The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 October 2009 [1].

Moors murders[edit]

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum and Parrot of Doom 22:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This an account of perhaps the most famous case of child serial murders in 20th-century England, mainly because one of the murderers was a young woman. Her accomplice is still alive, incarcerated in a high-security institution for the criminally insane, the longest-serving prisoner in the English system. Parrot of Doom and I have worked hard to make this a comprehensive and accurate account of the incomprehensible events more than 40 years ago that left at least five children dead. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

--Malleus Fatuorum 14:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read over again the section where that particular fair use image was used, and your comment seems reasonable. I expanded the fair use rationale a bit[2], and so that image should be fine. NW (Talk) 20:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies

--Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest
You can link Cheshire Police to Cheshire Constabulary.
"While there she found some papers belonging to Brady, which she burned". Comment per SlimVirgin above.
Initial Investigation
I think you have done an excellent job in treating a complex and difficult subject with great sensitivity. My only quibble is with "Brady admitted to taking the pornographic photographs" - somehow the repetition of "pornographic" seemed unnecessary.
Later investigation
It's Hoegrain in the text but Hoe Grain in the caption. Is this a rivulet of some kind? I can see nothing on the OS.
Personal backgrounds
"He was also accepted for the Shawlands" "He also had a girlfriend". Neither "also" conveys much.
" Within a year of moving to Manchester Brady was caught trying to smuggle a sack full of stolen lead seals out of the market,". The ambiguity of "lead" and "seals" had me wondering what was in the sack for a moment. Then I wondered why anyone would hide a sack of stolen goods in the market at all. Was he trying to steal them by smuggling them, or were they already stolen?
What kind of business is "Bratby and Hinchliffe". All the others seem to get a mention.
As murderers
" Reade had been at school with Hindley's younger sister, Maureen, and had also been in a short relationship with David Smith, a local boy with three criminal convictions for minor crimes". I am not at all sure how to fix this, but we have already met Smith and at first I wondered if this was a second person with the same name.
Hattersley is not a New town in the British sense - it's an overspill estate.
Legacy
I don't doubt that Hindley has been compared to Maxine Carr, (or rather vice-versa) but the comparison is, from Carr's perspective, unreasonable and I see no need to mention it here.
Images
Link "Mug shot" in opening caption (someone might think this is just a rude remark) and the alt text could make it clear the photo is b&w as this is an important aspect of the imagery associated with the crimes.
The alt text for the Saddleworth Moor image is more interesting than the actual description, which could be a little more specific about the actual location (e.g. "looking towards..."). I realise that this may not be especially relevant to the murders, but I'm a geographer…
I think the Wardle Brook Ave caption would be better worded as per the image description i.e. "The empty space where 16 Wardle Brook Avenue once stood…." It reads oddly in that we are told that is a picture of a house, then that the house is not there.
Hollin Brown Knoll - my immediate thought on seeing the picture of the road, was - "which road?" Re the alt text, the road does not just run "from left to right in the distance", it also takes up much of the foreground.
" Part of Stalybridge Country Park". Why "part of" ?
Refs etc.
Citation 41 re UKCPI lacks a retrieval date.
What is it that is "official" about the Keith Bennett website?
Good work. Ben MacDui 11:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CPI references shouldn't have a retrieval date; it's generated automatically by ((inflation-fn)), and the prices in the article automatically update to reflect the current inflation rate. – iridescent 11:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Ben MacDui 12:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies

--Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Emlyn William's book was a semi-fictional work based on his own surmises and suppositions, most of which have proved to be unfounded and discredited. The facts presented here are based on the official police records. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying Williams is a reliable source for the Moors Murders, but if he knew about two other missing children, surely the police did? Brianboulton (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The police certainly knew they were missing, but had no evidence to link them to the case, and did not know if they were alive or dead. Until you've got a body, or a confession, it isn't really correct to state that you're aware of a killing. It wasn't until 1987, when the confessions of Brady and Hindley were made, that the two children were tied to the case. Newspapers at the time mention that the police had a 'special interest' in those two children however, and that they searched on the moors for them - but still, they didn't know they'd been killed. Parrot of Doom 08:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact at the time that Williams' book was written the police actually suspected Keith Bennett's step-father of being involved in his disappearance, not Brady and Hindley, as the article says: "His {Keith Bennett's] step-father, Jimmy Johnson, became a suspect; in the two years following Bennett's disappearance, he was taken for questioning on four occasions". The Williams book can't be considered a credible source for anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true - they kept bringing him in for questioning, eventually Winnie Johnson went to the police station and insisted (pleaded) that they stop bothering him. She told them that if she suspected him of anything, she wouldn't still be living with him. After that, they left him alone. Parrot of Doom 11:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Most British people of my generation know a lot about these notorious murderers and their subsequent fates and, to be honest, I would not have read the article if it were not an FA candidate, but I am glad I did. I am very impressed with the prose, particularly the flow, which is very professional. But I am more impressed with the neutral point of view that is constant throughout the article. I imagine that this must have been difficult. There are a few very slightly odd expressions that I would not have chosen to use, but they give character to the article, so I'll let them be. This is the best prepared FAC I have seen this year. As I have said, I am very impressed. Graham Colm Talk 17:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm overwhelmed by your praise Graham. I think that because it was such a difficult topic to write about, Parrot of Doom and I had no option but to be very careful in our handling of it, and we were able to rein each other in whenever it became necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I haven't slept well on more than a few nights, from reading some of the details of this case. Its been difficult to keep that tone out of my additions to the article. Parrot of Doom 20:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I quite understand. I also had some difficulty with some of the more gratuitous details of Rosewood massacre, and at times had to hold the topic with mental tongs away from myself. It's an odd mix: feeling or sensing pain helps my writing, but it's often so disturbing that better writing just may not be worth it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I raised this same question myself at one point, but the consensus as I recall was with the statement on the web site: "We are proud to be on the recommended reading lists of many university and college courses around the world, and are regularly used by TV and film companies conducting research. We are delighted to be acknowledged in many leading crime books." It appears to be accurate, and is probably a good resource to be listed as an external link. There's nothing that can't be sourced elsewhere anyway.
I always take "praise about us" statements on particular websites with a very large grain of salt, so I'd be happier to see those praises from the original sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I've replaced with dead tree sources. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this FAC passes I think we'd be quite happy never to see this article on the main page. You wouldn't believe the obscenities that were scibbled in some of the books I got from the library over the pictures of Brady and Hindley. TFA would be a nightmare I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fine article - bravo to the authors. Murder of James Bulger desparately needs as much attention as this article has been given.
I want to support. However, given that this article also stands as the biography of Myra Hindley and Ian Brady (following the recent AFD) I am not convinced that all of the relevent details from their separate articles been merged here. In particular, I am unhappy at the omission of the controveries regarding The Smiths's "Suffer Little Children" and Marcus Harvey's "Myra" (see Sensation (exhibition)). There is some relevant discussion on the talk page, but in my opinion both of these are notable and important, and the article is not "comprehensive" without them; neither of them is the dreaded "In popular culture". -- Hyphen8d (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think its probably a good idea to include a link to the talk discussion, which better summarises how the two main editors (of which I am one) have approached the situation. Parrot of Doom 20:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did mention it, but thanks for adding the link. I would not advocate, for example, adding links to The Pretenders or Chrissie Hynde (a name of a minor precursor band), Steve Cox (his paintings have not had the same reaction - and you can see why) or From Hell or "No One Is Innocent" (only minor references). -- Hyphen8d (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, I think punk band The Moors Murderers also deserves a mention - they intended to shock, like Harvey, but in a rather less sophisticated manner. The widepread visceral public reaction to inappropriate reference to the murders can and should be mentioned. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My view is that the Sensation article ought to link to here (as it does), not necessarily vice versa. The strength of feeling is already adequately covered in several places in the article, so I see no reason to labour it yet again with the beginnings of an In popular culture trivia section. I wouldn't object to a link in a See also section though. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is barely a mention of their media depiction, or the persistence of their notoriety in contemporary culture. Hindley has been depicted multiple times in artwork, and still generates controversy. A link in the "see also" section provides absolutely no context, the reaction to pieces shows the lingering press and public sentiments over the case, and over the person. How the public reacts, and how artists interpret the acts are important - the aftermath is as important as the background, culture is not trivia. It's possible that detailing that would give in undue weight in this article, in which case splitting off Myra Hindley, or creating a new article, may be appropriate. If a reader wanted to find out how this crime and their perpetrators were interpreted by the press and by the art world, they'd have to search through many different articles, and piece things together themselves. That is a bad solution. - hahnchen 19:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their media depiction in newspaper reports is already covered; what you're talking about is an X in popular culture section, which ain't gonna happen, for reasons already explained. I feel so strongly about this that I would rather see the article fail than be trivialised in that way, and I believe I speak for Parrot Doom as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notoriety of the case stems from the fact that they sexually abused and murdered children, that one murderer was a woman (almost unheard of back then), and that the woman repeatedly appealed for her freedom. There are many more important elements of this case than a minor furore caused by an artist's work—such as the long-term effects on the families of the murdered children. Compared to the gravity of the crimes, an artist's work is trivial, and is but a tiny footnote in the story, and one that IMO barely deserves mention. A much more important facet, and one which is barely covered because I haven't yet got the source material, is the 1977 BBC discussion on Hindley's release.
What relevance does the art world have, to this case? If its so relevant, then mention this case in the art world articles - culture, generally, may not be trivia, but it certainly is here. I very much doubt that the reader will be left wondering what the social impact of these crimes was, after reading the cited articles linked from the Aftermath section. Parrot of Doom 19:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does an expanded section on their depictions in the media and in art "trivialise" the article? How does it reduce the impact of the crime? If anything, showing that their memory still persists in popular consciousness reinforces its gravity. And The Moors Murderers does link to this article, but you're suggesting that anyone wanting to find out about the public reaction should resort to Special:Whatlinkshere. People don't generally think like that, they're not all wikigeeks. As an aside, if the 1977 BBC debate is so important, and you've not seen it - how can this be comprehensive?- hahnchen 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't reinforce its gravity. What it does do is detract from the enormity of these crimes. You might as well ask why the Barack Obama article does not contain a link to every single mention of him by a notable public figure. Its an editorial decision that Malleus and I took, and we're standing by it. We made a decision to limit the impact to those people directly affected by the crimes. Adding information about barely-notable punk bands and artists just because they decided to exploit the case for their own ends isn't something we want to do, and nothing is going to change my opinion on that.
As for your final point, I find it facile. If you expect me to pull a 32-year-old BBC live broadcast that contains Lord Longford, contributions from family members including Ann West, and also a supporter of Hindley who was later betrayed by her confession—out of a hat and comment on its content, well what can I say to that, except I'm not perfect. But I'm trying, and that's all that can be asked of me. You're welcome to try also. Parrot of Doom 22:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"... nothing is going to change my opinion on that". Nothing is going to change our opinion on that. Support or oppose I really don't care, I just want this article to be the best it can be. If the choice is add an In popular culture section or else I'll oppose then so be it. It just ain't gonna happen. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[e/c] I don't understand the reluctance to mention the influence of the murders on, inter alia, music and art, when the article already includes references to two television dramas. As I mentioned above, adding a sentence or two about The Smiths and Marcus Harvey - or indeed The Moors Murderers - does not amount to adding a full "In popular culture" section. It should be possible to weave them in sympathetically; something like:
The sadistic murders and their perpetrators have become a prime examplar of 'evil' in modern Britain, triggering strong reactions of offence and disgust when they have been referred to in contexts that may be considered inappropriate or disrespectful to the victims. Hindley's striking mug shot from 1965 was published repeatedly in the media until her death.[3] The popular song "Suffer Little Children", released by The Smiths in 1984 to commemorate the murders, caused a brief media controversy until the mother of one of the victims voiced her support for the band. Other artists have deliberately employed the notoriety of the murders to shock their audience, as with the short-lived punk band The Moors Murderers in 1977-8, and Marcus Harvey's large portrait of Myra Hindley, created from the handprints of children, which had to be temporarily removed from display at the Sensation exhibition at the Royal Academy of Art in 1997 after it was attacked in two separate incidents on the opening day.[4]
This will need references, of course - the two books linked above are a start - and the language could no doubt be improved, but this should not be disrespectful. There is plenty of interesting discussion of the cultural impact of the murders in Crime and punishment in contemporary culture.[5]
In any event, the repeated use of Hindley's mug shot in the media is something that should be noted. Some references describe it as the "face of evil". -- Hyphen8d (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're looking at this arse about face. The murders had absolutely no influence on music or art. Period. None. Sure, Morrissey wrote a song, and somebody else painted a picture that got vandalised, but that's hardly any kind of a "legacy". Did the murders change or indeed have any effect at all on either music or art? Clearly not. The televised accounts of the murders are accounts of the murders, just as are the books in the Further reading section, not the work of publicity seeking artists. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be saying that it would be inappropriate to discuss cultural influences or artistic depictions of (for example) Myra Hindley and her iconic mug shot in this article, because it is only a minor facet of the murders. That is what I suggested at the AFD, but the biographical articles were merged into this one anyway. If we are not going to have an article on Ian Brady and Myra Hindley separate from this article on the murders, then this is the only place to discuss the cultural impact of the murders and the perpetrators, and all the things that go along with them (what they said, how the looked, how people reacted, media depictions, and so on).
The fact is the murders have had a palpable cultural impact. Morrissey was inspired to write a notable song commemorating the murders, and a notable punk band was deliberately named The Moors Murderers - and Marcus Harvey painted his painting - because of the murders. All of these things came about as a result of the murders: that is a cultural influence. Here we have a book saying "In the 1970s the Moors murderers became cult figures for the alternative art and music scene"... and lots of discussion about Hindley's grotesque "iconicity". -- Hyphen8d (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. What I'm saying is that if the murders had a "palpable cultural impact" on Morrissey or Marcus Harvey, then that should be reflected in their articles, not this one. This article is about the murders, the murderers, their victims, their families, not about any particular artist's claimed motivations or inspiration. Does there not seem to you to be a clear disjunction here? Winnie Johnson and her family continue to search Saddleworth Moor looking for the body of her son, but you're bothered that a pop song isn't mentioned? Do me a favour. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the Brady article was deleted, but the argument that this is a reason to include the other material here is fallacious. By all means start a "cultural impact of the Moors murders" article if you think it important, but the subject in question here is one does not lend itself to a "popular cultural references" section and (whether or not the artistic value of the work concerned in different circumstances might merit it) many readers of this article would simply find such material grotesque. Ben MacDui 21:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Brady article was deleted because it was pretty much an uncited copy of the Hindley article, which in turn was pretty much an uncited copy of this article. Your point is well made; if the murders have had a significant cultural impact, which I frankly doubt, then someone should get down to writing that article. That a song was written and a painting had some ink and a couple of eggs thrown at it doesn't equate to "significant cultural impact" as far as I'm concerned. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is that, do me a favour? How does mentioning artistic interpretations, and the continued presence of the moors murderers in public consciousness diminish the plight of the victims? Should the Bombing of Guernica omit references to Guernica (painting)? Should we ignore the Muhammad Cartoons in Depictions of Muhammad? After all, they were the works of "publicity seeking artists". - hahnchen 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an FAC, not a UN debate, I believe that I've made it clear that I will not be adding any of the pop culture stuff you're demanding. If as a result you feel that this article fails the FA "comprehensive" criterion, and so oppose its promotion, then so be it. I'd rather that than trivialise it. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with the nominators on this. Graham Colm Talk 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, me too - new "Popular Culture" is old "Trivia" writ large Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not asked for a section entitled "popular culture" - indeed, I have expressly said that I do not want such a thing, let alone "trivia". What I have suggested is that the short "Legacy" section could be made more comprehensive through the addition of an extra paragraph explaining how the events have been found expression in various forms of art, and expanding on the reference to Hindley being a "figure of hate in the national media". No-one has even commented on the paragraph that I suggested above to do that.
Even more important than The Smiths and The Moors Murderers and Marcus Harvey (which I accept some may consider grotesque - although something being grotesque is not a reason to exclude it as encyclopedic content) is some discussion of the impact of Hindley's mug shot. As I said above, there are plenty of sources calling the "face of evil": the ODNB says "A police photograph of her taken in 1965—showing a Medusa with peroxide-dyed hair and staring eyes—became an infamous symbol of evil." There is also the quote from The Sun - a pretty sure touchstone of public sentiment: "Myra Hindley is to be hung at the Royal Academy. Sadly it is only a painting of her."[6]
By way of comparison, it would be hard to image an featured article on Jack Sheppard (another criminal, but a popular hero rather than a pariah) that did not include some discussion of the engravings and plays based on his life. This just illustrates why we need a separate article on Hindley, where this sort of thing would be more appropriate. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The television programmes discussing this case are already mentioned. If you feel so strongly that this painting and song represent a significant cultural impact then I suggest that you get down to writing that Cultural impact of the Moors murders article, as suggested above. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ruslik_Zero 13:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies
  • It wasn't a race, and the wording doesn't imply anything about the chronology of the murders. The lead says "The murders are so named because two of the victims were discovered in graves dug on Saddleworth Moor; a third grave was discovered on the moor in 1987, over 20 years after Brady and Hindley's trial in 1966. The body of a fourth victim, Keith Bennett ..." The word "fourth" in that context clearly doesn't refer to the sequence of killings. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the lift bit.
  • Yes, its the same remarriage. I haven't named her yet as I don't know her maiden name.
  • It can only be, unless Myra looked young for her age. I've clarified it. Parrot of Doom 15:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More