Talk:Moors murders/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Moors murders. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Literature

I've attempted to add more information regarding the literature that Brady and Hindley read but it has been reverted twice. Why? It's important to tell the readers which writers and type of literature they read to get an understanding into what influenced the two of them. Both Brady and Hindley read extensively and Brady was the one who told Hindley to read different books. Books played a large part in their beliefs.--Ends meet 92 (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe they liked to watch this, this, and this; it doesn't mean we have to mention it. Cassianto ^Talk 21:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The way in which it was added doesn't lend itself to the conclusion that it strongly influenced the case, as reflected in reliable sources. This is similar to the Murder of James Bulger, where the tabloids got themselves all worked up over the claim that Thompson and Venables had watched Child's Play 3, even though there is no evidence that they did. This type of "monkey see, monkey do" claim should not be made unless there is clear evidence that there was a link.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hessian sack, etc.?

Should the article include The Secret Key to the Moors Murders (2013) by Erica Gregory as "Further reading"? Gregory emailed the Chancellor on 25 June 2014, as "part of a group undertaking investigations" into the Moors Murders. The story, published by The Sunday People, considered the possibility that, in 1963 or 1964, Brady may have buried a hessian sack, large enough to contain a body, in the grave of Martha Bowring at St James church in Gorton. More information may be found here. I've not read the book so I don't know what it's like. Perhaps it's really good. But I'm struggling to find a secondary review in a reputable source.. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It is too speculative (as the source says) and would have problems with WP:DUE. I'd never heard of this before (not one of life's more reliable guides). The problem with books about the Moors murders is that they have to make eye-catching claims to sell, as there are many books to choose from. If the police really believed that this grave might contain one of Brady's victims, it would have been opened up years ago. This is similar to the various self-appointed "investigators" who have come up with all sorts of theories about what happened to Keith Bennett, but none of them has ever come up with anything of value.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree, although that report at Law & Religion UK is quite informative. But perhaps even that is too fringe to mention in such a general article as this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Getting back to The Secret Key to the Moors Murders, obviously WP:DUE doesn't apply to entries in Further reading. Eric Corbett 18:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

So what's in it? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Beyond some putative connection with the writing of James Joyce I don't know, not having read the book. Do you know? Eric Corbett 20:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald was exhumed in 1981 to put to rest theories that it was not him in the grave (it was).[1] It's hard to imagine the police in Greater Manchester digging up graves without very strong evidence, because they know the media hoo-ha that it would cause.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If I knew what was in the book, I don't think I'd need to ask. As the linked source makes clear, the church, in the form of Manchester Consistory Court, has made it clear that the grave of Martha Bowring will not be disturbed. The claims made by Erica seem very intriguing. But I'm put off by the connection to the tabloid press and so, without one or two decent reviews of the book, I think we'd be wise to remove it. Not sure who was the IP editor (located in Manchester) who added it in the first place. (By the way St. James', which is Grade II listed doesn't seem to appear currently at Gorton). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Biographical detail relevant to Hindley?

User:J3Mrs removed a few details recently added about Hindley's starting at Millwards, first with the edit summary "Unnecessary detail, not a biography of Hindley" and then with the edit summary "The important bit is already there, is it relevant to the murders?" I find this argument hard to follow, e.g. was the fact that Brady was born in Scotland "relevant to the murders"? Or the fact that Hindley's father had fought in North Africa? Obviously there is a balance to be struck, as we do not have separate bio articles on Hindley and Brady. I think the reader might reasonable want to know what and where "Millwards" was. Also, by removing the source to Lee (2010), the year of Hindley starting at Millwards (1961), is left unsupported, as it does not appear in The Scotsman article. I think these few details, ten extra words, supported by a WP:RS book about Hundley, ought to remain. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Martin's view above. I would not have known what Millwards business was and it is valid background information - especially in view of the lack of biographical information on Hindley. David J Johnson (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You would have known if you'd taken the trouble to read the article. I quote: "In January 1959 Brady applied for and was offered a clerical job at Millward's Merchandising, a wholesale chemical distribution company based in Gorton." Eric Corbett 19:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed it because the article is not Hindley's biography, she is only notable for the murders. Can somebody explain how it has any effect on the murders? The more irrelevant details that are added the more off-topic the article becomes and it invites more trivial detail. J3Mrs (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not "off topic", but valid biographical background information; or are we to assume that Hindley had no life before the murders. Please bear in mind that neither Hindley or Brady have their own articles anymore. I'm afraid that it is only your view WP:POV that it is "off topic". David J Johnson (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hindley's father fought in North Africa? Brady's first girlfriend was called Evelyn Grant? Hindley's sister, Maureen, was born in August? You want to remove all these too? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Probably. As I said trivia invites trivia. J3Mrs (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I wouldn't support your removal of those. I think a brief description of Millwards is wholly justified. But, thanks to the eerie spirit of now long-retired editor, I see that the detail is already provided in the section on Brady. So it could be removed as duplication. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not support the removal of minor biographical information. David J Johnson (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Who needs your support? BTW Martin who is this eerie "long-retired editor"? Eric Corbett 19:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

If I can remember, I'll let you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't see much wrong with Martin's edit. As usual, there are ongoing WP:OWN problems here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

... and as usual you're talking out of your arse. Eric Corbett 08:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Ho hum indeed. How about a closely reasoned account of why you didn't like Martin's edit? I'm not even going to bother mentioning WP:CIVIL as it is long past the stage of being worth it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I was the one who removed the edits and Eric did provide a rationale so I don't see your problem unless you think articles should be stuffed with trivia. Perhaps you need to read the whole conversation. J3Mrs (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with J3Mrs and Eric that the repetition was not required as details about the company were already included. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Why cannot certain "editors" comment on this issue without resorting to insults (Eric Corbett) - see WP:CIVIL and ownership issues -(J3Mrs) WP:OWN. We are all here to improve articles (or we should be), please let's discuss any proposed changes in a civil manner. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Civility is subjective and can easily be misinterpreted; also please do not confuse ownership with stewardship - this article would be an absolute mess of trivia, opinion etc without diligent stewardship. I think we're all done here now anyway. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Nietzsche

I see that this edit, which added Friedrich Nietzsche to the books read by Hindley and Brady, and which was supported by two sources (the ODNB entry for Hindley and page 35 of Ritchie (1988)), was reverted. Why was that? Because neither of those sources support inclusion, or because the text was grammatically incorrect, or because someone thinks that Nietzsche is not worthy of a mention in this context? Or perhaps for some other reason? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC) (p.s. or perhaps Nietzsche was crap?)

If you're referring to this reversion, the addition of Nietzsche was only a small part of a contiguous series of edits that were reverted, and I assume (though I was not them) that the editor who reverted felt that the changes in total did not improve the article (and I happen to agree). If you think Nietzsche should be restored, why don't you do so? General Ization ^Talk 20:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was that reversion, wasn't it. I felt the edit summary may have been missing a little something. And I couldn't quite see how on balance, in the context of all those changes, Nietzsche wasn't a useful addition. But thanks for the encouragement. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC) p.s. perhaps you could explain how that gadget TW works?

Thanks, General Ization. Richard Davenport-Hines' excellent entry at ODNB doesn't mention "our Fred" (although he does say of Hindley: "Under Brady's influence she tried to replicate an ideal of Aryan perfection, dying her hair extremely blonde, wearing leather boots, and applying thick crimson lipstick.") So I guess the reference to Nietzsche may be in Ritchie's book (on page 35)? But I see that he does get "a mench" in Lee's 2010 book (on pages 89 and 98-99) and that Brady and Hindley appear on page 160 in the 2012 book American Nietzsche: A History of an Icon and His Ideas by Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This BBC News story says "Glasgow-born Brady was a quiet, brooding stock clerk who admired the Nazis and was heavily influenced by the writings of Nietzsche and the Marquis de Sade." I'm always a bit wary of this sort of thing, but it does have reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Brady himself also mentions Nietzsche, quite a few times, in his own book The Gates of Janus. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the necessity to have a laundry list of books it's claimed they read. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is the addition of one single author, who was significant to Brady, suddenly "a laundry list"? Brady himself says he read his works. If it's "ungrammatical", feel free to correct it. I didn't "claim consensus", I said there were no objections here, which there weren't. The significance of Nietzsche to Brady is perfectly well supported. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

David Schmid, of the University at Buffalo considers the connection at some length in his chapter "A Philosophy of Serial Killing" in the 2011 book Serial Killers - Philosophy for Everyone: Being and Killing. Even the BBC describes Brady as "heavily influenced by the writings of Nietzsche and the Marquis de Sade." I'm a little suprised that the addition of three extra words should be so contentious. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

It was previously added in July (see talk page archive) - by a confirmed sock - and decided not to be necessary. Coincidently the editor who recently added it has also been blocked as a sock. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Nietzsche's name was previously added, as a part of larger changes that may not have been justified. And yes, both User:Ends meet 92 and User:John Bird have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets. But not sure how that matters. You're saying that Nietzsche isn't relevant here because it was previously added to the article by sockpuppets? Is this some kind of "don't reward sockpuppets" argument... a bit like "don't reward your face by not cutting off your nose"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's suppose that Brady did read Nietzsche and the Marquis de Sade. The question is how much he was actually influenced by them to the point of carrying out the crimes. This is harder to prove even if Brady was a fan of their books. Most people who read the Harry Potter books are not influenced to the point where they take up witchcraft.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm just following a number of reliable sources that mention Brady's fondness for Nietzsche as notable, not trying to construct an WP:OR argument over what influenced who and how to do what (David Schmid seems to present that argument anyway). Although it does seem that Brady was trying to impress Hindley with his "knowledge of serious literature." I just don't see why Marquis de Sade and Crime and Punishment are relevant while Nietzsche is not. I don't see three authors as a "laundry list". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC) p.s. I also think the existing phrase "borrowing books on philosophy" is a bit misleading in its generality.

Grossly overdetailed

I added the {{overdetailed}} tag, which was reverted with the comment, "This is a Featured Article, what did you expect?". What I expect, of an FA even more than of any other article, is that it not contain gross overdetail such as the following:

Joan Reade, Pauline Reade's mother, was admitted to Springfield Mental Hospital in Manchester. She was present, under heavy sedation, at the funeral of her daughter on 7 August 1987.[211] Five years after their son was murdered, Sheila and Patrick Kilbride divorced.[201] Ann West, mother of Lesley Ann Downey, died in 1999 from cancer of the liver. Since her daughter's death, she had campaigned to ensure that Hindley remained in prison, and doctors said that the stress had contributed to the severity of her illness.[212] Winnie Johnson, mother of Keith Bennett, continued to visit Saddleworth Moor, where it is believed that the body of her son is buried.[213][214][215] She died in August 2012.[216]

Really? The name of the hospital that one of the victim's mothers entered? That a mother went to her child's funeral? That parents of another victim got divorced? That another mother died of liver cancer? ... What does any of this have to do with anything? E Eng 10:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks broadly OK to me. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose It is not "overdetailed". The instances mentioned are essential to this dreadful story. Are we only to include the story of Brady and Hindley and their murders, without examining the consequences of their actions? No, this is a dreadful proposal and should be rejected. David J Johnson (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Ditto, I can't see anything hugely wrong with the quoted passage. The main problem would be WP:SIZERULE, but the article is well within readable length at around 67 KB prose size.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

And they wonder why there's such disdain for the FA process. There's no "proposal". The main problem isn't SIZERULE, but WP:FANCRUFT. That awful crimes leave divorce and mental anguish in their wake is a commonplace, and the specifics here tell us nothing about the subject. Speculatively "examining the consequences" (such as that someone's liver cancer stemmed from stress) is for essays and novels. The article is almost impossible to read because of the molasses-like overdetail in which the reader is entangled no matter where he tries to dip in. At one point we're told Shortly after her 17th birthday she changed her hair colour with a pink rinse – that helps us understand the Moor Murders how, exactly?

Elsewhere we have:

Smith agreed to meet Brady the following evening to dispose of Evans's body, but after returning home he woke his wife and told her what he had seen. Maureen told him that he must call the police. Three hours later the couple cautiously made their way to a public phone box in the street below their flat, Smith taking the precaution of arming himself with a screwdriver and a kitchen knife to defend them in the event that Brady suddenly appeared and confronted them. At 6:07 am Smith made an emergency services call to the police station in nearby Hyde, Cheshire, and told his story to the officer on duty. In his statement to the police Smith claimed that:

This could be much more economically rendered as:

Smith agreed to meet Brady the following evening to dispose of Evans's body. But on returning home and relating to Maureen what he had seen, she insisted that he call the police, which they did from a nearby phone box (bringing a screwdriver and knife in case Brady should confront them). Smith told the police that:

The triviality that Maureen had been asleep; the obvious fact that taking weapons (including not just any knife, but a "kitchen knife", because that matters) in case one is attacked is a "precaution"; that persons taking such precautions would proceed "cautiously", fearing that their potential assailant might appear "suddenly" (they usually do) and "confront them" (as opposed to a blitz attack from behind, I guess); the exact time of the call (which was "three hours later", as if that mattered), the specific location of the police station called, and that the "officer on duty" heard the story, is all just more surplusage adding to the crushing deadweight that is this article.

As another random example, we're told that Smith was some kind of delinquent...

The Hindley family had not approved of Maureen's marriage to Smith, who had several criminal convictions, including actual bodily harm and housebreaking, the first of which, wounding with intent, occurred when he was 11.

...and then we hear it again...

David Smith, a local boy with three criminal convictions for minor crimes.

And so what? What does this tell us about the murders or the murderers? Someone's been combing book-length sources and throwing in every potentially "interesting" detail, with no thought to whether or how the reader can absorb it all. E Eng 16:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You may have a point with some of those examples. But part of what you perceive as a problem may have stemmed from the fact that the article is a compromise between the murders and the two murderers. This has been a recurring theme in many Talk Page discussion threads. The two murderers themselves have been the focus of much attention by the UK Press, and the public at large, ever since the trial. But it's been pretty much agreed that two separate articles, for Brady and Hindley, or even one for both of them together, would not be justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC) "crushing deadweight"? hmm, thanks got that one.

Hey, ME123, good to run into you! I'm aware of the social sensation that was this case, but this article is written in such a way as to make it impossible to digest either the murders or the murderers. Bang from the beginning, as in the opening of a movie, we get a minute-my-minute account of the first murder (which, along with much other irrelevant detail, tells us that the victim was on her way to a dance "at the British Railways Club", and that a non-victim (!) was spared on Gorton Lane, plus the novelistic fact that "returning home from the moor in the van.. Brady and Hindley passed Reade's mother, Joan, accompanied by her son, Paul, searching the streets for Pauline" -- a dramatic chance encounter of no actual significance). But wait -- who are these two people? How did they get together? What are we even doing in Gorton, Manchester? It's all so impossible to make sense of. E Eng 18:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a big problem. Maybe a few details could be thinned out. It is a bit dramatic in places. But as you know, it was a WP:FA, and has been fiercely defended, by certain editors who have sought to ensure that these kind of details remain. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC) p.s. although that episode of Python aired 7 December 1969, barely three years after the Moors Murders trail, there is nothing to connect them. These murders could never have been the subject of parody, of any kind of humour, then or now. There may have been "mild social sensation" over Python arriving on the scene, but this was nothing compared to the disgust and outrage felt for Hindley and Brady, a reaction which has pretty much lasted until today.

It's never a "big problem", just like a 6-foot man who ought, perhaps, to weigh 180 lb but instead weighs 225 lb is "only a little overweight", since 225 is only 25% above ideal. Even 25% of textual excess sets the reader up for a verbal heart attack. I recognize the "fiercely defended" phenomenon to which you refer, and that brings up back to my earlier comment re the way most of the community views FAs. Looking over the list of contributors now, I'll leave this one to you. E Eng 18:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Everything's a potential subject of parody, as you of all people should know. Anyway, I wasn't talking about Python being a social sensation, but rather the grannies.

Ah, yes. Maybe a few "Hell's Grannies" protecting this article?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. E Eng 20:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Didn't take you two long to descend to your habitual modus operandi of person abuse. I suggest that you consider taking the advice offered to you below by PoD, and write something that you children can understand. Leave this article to adults. Eric Corbett 17:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please don't take it personally, Eric. I think EEng was offering a humorous metaphor. Why not offer an adult response? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The most amusing thing about this thread is that Martinevans123 has argued to add more crap to this article than just about anybody else. J3Mrs (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

"More"? So what's our starting point here? Glad to provide any amusement, of course. But EEng must be encouraged that you have no objections to his proposals. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

To complain about the details you've listed is to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the subject. I could go on at length about the problems that your proposed changes might raise, but I think I'll wait for you to write your own shortened version of this article (remember to use the same source material, else you won't know what is or is not relevant) and upload it to www.wikipediafor10yearolds.com Parrot of Doom 17:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Brady and Hindley don't seem to be mentioned at Simple English Wikipedia. Is that because the idea of torturing and murdering children is a complex one? I don't think that complexity is the issue raised here. In fact, I don't see why most 10-years olds couldn't understand this article as it stands. It was a question of too much detail. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please, Parrot of Doom, do go on at length, specifically about potential replacement of the original "Smith agreed" passage with the shortened one I gave above. What, exactly, are the problems that would cause? What would the reader lose in his understanding of the murders or the murderers? E Eng 19:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- No. Parrot of Doom 23:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

So there are no actual problems? There's nothing the reader would lose in his understanding of the subject? I'm just talking about "Smith agreed" substitution here. If not Parrot of Doom, perhaps someone else familiar with the sources and so on could explain. E Eng 00:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

No doubt the article could be a lot shorter if this was desired, but a Featured Article has some latitude to go into detail. Personally I am not a great fan of the FAs that go on for more than 100k, but this article is nowhere near that length.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

(ianmacm, sorry for the late response, but I had a big IRL deadline yesterday.) You keep saying this, but it really makes no sense. What constitutes an appropriate level of detail is same standard regardless of the quality level to which the article aspires, and if a given passage is overdetailed and burdened with verbal surplus, that's less excusable, not more, in an FA than in other articles, because FAs should represent Wikipedia's best work.

Appreciating your willingness to discuss this, I'm going to ask again: Comparing the original and shortened versions (above) of the paragraph beginning "Smith agreed...", what has been removed in the short version that would help the reader better understand the murders, the murderers, or anything else? Why should the reader plow through more than twice the verbiage for no explicable purpose – especially in an FA? E Eng 18:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yoo hoo! Over here! E Eng 22:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"coo-ee! down there..."↓ Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Re "Smith agreed to meet Brady...." There are some details that I'd suggest were retained, e.g. the fact that Maureen was asleep, the three hour delay, the location of the phone box and the time of the call. I think each of these has a part to play in accurately describing the scene and in providing background evidence to the couple's culpability. But no strong view either way. In most articles there's a bit of to-and-fro in exact wording until a consensus is reached. But this article is a bit different, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hindley's father "fought in Cyprus"?

This page states, with citation, Hindley's father had fought in North Africa, Cyprus, and Italy during the Second World War, and had served with the Parachute Regiment.

Although it may have been in the passage used as citation, I question the veracity of there being any combat in Cyprus, which never suffered Axis invasion, in that war. There is yet to be any article on Wikipedia on Cyprus in the Second World War. The Parachute Regiment DID serve under fire in Greece post the latter's liberation and in Greek Civil War. Wonder if there is a confusion with Sicily, which was combat stepping stone for the Allies between North Africa and the Italian mainland? This was a decade before the EOKA troubles when British troops were fully deployed on the island, pre-Cyprus independence.Cloptonson (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Bob Hindey fought anywhere. Although he did join the Parachute Regiment, Lee (2010) tells us that he was an aircraft fitter. But she does name "North Africa and Cyprus and Italy": [2]. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps "Hindley's father was stationed" would be more accurate. General Ization ^Talk 19:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The part about "fighting in Cyprus" has got to be wrong and should be reworded. Maybe he was stationed there, but there were no battles in Cyprus during WW2. It was never invaded by Hitler or Mussolini.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd concur with "served" over "fought". Even if he was involved in action by Cyprus-based aircraft, that wouldn't constitute "fought in Cyprus", any more than the crews of Scampton-based Lancasters involved in the bombing of Germany would be said to have "fought in Lincolnshire". ‑ Iridescent 20:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Where has the word "fought" come from? Duncan Staff (2013) actually uses the word "served": [3]. Or is there some reason we should still be using the 2007 first edition of Staff's book? Does that say something different? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Re this edit: it doesn't make any sense to say "fought" if he was in a non-combat role and making the tea for the NAAFI or some similar duties. I added "served" because it is simpler and more neutral. Unless there is more detail in the sourcing, "served" is better. What Hindley's father did during WW2 is not that important anyway, and a laundry list of the places where he served is not adding to a reader's understanding of the murders in the 1960s. The usual suspects have turned up with their WP:OWN tendencies. Why does anyone else bother editing this article, I ask myself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

There might have been a tenuous link if Bob Hindley's aggressive personality, and parenting style, had been directly caused by combat stress. I think both Staff and Lee just want to make the point that he was "a hard military type." Aircraft fitters don't generally make tea in the NAAFI, you know! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

So the article has been reverted twice, but with no arguments against changing here. Do we actually need to open an RfC just to be able to change one single word in this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

From the arguments presented I believe served or was stationed are appropriate. E Eng 19:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)