Jump to content

Talk:Moors murders/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Manchester based band The Smiths wrote about the incidents of the Moors Murders in the single "Suffer Little Children" on their debut album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelbylamar (talk • contribs) 12:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:TRIVIA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This comes up from time to time as you'll see if you look through the talk page archives. It even came up in this article's FAC, in which we tried to explain why we believe that a pop. culture entry would be inappropriate. My general view of trivia is that it's only worth mentioning if it throws light on the subject of the article. It may, for instance, be reasonable to include a link to this article when discussing The Smiths "Suffer Little Children", but the question is what does that song tell us about these murders? Malleus Fatuorum 13:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • A relevant test would be whether this fact is covered by reliable sources in the context of music/Smiths or whether it appears in the context of crime/Moors Murders. Here is an example of the latter context. In this case, the source goes on to discuss other artistic references to the murders and this type of analysis seems appropriate here. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
My view on musical popular culture references is that singles can't possibly have the depth of coverage required for a reference to be significant. A concept album dedicated to the topic would, IMO, cross the threshold into a notable reference. Yworo (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Surely more value for our readership would be in linking articles that reference/are inspired by/are dedicated too etc. these crimes to this article, rather than back linking from here to there if you see what I mean. Pedro :  Chat  19:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:TRIVIA doesn't base inclusion on the coverage by reliable sources that the related media got; it bases it on the depth to which the media itself covers the subject. We don't list passing mentions or superficial coverage. As Malleus puts it "it's only worth mentioning if it throws light on the subject of the article". Yworo (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:TRIVIA is quite irrelevant as that is concerned with miscellenia - unrelated factoids put together in a jumble. What we are talking about here is some discussion of artistic coverage of the murders, as discussed at length in sources such as the example provided above. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
"In pop culture" sections are frequently considered to be one of a number of types of "factoids put together in a jumble". However, you are right, there is a more pertinent page, Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content which, while it suggests the media with discussion in secondary sources is acceptable, also states "In determining whether a reference is notable enough for inclusion, one helpful test can be to look at whether a person who is familiar with the topic only through the reference in question has the potential to learn something meaningful about the topic from that work alone. " Yworo (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
What we are talking about is adding value to the article. Example: Whilst it clearly adds value to the article on The Smiths that one of their singles was inspired by these events, I think we need to be more robust in considering backwards linking. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it - I can also see some value in it - but the primary focus here is the events and their aftermath. Some grim bulleted "in popular culture" list is clearly not helpful. A section on "cultural impact" might be altogether be better however. Pedro :  Chat  19:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you all did not know, Throbbing Gristle did a 15 minute song detailing the murders. It is called very friendly.--Mutlee (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

quote

WRT the "brutalized" part of the quote, is this correct? Is it a z, or an s, in the source? Not a big deal, I know. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's "brutalised", as it seems to have been reverted to now. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Not serial killers?

User:NarSakSasLee removed the serial killers category with the edit summary " The article says that the two weren't serial killers since they didn't kill anyone in 1963 or 1964 so I'm removing the serial killer catagories, its contradictory to the article" I have no idea what the logic is behind the statement "the two weren't serial killers since they didn't kill anyone in 1963 or 1964". The editor has since come back asking why their edit was reverted. They were serial killers because they killed a number of people over a period of time. What has the fact they didn't kill anyone in those two years have to do with anything? Richerman (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's just more of the unchecked idiocy of wikipedia. If Brady and Hindley weren't serial killers then I don't know who was. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The editor's first language isn't English so I suspect they may have a mistaken idea of what the term "serial killer" means. Richerman (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You're probably right. They seem to think that "serial" means committing murders in consecutive years. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"In contrast to the common belief that serial killers often continue with their crimes until they are caught, Brady claimed in 2005 that the Moors murders were "merely an existential exercise of just over a year, which was concluded in December 1964". By then, he went on to claim, he and Hindley had turned their attention to armed robbery, for which they had begun to prepare by acquiring guns and vehicles"

Sorry, my apologies. It was this statement that I misunderstood. I didn't take it that this was a quote from the killer. I thought it was a statement in the article. NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Potential errors in the article

For the sake of convenience I've copied to here the errors identified in this article by Carol Ann Lee, author of the recent book One of Your Own: The Life and Death of Myra Hindley (see higher up this page).

  • Pauline Reade didn’t disappear on her way to a dance in Crumpsall. She was going to the British Railways Social Club in Cornwall Street, Gorton.
  • The ruse to get John Kilbride into their car - and it was both Brady and Hindley who made the approach, not Hindley alone - was not to carry some boxes. They offered him a lift home, saying that he was out too late for such a young boy, and they promised him sherry as a treat, then again used the tale of the lost glove to explain their detour to the moor.
  • It isn’t known for certain how Lesley Ann Downey was murdered; Brady claimed Hindley had committed the crime with a silk cord but the forensic tests proved inconclusive, though did not rule out suffocation.
  • I am sick of saying this one, but the ‘motive’ of ‘rolling a queer’ in relation to Edward Evans’ death was an invention on Brady’s part only after he was arrested. There was never any discussion of such a thing between Brady and David Smith; Hindley simply wanted, even many years later, to blacken David Smith’s name as much as possible. She knew she couldn't do it at all with the previous murders but clearly had no intention of letting this chance go by, even then.
  • On the night of 6 October, Hindley was not in the kitchen ‘feeding her dogs’ but awaiting a signal from Brady to bring David Smith into the room to witness the murder of Edward Evans.
  • It is complete nonsense that ‘Maureen told David to go to the police.’ There was never, ever any question of his needing to be told by anyone what the right thing was to do.
  • David Smith did not know what had happened to the suitcases or what was in them; it was only during a long question and answer session with policemen Alex Carr and Ian Fairley in a car outside Underwood Court that he remembered taking some books round to Brady and Hindley’s home - these were then put in a suitcase and together with another suitcase, taken to Hindley’s car. David Smith had no idea at the time where the suitcases were being taken, but during his conversation with Carr and Fairley, he mentioned that Brady was keen on loitering about railway stations and Alex Carr realised that it might be as well to start looking for the cases there.
  • There is, as usual, confusion over the dates here: the suitcases were discovered on the evening of 15 October 1965, but the left luggage ticket was not found until 20 October. In the courtroom the dates were fudged to make it easier for the jury to follow.
  • At the trial in 1966, David Smith DID name the newspaper with whom his father and uncle had arranged a deal. He was reluctant to do so at first, but when his lawyer spoke to him and warned that he could be found in contempt of court if he continued to say nothing, he promptly answered the judge’s question about the identity of the newspaper.
  • About their backgrounds: until Brady embarked on the murders with Hindley there is absolutely no evidence that he injured small children.
  • Hindley’s mother and father did not beat her regularly as a small child; she was occasionally smacked and had her ‘ears boxed’ but the tales of such brutality have almost certainly been exaggerated to please prison psychiatrists. As to the Hindley home being in such poor condition - ridiculous, it was in no worse condition than any other in the neighbourhood and the arrangement for Hindley to live with her grandmother was a practical one quite common at that time.
  • Brady and Hindley’s first date at the cinema was not to see Judgement at Nuremburg - they saw that on their second outing. Their first date was to see Nicholas Ray’s King of Kings, a religious epic.
  • Brady claims it was the film, rather than the book 'Compulsion' which interested him.
  • Your claim that David Smith fell under suspicion for the murder of Pauline Reade is extremely libellous; he was questioned only along with all other members of the community, not and never as a suspect. I’d be grateful if you would remove that line.
    • Changed to "Police could find nobody who had seen Reade before she disappeared, and although the 15-year-old Smith was questioned by police he was cleared of any involvement in her death." Malleus Fatuorum 17:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • There was no mention of robbery during the visit to the Lake District; Brady and David Smith had only just become acquainted, remember.
    • This one I don't agree with. What the article says is "The two talked about society, the distribution of wealth, and the possibility of robbing a bank." I've often discussed the possibility of robbing a bank, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm planning to rob one ... although ... Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Maureen Smith did not ask for her children to be taken into care; they were removed from her. They were severely underweight and riddled with lice. After gaining them back, she subsequently abandoned them on the steps of Manchester Town Hall. There was some further contact for a while, but she soon stopped visiting and they were brought up in the love and care of their father, David Smith, and his second wife Mary to whom they remain exceptionally close.
    • For that level of personal detail it's best to consult the sources. One might argue that abandoning them on the steps of Manchester Town Hall is asking for them to be taken into care. In any event, I've changed the article to say simply "That same year his children were taken into the care of the local authority". Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • David Smith did not move to Lincoln to rebuild his life because of the abuse but entirely due to difficulties - common to many of the population at that time - with employment.
    • I've removed the "in order to rebuild his life" bit, as it could just as easily apply Smith's economic circumstances as his emotional state and doesn't really add much anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that there's widespread disagreement about some of the details of these murders I think we need to be a little careful how we address these points, but I've now got hold of a copy of Lee's book and I'll make a start. Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As ever your due diligence is strongly appreciated. Pedro :  Chat  20:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. As Carol said, and we all know anyway, we ought to try and get it as right as we can. I've only had the book for a few hours, so I've only just made a start on it, but it seems to be a pretty impressive piece of work. It's a rather large paperback (463 pages), very well referenced, and I can easily see it becoming considered as the standard work on the Moors murders, so your forum posting was a win for everybody hopefully. Who says wikipedia doesn't need input from experts? Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

quote

WRT the "brutalized" part of the quote, is this correct? Is it a z, or an s, in the source? Not a big deal, I know. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's "brutalised", as it seems to have been reverted to now. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Not serial killers?

User:NarSakSasLee removed the serial killers category with the edit summary " The article says that the two weren't serial killers since they didn't kill anyone in 1963 or 1964 so I'm removing the serial killer catagories, its contradictory to the article" I have no idea what the logic is behind the statement "the two weren't serial killers since they didn't kill anyone in 1963 or 1964". The editor has since come back asking why their edit was reverted. They were serial killers because they killed a number of people over a period of time. What has the fact they didn't kill anyone in those two years have to do with anything? Richerman (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's just more of the unchecked idiocy of wikipedia. If Brady and Hindley weren't serial killers then I don't know who was. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The editor's first language isn't English so I suspect they may have a mistaken idea of what the term "serial killer" means. Richerman (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You're probably right. They seem to think that "serial" means committing murders in consecutive years. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"In contrast to the common belief that serial killers often continue with their crimes until they are caught, Brady claimed in 2005 that the Moors murders were "merely an existential exercise of just over a year, which was concluded in December 1964". By then, he went on to claim, he and Hindley had turned their attention to armed robbery, for which they had begun to prepare by acquiring guns and vehicles"

Sorry, my apologies. It was this statement that I misunderstood. I didn't take it that this was a quote from the killer. I thought it was a statement in the article. NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moors_murders/Archive_3&oldid=1085462400"