Talk:Moors murders/Archive 7

Attempted whitewash of Myra Hindley's role in crimes (disputed neutrality)

The article at the present reads rather like someone has tried to present Myra Hindley in a sympathetic light. For example, it claims she was not present at many of the murders, cared about her dog, was deeply moved by a letter, etc. There is very little about her motives except to present her in a "victim" light with the discussion about her father, and her part in the crimes is underplayed. It's not really written from a neutral point of view. JoshuSasori (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion, which is clearly not one worth much consideration. Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The above constitutes a personal attack. JoshuSasori (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The word "clearly" is problematic at best. CityOfSilver 21:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, at "best". That comment is a personal attack that doesn't even attempt to address the issue being raised. It's a pathetic and childish insult that reflects very poorly on what this encyclopedia is supposed to be about.

What is this? JoshuSasori (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm lost. Was that comment directed at me at all? CityOfSilver 21:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the comment was directed at the two people who've removed the POV tag from the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The stuff appears well-sourced, so implying anyone is a member of a nonexistent fan club of a mass murderer could also be construed as a personal attack. You really ought to use the sources you have that cast Hindley in the negative light you prefer. Then your problem would be solved. CityOfSilver 21:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize for that. But I can write a well-sourced article on how the earth is flat. Well-sourced doesn't mean much if the sources are used to present only one point of view. JoshuSasori (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think you can. Any source claiming the earth is flat would fail WP:RS by a mile. CityOfSilver 21:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I picked "earth is flat" as an example, because it's not a currently-controversial issue. I'm just saying sources can be biased, or used in a biased way. Getting back to the subject, I read this article from top to bottom, and it's a little shocking the way Myra Hindley is presented here. Really guys, what is going on? I don't think I can afford to fight this battle to a conclusion, but the article is biased. JoshuSasori (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's only biased because it lacks reliable sources that paint Hindley in a negative light. Do you have any? CityOfSilver 22:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, yeah. I don't mean to be sarcastic, or anything, but it is not really a greatly difficult task to find reliable sources which paint a woman who is involved in sadistically killing a series of children "in a negative light". But according to the article as it stands, she currently seems to be on the first stage of her route of being granted sainthood. I'm not sure what is going on here, but it's been very interesting and educational for me. JoshuSasori (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it presents her in a sympathetic light because most of the source material used to write this article does something similar. Maybe you should read The Sun or the Daily Mail, you might find what you're looking for there. Parrot of Doom 21:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The way that Hindley is presented in this article is a whitewash. I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that, but the level of spite and threats and the speed of reversions I've encountered here for pointing this out is, perhaps, an interesting indicator. The article as it stands is not written from a neutral point of view. JoshuSasori (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion, but frankly your opinion isn't worth spit. Which reliable sources agree with you? Malleus Fatuorum

Which reliable sources agree with me that the article is a whitewash, or which reliable sources agree with me that the level of spite and threats and the speed of reversions is an interesting indicator? JoshuSasori (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd settle for a note from your psychiatrist saying that you're in full possession of whatever faculties you have. Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on this discussion. JoshuSasori (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's just a stream of vile abuse. How hopelssly childish. And yes a fan club too, apparently. So who's opinion is worth spitting on exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.45.253 (talk • contribs)

• Please explain which parts of Hindley's life have been whitewashed, because as far as I can see the article makes it clear that she was hated by just about everyone for her involvement in five sadistic child murders. Parrot of Doom 23:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum is up to his usual tricks here. Being rude is not a substitute for debate. After a read through of the article, I don't think that it whitewashes Hindley's role.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"Being rude is not a substitute for debate" - so why are you being rude? And why mention only Malleus and not JoshuSasori, who has repeatedly claimed that someone has edited this to include a POV? Parrot of Doom 08:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a Featured Article, but the talk page is not always a nice place to be. JoshuSasori should have a look at WP:DRIVEBY, while Malleus should quit the usual antics of being rude to anyone who challenges him or his edits.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I ask you again, what makes you think it's acceptable for you to be a hypocrite? Parrot of Doom 09:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus and yourself have done good work to bring the article to FA, please remember though that Wikipedia is a team effort. Other people are entitled to express views, and even if you disagree with them, they deserve a polite hearing. This would not be a FA if it had major POV issues, so POV tagging is not a good idea. This thread is a disappointing example of Wikipedia talk page culture.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't ignore the question. If you hold yourself to be some kind of civility arbiter, you have to be whiter than white. Otherwise you're just another civility hypocrite. Now why is it acceptable for you to be rude, but not Malleus? Parrot of Doom 10:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully I have not been rude, and it was not my intention. There is an air of frustration, though, because this is not exactly the first time that a thread involving Malleus Fatuorum has set off controversy. The "piss take" edit summary was unnecessary, and an explanation of WP:DRIVEBY would have been better.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"and it was not my intention" - bullshit. Parrot of Doom 10:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ian not being hypocrite. Joshu may have added PoV, intentional or not. But that is no excuse for offensive rudeness. e.g. "removing piss take" in edit summary. Joshu has not been offensive and nor has Ian. Why you defending this rude person? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

With reference to the recent edits about the abolition (or suspension) the death penalty [1] [2] it was the "Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965" that had just come into force. The clue is in the title of the Act. Richerman (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Alcoholism/schizophrenia

My edits have been reverted for being 'raw', then for 'not being an improvement'. What does 'raw' mean in this context? How can it not be an improvement to add the relevant, reliably sourced points that Brady became an alcoholic in his teens and that he has been diagnosed with schizophrenia? His mental state is very relevant, as he is a patient in a special hospital. Jim Michael (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't your edits that were raw but your citations, which only consisted of a link to an external web site. Eric Corbett 18:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Somebody might have set the citations for you, but nobody is going to help you here Jim. Club membership required. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Demanding the work of others for such minor additions to an FA doesn't seem to me to be cost effective; that's the road to grey goo. But Jim has missed the only potentially interesting thing about today's BBC story, which is that Brady is trying to convince the court that he can be safely returned to prison, where he believes he will find it easier to commit suicide by starving himself to death. Eric Corbett 19:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The refs were to BBC articles which stated the relevant info that I added, which was missing from the article. There's no such thing as 'club membership' on Wikipedia - editing, including on FAs, is open to all on this collaborative volunteer project. I didn't ask for and don't need help - I merely didn't need hindrance. I don't known what you're referring to by 'cost effective' - there are no fees payable to edit. I didn't miss today's story - I didn't include it because nothing has changed about his case. Brady has for several years been demanding to be moved back to prison and to starve himself to death. If he is moved, that will be relevant enough to be added to the article. I have added refs, always in the same format, to hundreds of WP articles, including FAs. They have never before been reverted as 'raw', nor have I been met with such hostility or false claims about costs, club membership or not being an improvement when my additions added relevant info. Jim Michael (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

To add my two pence worth - I don't think labelling him as a schizophrenic is helpful. People suffer their illnesses, they don't become them. Parrot of Doom 22:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Schizophrenia is a typically vague psychiatric disorder not that difficult to fake. If Brady wins his appeal, which seems unlikely, that will be the time to update the article. The fundamental problem here is the recency effect. Eric Corbett 01:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It is relevant that, according to the BBC, Brady was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1985. That is not recent and it is relevant regardless of what happens to him in the future. Even if he deliberately faked the symptoms, it appears that whether or not he suffers psychosis is at the main determinant of whether or not he should remain in a high-security hospital or transferred to prison. If psychopathy were his only mental disorder it is unlikely he would have been moved to hospital; there are thousands of psychopaths in British prisons. Where there are reliable sources, it is usual for Wikipedia articles to state which mental disorders notable criminals have, e.g.: John Wayne Gacy, antisocial personality disorder; Kenneth Erskine, ASPD and schizophrenia, Aileen Wuornos, ASPD and borderline personality disorder. There is no reason for this article to not state what Brady has been diagnosed with, even though some people suspect the schizophrenia diagnosis was wrong. Anders Behring Breivik was wrongly diagnosed with schizophrenia, before it was realized he has narcissistic personality disorder; the article states all his diagnoses. Including mental disorder diagnoses is also the practice for other types of notable people, such as entertainers who have bipolar disorder. Jim Michael (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If medical opinion is that he suffers from schizophrenia from at least 1985 then I wouldn't object to its inclusion, but I think it should come from a weightier source than the BBC's news website. Parrot of Doom 09:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Er, since when was the BBC News website not a WP:RS? Brady was transferred to Ashworth in 1985 because of a decline in his mental health, and was said to have paranoid schizophrenia, which has since been challenged. The psychiatrists at the current tribunal seem to be agreed that he has a personality disorder, and is untreatable at the hospital. It is not unusual for medical opinions to differ, particularly in the field of psychiatry.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone saying that the BBC isn't a reliable source. Parrot of Doom 09:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources saying that Brady was regarded as having paranoid schizophrenia following his admission to Ashworth in the 1980s. Whether he actually did is another matter. The most important thing is that the psychiatrists at the current tribunal do not regard him as showing symptoms of schizophrenia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the most important thing is that people need to wait and see what happens before adding it here. If you want news, read a news website. Parrot of Doom 09:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a good summary of the evidence given by psychiatrists here. Dr James Collins, Brady's responsible medical officer at Ashworth, says that he believes that he still has paranoid schizophrenia. Dr Adrian Grounds, who was hired by Brady's legal team, disputes this and argues that he has a narcissistic personality disorder. There is a problem with WP:RECENTISM here, and it would help to wait until the outcome of the tribunal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree with Ian's comments above. Let's wait for the outcome of the tribunal. David J Johnson (talk) 10:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)