Talk:Moors murders/Archive 13

Brass Tacks, undue weight

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I believe that this addition to the article is giving undue weight to one episode of a BBC programme, but the IP editor making the addition disagrees and has started to edit war.

Thoughts anyone? Eric Corbett 18:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP has received a warning concerning WP:3RR. General Ization ^Talk 18:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree it's giving far too much emphasis to a single TV episode. It's very insignificant against the scope of the murders. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Me too. What's the point of mentioning something that didn't happen? Cassianto^Talk 18:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• It isn't that notable, as it was a routine TV debate with the usual cast of talking heads and nothing came of it. The removed paragraph was too long and detailed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Eric Corbett, this is giving undue weight to a TV programme against the enormity of the crimes . The IP should be blocked for edit warring. David J Johnson (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Me too. Any major case will get discussed on television at some point; unless there's some suggestion that the TV programme led to a change in policy of some kind (which it certainly doesn't seem to have done), or a surge of renewed interest in the case, it doesn't justify a mention. ‑ iridescent 19:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It was already mentioned. Haven't you read the article? 217.38.108.39 (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You may be amazed to learn that I know how to read the version prior to your edit and do a ctrl-f on "Brass Tacks" to see that it wasn't. ‑ iridescent 19:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It's just duplicated information. An entry about that television programme already exists in the aftermath section. You can find it on Youtube by searching for "Brass Tacks 6th July 1977 Clip 1". Parrot of Doom 21:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Don't see why it can't stay as it is. It probably deserves a mention, but not two separate mentions. And don't see why the TV programme can't be given it's proper name. But it's probably of more significance to Lord Longford than to the murders themselves. And to Brass Tacks, as it was the first edition of what became quite a notable programme. I'm not too sure about mentioning the death threats, though. That seems a bit like tabloid sensationalism. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

So, was it in fact the first edition of BBC's Brass Tacks? Looking again at what is currently included in the article, I had assumed the source was subscription-only to The Times. But it leads to a log in for an achived source via Manchester Libraries. I'm not sure how many people will be able to use that. Is this really the best source that can be used? Wouldn't a BBC source be better? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Better in what sense? Eric Corbett 14:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

In the sense of accessible - the reader wouldn't need a Manchester Libraries library card (and a subscription to The Times?) to read the source. As it stands, it's impossible to know if that paragraph is correctly supported or not. Perhaps a BBC source is regarded as "primary" and thus can't be used to support general notability? It would at least confirm who appeared. I'm not sure we can just link to a YouTube video. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"As it stands, it's impossible to know if that paragraph is correctly supported or not" - just because you can't access the source doesn't mean it isn't reliable. And since I'm the one who added that paragraph to begin with, I'm fairly certain I didn't invent its content. Parrot of Doom 14:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember accusing anyone of "inventing content", especially you. I just thought it might be more useful for all readers to be able to read all sources, regardless of where they live, or which newspapers they subscribe to. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be available online; it is sourced to The Times, a very reliable source. In fact, the Times article states: "... it [the programme] did a disservice to the serious and complex subject it was supposed to consider." SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, well. Perhaps I'll just save up and move to Manchester. Presumably it refers to it as Brass Tacks? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe most, if not all, UK libraries include access to the Times digital archive via online resources. No, it does not mention the programme name. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Phew, what a relief. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

What is it that you're so interested in checking, and why? Eric Corbett 22:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure Parrot has done any checking that needed doing, before adding it. I'm just suggesting that a source that is not limited to users of UK libraries might be more useful to readers who don't live in UK. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that American libraries don't have access to the archives of one of the most respected newspapers in the world, or that you're just too lazy to join a library? Eric Corbett 22:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

American readers need to log in, via that link, to Manchester Libraries? Or do they bypass that step? Perhaps a US editor could tell us how that looks when they click. It seems you are (yet again) telling me that I'm lazy. And English Wikipedia is now just for the UK and US? Maybe the rest of the world is too lazy to join a library too? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we're done here aren't we? Eric Corbett 22:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely hope so. This "discussion" has gone way off original discussion. David J Johnson (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see an easily accessible source. And might also be useful to name the programme. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improvement?

Is this rather large edit a benefit to the article? I reverted based on the fact I thought it wasn't and because at 100,000 bytes, I consider the article to already be big. Cassianto^Talk 22:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The information is correct and well cited. It is a bit on the long and detailed side. I have no firm opinion either way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Looked like an improvement to me, if only insofar as it as was closer to the (rather poor BBC) sources in two cases. And in which year was that decision by Waddington? - the ip's edit looks like a correction. As Ian says above, the information is correct and well cited. I think there are plenty of Featured Articles longer than this one. Is there a guideline on length? Does that include the length of references? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE. The current version of this article is not excessively long, and is often broken by featured articles; US Presidents are a specialty. Ronald Reagan is much longer than this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The edit was long-winded. Hindley's prison history and threats made against her are outside the scope of this article. An encyclopedia article is a summary and should not contain everything ever written or said. J3Mrs (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Is that year of 1989 wrong? Not sure anyone is proposing to add "everything ever written or said" about these events. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

A long article is not really a surprise when it has to cover all the murders and the biographies of the two murderers. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the edit was an improvement and feel it is an unnecessary addition. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is about the Moors murders it is not anyone's biography. J3Mrs (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say, despite its title, this article is a compromise. Separate bio articles for each have been proposed a number of times, but have been declined. Obviously Hindley's statements are notable only in the light of the murders and their aftermath. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

And I'd say that you're once again spouting ill-considered rubbish. Eric Corbett 12:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again? Surely you mean "as ever"? You're saying this article doesn't contain any biographical material, yes? But what's your view on the edit? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that Cassianto was right to delete it, and had I seen it I'd have done the same. I haven't seen anyone arguing that this article contains no biographical material, but perhaps you ought to reflect on what Hindley is famous for, apart from the murders. Nothing? Eric Corbett 13:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

J3Mrs said this article ".. is not anyone's biography". I'm not sure that's correct. Hindley's continued long-term imprisonment was the subject of widespread public debate. But that all happened because of the murders certainly. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not the murders though is it. Cassianto^Talk 20:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You think everything that does not directly pertain to the murders should be removed? That would make quite a short article. That would certainly qualify as "a summary". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's see you try and write a biographical article on Hindley if you're so smart. Eric Corbett 21:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not smart at all. As you know, I'm quite dumb, in fact. But I'm sure there's no consensus for that article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Brady "close to death"

Various tabloids are reporting that Brady is close to death because he sent out his Christmas cards in September. Mail Mirror Express Star. We'll see.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If you read the "newspaper", it says "A source told" - which is basically code for "we made this up". Parrot of Doom 09:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he did send out some of his Christmas cards in September. However, the tabloids have claimed that Brady is close to death before and nothing came of it. So the proverbial pinch of salt is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

So something to forward to, I guess. Although I don't usually get one from him. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hindley place of birth

Lee (2010, p.30) says this: "Her mother, Nellie Hindley ... travelled six miles by bus from Gorton to Crumpsall Hospital, a former workhouse. ... In the early hours of the morning, Nellie gave birth to a healthy daughter who she called Myra..." So Hindley was brought up in Gorton, yes, but wasn't born there, as the article now says. I don't see how adding Hindley's place of birth as Crumpsall is not an improvement. It looks like a necessary correction. Isn't that a basic biographical fact that you would expect to see in this article? Brady's birthplace is given as Glasgow (although this could be specified as Rottenrow Maternity Hospital), so why not Hindley's? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC) One anticipated, but somewhat unconvincing, answer: "this article is about the murders, not about the murderers".

I'm 50:50 on this. A person's place of birth is relevant, the name of the hospital is not. The fact that it was a former workhouse is not relevant.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy with just Glasgow for Brady, but I don't see why Crumpsall isn't given for Hindley. That's just consistency? Why is this edit deemed to be "persistent disruptive editing" for which the article is now protected? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a bit bizarre. The edits by 217.38.98.237 yesterday weren't ideal but nor were they obviously disruptive. Although this is a Featured Article, IPs are allowed to edit it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the edits to do with Bennett not being "a fourth victim". Perhaps that is ambiguous. But place of birth seems perfectly well-supported by many sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I've put back the Crumpsall edit as there is nothing obviously wrong or extraneous about having it in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. No, it's not "obviously wrong or extraneous" at all. In most bio-based articles it's seen as a basic necessity? I've added Lee as a source as I'm not sure if Ritchie gives this info (but would be very surprised if she does not). What about Bennet being "a fourth victim"? I think that's just a bi-product of the way the lede is written. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

There is plenty of sourcing for Crumpsall, eg here and here. I wasn't quite so sure about Keith Bennett being a fourth victim, as he is believed to be the third victim due to his disappearance in June 1964. There were four victims buried on the moors (which is assumed to be correct although we have only Brady and Hindley's word for it) while Evans' death had nothing to do with the moors.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he was "a fourth" to be found on the Moor, but not the fourth to be murdered (as far as we know). You could argue this is slightly misleading in the article lede - the actual chronology of the murders should always take precedence over either the sequence of the discoveries, or the style of the prose. But what is written is not actually wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that 217.38.98.237 yesterday found the wording ambiguous. Chronologically, Bennett was the third victim, not the fourth. The public always remembers the link with Saddleworth Moor, but Evans' body was discovered at Brady's home, 16 Wardle Brook Avenue. Had things gone according to plan, they might have disposed of his body on the moors as well, but they were arrested before this could happen. All five of the murders are known as the Moors murders, even though Evans' death did not involve the moors at any stage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, David Smith's part in the lives of Brady and Hindley, and in the murders themselves, is covered extensively in the article. But there are (at least) four facts that I am surprised are omitted: the fact that Smith was given immunity from prosecution for giving evidence against Brady and Hindley; the fact that Smith took his walking stick to Wardle Brook Avenue on the evening of 6 October 1965 and that forensic examination later found it to be "soaked in blood" and with hairs from Evans' head (after the murder Brady and Smith had used string wrapped around the walking stick to bind Evans' legs); the fact that Evans trousers were undone and that fibres (dog hairs) similar to those in the living-room were found in the region his anus - suggesting that some kind of sexual activity had occurred; and the fact that forensic tests on the living-room carpet revealed no traces of blood, leaving the investigating team to conclude that the carpets had been taken up before the murder took place. All three facts are given by Goodman in his 1986 book on the trial. He describes the carpet inconsistency as one mystery that has never been satisfactorily explained. I don't see that these are "trivial details" about Evans' murder. Much play was made by prosecution counsel of the fact that Smith was broke and in desperate need of money and that the original plan had been to "roll a queer" i.e. rob a rent boy. It seems Evans' wallet was empty. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Sorry to go on. It's only murder after all, isn't it.

The conventional wisdom is that David Smith played no part in the death of Evans. Smith died in 2012 so there are no BLP issues with implying otherwise. However, I would be wary of sullying his name without clear cut evidence. There have been various suggestions that Smith knew more about the murders than he was letting on, [1] but they have never been adequately substantiated. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not sure how the prosecution could have had it both ways - immunity from prosecution and some proof that Smith was involved in the murder of Evans. And, of course, any suggestions that "Smith knew more" never will be substantiated, as he had the perfect come-back - that all the claims against him were made by convicted serial killer Brady. We can also thank The News of the World for any "conventional wisdom" that has been established. The "lack of evidence" carpet blood test could have been a ruse by the prosecution, of course, to suggest very strongly that the murder has been planned. I have no desire to sully Smith's wonderfully good name now that he is dead. But I was just presenting some facts that were tested in a court of law. To me these are pivotal points, not just legal details. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The rest of Smith's life was ruined by his association with the Moors murders. There were bound to be some people saying "no smoke without fire" and Goodman's book points out some inconsistencies, while the Telegraph obituary says that senior police officers did not believe that Smith was a participant in Evans' death.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course, why did Smith call the police. Personally, I can't see Hindley wielding the stick, and I can't really see Brady starting with the stick and moving on to the hatchet. But I think the prosecution had good reason to avoid emphasis of certain aspects of the evidence - not least the forensic blood tests on the carpet which might have been used both ways. But, as I said, these just seem to me to be salient facts left out because they are judged to be "too detailed" for this article. I guess people can always go and read the books - which is, after all, perhaps the best outcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC) p.s. that Telegraph obituary might usefully be added as a source for Smith's death in 2012. He was obviously a notable person in his own right, but will very likely never have his own article here.

I added the Telegraph obituary as it looks at some of these issues. It is unlikely that Smith would have been given immunity from prosecution if there was clear evidence that he had been involved in the death of Evans. However, it is also odd that Brady and Hindley chose to murder Evans with Smith in the house knowing full well that he might go to the police. This is one of the loose ends of the case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, and another loose end - the fact that Hindley's grandmother was also there, upstairs in bed, during the murder and that Evans' screams, which disturbed her, were explained by Hindley as her having dropped something on her toe. She was the only other possible witness, but again she is not mentioned in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that David Smith went to the police immediately has always counted in his favour. Also, Brady and Hindley were not considered to be reliable witnesses as they told many lies in an attempt to deflect criticism from their own actions. But why they killed Evans in front of David Smith is unclear and we may never know the answer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Smith's reasoning for not intervening to protect Evans - that he feared for his own safety - was always perfectly convincing. But the walking stick still seems to leave a bit of an open question. Hindley only exonerated Smith many years later, I think when she had wholly "given up" on Brady? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hindley autobiography

I'd agree that this simple sentence "While in prison Hindley wrote her autobiography, which remains unpublished" is not particularly notable and could be removed, especially as it's supported only the The Daily Mail article. But it might be more notable to explain that it was used as a source text by Carol Ann Lee for her 2010 book "One Of Your Own", and in fact gave it its title: "Infamous, I have become disowned, but I am one of your own". The Daily Mail notes that Hindley's personal journal, held by The National Archives, came into the public domain in 2013. The review of Lee's book byThe Independent is here. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Lee's book is mentioned in the Bibliography section, but I'm not sure if it needs a name check in the main body of the article. There are numerous books about the Moors murders, and this would give it prominence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can see why that might appear to be promotional and thus WP:UNDUE. But the fact remains that Lee was the only author to have access to Hindley’s typed manuscript in the preparation of her 2010 book. Peter Stanford says this in his Independent review: “Lee presents both sides. Both Brady and Hindley wrote autobiographies. Lee treats them cautiously, as well she might, but in juxtaposing, for example, their accounts of their first murder, that of trainee baker Pauline Reade in July 1963, Lee makes plain how ultimately it is impossible to reach any satisfactory conclusion about which one is telling the truth.” This might of general interest to the reader and might be usefully added in a footnote. Or perhaps it just belongs at the Carol Ann Lee article? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is probably more on topic to give details at Carol Ann Lee.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)