Talk:Moors murders/Archive 5

Incoming!

No doubt this will generate a bit more interest this week. Parrot of Doom 11:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

House demolished

Not that it's a huge problem, but I'd like to see a citation for this, especially as I reckon just about everything in this article is fully sourced. I've spent a minute or two looking but so far have found nothing. Parrot of Doom 22:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Nearly but not quite: The house where the moors murderers, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, claimed their last victim is to be demolished. "Hindley link goes", The Times, 6 October 1987 Mr Stephen (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Error in victim chapter

The below sentence reads like either a third party account of Hindley's recollections, spoken to another person, or a mixture of her spoken recollections and an author's imagination as opposed to entirely being a quote from her memory:

Hindley noticed that "Pauline's coat was undone and her clothes were in disarray ... She had guessed from the time he had taken that Brady had sexually assaulted her."

Regards. --Kieronoldham (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a properly cited quotation. Read the source if you're unconvinced. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I genuinely will if I can obtain Peter Topping's book. However, the source seems to span a total of 4 pages of his book.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well then I guess you'll just have to read all four pages. If you find that there's an error in the page numbering then please feel free to correct it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversial hyphen

I’m afraid that "seven or eight-year-old girl" is not acceptable, for the same reason that "applied and sociolinguistics" is "frowned upon" in the Hyphen article. There should either be a full spelling out: "seven-year-old or eight-year-old", or, preferably, a suspended hyphen: "seven- or eight-year-old". It’s logical and helps readability. Rothorpe (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You're quite wrong. Why not play somewhere else? Malleus Fatuorum 03:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks as if you've never seen one before. Rothorpe (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There's an example at the bottom of this page: http://oxforddictionaries.com/page/punctuationhyphen/hyphen

As you can see from the name, it's a reliable source. Rothorpe (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a reliable source for what? Grammar, meaning, or current usage? Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me just add that it's ill-informed pedants like you, who focus on one small aspect of an article, that make it such a misery for those of us who actually contribute here. Now why not play somewhere else? Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think either the hanging hyphen or nothing at all would be fine. Punctuation is used to enhance readability and avoid ambiguity; I don't see either one as an issue here. --John (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Too many forget the purpose of grammar, or perhaps just love rules whether they make sense or not. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Apologies. I misread your tone as arrogant rather than merely impatient. I don’t like rules, actually, but I do like hyphens, and I think they are helpful. Goodbye. Rothorpe (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
      • And I must apologise for mistaking your ignorance for stupidity. Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
        • I see you are determined to be objectionable. Your user name doesn’t lie. Well, I’m not playing. Goodbye. Rothorpe (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I restored the hyphen for the reasons given by Rothorpe. Rothorpe is correct. --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(There's probably an essay somewhere that co-relates "number of edits" with wp:OWN with ARROGANCE). --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite likely, but quite likely just an ill-informed opinion piece as so many of that type of essay are. Malleus Fatuorum 15:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, wouldn't it have been better all around if you had just left the hyphen alone? You have seen that use of it, haven't you? I have. It's fairly common, in my experience. So, where's the harm in just leaving it the way Rothorpe had it? What is motivating you to change it? That's what I'm trying to understand. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly the same question could be asked of you and Rothorpe. Why do people become so fixated on such trivial points, when so many articles here are in need of attention? Parrot of Doom 16:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Different editors do different types of editing on Wikipedia. Some are great article creators, like Ealdgyth, Parrot of Doom and MF. Others, like me, are gnomes -- we find little things that have been overlooked and we fix them. Wikipedia needs both kinds of editors, and the contributions of each should be respected. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(PS: if it truly is trivial from your point of view, then why don't you treat it that way and just ignore Rothorpe's edit? His edit certainly did no harm.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It didn't help, either. In fact, it made no real sense at all, which is why the floating hyphen wasn't there in the first place. I don't recall ever seeing a floating hyphen in anything I've read. Parrot of Doom 16:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That an edit does no harm is not a good reason to keep it; an edit ought to make some kind of improvement, however small. And Rothorpe's view that the current version is "not acceptable" is just risible. Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "not acceptable" is too strong a position. Rothorpe, however, backed up his argument with references to our hyphen article (see Suspended hyphens and the reference to the Indiana University Style Guide) and to OxfordDictionaries.com. Personally, I think the suspended hyphen is useful and logical because it alerts you to something missing that will be supplied in a word or two. Unlike Parrot, though, I've seen it used many, many times (but didn't know until yesterday that it was called a "suspended hyphen"). If Rothorpe's edit was neutral and "trivial", then shouldn't it just be left alone? --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are we still discussing this? The purpose of hyphens is to deal with potential ambiguity, not to make Rothorpe a happy bunny. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Nailed it, with a compromise wording which is shorter, carries the same meaning, and avoids the whole awkward hyphen issue. --John (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Rewriting is often a good solution when faced with this kind of difference of opinion (even the OED is expressing an opinion, we don't have a prescriptive body like the Académie française), and your solution looks like an elegant one to me. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Gender bias

'Hindley "shouldered the greater public outrage" because of her gender, and she was popularly assumed to be "the devil incarnate". ' This is a point of view, and many (the majority?) would disagree. The fact that she actively sought release, while Ian Brady did not was probably the reason, not her gender. There does seem to be a certain assumption in this statement that the male partner in such crimes must be the more culpable, and therefore the female partner in the crime is a victim of gender bias if they end up as a greater figure of hate. I don't think this is true. Can this be reworded to express the fact that it is a point of view (note that "because of her gender" is not in quotation marks) with which many people would disagree? I don't think Myra Hindley is a good martyr to assume, and probably deserved all the hate she got. Awernham (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's worded kind of odd. Was she able or willing to shoulder the public outrage, because of her gender? Or was there more public outrage aimed at her, because of her gender? I suspect the latter. But if it's to remain, there should be a citation. Not too hard to believe (look at the public outrage aimed at Casey Anthony, Andrea Yates, etc.), but needs a citation or it should be edited. Boneyard90 (talk)

It is cited at the end of the paragraph - it says in the citation "As the woman of the pair, Hindley shouldered the greater public outrage. The popular assumption was that she was the devil incarnate." Of course she was hated because of her gender - the reason being that society expects women to be protect children, not to procure them for their boyfriend to murder. "There does seem to be a certain assumption in this statement that the male partner in such crimes must be the more culpable" Well, as it was Brady who actually carried out the torture and killings of course he was more culpable. Richerman (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

But the citation itself is a point of view, not a fact. 'Of course she was hated because of her gender': I think she was hated because she participated in the torture and murder of children, not because she was a woman, and "of course" is justification for such a statement. "Many postulate that she received a higher degree of vilification from the public because of her gender" might be a bit better, as it references the point of view. But the whole thing is a bit subjective, and I think gender politics are creating a bias here. Let's keep to the facts. 145.30.124.11 (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Other murders, not included in the five here.

Myra Hindley admitted to jailmate Linda Calvey that she and Brady had assaulted and strangled a teenage hitchhiker, apparently not one of the five listed in the article. Calvey said that when she asked Hindley why this was not mentioned with the other murders, Hindley said; "Would you declare somebody nobody had ever mentioned?"

Brady talked about having used a pistol to shoot and kill and adult male.

Hypercallipygian (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you consider this to be a reliable source? Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I recall reading something about this, not on that source though. Something to do with bragging. Whatever it was, no evidence was ever found to suggest they were doing anything but lying. Parrot of Doom 22:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Brady

It shouldn't surprise anyone that a man fed by tube for years will at some point require medical attention. Can we try not to add details of his hospital stay unless they include something of note, like being close to death? Even his upcoming public appearance will require no more than a line or two. Parrot of Doom 08:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your unilateral decision to remove my addition. I don't think we are here to assume what the man on the Croydon omnibus might think about tube feeding and its results. I think it is a fact of note that he has been removed from incarceration to a public hospital bed. This implicitly indicates that he has a serious condition that cannot be otherwise treated in Ashworth. If he was taken there and returned following a radiology examination, for example, I can understand your point. If this is the beginning of a sequence of events that may lead to significant medical treatment or a negative clinical outcome (as cynical doctors say) then it should be noted at the outset. This article is replete with extraneous information but significant changes in his circumstances are worthy of a minimal note. I am also curious to know why you feel you should be advising me (and presumably everyone who reads this) how much space I/we should allot to pertinent information. I was under the impression that we are participating in a collaborative task which is facilitated by discussion and consensus. Best to you. Richard Avery (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Brady was also taken to hospital in 2008 but that isn't mentioned, because it isn't that important, just as this most recent stay isn't that important. If he dies, that'll be a different matter. There's a history of adding miscellanea to this article which we've fought hard to put an end to, I don't want to see it start again. Parrot of Doom 16:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you. As you see fit not to reply to my points I'll terminate the dicussion here. Richard Avery (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary gave the reason for the reversion as 'recentism' which is exactly right. The response above expands on that and answers you points above other than why PoD feels he should be advising you on what goes in the article. I can answer that for you. PoD and Malleus Fatuarum spent weeks getting this article to featured status and therefore watch it closely to see it doesn't deteriorate. I, myself played some small part in this as did others but those two editors were the ones who did most of the work. If you ever take an article through that process you will find it involves a lot of hard work and you will then watch the article closely to see that any future edits are up to standard. Richerman (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ian Brady was born and bred in Scotland. Why does the page relating to him not mention this?

Ian Brady was born and bred in Scotland. Why does the page relating to him not mention this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.113.180 (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It does, it mentions he was born in Glasgow in the background section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.200.243 (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps 82.12.113.180 doesn't know that Glasgow is in Scotland? Malleus Fatuorum 04:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect use of words

There is a line here that describes when little Evans is wrapped and put in the bedroom.

It reads: so they wrapped it in plastic sheeting and put it in the spare bedroom.

They have written IT instead of HIM.

Please correct as it is very upsetting.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.0.139 (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The 'it' refers not to Evans but to Evans' body which is mentioned at the start of the sentence. No correction is needed. I agree it is a disagreeable sentence to read but it seems to reflect fact. Rewriting the sentence to something like "Evans was too heavy ... so they wrapped him in plastic sheeting and put him in the spare bedroom" is, to my mind no less disagreeable. We are dealing here with the extremes of human behaviour and cruelty. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A dead body is not a person, it is a dead body, no matter how it arrived at that state. "It" is fine. Parrot of Doom 12:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Evans'

I changed the possessive to Evans's; contrary to popular belief, names ending in "s" generally take "'s " when they are possessive. Apostrophe is somewhat ambiguous on the subject, but most real world style guides endorse this practice, as do most discussions on Wikipedia that I have seen. --John (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool with that. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Even Fowler would agree with that change. Malleus Fatuorum 16:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I have not been privy to prior discussions on this page - why should the country not be linked in the opening sentence? --Kwekubo (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a general convention on Wikipedia that common terms aren't linked. Parrot of Doom 21:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, well I'm not sure we need your confirmation for every change Parrot. Unless you have nowt better to do. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

But it appears that you do need to be taught the basics, so hand-holding seems appropriate in your case. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Diagnosed psychopath

This well-sourced, relevant, factual piece of information about Brady has been removed four times by someone who thinks it is "bollocks". One editor disagreeing with this accurate diagnosis is no reason to remove it. Criminally insane and psychopathic are not synonymous, as either one can exist without the other. The former is a legal judgement, the latter a psychiatric diagnosis. Both are obviously relevant in Brady's case, and hence to this article. Jim Michael (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My objection was to the ludicrous "criminally insane psychopath", which really makes no sense. I'm quite happy with a simple "psychopath". Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)