Wikipedia:Featured article review/Moors murders/archive1

Moors murders

Moors murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Moors murders/archive1

• Featured article review/Moors murders/archive1

Notified: I think everyone involved is aware of this....

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is clear that concerted efforts are being made to degrade the article with the removal of sourced information. The recent removal of inverted commas also introduces plagiarised text into the article. Good faith attempts to sort perceived problems have been obstructed. SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. On the article talk page and in the history of the article (but repeatedly removed with the claimed justification that tagging featured articles is inappropriate) is a listing of some 20 claimed sourcing errors in the article. I think that a FAR provides the perfect opportunity to discuss these claimed errors, one by one, and preferably fix them all (or reach a consensus on each of them individually that no fix is needed) in order to maintain FA status. On the other hand, I am seriously underwhelmed by the tone of the FAR nomination, which appears to take the point of view that the recent attempts to clean up overly verbose language and badly sourced claims are "degradation" and pre-judges that the status quo ante is optimal. We should judge this impartially and with fresh eyes, rather than taking such predetermined positions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  Nice (slight) misrepresentation of my position, that fails to take into account poor use of the tags (many of which do not fail) and an attempt to "clean up overly verbose language" that ends up misrepresenting the source and the situation. Still, good to see such impartiality from fresh eyes. - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  Again, it is inappropriate to make blanket judgements like "many of which do not fail" without any evidence on the talk page or elsewhere that anyone other than the tagger has actually seriously and individually considered more than one or two of them. This FAR provides an opportunity to perform that serious and individual consideration of these claimed problems. It is inappropriate to use FAR, as you attempt to be doing, to make blanket judgements without evidence in order to advance one side of the dispute into a new forum. If you're going to set up an FAR, set up an actual review. If, as you claim, the article was already in FA state before the recent changes, there should be nothing to be afraid of. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  "without any evidence on the talk page": go through the talk page history from here to here. Most of my edits there (and they are the majority of them in that spell), were removing the tags that passed verification. (I.e., they shouldn't have been posted the first place). That's was just going to be the beginning.

  "an opportunity to perform that serious and individual consideration of these claimed problems": see above. Each of them were being dealt with individually. I swapped out one source for something that didn't fail, and removed a paragraph added by an IP. I had hoped to continue, but after the last diff shown above, EEng decided to delete the text and added it to the article.

  "If you're going to set up an FAR, set up an actual review": what on earth do you think this is? Sure, I could re-hash the entire nonsense at the talk page, but that's such a clusterfuck, I'm not going to begin trying to rehash the lot of it here.

  "If, as you claim, the article was already in FA state before the recent changes, there should be nothing to be afraid of". 1. I've not made any claim of the sort (and don't forget, I'm the person that opened the review for it to be discussed); 2. Why on earth would I be afraid? What of? I was trying to sort out some tags that had been placed, and working in as neutral a manner as possible, and all of a sudden I'm the one that should be afraid? I really wish I'd not bothered with the bloody thing at all: it's been nothing to do with me for my entire Wiki 'career', and now I'm getting grief for trying to sort out some tags? FFS... - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  This is pretty sad. Your evidence for many of which do not fail is you edits ... removing the tags that passed verification. (i.e., they shouldn't have been posted the first place) Well let's see. Before you started there were 20 {failed verification}s in that section; when you were done there were 12. So (one might think) that sloppy EEng posted 8 {failed verification}s that shouldn't have been posted the first place. But think again:

  • In one case you resolved 1 {fails verification} by correcting the text, and 2 others by simply removing the unverified text [1]
  • In a second case you resolved 1 {fv} by replacing the inadequate source with an approriate source [2]
  • In a third case you removed the {fv}, supplying a date in your edit summary which supports the text, but still the source doesn't give that date; therefore verification still fails [3]

  That's a total of 5. In other words, of the 8 {failed verification}s you removed, at least 5 certainly don't qualify as shouldn't have been posted the first place. That leaves 3, and for the sake of argument let's say all of those indeed shouldn't have been posted the first place. That's 3 out of 20 = 15%. That hardly supports your many of which do not fail claim. Flipping back and forth through all these books is a dizzying process, and I'm looking for a negative; 15% of the time the source support was there but I missed it. So sue me. Now what about the other 85%? EEng 01:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  I disagree with your some of your points above, but the best place to talk about any of them would have been, well, on the TALK page. You didn't bother, but cleared it all out without discussion, then re-added some, without bothering to discuss. As I've made clear on the talk page and elsewhere, I was still working through the others (the ones I could get hold of some information), so your talk of percertages is pointless: it was a work in progress, but your bull-in-a-china-shop approach stopped all that, and stopped me seeing if there were further errors in the tagging or, where appropriate, where alternative sources should have been used instead (and yes, I had started doing that, and posted my intent in the very edit before you decided to stop the party pooping. It was pointy and disruptive, but this comes as no great surprise. You can talk about "pretty sad" if you really want, but when another editor is helping clear up tags, don't fuck them off even more than you manage to normally do. - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? I moved the tagged section into the live article (see in the very diff you give above, the words TEXT RETURNED TO LIVE ARTICLE), where all the other tagged sections were, and you could have continued resolving tags one by one there. The percentages are meaningful: you're claiming that many... do not fail... shouldn't have been posted the first place, when in fact it's at most 15%. EEng 12:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

David Eppstein, opening this nomination was my suggestion, here, I spoke to Casliber about it here and when I woke this morning the nom had been opened. Please direct any ire at me, and honestly this situation has become so polarized for reasons I don't understand (I'm not involved, haven't edited the article, looked at the talk page and made a bold suggestion) that I didn't really want to get sucked into it. But if people want I can rewrite the nom statement & will make the necessary notifications - as soon as I have time. Victoria (tk) 20:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Unverified passages

Okay there are numerous ways we can do this, the important thing is that on this page, people list in a neutral manner the issues that are outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

EEng: The ball is sort of in your court here. I can always copy over your diffs but I don't have the sources (and don't want to get capital letters involved) so I can't do much more than that. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

For convenience, below is a bulleted list of the tags I found in the most recently reverted of EEng's versions of the article. Please refer to the article history for the context of each disputed snippet. This does not include the other reverted changes of EEng which were more in the nature of copyedits rather than factual/sourcing disputes. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• 1. comparison to source: Not in Topping 82-85 unverified text: The full extent of Brady and Hindley's crimes did not come to light until their confessions in 1985, as both had until then maintained their innocence.
• 2. comparison to source: Staff 137 says nothing about the encounter with Ruck unverified text: Driving down Gorton Lane, Brady saw a young girl walking towards them, and signalled Hindley to stop, which she did not do until she had passed the girl. Brady drew up alongside on his motorbike, demanding to know why she had not offered the girl a lift, to which Hindley replied that she recognised her as Marie Ruck, a near neighbour of her mother.
• 3. comparison to source: Not in Staff 137 unverified text: Shortly after 8:00 pm,
• 4. comparison to source: Staff 137 says Reade was spotted /before/ they turned into Foxmer St. unverified text: continuing down Froxmer Street,
• 5. comparison to source: Staff 146 doesn't say H recognized Reade as a friend of Marueen; rather that H agreed when prompted that Reade was Maureen's friend. Editors should consider the possibility that this an important subtlety of meaning in the source which the text should properly reflect. unverified text: a friend of her younger sister, Maureen.
• 6. comparison to source: None of this is in the Glasgow Herald piece unverified text: Reade got into the van with Hindley, who then asked if she would mind helping to search for an expensive glove she had lost on Saddleworth Moor. Reade said she was in no great hurry, and agreed. At 16, Pauline Reade was older than Marie Ruck, and Hindley believed that there would be less of an outcry over the disappearance of a teenager than there would over a child of seven or eight. When the van reached the moor, Hindley stopped and Brady arrived shortly afterwards on his motorcycle. She introduced him to Reade as her boyfriend, and said that he had also come to help find the missing glove. Hindley claimed Brady took Reade onto the moor while Hindley waited in the van. Brady returned alone after about 30 minutes, and took Hindley to the spot where Reade lay dying.
• 7. comparison to source: Glasgow Herald seems to say nothing about size of knife, only that cut was made "with considerable force" unverified text: with a large knife.
• 8. comparison to source: Glasgow Herald says "appears to be deliberate". Editors should consider the possibility that this an important subtlety of meaning in the source which the text should properly reflect. unverified text: deliberately
• comparison to source: This is not a quotation from H, merely Topping's text just like everything else unverified text: "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."
• 9. comparison to source: Lee 134 says that Kilbride had already agreed to go with them by the time the sherry was mentioned unverified text: With the added inducement of a bottle of sherry,
• 10. comparison to source: Topping 92 says H did not "wait in the car" but rather drove to another location to wait 1/2 hour, then return and signal with her headlights unverified text: while Hindley waited in the car
• 11. comparison to source: Topping 95-96 doesn't say anything about birthday unverified text: four days after his birthday
• 12. comparison to source: Per Topping 101, what they carried wasn't actually shopping, just some boxes "as though they had been shopping" unverified text: the shopping
• 13. comparison to source: No perhaps about it, Topping 105 simply says strangled with string (though there's the larger question, applicable to everything from Topping, that he's not telling us established facts, even in his own voice, but rather passing on Hindley's version of events) unverified text: perhaps
• 14. comparison to source: Nothing in Topping 105 indicates that H "maintained" this assertion, as if against some contradiction. Editors should consider the possibility that this an important subtlety of meaning in the source which the text should properly reflect. unverified text: maintained
• 15. comparison to source: Topping 34 says nothing about shallow unverified text: in a shallow grave.
• 16. comparison to source: Staff 184-6 says nothing about strangling unverified text: and strangled him to death
• 17. comparison to source: Topping 22 doesn't say this unverified text: The attack on Edward Evans was witnessed by
• 18. comparison to source: Toppin 22 doesn't say this; what it says is "He married MH after getting her pregnant... Her family were horrified." unverified text: The Hindley family had not approved of Maureen's marriage to Smith,
• 19. comparison to source: Staff 183-4 doesn't say this unverified text: Throughout the previous year Brady had been cultivating a friendship with Smith,
• 20. comparison to source: Topping 183-4 doesn't say Smith's awe worried H, rather "She was deeply worried at Ian's recklessness. It had been safe when there was just the two of them. Myra understood that while she was in love with Ian, David Smith was in awe of him, and she did not feel that their bond was strong enough... now that Smith was involved she felt things were getting out of control. Ian was making mistakes..." unverified text: something that increasingly worried Hindley, as she felt it compromised their safety
• 21. comparison to source: Gibson 67 doesn't say "nearby", merely "roadside" unverified text: nearby
• 22. comparison to source: Gibson 67 says nothing about this unverified text: (bringing a screwdriver and knife in case Brady should confront them)
• 23. comparison to source: Not in Topping 121 unverified text: of the Cheshire Police
• 24. comparison to source: Topping 121 doesn't say this unverified text: borrowed
• 25. comparison to source: Topping 121 says nothing about a uniform unverified text: to cover his uniform
• 25. comparison to source: Topping 121 says sofa bed unverified text: divan
• 26. comparison to source: Topping 122-4 simply says "Then she was allowed to go, and was told to return the following day for further questioning" unverified text: As the police had no evidence that Hindley was involved in Evans's murder,
• 27. comparison to source: What Topping 122 says is "She [Hindley] said [to Topping around 1986] Brady had made a statement admitting he had had a fight with Edward Evans [etc etc]." This supports neither that Brady was under questioning, nor that he made such a statement, nor even that Hindley was in fact told that Brady had made such a statement -- only that she later /told Topping/ that she had been told this. unverified text: admitted under police questioning that
• 28. comparison to source: Topping 122 says nothing about insistence unverified text: insisted
• 29. comparison to source: Topping 107 says nothing about "several days later". unverified text: several days later
• 30. comparison to source: Topping 35 says nothing about the # of photos or that ther were pornographic, merely that the girl was naked unverified text: nine pornographic photographs taken of a young girl, naked and with a scarf tied across her mouth
• 31. comparison to source: None of this is in Ritchie 91 unverified text: A large collection of photographs was discovered in the house, many of which seemed to have been taken on Saddleworth Moor. One hundred and fifty officers were drafted to search the moor, looking for locations that matched the photographs.
• 32. comparison to source: Not in Ritchie 91 unverified text: close
• 33. comparison to source: Ritchie 91ff describes only a single site unverified text: sites
• 34. comparison to source: This is not in the source cited unverified text: She was shown clothing recovered from the grave, and identified it as belonging to her missing daughter.
• 35. comparison to source: Not in Topping 37 unverified text: five days later
• 36. comparison to source: Times source says nothing about the date relationship (nor does Topping give the date of the discovery of Kilbridge's body) unverified text: That same day
• 37. comparison to source: Not in Topping 37 unverified text: The investigating officers suspected Brady and Hindley of murdering other missing children and teenagers who had disappeared from areas in and around Manchester over the previous few years,
• 38. comparison to source: Topping 37 doesn't say this unverified text: Presented with the evidence of the tape recording,
• 39. comparison to source: Staff 222 says nothing about public interest, rather (and predictably) "security screens to protect her and Ian from assassination" unverified text: Such was the public interest that
• 40. comparison to source: Staff 225-6 says nothing about syndication rights unverified text: the syndication rights to
• 41. comparison to source: Topping 143 doesn't give this unverified text: and was paying him a regular income of £20 per week,
• 42. comparison to source: Not in Topping 38 unverified text: Brady and Hindley pleaded not guilty to the charges against them;
• 43. comparison to source: This makes it sound as if the questioning just before this was not "cross-examination by the prosecuting counsel" -- but all of it is that. unverified text: Under cross-examination by the prosecuting counsel,
• 44. comparison to source: Topping 39 gives no indication this was any kind of "admission", merely said H "described her own attitude as 'brusque and cruel'" this unverified text: admitted
• 45. comparison to source: Toppiong 39 says none of this unverified text: Hindley claimed that when Downey was being undressed she herself was "downstairs"; when the pornographic photographs were taken she was "looking out the window"; and that when Downey was being strangled she "was running a bath".
• 46. comparison to source: quotes make it sound like there are the judge's words; they're not unverified text: "stuck rigidly to their strategy of lying"
• 47. comparison to source: Staff 10 says nothing about earlier suspicions unverified text: something that the police already suspected, as both children lived in the same area as Brady and Hindley and had disappeared at about the same time as their other victims
• 48. comparison to source: Staff 10 gives no rank for topping, merely calls him "sr investigating officer" unverified text: Detective Chief Superintendent
• 49. comparison to source: Staff 10 doesn't say this unverified text: who had been appointed head of GMP's Criminal Investigation Department (CID) the previous year
• 50. comparison to source: Not in Ritchie 260-1 unverified text: Police nevertheless decided to resume their search of Saddleworth Moor, once more using the photographs taken by Brady and Hindley to help them identify possible burial sites.
• 51. comparison to source: Ritchie 266 doesn't say who Timms is unverified text: who had been a prison governor before becoming a Methodist minister
• 52. comparison to source: This can't be right, Topping 72 says Topping got the call from H inviting him to see her on 19 February unverified text: on 10 February 1987
• 52. comparison to source: Ritchie 274 says nothing about a clue or focus unverified text: but Hindley's clue had directed the police to focus their efforts on a specific area
• 53. comparison to source: Topping 276 doesn't say this unverified text: Topping refused to allow Brady a second visit to the moors,
• 54. comparison to source: Ritchie 276 has nothing to do with this unverified text: Hindley told Topping that she knew nothing of these killings.
• 55. comparison to source: Not in BBC source unverified text: Brady was taken to the moor for a second time on 1 December, but he was once again unable to locate the burial site.

Thanks David Eppstein that's helpful and easier to parse. I've not had time to look closely but will tomorrow. EEng can you provide bibliographic info for the books you have, i.e date of publication, publisher, place of publication and ISBN so as to determine whether the same editions were used. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 03:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, I know you're trying to be careful but that's just a bit too patronizing; I'm a graduate of [name of stunningly prestigious institution of higher learning redacted] so you're just going to have to take my word for it that I know how to tell I've got the right edition. I've got Birch, Carmichael, Cowley, Gibson, Lee, Ritchie, Staff, Topping, Williams (Random House, 1967), Potter. I can get Keightley on ILL but even at [stunningly prestigious institution] libraries are feeling the pinch so I'm gonna wait on that. I also have access to essentially any serial. EEng 04:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not patronizing to confirm to everyone which edition you're using, so that if other have access to the works they can check that they are looking at the right edition too, or if there is additional information in a subsequent edition that would be better. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

They're the editions in the article's bibliography, obviously, otherwise all the page numbers I listed would be meaningless. Asking "Are those the editions in the bibliography?" would be fine; asking me to list dates, publisher, place of publication, and ISBN, like I'm a schoolboy, is a bit much. (I'm not mad at you, Victoriaearle, not even annoyed, but I just wasn't in the mood.) BTW, David Eppstein, I hope you won't mind but I'm changing Disputed text to Unverified text, because I don't doubt that 90% of this stuff can be verified; but as of now it's not verified. I also numbered them for reference. EEng 12:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I was looking for Staff in my library catalog and it doesn't exist, zero, nada, nothing. So I have to put in an ILL request & I realized there are multiple editions. I don't know where you live but I'm in the US. Presumably the edition listed in the bibliography is the UK edition but I'd most likely only be able to find a US edition. Then I realized WorldCat lists multiple editions but not the 2007 one cited in the article, so I went to g-books and found these editions. To fill in an ILL form I need pub date, location, publisher & ISBN & I was too lazy to write out this big long explanation. Anyway, now you know. Thanks for answering because I almost certainly would have ended up with the 2013 edition which is 100 pages longer than the 2007 one and the internet tells that "in this new edition of his bestselling book he is able to present, for the first time, compelling new evidence about the Moors murderers' system for hiding their victims' bodies", which would have really screwed things up. Will see if I can locate a 2007 edition. Victoria (tk) 13:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You have to be very careful with worldcat -- you have to search multiple ways to be sure (?) of finding everything. (The Find all editions link is your friend but even then, if you're not finding what you think should be there, or you want to raise your confidence that you're seeing everything, you should try some variations on the search terms. In general it's a good idea to use the shortest query that doesn't flood you with false hits.) So, for example, the 2007 edition actually is in there [4].

But I still don't understand: other than establishing that this certainly doesn't qualify as an FA anymore (never did, actually, since these problems have always been there -- and the list above is for only about 1/2 the article), what is the function of this exercise? EEng 14:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping it could be: impersonally discuss and correct all the problems to bring it back up to FA status. So. while I'm here: I think there's a much bigger problem. I'll highlight it below with an outdented bullet so that it isn't buried in the discussion: — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs) [Broken off into separate subthread, "Concern about lead"]

• Obviously I will be taking no part in this review given the poisonous and insulting atmosphere created by certain individuals, and one in particular, except to say this. It seems very clear to me that EEng is not complaining about the accuracy of this article but rather its citation density. When this was promoted an FA, the requirement for one citation per sentence - which is effectively what it has become - didn't exist. But everything here is easily verifiable by anyone who is not merely trying to stir a pot, and I could point to where additional citations can very easily be found. But I won't, as I am completely indifferent to the fate of this bastardised version of the Moors murders. Eric Corbett 19:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • See the talk page for responses to this off-topic comment which EC has insisted in re-incorporating into the review process despite his simultaneous insistence that he will not be participating in the review process. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • It is hardly "off topic" for the accused to state why he will not be defending himself. Eric Corbett 19:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Concern about lead

The current version of the lead of the article gives no indication of why there might be any ongoing interest in this topic. I'm sure it was a sensational crime for its time, and in all the news media of the time, but that was over 50 years ago. Why do people today care about some mass-child-murder-and-abuse scandal from 50 years ago, which would barely be a one-day scandal by modern standards? Has the case had any lasting effect on society and the law? Was it some sort of high-watermark in the public visibility of awfulness from which we have only escalated? Why? Why should this be a topic on which we have such a long and detailed article, beyond the mere existence and documentation of these facts? That sort of evaluation is missing from the lead, and belongs there. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

So you think that the lead should explain to you why you might be interested in the violent deaths of five children? Don't you think that's a little absurd? Wasn't it Socrates who said when a student asked him what value it was to him to study geometry replied "Give him a penny"? Eric Corbett 17:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Socrates had pennies. In Greece they use Euros. EEng 19:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

David Eppstein's asking rhetorically. He knows the answer. But he's pointing out that the lead should give the reader, who doesn't know what he's about to read, some indication of the case's ongoing importance. EEng 17:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I do think the lead should explain why we should care. WP:NOTNEWS and all that. Countless other mass murders have occurred before or since, without even being recorded here as articles; why should this one be featured? History should reflect on the present, neither merely being a dry recitation of facts nor being violence-porn for the readers who like to think about such things but not enact them. The article is missing that reflective aspect. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of the things that struck me as soon as I started thumbing the sources: the article has almost nothing on the social and cultural impacts of the case (which were seismic -- as a friend pointed out, this was the UK's version of the Manson murders) how it fits into the understanding and typology of murder and serial killing, etc etc. Appropriate treatment of this will take a lot of work, because it will require going beyond book sources; that kind of stuff might only be in journals and such, and lacking book-length scholarly overview, it will be very hard to know how to find NPOV. EEng 17:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I'm unsure when it was lost, but a phrase that appeared in the FA-promoted version of the lead was more impactful IMO (emphasis mine): "The murders, reported in almost every English-language newspaper in the world, were the result of what Malcolm MacCulloch..." --Laser brain (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this would have helped. Perhaps the comparison to the Manson case explains the reaction here. I think most informed Americans would agree that the Manson case was and still is highly significant, enough so that they might forget to explain why in an article about it and become bewildered when people from other parts of the world asked for an explanation of its ongoing significance. Perhaps the editors of this article have been similarly surrounded by the trees so long that, similarly, they forget to explain that they're in a forest. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

[Off-topic comments moved to talk]