Talk:Moors murders/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

June 2013 Tribunal

Isn't it notable that this was the first such event of its type for Brady, and that the tribunal was held in public, and that it was relayed to separate public places in Liverpool and Manchester? Brady himself claimed that his previous behaviour had been "method acting"? Perhaps some of the reactions by relatives, to both the event and the outcome, might also be noteworthy. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

And he's only the second such patient to have a Mental Health Tribunal conducted in public. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The date, or even the month and year, of his tribunal might be a useful addition. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Date now added. Eric Corbett 13:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The article could mention that staff at Ashworth questioned the completeness of Brady's hunger strike.[1][2] The hunger strike is mentioned only briefly in the article, and was a key issue at the tribunal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Interviewed on BBC Radio 4 today, Dr David Fearnley, the Medical Director of Ashworth Hospita, suggested that another particular problem with Brady is that he refuses some of his treatment i.e. medication, and so the load on staff members, who provide other kinds of psychological interventions, is consequently greater. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There's also the cost, which many media sources think is notable - apparently £250,000, e.g. [3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Psychiatric context

I agree the public hearing and all the publicity around it is due some weight. I think we may still be waiting for the reasons behind the verdict to be published. In the meantime I question whether Wikipedia has adequate coverage of the psychiatric issues around Ian Brady? esp. as there's no article on him. This article barely mentions it. There's no mention of psychosis despite it being noted for decades apparently. The lede only has a quoted diagnosis "sexually sadistic psychopath" attributed to a forensic psychiatrist, but dubious because the source is a book by a journalist and while the cited page 294 is not viewable on Google books, Pg 379 includes the same passage but that bit is not in quotes to MacCulloch. In addition, I believe back then there was a legal category of 'psychopathic disorder' which meant any mental disorder associated with abnormal violence. There is now a mention of schizophrenia re this recent tribunal, only of it being disputed by Brady. I think I will try to add a lot more, I guess on a separate article on him if necessary. Sighola (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I very much agree. We have the single sentence in the lede: "Brady was declared criminally insane in 1985, since when he has been confined in the high-security Ashworth Hospital." But there's not very much expansion in his part of "Incarceration". I think there was a suggestion a while back to have separate articles for both Brady and Hindley, but the consensus was that there would be too much overlap with this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes and that sentence links to insanity defence which is a different thing and doesn't mention 'criminally insane' (I'm not sure whether that's meant to have been the official legal term or an informal description?). So I guess more psychiatric context would be added to the Incarceration section - though that term is being defined by Wikipedia as detention in prison, not hospital. Sighola (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Very valid points, I think. Also, ".. since when he has been confined in the high-security Ashworth Hospital" is technically incorrect, as it was called "Park Lane Hospital" at that time. But I think this has been allowed in order to make the lede punchier. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

p.s. presumably, as with Albert Laszlo Haines, there will eventually be a transcript of the Brady hearing? At which point it might be possible to deduce when exactly he himself claims that he began "method acting" in order to be diagnosed as "criminally insane".

Yes I believe so, not a transcript exactly but a judicial summary, which will hopefully like that case include the key history & diagnostic points. Sighola (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok the quote doubt mentioned above - it seems this Wikipedia article is referencing the first edition of 'Lost Boy' by Duncan Staff, whereas the ones searchable on Google Books are 2008/2012 new editions, which seem to be about + 85 pages ahead. And it does seem this article's lede is wrongly attributing quotes to Prof MacCulloch which were the journalist's description. In fact an entirely different section of the book) says MacCulloch was involved in assessing Brady for the govt in the mid-80s while he was still in Gartree prison and concluded he was chronically mentally ill with a serious psychosis and should be transferred to psychiatric unit (which apparently a succession of psychiatrists had recommended for the prior 20 years since the trial.....). Other sources saying the diagnosis in 1885 (which Ashworth says is still current) was of paranoid schizophrenia. Will make some edits. Sighola (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Letters from Brady

This story in the Daily Telegraph today has an interesting scan of a hand written letter by Brady. What the newspapers have ignored is than none of this is really new, and that the police dismissed claims of additional murders back in the 1980s due to insufficient evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Recentism raises its ugly head

I know people are chomping at the bit to insert every last tiny piece of trivia they can find regarding Brady's recent tribunal, but we should wait for the report to be published before anything else is added here. As things were, before I reverted the recent changes, there was far too much emphasis on this event. Malleus and I spent months kicking this article into shape and I'm just not prepared to allow badly-written poorly-sourced almost trivial bits of news to take the shine from its veneer. Wait for the report to be published and then we'll expand on his mental health. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a source of news. Parrot of Doom 21:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree with the above comments. Please let's wait for the report to be published. David J Johnson (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

2010 isn't exactly recent? Brady's psychiatric diagnosis is not trivia. I'm not sure why you think the news is "poorly sourced". Also not sure why, if you think it was "badly-written", you didn't simply copy edit. The cost wasn't trivial, and it won't change, but I have refrained from adding it. I think the only further detail that will come out will be the detailed reasons for the tribunal's decision. But personally I'm quite prepared to wait. I'm sure your "months of effort" were laudable, but they do not preclude improvements in line with factual developments, do they? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing precludes improvements but I absolutely will not accept that the recent additions were anything of the sort. Sourcing from Hansard (since when can anyone with knowledge of this case say that politicians are unbiased), random quotes from the BBC news website (usually not edited by journalists), and links to newspaper articles but with no page information or any means of finding the relevant section? None of this is acceptable. The tribunal will undoubtedly report on his medical history and that report will trump anything anyone can add right now. Parrot of Doom 21:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You're worried about page numbers?! And I had always thought that Hansard was an indisputable RS. I'll be very surprised if the tribunal report will add anything to the medical history not already known. But, in any case, it should be published quite soon. I personally thought that Brady's self claim about his own "method acting" was a new and perfectly valid addition to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hansard is a reliable source when it comes to quoting what MPs have said, but MPs are not a reliable source on Brady. And damn right I'm concerned about page numbers, this is a Featured Article. Parrot of Doom 21:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right that Hansard typically tells us more about MPs and party politics than the subject matter on which they are commenting. But if material is worth adding to a "Featured Article", it's probably worth finding page numbers for. I guess, for some reason, you have much more faith in the "value" or "resilience" of any article that was once a Featured Article than I do. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Featured articles don't stay that way without the editor or editors who got them them there fighting tooth snd nail to keep them that way. This one was brought up to featured status by PoD and Malleus/Eric and you can be sure they won't let it drift away from that as long as they're around. Richerman (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that featured articles, in fact any articles, should have nothing whatever to do with whoever promoted them, for a whole variety of reasons. Sorry if that is a partisan view. Is this an encyclopedia? Or is it a fan-club, a personal point-scoring game or a private cognoscenti members-club? And when they're no longer around... ? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite know what you're trying to say with the comments about fan clubs and point scoring but what I've said above is simply a statement of the way things are in my experience. If you have ever taken an article to FA you will know how many hoops you have to jump through and how exhausting it is, and once you've done that you certainly won't be willing to see the article slide into something of lesser quality - that's simple human nature. I've been through the FA process only once but that has given me enough insight to understand why others defend "their " articles, sometimes quite aggressively, and I don't have much time for people who haven't been through that process but start to complain about "ownership" when their edits are challenged. PoD and Eric have taken many articles to FA staus and I know for a fact that they will defend them aggressively, that's just the way it is. I may not always agree with the decisions they make or they way they go about things but they are who they are the end result is that the articles do end up keeping their FA status. This is first and foremost an encyclopaedia, but unlike a print encyclopaedia it has no overall editorial control and good quality articles will can slowly degenerate unless somebody keeps an eye on them - and who can do that better than the people who got the article to that staus in the first place? Anyway, that's my opinion, but I can't continue this discussion now as I'm up early in the morning, and so I'm off to bed. Richerman (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the article has been raised to a high standard by hard work. Protecting that quality, grammar/style, not using routine or trivial first hand news reports - sure. But using that as a reason to dictate about due weight or reliable analyses of major developments, or misleading about his diagnoses over the years, or omitting the history of dealing with his 'hunger striking' even prior to 1999 as very clear in Hansard - I do not believe that is reasonable. I am frustrated that people coming here may have been inadequately informed about that context. Just because the official summary is due does not negate that - in fact elsewhere that was objected to as primary source. ParrotofDoom's edit comment about 'anti-brady' is totally off the mark and I don't know what the thing is about a page number? Sighola (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the FA process is a rigorous, even an arduous, one. And rightly so, if standards are to be maintained. I'm sure anyone who has helped write an GA or a FA will want to defend it against vandalism and degradation. But the downside with any meritocracy, where editors collect badges of honour, and award each other (and themselves, of course) with medals and ribbons, is that ownership issues can very easily take hold. And this is true right across Wikipedia, not just with GAs and FAs, with even the lowliest geo-stubs and new pop-song articles. It's an attitude of "I know best because I wrote it first". It's a very good way of keeping what has been written safe, I suppose. But it can be rather discouraging to other good faith editors who have a different point of view. I'm sure this case will be better resolved when the final report is published. I'm happy to agree with PoD on that. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Let's please wait for the final report. Sighola seems to be going off without even bothering to sign their contributions. Let us just wait until a report is published. Regards to all, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm the extremely minor issue of the signing of my comment below, I don't know why that's happened but you may notice the same thing with the prior commenter - please refrain from personal attacks on individual editors. Sighola (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not a "personal attack", just a request to abide by Wikipedia conventions. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy of psychiatric history

The final report seeems like it could take a month or more. In the meantime the lede is citing an author labelling Brady a psychopath but he is not a psychiatrically reliable source, and his own book says the psychiatrist MacCulloch found him to be psychotic. The Incarceration section has reverted back to saying Brady was diagnosed a psychopath in 1985 which again is misleading because there was then a broad legal not specifically diagnostic category of psychopathic disorder, and he was diagnosed with schizophrenia according to Collins the expert in charge of his case. The tribunal and much of the Incarceration section is out of chronological order for some reason. Additional slight psychiatric innacuracies: "as he was sectioned under the Mental Health Act, he no longer has the right to starve himself" - sourced to a chatty Guardian piece and not quite right, being held under the Act doesn't necessarily take away that right unless deemed to be due to mental disorder (which it was). "asked for a judicial review of the decision to force-feed him" - not quite, was for judicial review of the decision that the force-feeding was legal. Sighola (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, inaccuracies ought to be corrected as soon as possible, I think. Even if the debate over how much detail is appropriate for Brady, whilst keeping the article well-balanced, could wait for the report. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. In the absence of any further comment from editor(s) who previous reverted, and so perhaps being at risk of it again, I'll say that I intend to do the following:

- Put the Brady Incarceration section in somewhat more chronological order.

- Include that a succession of psychiatrists had recommended his transfer to hospital prior to 1985, at which point Prof Malcolm MacCulloch assessed him as having a chronic serious psychosis[4] and an official diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia was made in 1985.[5] (probably also a personality disorder but can't quite confirm that. I believe either diagnosis could have been legally classed as psychopathic disorder)

- Clarify the legal processes around the force-feeding since 1999[6][7] (p.s. I note a separate point about lethality of some paracetemol sent to him in 2006 is not backed up by its source "The potentially lethal dose of tablets was intercepted"[8])

- Clarify that he has conducted 'hunger strikes' numberous times, in prison, not just since 1999 in hospital - clearly shown by multiple official Hansard reports both Q & A with dates and places[9][10] (nb. there appears to be some psychiatric suggestion of various strange behaviours around food, but I will leave that unless given weight in a very reliable source).

- Clarify the legal process around the public mh tribunal, incl. very brief summary of what each side was arguing psychiatrically[11][12] (p.s. re the alleged costs, I don't intend to mention as I note that a senior solicitor for Brady disputes the press's choice of figures 'The costs of myself, counsel and our experts will be a quarter of that" [13])

- Minor rewords to the lede to reflect the body of the article in line with the above. Sighola (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If you make the same mess as you did before, I will revert your edits without hesitation. Parrot of Doom 21:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If you make "a mess", Sighola, maybe some other editors will try and help you clear it up a bit. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

To add, how much of the source did you read when you said this - "(p.s. I note a separate point about lethality of some paracetemol sent to him in 2006 is not backed up by its source "The potentially lethal dose of tablets was intercepted"[14])"? Or are you cherry-picking, purposely missing the accompanying citation?

I get fed up with the headlong rush to update articles with just-released information. Wikipedia isn't a news publisher, I am sick of saying it but we need to wait for the report to come out. I don't particularly care if that takes six months or six years. Furthermore, this article is about the Moors Murders. By proposing to add every single detail about Brady's incarceration, you risk placing undue emphasis on elements of this case that aren't really all that important. Where do you stop? How many paragraphs of detail about his mental health do you add?

Unfortunately the most significant contributor to this page can't post right now but while he may or may not agree with my points on how much about Brady is included, I doubt very much he'd have much time for dubious sourcing from Hansard, which is, after all, a public record of what politicians say. Parrot of Doom 16:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

ParrotofDoom - I reject your first comment above about 'a mess' and I find it in any case to be unnecessarily insulting, as was your edit comment when you reverted en masse: 'anti-Brady bias, poor sourcing and even worse grammar". If you are going to make derogatory comments, they need to be specific to individual edits so that others have any chance of defending themselves.

Now your second comment above seems to show a failure to assume good faith. Yes in my comment I see I did only link to one of the citations in there for the claim about lethality - I guess I missed the other amidst all the above points as it was a short named ref not the full citation. I don't see how the extra source - chatty opinion piece by a Guardian journalist - is a suitable source for the medical lethality of the dose though, please explain?

ParrotofDoom - I gather you do not accept anyone accusing you (and you on behalf of others?) of wp:own - but I don't see how you can exempt yourself from Wikipedia guidelines. As Martinevans implies, part of a wiki is helping others' edits, is it not? Finally, regarding the issues of due weight and recency, please could you be more specific and address the intended edits I took the time to list and source above? Sighola (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

p.s. there is another quite misleading psychiatric sentence (with quite bad grammar) in the article: "Brady claimed that he suffered not from paranoid schizophrenia, as his doctors at Ashworth maintained, but rather, a personality disorder." In fact, if you check out the official statement released by Ashworth Hospital, they state they believe he has both schizophrenia and a severe personality disorder. Sighola (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

p.p.s. I realised the line about Brady not having the right to starve has been quietly amended by ParrotofDoom in line with my point above, with a better source.[15] However the new wording still seems slightly misleading: "while English law allows patients to refuse treatment, those being treated for mental disorders under the Mental Health Act 1983 have no such right." In fact detained psychiatric patients sometimes do have the right to refuse treatment, or certain treatments. And indeed I recall reading somewhere that Brady has refused to participate in any treatment sessions since 1999 (including psychiatric meds anyone know?) or any treatment for sexual pathology ever? But in the case of force feeding, it was specifically found that he was harming himself and for a reason that was deemed to be due to his mental disorder, and treating a symptom is considered to be treating the disorder, and that in any case he lacked the mental capacity (cf Mental Capacity Act 2005) on this specific issue to make a properly informed decision. I also note that the judge stated he was not satisfied Brady had expressed an entirely clear wish to die, which is contrary to what is repeatedly implied in this article including in the lede. Sighola (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: While waiting to resolve the above constructively without reversion, I tagged the article for disputed accuracy. ParrotofDoom has removed this with the edit comment 'nonsense'. WP:Accuracy disputes states: "If there are more than 5 dubious statements...Insert {{Disputed}} in the beginning of the article to add a general warning". Given the above points, I believe the conditions are met so I will now reinstate the tag. I will list two more innacuracies here as I see them, from the Incarceration-Brady section (and reflected in the lede):

- "In 1999 his right wrist was broken in what he claimed was an "hour-long, unprovoked attack" by staff." - Why are we quoting Brady's claim about what happened, with no mention that the staff were actually moving him to another ward (albeit in a heavy-handed surprise fashion) not just attacking him?

- Why then are we quoting Brady at length from a letter he wrote to the BBC purporting to express a real and rational attempt to die, rather than summarising the (apparently mixed) evidence about this as per reliable sources? Sighola (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the disputed accuracy template because the evidence from the experts themselves is contradictory. The problem is not dubious or incorrect statements, but how to handle the difference of opinion over Brady's medical condition that has arisen as a result of the tribunal. The problem is more about due weight than accuracy. What Brady has said himself (eg about the broken wrist) is not necessarily dubious, and the same applies to letters that he has written to the media. This is not pro-Brady or inaccurate as long as it is not portrayed as fact. The controversy over Brady's medical diagnosis may never be cleared up, because psychiatry is not an exact science.--05:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if an article is repeatedly stating or implying things that do not appear to be how reliable sources have it, then the article has inaccuracies. That's what the Brady quotes are doing, and several aspects of the psychiatric history. Your point about psychiatry not being an exact science seems totally irrelevant - the issue is what reliable sources say his diagnoses have been and are. Therefore I will put the tag back. 21:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sighola (talk • contribs)

Sighola. please calm down and remember to sign your contributions. I have to say that your contributions might be better understood if you could be bothered to give us a informative User page. In all this matter, I think it would be far, far better to await to await further developments. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As just replied above to your repeat comment: Hmm the extremely minor issue of the signing of my comment below, I don't know why that's happened but you may notice the same thing with the prior commenter - please refrain from personal attacks on individual editors. Sighola (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sighola you clearly don't know what a reliable source is. I'm not the only person to ask you to wait for the official report to come out (which will, I think, clarify matters). If you insist on adding citations to Hansard and other dubious sources, and adding silly maintenance tags where they're not needed, you're going to end up disappointed. And knock it off with the fake "offensive comments" rubbish, because you're dealing with adults here. Parrot of Doom 22:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sighola, Firstly it is not a "minor issue" not to sign your contributions. Secondly, it's not a "personal attack" - just a request to abide by Wikipedia conventions. You can't even be bothered to initiate a proper user page. Wikipedia operates by consensus and not by one persons opinions. Let us please wait for the report on all these issues and then comment. Until then, please stop these silly comments and let's then act in the spirit of the community? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with waiting until the report is published before making any substantial changes over this issue. Regardless of what the report says, there may still be a controversy over Brady's diagnosis which would need to be reflected in the article. Disagreements over due weight and NPOV are not the same as factual inaccuracy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

(deindent)

• DavidJJohnson - Anyone can see it was personal to me because you ignored the previous comment not being properly signed yet picked me up on it, along with presumptuous comments such as 'calm down', while ignoring the substance of the issues here. User page not a Wikipedia requirement nor necessarily a sign of not being bothered; and btw you now referring to that is not the same as me previously referring to ParrotofDoom choosing to display a user talk notice that anyone accusing them of wp:own will be told to get stuffed or whatever is says.
• ParrotofDoom - Your reversion of the accuracy tag, this time with the edit comment 'common sense', having not responded to my explanation and questions to you above when you reverted it the first time, seems to confirm you are not acting in a collaborative way in good faith; if you are, please address those points of substance. Please refrain from personal attacks such as 'you clearly don't know...'
• ianmacm - Of course there may be controversy over psychiatric diagnoses. The issue here is that the article should reflect the current reliable sources as far as possible, including controversies, and I have pointed out above several ways in which it doesn't appear to. Any editor has the right to amend or dispute in line with current reliable sources, and it doesn't matter how many editors try to dicate leaving their article alone until some future possible publication. Sighola (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that from the above comments, with many errors, we are dealing with someone who does not want to listen and wait for the report to be issued. I still think that we should wait for the report and if these comments continue, then a Admin should get involved. Best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

When the report is released it should be a trivial matter to simplify and rewrite that section. The suggestion that I don't collaborate is laughable in its naivety. Parrot of Doom 22:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mirror 22 July

Brady is on the front page of the Daily Mirror today. The accompanying story may win the Slow News Day award for the lamest attempt by a tabloid to drag in the Moors murders.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)