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.

"Mass murder"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Mass murder article says this: "The FBI defines mass murder as murdering four or more persons during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders." Yet in this edit, "first trial of a multiple murderer" was changed back to "first mass-murder trial", with the edit summary "check the book title". The title of the referenced book by Helen Birch is "Moving Targets: Women, Murder, and Representation". So how is the term "mass murder" justified here? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I really couldn't care less how the FBI defines mass murder, or anything else for that matter. Eric Corbett 21:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The article opens with this:

"Mass murder (in military contexts, sometimes interchangeable with "mass destruction") is the act of murdering many people, typically simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time."

So do you think this is a fair description of these murders? Or there is there another commonly agreed definition that you can direct us to? Or even a direct use of that term in any one of the sources used for this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Who cares what the article says? Haven't you got anything better to do? Eric Corbett 22:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Since Uncle Sam's definition is not suitable for Eric, the Cambridge Online Dictionary says that mass murder is "the act of killing a lot of people". Maybe five murders qualifies as "a lot". Collins English Dictionary allows for a similar meaning. The Moors murders qualify more accurately as a serial killing due to the cooling off period between the crimes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree that five killings over a period of 27 months qualify more accurately as a serial killing. That's why the article is categorised under Category:Serial murders in the United Kingdom. It certainly doesn't qualify for Category:Mass murder in 1963 etc. There's no mention of "mass murder" at Fred West, and he managed at least ten. But I'm very surprised that British writer Helen Birch should choose to use the phrase "mass-murder" in the chapter on Hindley "If looks could kill" in her 1994 book Moving Targets. Maybe that phrase in this article should be in quotes, as it is a direct quote of a description that many would disagree with. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If it was "described as mass murder at the time and in various book sources", I think it would be useful to see those sources. The only example I can find is in Birch's chapter. I think it's misleading to describe the killings as "mass murder". Birch is a journalist, not a legal expert. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Goodman, Jonathan (1994), Mass Murders: The Trial of Hindley and Brady. Eric Corbett 09:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You mean this book with the ISBN of 978-1858135397? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not Mass Murders was the paperback publisher jazzing up the title to catch more buyers (most likely, I would think), clearly it was not the book's title when first published. There's a discussion going on at WP:IRS which may give pause for thought before we automatically accept a published book's title as authoritative. Alfietucker (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

But the term isn't sourced to that book, it's sourced to Birch. Eric Corbett 10:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, Eric, but it was you who raised the book. What was your point? Alfietucker (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume you can read just as well as I can Alfie? Eric Corbett 11:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems that Goodman's book as first published, in hardback, by David and Charles, in March 1973, as Trial of Ian Brady and Myra Hindley: Moors Case. We seem to be left solely with Birch as a source for that term. I'd accept that as a sole source if she was writing as a legal expert, or if she had a good primary source herself. As far as I can see, she wasn't and didn't. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The paperback version, was published by Constable & Robinson on 21 March 1994 and went out of print on 20 October 2011. But I've never seen a copy, or even an image of its cover. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Claire Valier is a lecturer in law and author of "Crime and Punishment in Contemporary Culture"; see page 126. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well that's certainly more convincing than the paperback edition of Goodman's book. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I appear to have overestimated you Alfie; obviously you can't read. Eric Corbett 14:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Are we talking about the titles on book covers, Eric? And do you take my point that book titles are not necessarily reliable sources? Alfietucker (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's my advice to you Alfie. Look at my earlier comment about who the term "mass murder" was attributed to, which has nothing to do with any book covers. To which I'll add that no matter how much you attempt to needle me it's very unlikely that you'll provoke me into calling you a cunt – even though I may think that you are – and hence giving you the opportunity to have me blocked. Do we understand each other? Eric Corbett 14:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Eric - and for your edit summary "let it go Alfie, you're just coming across as a peevish dick". I don't know if I am, but as they say "Tu quoque". No matter how much you bark at the mirror, you can't stop people noticing when you raise red herrings such as this, with the comment "here's another one then" in response to another editor's "I think it would be useful to see those sources". Sorry, but having got your measure I am not inclined to continue reasoning with you. Alfietucker (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

When did you start reasoning? Eric Corbett 14:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that an open invitation for any other editors to add what they "may think" of you, Eric, without getting blocked? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

They do anyway, with impunity. Nothing new there. Eric Corbett

Ah yes, you're always the victim, aren't you. But not sure what value there is in just insulting other editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to be a victim, I'm simply stating a fact to which you are apparently blind. Eric Corbett 15:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Martinevans123:@Alfietucker: You asked for additional sources which I found for you; Eric has changed the wording anyway, so why don't you just accept that, stop goading and move on, please? Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, it must be my relentless "passive aggressive" stance that's driving editors away. I thought your source was a good one. But it supports a change away from what we currently have. I'm quite happy sticking with the last version as edited by Eric. Or am I supposed to insult him first? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You could have a go if you like, and then end up at AN/I. Worth it do you think? Eric Corbett 15:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the offer of "impunity" it quite an attractive one. But I'd never call you a "lazy ignorant bastard", would I? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You could try it, if you feel lucky. Eric Corbett 15:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I could, couldn't I. Although you always manage to make me feel very unlucky. I do hope you're not "goading me". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

just in case you have forgoten, this is the place to discuss improvments to the article IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I might even be tempted to open a thread to discuss improving the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That might be a first. Have you ever significantly improved anything? Eric Corbett 16:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That's for others to decide. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good point and a very good source. And carefully qualified by Valier with "as their crimes were then called". Again, I would have no problem in using the phrase in quotes, or (even better) in using that source also with the qualifier. The essential point, made by both Birch and Valier, is that the death penalty was abolished while Brady and Hindley were awaiting trial. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As it implies, this was a common terminology so I do not see why there is any necessity for quotation marks and do not understand what point you are trying to make. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my opinion is that I wouldn't consider these killings to be a mass murder. That's just my view, other people may feel differently. Whichever line one takes, it isn't really something that the article hinges on. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I changed it from "mass-murder trial" to "serial-killer trial", as we've surely all got better things to do than to agonise endlessly over a distinction that may or may not have changed between the 1960s and now. Eric Corbett 13:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

My point is that the Moors Murders were not Mass murder, even if they were mistakenly described like that at the time. I think there is general consensus for this view - not just here but in the "real world". That's why I thought the original edit made by User:Ed Dadoo and the one made by Eric were improvements. Martinevans123 (talk)

When I hear the term "mass murder" I can't help but think of America and an AmEng prose style (I maybe wrong in this though). If I am correct, then this article should be written in BrEng as it is an English event. It should therefore, IMO, not carry the "mass murder" descriptor. Just saying. If I'm talking bollocks, then that's fair enough too. Having said that, if we are discussing the differences between mass murder or any of its alternatives, and I am talking bollocks, then really, who cares? Cassianto^talk 19:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your view. Maybe we're just all lost in the pond, by now... Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I take your point, but I tend not to rely on blogs to bolster up an arguement. Bollocks, when I was at university, was only ever heard in England. Cassianto^talk 20:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all we ever talked at university was complete bollocks, too. (So no change there, then). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Killing spree?

Is it appropriate to describe the murders as "a killing spree"? Although the term is not currently linked, that article says: "A spree killer is someone who kills two or more victims in a short time in multiple locations. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics defines a spree killing as "killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders." There is no mention of the FBI. Is there a different definition, used in the UK, that would make the use of the term more appropriate? Isn't "killing spree" more of a US term in any case? I'm not sure what's wrong with "The full extent of Brady and Hindley's killings ..."? That seems perfectly clear and unchallengeable. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It's also ambiguous, as it could mean the killing of Brady and Hindley. And as I've said before, who cares how the FBI define the term? The social and legal environment in the UK is and was very different from that in the US. Eric Corbett 19:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The time span of over two years is not within the usual definition of a spree killing. There was a cooling off period of many months between all of the killings. The FBI's definition is not directly relevant, but as mentioned previously, this is more accurately a serial killing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Whose definition might that be? Eric Corbett 19:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that, once the reader has read past the opening section, that ambiguity would evaporate. I'd quite agree that "social and legal environment in the UK is and was very different from that in the US" - one reason why I think "killing spree" is inappropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well think again. Eric Corbett 19:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)