Talk:Snowtown murders

message: I was surprised to find out there was this many surpression orders around the case and they are still active. This includes canabalism which I have never seen mentioned any where, the only reason I know was a firend who was at the trial told about this. If theres anyway this information can be found and included it should.--60.242.71.160 (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  500+ suppression orders - cannibalism 

message: I really can't see how that map if Fair Use.  BBC material is most certainly copyrighted.  Remove? Shermozle 16:26, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Not sure on what we can say is fair use - so new hand drawn map added by way of replacement Brookie:The grass on the hill 19:4 of  june 1996]
::  If it will be more useful, we can use this completely homemade one (now used in Snowtown article). --Lisa 08:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice map for the Snowtown article. Does this article need a Snowtown location map at all? If the article needs a map, should it be a new one showing Snowtown, Salisbury North, Kersbrook and Lower Light, at least. Does the map really tell the reader anything relevant not included in the words? I think the distances are more important to this story than a state overview. Readers who want to place the towns on a global context can click through to the place articles. --Scott Davis Talk 09:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makes sense, Scott - I agree. Lisa 09:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can't see how that map is Fair Use 

message: ... but I wrote an article on Kuro5hin a while ago. If you want you can use whatever material you want. Article is at . - Ta bu shi da yu 07:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I'll have a look! :) A curate's egg 09:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Added link to the article A curate's egg 09:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure if this is useful... 

message: Did the suppression orders apply everywhere, or only in South Australia? I thought maybe editors from interstate would have access to information we dont't. --Scott Davis Talk 01:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that they can apply only to South Australia. However, I think the effect is much detail has not been released at all. So the knowledge of interstaters on this is probably as limited as ours. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realised how silly my comment was: if it had been aired in court, then it had been released. It's just media wasn't allowed to report on it.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I know some were lifted, but I'm not sure if all were.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm a lawyer in SA and I can tell you that many remain in place, and that some applied at large rather than being limited to SA.  In addition, you do realise that internet material is taken to be published wherever it is downloaded and read, I hope?  So this site is taken to be published in South Australia too.  Therefore any of the existing suppression orders would apply to its contents. 203.39.12.130 (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppression orders 

message: Does anyone have a reference for the recent addition that David Johnson was cooked and partially eaten? I don't have either book, but none of the online references support it that I can see.  --Scott Davis Talk 07:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's breaking news. The suppression orders are slowly falling one by one. Gosh, I don't know if I want them too. It's gonna get a whole lot more depraved from here on out. However, it is only alleged that Johnson was eaten. Somebody, I forget whom, claimed that he found one of the killers cooking his flesh. I'll see if I can find a reference - perhaps on Factiva. Apparently this cannibalism thing was reported overseas and interstate.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1463414.htm --Scott Davis Talk 09:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Factiva was turning up dry.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this was already in one of our references because I remember reading it. Maybe it was not a proper news item where I read it (so much for the suppression orders). Who wants the task of adding this into the article... Lisa 23:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannibalism? 

message: It seems that the various victims may have been killed for little more than their pension money. Police profilers later concluded that the murders were essentially motiveless and were inspired by hatred towards certain groups in society, such as homosexuals, paedophiles and the obese, rather than any specific motive.
This isn't really explained in the article, and it also isn't cited.  Were the victims homosexuals, paedophiles, or obese?  -Elizabennet 04:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment/question 

message: Examiners attempting to identify the remains found them mummified rather than dissolved, the latter being the apparent intention of storing the bodies in barrels of acid. The killers had chosen hydrochloric acid which mummified the remains. Sulfuric acid would have been more effective in dissolving the bodies.
The last sentence seems to be totally unneccessary and designed to sound dramatic.  Unless this specific issue came up in the investigation or trial directly (i.e. someone raised this fact) then it should be removed.  -203.39.12.130 (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I added it because the precise statement was made in the TV documentary I saw about it. I admit I could not find a reference at the time. I can tell you with authority it was not intended to sound dramatic. It is an attempt to explain the aforementioned mummification comment: it speculates about the killer's intentions (though as written is not speculation but just a statement of fact). The killer probably did not intend to mummify the bodies. The person interviewed speculated they thought hydrochloric acid would dissovle the evidence, but they used the wrong type of acid in error. Take it out if you really dislike it. Format (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acid sentence 

message: :Image:SnowtownMurders book cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SnowtownMurders book cover.jpg

message: Is there some reason this article uses the aliases Elizabeth Harvey and Jodie Elliott rather than their actual names?  Mapjc (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aliases 

message: What was Haydon's sentence?  Please add it to the article with a source. Mr G (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article may help. Haydon has faced a lot of hearings over this matter. I'll do my best to update the article with the final outcome when I have more time. -- Longhair\talk 09:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haydon's sentence 

message: I made some grammatical, punctuation, etc. corrections today. I did leave the pedophile spelling as I believe that it is an Australian spelling and the murders took place in Australia.Mylittlezach (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of your edits were the removal of wikilinks. Why? Wayne (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor before you changed much of the spelling to American English. This should be corrected. Wayne (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 1/18/13 

message: My intention is to do minor editing to this article. I have began by focusing on fixing some punctuation errors and adding transition words to connect ideas together. I have also restructured and re-ordered some of the already existing sections in order to make the article's information more coherent. Finally, I have began to add to the article's media section on books and movies based on the murders, but will continue to add to it as I do more research. 
The work I have done so far is in my sandbox, the link is provided below. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions! 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Margonzalezd/sandbox  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margonzalezd (talk • contribs) 16:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edit 

message: I made a little change to the article in order to improve the writing style and some of the grammar mistakes. here is the link to my sandbox of the article: : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Katrina99 I corrected the grammar mistakes and change the writing style of some of the sentences. And, I also checked the spelling. Please give me some advises and suggestion. And I will make my work better. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katrina99 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  editing of the article  

message: This edit—purportedly on "unsourced" grounds—effectively removed much important (and unquestionably factual) content. I have therefore restored the content which can surely be sourced to the trial record (which I have also added, in a Sources section). It is not good enough for any editor to mindlessly expunge this sort of significant content without (a) carefully checking whether any references are available, and (b) seeking other opinions and consensus on the Talk page. Bjenks (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: no matter how "factual" you claim the statements are, without inline citations to reliably published third party sources the content will be removed. Repeated unsourced reinsertions of this nature will lead to you being blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

text: OK TRPoDA (yawn), I'll get around to it before long. Have a nice day. Bjenks (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perpetrators restored 

message: This article doesn't mention any of the victims or how the events link together. An extensive victims list should be added.For some insane reason, this edit was revoked: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snowtown_murders&diff=601731135&oldid=601730963 Bomberswarm2 (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: no, not a victims list. that is non encyclopedic and mere trivia. However someone who is more familiar with the events and can piece together from the sources a more thorough representation of the crimes as validated in the trial would be helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victims? 

message: The Snowtown footer contains four links, all of which redirect back to the Snowtown page. That is quite hilariously useless. Either the four pages for the murderers need to be restored or delete the footer.
 
Slowclap (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete the Snowtown footer? 

message: The organisation didn't exist at the time and the word hadn't been coined. A bit of research would show what such payments were called at the time. That shouldn't be difficult, because re-organisations of government departments didn't happen so often then.
Jswd (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Centrelink says that brand came into effect in November 1997, which is before most of the murders. That article doesn't say what was before it.  --Scott Davis Talk 14:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia article says that the preceding agency was called Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency. I would just call the payments "welfare payments" if no specific name can be found. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

text: p.s. I've just removed the word "Centrelink". Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centrelink? 

message: The article pictures the wrong bank building. The barrels were found in the vault of the building at https://goo.gl/maps/pi3oDkCjGPt
Format (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, mea culpa. I made the wrong assumption on reading somewhere that the town had only one bank. Pic now removed. Bjenks (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong building pictured 

message: It's my understanding that deadnames are only included in Wikipedia articles if the person was widely known when they were going by that name. These are murder victims, killed in part for being transgender, and as such I don't think it's very relevant or thoughtful that their deadnames are included. Taylowrk (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I removed their deadnames (again for the same reason as last time). It is honestly kind of insulting. Spacemarine10 (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it really necessary that the victims deadnames be included? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS

message: Is there a proper source linked that confirms Michelle's and Vanessa's assumed name and identity? Reference number 6 under Michelle's victim article that states she was a "transsexual" links to the court case document, which doesnt mention anything about them being trans, Vanessa's "pre-op transwoman" claim also doesn't have a proper source 2A02:C7C:405F:3800:9C0C:C070:FB9D:52A3 (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trans identity sources