Talk:Moors murders/Archive 17

February 2017
Re this edit: there isn't much new here, so it fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. There is no immediate prospect of Brady being sent back to prison, and all that has happened in February 2017 is that he lost a bid to have Robin Makin representing him. Nothing much to write home about, and it isn't worth mentioning in the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
The case is on the front page of the Daily Mirror today, complete with the obligatory 1965 mugshot.. This time, an investigator claims to have found bullets from the gun used to kill Keith Bennett. Even by the standards of British tabloid newspaper stories about the Moors murders, this is wildly speculative stuff. There is a long history of self-appointed investigators coming up with home brewed theories that are not endorsed by the police, and predictably this one isn't. It hasn't stopped The Sun and the Daily Star  from repeating the claim.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 06:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Ian Brady is dying *again*
Ian Brady is on the front page of The Sun today, and in various newspapers, eg The Daily Telegraph here. This isn't the first time that Brady has been at death's door, he has been knocking for the past twenty years according to the newspapers. Definitely a case of WP:CRYSTAL.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I take it all back. After years of the tabloids saying that he had only months to live, this time it has happened.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 04:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

What does " in incarceration" mean?
Anything wrong with plain English? "He died, still in confinement ..." or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.170.130 (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

He died in hospital, not prison
Source for location of death being Ashworth Hospital, and source for Ashworth being a secure mental health unit, not a prison: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39929538 There are other sources for Ashworth being a secure mental health hospital, not a prison, in the Ashworth wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashworth_Hospital DanBCDanBC (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've altered the wording. Brady had not been in prison since 1985, and he was detained at Ashworth which is a high security hospital. Brady wanted to go back to a prison so that he could starve himself to death, but this was refused.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You changed the wording from "hospital" to "Ashworth". Can we change it to "the Ashworth High Secure Hospital"? DanBCDanBC (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The WP:LEAD currently says "Brady was declared criminally insane in 1985 and confined in the high-security Ashworth Hospital. He made it clear that he wished never to be released, and repeatedly asked to be allowed to die. In 2017, Brady died in Ashworth, aged 79." I did it this way to avoid repetition, as it is clear from the previous sentence, where Ashworth is wikilinked, that it is a hospital. Some newspapers have described Brady as the longest serving prisoner in England and Wales, which isn't strictly correct. He was detained continuously since the trial in 1966, spending 51 years deprived of his liberty, which is believed to be a modern record, although John Straffen spent 55 years in prison.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 07:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moors murders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005031753/http://news.sky.com/story/704613/brady-banned-from-fresh-moors-searches to http://news.sky.com/story/704613/brady-banned-from-fresh-moors-searches

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Brady's ashes
Still no word on this. The coroner refused to release the body unless there was an assurance that the ashes would not be scattered on Saddleworth Moor, but Brady reportedly wanted them scattered in the River Clyde in Glasgow and Glasgow City Council said no as well. Maybe his body is still in a morgue somewhere.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Who cares? J3Mrs (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The tabloid press cares a lot, personally I don't but would like to know the outcome of this saga. There may be some impasse because no funeral home wants to handle Brady; this is similar to what has happened with the Manchester Arena bomber, Salman Abedi.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Per . Also, WP:NOTNEWS.  Cassianto Talk   17:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article cites Funeral pariah in The Guardian which deals with Myra Hindley's ashes and the controversy they caused, so I can't see why the usual tag team has turned up so quickly to suggest that nobody should care about what happens to Brady's ashes. Anyway, it's a mystery for the time being, but would be notable if there was sufficient sourcing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is about the murders, I'd be for removing any mention of Hindley's funeral as well. It's a mystery to me as to why you even brought it up. J3Mrs (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, life is full of mysteries, because someone has gone to the trouble of adding the image File:LowerBrushesValley.jpg to the article. This is where Hindley's ashes were scattered in 2003. Obviously irrelevant according to the two man tag team. Shall I remove it?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Most sensible thing I've read on this page for ages, please do. No need I did it myself. J3Mrs (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Tag team"? Why don't you wind your fucking neck in?  Cassianto Talk   20:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's gone. This had WP:IMAGERELEVANCE problems, because there is no proof that Hindley's ashes were scattered anywhere within the view of this photograph. As for the difficulty in finding any funeral home that would deal with Hindley, I don't think it's completely irrelevant for the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Glasgow also escapes, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Moor link
There should be a link to moorland via a piped link. It isn't a common word & provides context. Also, the word moor can apparently be used to describe a moorland or a fen. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and most people should already know what a moorland area looks like. I'm not convinced that this needs linking per WP:OVERLINK. The article Moorland that you have suggested wikilinking wouldn't really add anything to an understanding of the murders.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Moor & moorland aren't common terms in the U.S. The link provides context to where the murders took place. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There may be some relevant discussion about UK/US disparity at Talk:Moorland. Surely the pertinent link in the opening paragraph of this article is Saddleworth Moor? I think most readers would go there to understand more about a moor. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, moorland is different in various countries. Saddleworth Moor is where the bodies were buried and is the most relevant wikilink here. Moorland gives a rather off-topic geography lesson.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * D'oh. Apparently I clicked on the Saddleworth Moor link sometime in the past & the color of a clicked on link blends in w/the color of the rest of the text. Saddleworth Moor is an appropriate link that addresses my concerns. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Full protection - June 2017
OK, so the article is fully protected because of a somewhat predictable round of reverts without discussion. Non vandal reverts should always be discussed on the talk page, we've had this problem before. Firstly, I am not a fan of "In popular culture" sections because they can be huge trivia magnets. However, See No Evil: The Moors Murders and Longford are both based directly on the case and are not the sort of obscure trivia that the reader can easily live without. There doesn't seem to be a problem with a brief mention of these two dramatic adaptations. At the very least, they should have a "See also" mention because, like Myra (painting) they are related to the case in a clear way.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why can't the reader "easily live without" this trivia? Because that's what it is. Trivia. Where do you draw the line? Who says that these are in anyway more superior to any others?   How does this help in our understanding of the murders? Why not then go the whole hog and add the other adaptions.  To say " is clearly wrong as at least three people here have signalled their opposition towards the problematic ip. I bow down to Eric and PoD's version at FAC all those years ago and would accept them being here (if reliably sourced) as that was the version that sought the consensus, but I'm now worried where we draw the line and if someone comes along with an obscure Channel 4 production starring Christopher Timothy and some woman off The Archers from 1985, who are we now to turn to them and say "sorry pal, you can't add that, now on you go". By it's very presence, this is open to abuse.   Cassianto Talk   09:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No it isn't trivia. It isn't way off topic and both TV dramas are considered to pass WP:GNG for their own articles. If this is going to cause a hoo-ha, I would recommend mentioning them as see alsos and leaving the reader to click on the links if they desire. Leopold and Loeb has an "In popular culture" section as it has been influential in inspiring various films and plays, so this shouldn't be hidden from the reader here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Archers are people too, you know! No strong views either way. But looking at other comparable articles such as Fred West, Harold Shipman and Dennis Nilsen, etc. etc., it would seem a bit odd not to include at least just two TV adaptations, especially as there have never been any full-scale cinematic film adaptations. Are the original FAC authors still with us I wonder? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because they pass GNG, that doesn't mean they are fair game. Having them tacked onto the end of a section is an open invite for someone to add something else, and then something else....etc. Shall I set about adding the other adaptions from IMDb then?   Cassianto Talk   10:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think they gave up with this article long ago, if I'm honest. And who could blame them.   Cassianto Talk   10:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're probably right. But I think those two links, together with all your favorite IMDb items, should probably go in "Lasting notoriety" not in "Aftermath". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Cassianto, if you're counting me among "at least three people here [who] have signalled their opposition towards the problematic ip", I was signaling (and acting on) my opposition to the IP's apparent edit-warring. That doesn't mean I endorse your position concerning the content, it just means that the IP violated WP:3RR while it was being discussed.  If you had gotten there first (and it looks to me like it could well have happened had things continued as they were) I would have taken the same action against you.  General Ization   Talk   00:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well aren't the saviour of morality. So you came here just for a bit of dramah then? I might've known.   Cassianto Talk   03:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.  General Ization  Talk   11:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And you're not, I'm afraid. Trolls like you are generally ignored pretty quickly. Unwatchlisted and it's free now to go to dogs.   Cassianto Talk   13:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the article should include it, I've seen others have this sort of information in them but to be honest I'd lose precisely two seconds of sleep over it if it was removed. I'm probably going to receive a belittling reply from Cassianto at this point so I'm not going to reply further. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think an article on such a serious topic requires the inclusion of material that doesn't add tell us anything else about the murders. Readers come to find out about the murders not dramatisations. J3Mrs (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's problematic because many famous crimes have inspired dramatisations, and it is common for Wikipedia articles to mention them. This is why I suggested leaving the 2006 TV dramas as "see alsos" without mentioning them in the main body of the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd not care to pre-judge why readers come to this article. Coming here specifically to find any film or TV dramatisations seems a perfectly valid reason to me. (Or at least to identify which, if any, are considered "notable"). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)