Wikipedia:Featured article review/Moors murders/archive1

Moors murders

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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%? E Eng 01:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

comparison to source: Not in Topping 82-85 disputed 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.
comparison to source: Staff 137 says nothing about the encounter with Ruck disputed 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.
comparison to source: Not in Staff 137 disputed text: Shortly after 8:00 pm,
comparison to source: Staff 137 says Reade was spotted /before/ they turned into Foxmer St. disputed text: continuing down Froxmer Street,
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. disputed text: a friend of her younger sister, Maureen.
comparison to source: None of this is in the Glasgow Herald piece disputed 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.
comparison to source: Glasgow Herald seems to say nothing about size of knife, only that cut was made "with considerable force" disputed text: with a large knife.
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. disputed text: deliberately
comparison to source: This is not a quotation from H, merely Topping's text just like everything else disputed 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."
comparison to source: Lee 134 says that Kilbride had already agreed to go with them by the time the sherry was mentioned disputed text: With the added inducement of a bottle of sherry,
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 disputed text: while Hindley waited in the car
comparison to source: Topping 95-96 doesn't say anything about birthday disputed text: four days after his birthday
comparison to source: Per Topping 101, what they carried wasn't actually shopping, just some boxes "as though they had been shopping" disputed text: the shopping
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) disputed text: perhaps
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. disputed text: maintained
comparison to source: Topping 34 says nothing about shallow disputed text: in a shallow grave.
comparison to source: Staff 184-6 says nothing about strangling disputed text: and strangled him to death
comparison to source: Topping 22 doesn't say this disputed text: The attack on Edward Evans was witnessed by
comparison to source: Toppin 22 doesn't say this; what it says is "He married MH after getting her pregnant... Her family were horrified." disputed text: The Hindley family had not approved of Maureen's marriage to Smith,
comparison to source: Staff 183-4 doesn't say this disputed text: Throughout the previous year Brady had been cultivating a friendship with Smith,
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..." disputed text: something that increasingly worried Hindley, as she felt it compromised their safety
comparison to source: Gibson 67 doesn't say "nearby", merely "roadside" disputed text: nearby
comparison to source: Gibson 67 says nothing about this disputed text: (bringing a screwdriver and knife in case Brady should confront them)
comparison to source: Not in Topping 121 disputed text: of the Cheshire Police
comparison to source: Topping 121 doesn't say this disputed text: borrowed
comparison to source: Topping 121 says nothing about a uniform disputed text: to cover his uniform
comparison to source: Topping 121 says sofa bed disputed text: divan
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" disputed text: As the police had no evidence that Hindley was involved in Evans's murder,
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. disputed text: admitted under police questioning that
comparison to source: Topping 122 says nothing about insistence disputed text: insisted
comparison to source: Topping 107 says nothing about "several days later". disputed text: several days later
comparison to source: Topping 35 says nothing about the # of photos or that ther were pornographic, merely that the girl was naked disputed text: nine pornographic photographs taken of a young girl, naked and with a scarf tied across her mouth
comparison to source: None of this is in Ritchie 91 disputed 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.
comparison to source: Not in Ritchie 91 disputed text: close
comparison to source: Ritchie 91ff describes only a single site disputed text: sites
comparison to source: This is not in the source cited disputed text: She was shown clothing recovered from the grave, and identified it as belonging to her missing daughter.
comparison to source: Not in Topping 37 disputed text: five days later
comparison to source: Times source says nothing about the date relationship (nor does Topping give the date of the discovery of Kilbridge's body) disputed text: That same day
comparison to source: Not in Topping 37 disputed 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,
comparison to source: Topping 37 doesn't say this disputed text: Presented with the evidence of the tape recording,
comparison to source: Staff 222 says nothing about public interest, rather (and predictably) "security screens to protect her and Ian from assassination" disputed text: Such was the public interest that
comparison to source: Staff 225-6 says nothing about syndication rights disputed text: the syndication rights to
comparison to source: Topping 143 doesn't give this disputed text: and was paying him a regular income of £20 per week,
comparison to source: Not in Topping 38 disputed text: Brady and Hindley pleaded not guilty to the charges against them;
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. disputed text: Under cross-examination by the prosecuting counsel,
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 disputed text: admitted
comparison to source: Toppiong 39 says none of this disputed 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".
comparison to source: quotes make it sound like there are the judge's words; they're not disputed text: "stuck rigidly to their strategy of lying"
comparison to source: Staff 10 says nothing about earlier suspicions disputed 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
comparison to source: Staff 10 gives no rank for topping, merely calls him "sr investigating officer" disputed text: Detective Chief Superintendent
comparison to source: Staff 10 doesn't say this disputed text: who had been appointed head of GMP's Criminal Investigation Department (CID) the previous year
comparison to source: Not in Ritchie 260-1 disputed 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.
comparison to source: Ritchie 266 doesn't say who Timms is disputed text: who had been a prison governor before becoming a Methodist minister
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 disputed text: on 10 February 1987
comparison to source: Ritchie 274 says nothing about a clue or focus disputed text: but Hindley's clue had directed the police to focus their efforts on a specific area
comparison to source: Topping 276 doesn't say this disputed text: Topping refused to allow Brady a second visit to the moors,
comparison to source: Ritchie 276 has nothing to do with this disputed text: Hindley told Topping that she knew nothing of these killings.
comparison to source: Not in BBC source disputed 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.