Please post on the links to the current petitions to find Keith Bennett.

Please sign the two petition that are currently running regarding this

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/18950

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/united-kingdom-home-office-help-keith-bennett-s-mother-winnie-johnson-find-her-son

Thank you

91.84.131.177 (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Such an addition would be inappropriate. This article is about Brady and Hindley, not Keith Bennett, and there's already a link to the official Keith Bennett web site included. Malleus Fatuorum 12:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Links to online petitions fail WP:ELNO.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hindley's death

I think a reasonable claim could be made that Hindley's death, like Brady's state of health, should be moved into her "incarceration" section. It seems somewhat disconnected where it is now. Parrot of Doom 16:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, done. I made some other minor changes in the same edit. Parrot of Doom 20:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Separate pages for Brady and Hindley

I believe they require separate articles (as was the case before). There is much detail, particularly in Brady's case of mental health issues and the great deal of information which has emerged about him and his activities whilst in incarceration over the years. I've noticed that many other criminals have their own pages. Tom Green (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe you're mistaken. If they had separate articles then there would be a great deal of unproductive duplication, as there was before. Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Then is it acceptable to add considerable detail regarding his mental health condition over the years, his writing of letters and his frequent appearances in the news - to this article? Tom Green (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No. And neither is it relevant. Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anything more than a basic summary would be appropriate as Brady's notoriety stems from his criminal activity before he was imprisoned. His time in prison really isn't all that important, not when compared to Hindley. Parrot of Doom 22:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant to have an extensive profile of such a notorious criminal. Pages for other criminals exist, so are they incorrect? Tom Green (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, possibly not. It is of course irrelevant that "other stuff exists", but some concrete examples might help. So which other notorious criminals are you thinking of? Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, until September 2009 there was a separate page for Myra Hindley; this is what it looked before it was turned into a redirect, which I think clearly demonstrates the problem of trying to cover Brady and Hindley in separate articles. There was no article for Ian Brady so far as I'm aware or can recall, but if there had been it would have looked remarkably like Hindley's, and both would have been duplicating the contents of Moors murders, as Hindley's already did. Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Brady July 2012 illness and current condition

A couple of sentences on this issue are vitally important on a Wikipedia article. Articles should be up-to-date with highly relevant and well-sourced information. Tom Green (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

And the article is not about Brady's health.J3Mrs (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. You might want to try reading it yourself: "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." Tom Green (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant to his time in incarceration, as is details of his letter writing and hunger strikes (already covered in the section). Either the information belongs in that section, or it belongs in a stand-alone article on Brady. You cannot have it both ways. Tom Green (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with TomGreen here. 86.130.136.87 (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree. He's been in hospital before and from what I can gather isn't exactly at death's door. Today's stories will be tomorrow's chip paper. Parrot of Doom 21:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is consistency. By your logic of things that happen frequently, should we have quotes from him and references to his letter writing and refusal to reveal the location of the final grave? The consistency and depth of the section leave much to be desired. Tom Green (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you just attempt to evade a 3RR violation by posting as an IP? Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh my goodness the boys are out in force tonight! Caesar's Daddy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this a private editor club? I think it's MF who has now broken 3RR. 109.148.57.131 (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Then think again, and if you believe that I give a flying fuck about 3RR in the face of this violation of a sensitive article then you need think again again. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is people who feel an urgency to make an edit...any edit...just so long as the article contains something about what's happened in the press of late. This story has been going on for 50 years now, the last few days are largely unimportant. Brady's "letter" is included in the article and accorded due weight. Winnie Johnson has died but then again so have many other relatives, so nothing more needs to be said about that. If Keith Bennett's body is found then a significant expansion on that aspect is of course due. But Brady's illness is irrelevant until he is either declared terminally ill or dead, and not much will change my opinion on that. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Then I think that his quotation of being bitter is also irrelevant by those standards. Again, consistency is lacking here. Tom Green (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You can think what you like but my argument stands and any attempt to add trivia to this article will be met with a swift reversion. I will not see it become a series of Twitter postings about Brady's condition. Parrot of Doom 08:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian: [1], The Telegraph: [2], Daily Mail [3], BBC News: [4], Yorkshire Post: [5]. These are reliable news sources, not "a series of Twitter Postings". 31.52.180.177 (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the style that people commonly use to update articles with such trivia, not the sources. Parrot of Doom 08:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You are the one calling it "trivia". You said nothing about style. Try and decide what you're arguing, will you, before telling us all what we can and can't add? 31.52.180.177 (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"In August 2012 a Channel 4 television documentary on Brady, Endgames of a Psychopath, was watched by an estmated 2.1m viewers - an 8.6% audience share.("Ian Brady documentary watched by 2.1m", The Guardian, 21 August 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/21/ian-brady-documentary-tv-ratings, retrieved 24 August 2012 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)) - How is this regarded as "trivia"? It shows both that documentary-makers still think Brady a worthy subject, after nearly 50 years, and that a huge number of people will watch such a programme - 2.1 million in fact. What were the figures for the 1977 televised debate? Or for the two earlier tv dramatisations? None are given. 109.153.211.246 (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not trivia but perhaps WP:RECENTISM. There was nothing much new in this documentary apart from the claim by one of Brady's visitors that she was given a letter that *may* reveal where Keith Bennett is buried. Nobody knows the exact contents of the letter, and even the existence of the letter requires caution when it is only anecdotal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

So physically showing and reading a letter from Brady himself, referring to another in a sealed envelope within it, seen by 2.1 million viewers, and the cause of a woman's arrest, is "an anecdote"? 109.153.211.246 (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The contents of the letter have not been verified. If it is found it might be useful but then again it might not. Speculative at best, encyclopedic? I don't think so. J3Mrs (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't give a flying fuck about what you think. 109.153.211.246 (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Many documentaries on this case have been produced. Just because one aired recently doesn't make it any more deserving of inclusion than the others. Parrot of Doom 10:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That depends what the viewing figures were and if anyone was arrested as a result. 109.153.211.246 (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The viewing figure of 2.1 million is not that important. The article could (and perhaps should) go into more detail about the letter, instead of rather cryptically saying that "a 49-year-old woman was arrested on suspicion of preventing the burial of a body without lawful excuse." There are no WP:BLPNAME issues here, as Jackie Powell took the decision to make this information public knowledge in a television documentary. Powell has apparently claimed that she gave the Bennett letter back to Brady. The police have not found any letter in Ms Powell's possession which backs up the Bennett claim.[6]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Powell says that she never opened the letter, so she has no idea what's in it, and neither do we until the police find it. Al we know is that she claims to have been given a letter to open in the event of Brady's death, which as she no longer has it and can't produce it, may or may not be true. Malleus Fatuorum 11:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A sentence or two on his July seizure, the suspension of the mental health trial and his current condition is ESSENTIAL to any encyclopedia. It is a joke that it is omitted - it belongs either here or on a separate Brady profile page. You need to decide where this content is placed. Tom Green (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Writing things in capital letters doesn't lend your argument any more weight. The recent reports on Brady, his health and this supposed letter are all speculative. This isn't the place for speculation, so it will be placed nowhere. Parrot of Doom 21:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Why isn't The Smiths' song "Suffer Little Children" mentioned? Also the song "Very Friendly" by Throbbing Gristle? as well as Coyne/Krause's Babble? 109.153.211.246 (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Why should it be mentioned? What does it tell us about the murders or Brady and Hindley? "In popular culture" sections are trivia magnets, and there won't be one in this article. Malleus Fatuorum 11:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Like many entries in "In popular culture" sections, it tells us nothing factual about the events. Such sections simply show how the events and/or persons concerned have entered and persist in the domain of popular culture. Since Suffer Little Children has its own article, it's hardly "trivia", is it? Most such articles use reciprocal linking, e.g. John Babbacombe Lee etc etc. I would expect some kind of mention, even if only in a "See also". 109.153.211.246 (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not this bollocks again (check the archives and this article's FAC). It is the murder of five children by a man and woman, that woman's subsequent attempts to secure her release and the actions of her supporters and detractors that have ensured that this case remains notorious, not a pop song or a painting. Parrot of Doom 11:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This notion of "reciprocal linking" in cases like this displays a profound misunderstanding of the organisation and content of an encyclopedia article. Do you think, for example, that the Britannica article mentions such trivia? (It doesn't.) And interestingly it doesn't have an article on Brady at all, just one on Hindley that covers him and the Moors murders as well. Malleus Fatuorum 11:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "this old bollocks again". The old bollocks of a few editors stubbornly asserting they know best. Checking the archives again, as suggested, shows that the topic has been raised on at least 6 occasions, counting this one. (For some reason, one thread is duplicated in Archives 3 and 4). The suggestion to add something seems to have been made by at least 8 editors - anon/unsigned, Jza54, Shelbylamar, Yworow, ColonelWarden, Mutlee and anon/ip and another anon/ip. The suggestions have been refused by 4 editors - Parrot of Doom, SandyGeorgia, Malleus Fatuorum and Pedro. Even if some of the anons are the same editor, this hardly looks like consensus. Do some editor's opinions carry more weight than others? and if so why? 31.53.153.97 (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some editor's opinions do carry more weight – particularly the editors that wrote most of the article and polished it to FA standards and those who also understand the importance of quality. Graham Colm (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How does this differ from WP:OWN? The two seem to be very close. How does one tell which particular editors "understand the importance of quality" and which do not? Are the decisions made during FA carved in stone in some way? 31.53.153.97 (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Scroll down to WP:OAS at WP:OWN, and see under the heading Featured Articles. Graham Colm (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. So it seems that FA decisions are not carved in stone. And care is being duly exercised by discussing here. But it seems that a number editors, who may not have been around when FA took place, think a Popular Culture section is appropriate. I see that Hyphen8d made some very interesting points in the FA process. What also seems objectionable, however, is the way editors are talked down to here, as if they were naughty school-children straying onto private property (not in your case, I might add). I still don't see why, after nearly 3 years, an article should be ruled by two editor's subjective opinions, to quote: "Nothing is going to change our opinion on that." and this self-contradiction: "If you feel so strongly that this painting and song represent a significant cultural impact then I suggest that you get down to writing that Cultural impact of the Moors murders article." 31.53.153.97 (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean the two editors who wrote almost all the article and shepherded it through FAC? As opposed to editors like you who did what exactly? There's a matter of displaying proper respect for the victims and their families that's incompatible with logging every trivial mention in a childish pop culture section. If you object to being treated like a naughty school child then don't act like one. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

".. displaying proper respect"?? Maybe List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks ought to go for a start, then. I thought Wikipedia was meant to deal with facts, not "respect for victims and their families". The Smiths song might be all some people even know about the murders. That doesn't make them disrespectful. Not sure how "editors like me" can be allowed to contribute. But since you think the article is perfect, I don't suppose anyone can improve it. Just say "no new editors needed here, thanks." 31.53.153.97 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The Smiths song might be all some people even know about the murders." - then they'd hardly need to read about it here, would they. Parrot of Doom 21:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree. I think they do need to read about it here. And be allowed to understand what Morrisey was referring to. 31.53.153.97 (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  The article on the song ought to deal with that issue, not this article. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I doubt anyone would agree that they "think the article is perfect", but I for one don't think the addition of a running commentary on Brady's health or a crap-magnet of a list of cultural references will improve it. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Again, I don't see the work of those artists mentioned as "crap". Any section needs careful protection. The added work to keep such a new section "clean" does not necessarily outweigh the benefit of adding it. 31.53.153.97 (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• You can add me to the list of editors implacably opposed to adding any sort of In Popular Culture trivia to this article. --John (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• But your views don't count as much as those of the two article authors. Not sure why the work of Kevin Coyne or Steve Cox should be regarded as "childish". 31.53.153.97 (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• You'll find the weight given to your opinion will depend on how closely it aligns to our policies. In this case, there is a longstanding policy that on an article about a murder, we do not list every book, film or song inspired by the murder. In this regard, our linking is not entirely reciprocal, in other words. --John (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I can fully understand that reciprocity is not a required state of affairs. I can see that the article about the actual event should probably have more things linking to it than from it in that respect. It is comforting to at last be spoken to as another adult. So I will not labor my view any further. Malleus F has a lot to learn from you in how to be civil and positive. Thank you. 31.53.153.97 (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but I most certainly have nothing to learn from you. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And I didn't realise that Wikipedia was more about one-up-manship than about contributing. :( 31.53.153.97 (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that's not the only thing you've misunderstood, as is evident from this discussion. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There are also WP:TOPIC issues. Helter Skelter (Manson scenario) has its own article, because the Manson killings were inspired partly by Charles Manson's loopy interpretations of Beatles songs. Most of the pop culture references suggested above are not very notable, and are not necessary for a full understanding of the murders. Since this is a featured article, there is a need to avoid pop culture trivia creeping in.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I too would agree that a section for “In popular culture” is inappropriate. But only because there is, surprisingly, just so little material – and nothing, as far as I know, that is new in the three years since FA. The argument about “not hurting the feelings of relatives”, advanced by one of the saintly original authors, seems to me wholly specious and disingenuous. Indeed, I am surprised to see such an argument advanced by someone who repeatedly shows total disregard for the feelings even of fellow editors! Nevetheless, I would agree with other editors, that such a section might attract unwanted trivia if there actually was any. Compared to the “Cultural impact” in the articles of some other notable murderers, such as this one or this one, the Moors Murders seem to have attracted hardly anything, even in nearly 50 years of notoriety. In view of this I think there might be justification for just a single brief sentence or two mentioning Coyne’s Babble, the Hynde punk band and the Cox painting. But I think The Smiths’ song, despite the tabloid hoo-haa it caused, is a bit more borderline (although Morrisey’s Manchester roots perhaps give it local geographical relevance). As far as I am concerned personally, the memory or "legacy" of such murderers deserves to be dragged through the pop-culture mud, whenever possible, even if they are still (barely) alive. As long that it’s made clear what is fact and what is fiction. But Wikipedia is, of course, no place for personal sentiment. Here’s another FA article, with a perfectly reasonable "Legacy" section which includes some "popular culture": Jack the Ripper. I wonder if we’ll have to wait 120 years before Brady and Hindley appear at Madame Tussaud’s? 109.153.219.173 (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Brenda Ann Spencer inspired the song I Don't Like Mondays, and this is rightly mentioned. None of the three songs that have been suggested as inspired by the Moors Murders are anything like as well known. This is why they are not mentioned, because it would not add to a reader's understanding of the topic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's quite a good counter-example. Or is it a good example, I'm not sure. Perhaps the two articles, and the subjects thereof, are quite different. But three songs? I was discounting one song, and suggesting an album, a band and a painting. Maybe we have the fickle pop-charts to thank for Saint Bob's mention. (By the way, I find the lurking bogeyman at your User Page quite creepy, lol). 109.153.219.173 (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)