Talk:Moors murders

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 21 as Talk:Moors murders/Archive 20 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Verification failures

Note: You may need to consult the context to understand the issue with the quoted text. Points 1-55 are by EEng, and all page refs are to the editions cited in the article's bibliography.

• 1. concern: 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.  Resolved Not in current text; anyway, it's unclear that it's possible to know for sure the "full extent", especially as Brady claimed at one point to have killed others. EEng 02:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• 2. concern: 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.  Resolved [1]
• 3. concern: Not in Staff 137 unverified text: Shortly after 8:00 pm,
• 4. concern: Staff 137 says Reade was spotted /before/ they turned into Froxmer St. unverified text: continuing down Froxmer Street,

(responding to 3 and 4) This article (which I believe is a reputable one) clearly states Froxmer Street as being the location Reade was last seen alive by witnesses. As far as the time is concerned, sunset in Manchester begins at 20:06. A documentary exists in which an individual involved in the organizing of the 1980s search of Saddleworth Moor recollects that Hindley stated to him it was "just going dusk" when Reade was murdered. I assume this has been used to populate this text. This source: "Murder In Mind" (4): 16. ISSN 1364-5803. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) (which I own a copy of) states she left her home between 7:30 and 8:00 on the 12th.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

 Resolved Well, the specific concern on point 4 was that the text had said "continuing down Froxmer Street, Brady spotted a girl" -- Staff seems to say Brady spotted her before she, and they, turned into Froxmer St, though it's a bit hard to tell for sure what Staff is saying. Anyway, Lee is clear that Brady gave the signal on Froxmer, so the current text only talks about that. At for the 8pm, I find that sunset in Manchester on July 12 2019 was at 21:34 (not 20:06, as you say) but there may be been some difference in summer time or who-knows-what in 1963; anyway that's all OR so I'm removing the "8pm" but inserting that it was "after work", which Topping does tell us. I suppose somewhere there's a source for the specific time, and if we find it we can add that back. See edit: [2]. EEng 05:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Followup: Sorry, Kieron, I neglected the end of your post. I hate to judge a book by its cover [3] but I'm going to counsel that MiM isn't the best of sources. However, Ritchie says Reade left home at 7:30 so I've integrated that [4]. EEng 22:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree with you there in many respects, EEng. What separates this publication from others of its kind (to my mind) is the fact the consultants for this publication do include Brian Masters, Colin Wilson and a Consultant Psychiatrist. I'm more than happy to continue to help rectify these "verification failures".--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if it had useful quotes from such people on the "holistics" of the case, but for nitty details like the 8pm and so on, that's the sort of thing that gets written into sources like that off-handedly because, well, it doesn't really matter, does it? So I'd be inclined to accept such details from that source only if they cite sources (and then, of course, we can go consult those for ourselves). Yes, of course please help all you can, though I'm finding most issues easy to resolve using Lee, so your best role might be to come behind me and apply a fresh eye, look in the sources you have if I mention I'm dropping a detail because I can't find it in my sources, etc. EEng 01:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• 5. concern: 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.  Resolved [5] EEng 06:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• 6. concern: 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.  Resolved [6] EEng 20:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• 7. concern: Glasgow Herald seems to say nothing about size of knife, only that cut was made "with considerable force" unverified text: with a large knife.  Resolved Oops, it does say that later, but substituted the force for the knife [7] EEng 20:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• 8. concern: 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  Resolved Not in current text. EEng 21:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• concern: 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."  Resolved [8] EEng 21:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• 9. concern: 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. concern: 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. concern: Topping 95-96 doesn't say anything about birthday unverified text: four days after his birthday COMMENT: ["Murder In Mind" (4): 18. ISSN 1364-5803. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) This page of this source] can allay concerns -- Kieronoldham
• 12. concern: Per Topping 101, what they carried wasn't actually shopping, just some boxes "as though they had been shopping" unverified text: the shopping
• 13. concern: 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. concern: 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. concern: Topping 34 says nothing about shallow unverified text: in a shallow grave.
• 16. concern: Staff 184-6 says nothing about strangling unverified text: and strangled him to death

  Based on the excerpt posted at FAR, it doesn't appear Staff has "strangled" in there. However, the current version of the article has "throttled with a length of electrical cord" cited to Williams. Query: are we accepting Williams as an RS? If so, I think this can be resolved, but I wonder if we should get this bit from somewhere better like Lee. – Levivich 03:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• 17. concern: Topping 22 doesn't say this unverified text: The attack on Edward Evans was witnessed by Reference? How and why else would you report [seeing] such an act unfold before your eyes to police? This reference would suffice?
• 18. concern: 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. concern: Staff 183-4 doesn't say this unverified text: Throughout the previous year Brady had been cultivating a friendship with Smith,

  Based on the excerpt posted at FAR, it doesn't appear this is in Staff. Do we have another source? – Levivich 03:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• 20. concern: 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

  Based on the excerpt posted at FAR and EEng's comment here, it doesn't appear "increasingly" or "she felt it compromised their safety" are explicitly in Staff or Topping. Do we have another source, or is the implication satisfactory? – Levivich 03:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• 21. concern: Gibson 67 doesn't say "nearby", merely "roadside" unverified text: nearby  Resolved matched to Benfield by edits that resolved 22 – Levivich 04:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• 22. concern: Gibson 67 says nothing about this unverified text: (bringing a screwdriver and knife in case Brady should confront them)  Resolved 23–25 to come shortly Triptothecottage (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• 23. concern: Not in Topping 121 unverified text: of the Cheshire Police  Resolved Triptothecottage (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• 24. concern: Topping 121 doesn't say this unverified text: borrowed  Resolved Triptothecottage (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• 25. concern: Topping 121 says nothing about a uniform unverified text: to cover his uniform  Resolved Triptothecottage (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• 25. concern: Topping 121 says sofa bed unverified text: divan  Resolved Triptothecottage (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• 26. concern: 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,  Resolved Triptothecottage (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• 27. concern: 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  Resolved Triptothecottage (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• 28. concern: Topping 122 says nothing about insistence unverified text:
• 29. concern: Topping 107 says nothing about "several days later". unverified text: several days later  Resolved Triptothecottage (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• 30. concern: 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 Potential ref. Pages 83-84 of Ann West's book (ISBN 978-1-852-27160-2) also reference this.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)  Resolved All laid out nicely in Goodman. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC) (Note by EEng: Use care; facts should not be cited to court transcripts, though if Goodman gives facts in his own voice that's OK.)(note by TTTC: Not my first radio. Intro – based on court evidence and other sources – is about 50 pages.)(note by EEng: Sophisticates such as ourselves have an obligation to help lesser editors avoid pitfalls.)
• 31. concern: 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.  Resolved Triptothecottage (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• 32. concern: Not in Ritchie 91 unverified text: close  Resolved Triptothecottage (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• 33. concern: Ritchie 91ff describes only a single site unverified text: sites  Resolved Triptothecottage (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• 34. concern: 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. Potential ref. Pages 73-74 of Ann West's book (SIBN 978-1-852-27160-2) unequivocally reference this.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)  Resolved Triptothecottage (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• 35. concern: Not in Topping 37 unverified text: five days later  Resolved Triptothecottage (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• 36. concern: 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  Resolved Triptothecottage (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• 37. concern: 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,  Resolved Triptothecottage (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• 38. concern: Topping 37 doesn't say this unverified text: Presented with the evidence of the tape recording,
• 39. concern: 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. concern: Staff 225-6 says nothing about syndication rights unverified text: the syndication rights to  Resolved see below Triptothecottage (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• 41. concern: Topping 143 doesn't give this unverified text: and was paying him a regular income of £20 per week,  Resolved Bingham very helpful here in reconciling contradictory statements. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• 42. concern: Not in Topping 38 unverified text: Brady and Hindley pleaded not guilty to the charges against them;  Resolved Triptothecottage (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• 43. concern: 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 counse;  Resolved I agree with this concern but this is really a prose and not verification concern, but it's already resolved with a prior copyedit – Levivich 03:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• 44. concern: 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. concern: 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. concern: quotes make it sound like there are the judge's words; they're not unverified text: "stuck rigidly to their strategy of lying"

  I agree, the use of this quote in the paragraph describing the judge's statement makes it seem as if it is a quote from the judge, though it is not. More of a prose than verification issue, but I agree it should be reworked. – Levivich 03:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• 47. concern: 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. concern: Staff 10 gives no rank for topping, merely calls him "sr investigating officer" unverified text: Detective Chief Superintendent
• 49. concern: Staff 10 doesn't say this unverified text: who had been appointed head of GMP's Criminal Investigation Department (CID) the previous year
• 50. concern: 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. concern: Ritchie 266 doesn't say who Timms is unverified text: who had been a prison governor before becoming a Methodist minister Note: this is in Keightley in the same context, GBooks version doesn't have page nums though so I'll hold off on adding it Triptothecottage (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• 52. concern: 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. concern: 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. concern: Topping 276 doesn't say this unverified text: Topping refused to allow Brady a second visit to the moors,
• 54. concern: Ritchie 276 has nothing to do with this unverified text: Hindley told Topping that she knew nothing of these killings.
• 55. concern: 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.  Resolved This was, to put it mildly, a mess; no sign of him being taken there on 1 Dec but the Times and Guardian agree that he was there on 8 Dec BUT he claimed to have found the site BUT I can't find any follow-up sources specifically debunking that claim so what went wrong is, for now, left to the reader as an exercise. Hey, at least it matches the sources.
• 56. concern: it was Longford's campaign that was responsible for the continued media obsession with her, not anything Hindley herself said unverified text: Hindley's gender and repeated insistence on her innocence, followed by her bids for release after confessing, made her a figure of hate in the national media  Resolved Cummins examines the impact of Hindley's own actions on public perceptions. Cleared up the relationship between her confession, bids for release and gender. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Items 1-55 above are relative to the June 26, 2019 version here and, in that version, cover only these sections: Victims; Murder of Edward Evans; Arrest; Initial investigation; Trial; Later investigation. Even in those sections, the following sources weren't checked: ONDB, Keightley, Cowley, Carmichael.

As we work our way through the issues (in all Talk sections, not just this one) anyone should feel free to remove a  Resolved and reopen the issue. EEng 00:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Who has which sources

• Fuller cites for "Refideas" entries are here [9]

work	notes	EEng	Kieronoldham	TTTC	X
Already in the article
(bibl) Birch 1993/4, Moving targets		has		has
(bibl) Carmichael, Sin & Forgiveness...		"in transit"		could consult (ILL)
(bibl) Cowley		Newton
(bibl) Gibson 2006, Serial murders & media circuses May have useful material on media/culture, but shows poor discretion in choice of its own sources for facts of case e.g. relies primarily on Williams		has		can consult
(bibl) Keightley [10] ? Brady’s "most intimate confidant", scholar of religion and long term Daily Mail columnist... perhaps best to avoid
(bibl) Lee 2010, One of your own Probably the most up-to-date, reliable source overall		has		getting
(bibl) Ritchie 1988, MH: Inside the Mind...	"well-researched" (Lee)	has		can consult SLV missing
(bibl) Staff 2007, The Lost Boy Lee p11 mentions "a few inaccuracies throughout", says more flagged in (Lee's) endnotes		has		can consult
(bibl) Topping 1989 Essential, but a complicated combination of 1ary and 2ary, plus much of what it reports is what Brady and Hindley told Topping, which is not the same as fact, plus Topping, being police, is not independent		has
(bibl) Williams, Beyond belief Review says fact, interpretation of fact, and surmise [are] interwoven... So the reader may distinguish among them, the author uses – at which point there's a page break, and I won't be able to get the next page for a while! So use with caution for now. TTTC's view: the intro says it does this with present tense for the latter two and past tense for pure fact, but freely admits not consistently doing so.		1967 ed.	has (1968 ed. repr 1992)	can consult
(further) Boar	open access link
(further) Goodman edited transcript of the trial, a lengthy introduction sumamrises the facts of the case as presented to the court, part of an "unhappily short-lived" series of "high standards" [11]		can consult Law HD		can consult
(further) Hansford Johnson, On iniquity		has		could consult (ILL)
(further) Harrison, B & H: genesis of the Moors murders		lost
(further) Hawkins, "Monster body..."	full text link; useful bibl?
(further) Potter 1966, Monsters of the Moors Seems to quote interrogations and court testimony, but unclear if complete and accurate, and w/o citation so best to avoid		has
(further) Robins		got pdf		can consult
(further) Smith & Lee, Witness: Story of David Smith... note possible alt title, might be useful		No
(further) West, Ann 1989 For the love of Lesley		has	has
(further) Wilson (Colin, Damon, Rowan)		N.O.S. try again	has
(talk refideas) Bingham, ‘Gross Interference ...News of the World ... 2016 [12]		has idx & bibl pdf		has full pdf
(talk refideas) Ian Cummins, et al., Serial Killers and the Media... 2019 [13]		has pdf		has pdf
Potential general secondary sources
(talk refideas) Pleasance, Lost Children ... photographic story... 2011 PDF		has pdf
(talk refideas) Makepeace, Child Killers 2017 [14]	Can't find this in Worldcat
(other) Erica Gregory, The Secret Key to the Moors Murders 2013	Complete trash
Psychiatry/psychology
(talk refideas) Cuthbert, A Portfolio of Murders, 1970 [15]		has pdf
(talk refideas) Wilson & Seaman, The Serial Killers:... 1992, 2011 [16][17]		has pdf	has
(talk refideas) Kocsis, The psychological profile of serial... 1998 [18]		can consult (Law HD)		has pdf
Criminology, forensic archaeology
(talk refideas) Pettigrew, Myra Hindley ... whole life prison terms 2016 [19]		has pdf
(talk refideas) King, et al., The strange Case of Ian Stuart Brady..., [20]
(other) Joanna Kozubska, Cries for help: women w/o a voice... 2014 [21]		has
(talk refideas) Heron, et al., Studies in Crime:... 1996, 2013 [22]		has pdf		can consult (1996 ed)
Media studies
(talk refideas) Peelo, Framing homicide narratives... 2006 [23]		No		has pdf
(talk refideas) Wardle, Monsters and angels: Visual press... 2007 PDF		has pdf
Philosophy, sociology, and other soft sciences
(talk refideas) Schone, The Hardest Case of All... 2000 [24]		has pdf
(talk refideas) Schmid, A Philosophy of Serial Killing 2010 [25]	Ch2 of Waller	Wid HD
(talk refideas) Stanley, Documents of Life Revisited.... (Ch. 3) [26][27][28][29]		got pdf		has pdf
News sources (secondary)
(other) Amisha Padnani, The Moors Murders: A Notorious Couple... NYT 2017 [30]
Potential primary sources
(talk refideas) Benfield, The Moors Murders, Police J 1968 [31] Comments for Topping apply here as well, plus this work is very early		has pdf
(talk refideas) Terry West, If Only: Living in the shadows... 2018 [32]	Apparently no lib holds it
(other) Keeling "Best friend of Moors Murder victim..." [33] Use w/care, unfiltered witness recollection is essentially a primary source
Non-RS/other
(other) Wilson, Robert 1988 Return to hell [34]	Sensationalist	has
(other) R. Barri Flowers, Dead at the Saddleworth Moor:... 2013	Trash
(other) Ian Thomas Field, The Moors Murders : the media, cultural representations... 2016 [35]	thesis, check bibliography	some chance of getting
(other) Syme, Anthony, Murder on the Moors 1966	Probably worthless, almost no lib holds
(other) Frasier Murder cases...	pirate bibl	has pdf
Unclassified
Human nature stained : Colin Wilson and the existential study of modern murder		1ER42

August 2019 to-do list

Discussion transferred from FAR [36]

Looks like we're ready to go ahead then, with the July 26 version. So...

• 1.  Done David Eppstein, if you agree the time has come then how about you do the reversion to July 26 (linked by Levivich at the start of this subthread)? You're a respected admin with a clean block record, and not a party to any open Arbcom case request, so you're the perfect person to do this. It's an honor, really!
• 2.  Done I'll reintegrate the post–July 26 changes I diffed earlier in this subthread
• 3.  Done Probably should review the article history (July, August) in case there are any good edits lost in shuffle
• 4.  Done We should comb the discussions so far (FAR and article Talk) for issues noted therein so they don't get lost. Those are:
  • #Glasgow Herald
  • #Gibson
  • BBC (archived)
  • The lead (archived)
  • #Prose concerns
• 5. Then we need to see who has what sources, and divvy up the failed-v list so we're not duplicating effort, and attend to those
• 6. Then, since the failed-v list only covered part of the article, that effort needs to be extended to all sections and all sources
• 7. There are some <! -- --> notes in the source that we should probably review and resolve, or at least surface to this page
• 8. Then (deep breath) we take stock of what to do next, including expansion. Also, we need to review the use of some of the existing sources to determine their appropriate use; for example, the question's been raised as to whether assertions in Topping should taken uncritically at face value in all cases e.g. if one of the killers told Topping that X happened, should we simply report X as fact (as the article often does now) or say, "Brady later said X"?

EEng 18:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree, especially with the first bullet. – Levivich 16:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, July 26 version restored. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• So bullets 1 and 2 above are done. Before we go on, I'd like to propose something: to ease editing I'd like to insert an extra space at the end of each sentence (so two spaces between sentences, like you were taught to do in the old days on a typewriter). Of course this doesn't affect the rendered page the reader sees. I know it sounds minor but it makes it just a scrunch easier to scan through and find a passage you're looking for within the jumble of markup with in a paragraph. Here's a demonstration edit in one section [37]. Actually, I prefer to put a linebreak wherever a sentence end also has a ref, because I find this really makes finding things easy, but some people find this too radical. Anyway, please let me know what you think. EEng 19:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Get crackin', Levivich (front row, left)

Incipient infestation of gnomes

-EEng

I don't care about whitespace in source that doesn't affect how it renders, but my guess is that if you put in linebreaks we'll get an infestation of gnomes taking them out again. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Bring on the gnomes. I'll soon get crackin' on bullet 4. – Levivich 20:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think bullet 4 is as done as it's going to get at this stage. I transferred concerns from near and FAR to the #Prose concerns section, and made some of the suggested changes in the other threads listed under bullet 4. If any of those changes get reverted, those can be new items for discussion to add to the Prose concerns thread. I archived everything that's resolved or otherwise outdated, so only "live" issues remain on this page. The remaining bullet 4 threads, I think, will need to await source selection; no sense in tinkering with prose until we know what the sources will be and exactly what they say. – Levivich 04:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 4 is now done, I think. – Levivich 03:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• I've done bullet 3 unless someone else wants to check as well; I didn't see anything that wasn't either already incorporated or part of the failed verif. list. – Levivich 05:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• About #7 and the hidden <!-- --> comments in the text, I looked at them and their meaning and usefulness were not immediately apparent to me. Not sure what there is to save, but I'm probably just not reading them right. Has anyone else gone through them? – Levivich 03:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Editing rate

I have pretty much grown tired of asking for no long strings of edits as it is unrealistic to expect other editors to review them in real time. This article has become difficult to supervise due to the use of this tactic. Anyway, if you must play around with the article, use a sandbox version as previously suggested.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The alternative, of course, to "long strings of edits" is trying to find a perfect sandbox version that will be accepted by all those who feel the need to "supervise" the article. We all know that will never happen. If you've got an issue with any of the edits that are systematically trying to verify everything in the current version against sources, revert it. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard this before and the problem is that other editors cannot guarantee the time to look at long strings of often minor edits.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Viola!

-EEng

You know, I have heard exactly the same complaint in the opposite direction, much more frequently: some new editor to an article makes a ground-up rewrite, gets reverted by a longer-term contributor to the article with the comment "some of this may be good but there's too much that I disagree with", and the request is invariably to break it up into smaller digestible-sized edits. In fact, here's an example chosen because it was in my watchlist today, as evidence of how frequent that sort of request is. So instead, in this article the edits are in fact being being broken into smaller digestible sizes, and the response is to ask to group them together into a bigger mass? Assuming in good faith that you (ianmacm) really do find it difficult to review many smaller changes individually, and want a larger single change, it sounds like you may be unaware that there's a simple technique for getting what you want that has nothing to do with how other people package up their edits. Simply go into the history tab, look for the two little circular buttons between "cur | prev" and the date, set one of them to the last version prior to the long string of edits and the other to the last version from the long string, and click the "compare selected revisions" button. Voila! All the edits in one big more-easily-reviewable chunk. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I might add that if these "other editors" don’t have the time to review individual edits, then there is no chance of them having the time to review an entire sandbox version and give their imprimatur to its implementation. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of how to use the history feature, but doubt if many people can keep up with all of this editing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

It's going to take a lot of edits to get through all of the points in the FAR. How long do you think would be a reasonable amount of time for doing all that? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm unable to find the time to review all of this in detail, despite putting in a lot of time. I'm not trying to stop any editing, but do not believe that all of the edits were good and don't have the time to argue. I suspect that this also applies to other people who have pretty much given up here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I also don't have the time, for example, to go to the library, pull all these books, and read them. But rather than growing tired, I grow grateful, to the other editors, who do have the time, and are doing this work. – Levivich 15:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I think there's no shame in either informally stopping paying attention to an article for a while when the pace of edits gets too high, or in more explicitly de-watchlisting it. I'm probably going to do that with Bret Stephens for a while (I had been there to try to maintain some nuance in our take on his climate views instead of letting it degenerate into black-and-white us-vs-them, but now the editing action on the article has degenerated into a big mess about people calling him names and his reactions; I don't have time and interest for that). Stepping away for a while, if that's what you want to do, is a better solution than asking everyone else to stop editing. If you do step away, I don't think asking for a return to the status quo ante on your return is appropriate. But please do come back and weigh in on later changes (or propose restorations of individual changes that you feel were ill-advised) once you feel less overwhelmed. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

FAR

Prefer not to have to cross-post each and every interchange, but parking this here re Staff. Victoria (tk) 16:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Citation matters

There are a few citation style issues which will need to be dealt with at some point; I'm going to start working on them as I go through but if everyone bears these in mind there will be less clean up to do later on. Apologies if these are bleedingly obvious to you, but... Triptothecottage (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Primary style is CS2 with {{sfnp}} for refs to longer works cited multiple times
  • don't forget |ps=none for the latter (guilty as charged, your Honour)
  • and |mode=CS2 for the former if using CS1 "cite" templates
• Most of the Times archive refs don't have proper persistent URLs and are specific to Manchester Library & Information Service, which to put it mildly is a pain in the proverbial, I'm going to fix these as I come across them, but all welcome
• Inconsistency in using {{citation}} means a lot of Times and BBC ref titles are appearing in italics – hate to pour that oil on this fire, but we need to agree what to do with that

Let me suggest that, while it’s good to keep this in mind along the way, systematic rectification best waits until things have settled down and we’ve had a chance to discuss global issues. There’s even a chance I’ll propose changing cite format, but don’t everyone panic at once at that prospect. Great work, BTW. EEng 02:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree systematic rectification is a job for much later, but I'd like to avoid making things worse in the meantime. If you start lobbing bespoke citation styles over the trenches I may well attach a jam tin to my rifle and head home. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)