Talk:Mary Bell

Life After Prison, Line 45

The content referring to the Metalcore band "Mary Bell" is not sourced, displays poor spelling and punctuation, and seems to me to be inappropriately promotional.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Loiterquote (talk • contribs) 07:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous grandmother?

Wait a minute! She's been granted anonymity, for life even, and is living under an assumed name. So how the hell does John Q Public know that she became a mother in 1984 and is now a grandmother? --Svartalf (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This is sourced to the Daily Mail.[1] The UK tabloids probably know full well what her new identity is and where she is living today, but are barred from reporting it. The Mail would presumably have taken legal advice before publishing the 2009 story. It contains some details but stops short of breaking the anonymity order.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Still feels strange that her real ID and whereabouts should be known to tabloids, yet not have gone completely public... even if the press is barred from publishing the facts, I doubt that private citizens knowing them are under the same restrictions... and even if they are, it's possible enough to do so about assumed identities to the point that the fact would be globally known before the whistle blower were recognized and forced to put the thing off the net... and once the cat's out of the bag... --Svartalf (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a mystery why no-one has ever outed Mary Bell on the Internet, as it would be extremely hard to stop on a foreign website. Nevertheless, her luck appears to have held in this area.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps no one has seen the point in doing so, other than sheer maliciousness.Codenamemary (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Or perhaps, just perhaps, the anonymity order worked and very few people know who she is. Smurfmeister (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Former popular culture section

I removed the reference to the Heartbeat episode because the IMDb plot summary for the stated episode does not indicate that a child murderer is an element of the plot. "Sympathy for the Devil" was 11:17, not 11:16, according to IMDb, but neither episode has this feature.

The Screen Two film Will You Love Me Tomorrow (1987) may have been inspired by the Mary Bell case, but the BFI synopsis (and the non-RS IMDb entry do not indicate this to be the case. The sources which suggest there is an influence appear to be wholly speculative and are not RS.

It is a stretch to say the American Law and Order series episode from 1999, with plenty of horrific domestic crimes for the makers to be aware of, would have been influenced by the Mary Bell case. I didn't check for evidence because it seemed improbable.

While there is a warning against using IMDb as a source, there is no suggestion it should not be used as a means of identifying material which should be deleted. Philip Cross (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate to add such a section to the biographies of monsters? I'm sure Sutcliffe popularized the claw hammer somewhat, it doesn't make it right to have some laudatory section about how he changed modern culture.Ordessa (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Mary Bell was not a monster. She was an horrifically abused 11 year old who committed a horrific crime. In any case, article talk pages are not for the discussion of the article's subject. Paul Austin (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"Mary Bell was not a monster."

What other word is appropriate to describe a girl who strangulated two children in cold blood, then? Disturbed? No, these people are just heartless monsters with no regard for anybody but themselves.

"She was an horrifically abused 11 year old who committed a horrific crime."

My mother works with children who have suffered worse abuse than she did. None of them go on to strangle their peers. Abuse is no excuse for the heartless actions she inflicted on young children.

"In any case, article talk pages are not for the discussion of the article's subject."

Tell that to the people who are arguing for a pop culture section so we can have an e-Shrine to a multiple murderer. These people are the ones discussing about the articles content, thinking we should have a discussion of the cultural impact of a child killer on a frigging encyclopedia entry. Don't blame me for pushing back against people who want to debase wikipedia as a legitimate information source.Ordessa (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Self-satisfied remarks like that make me want to cry. I wouldn't wish her childhood on anyone, and none of us can know how we we would respond as a confused child to such experiences. Be glad you didn't have to find out, and so can be so complacent about your own virtue. Paul B (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

p.s. Oh, I see this shining light of moral certainty has just been banned from Wikipedia for repeated acts of dishonesty. I blame the parents. Paul B (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on adding a quote

Thoughts on adding this quote in the section noting the book Cries Unheard by Gitta Sereny? The idea is to reflect how one of the victims sister feels about the book.

"I have read the book, and it's not educational. All it tells you is that if a girl can kill two young children she can go on to make money and live a secret life." -Sharon Richardson, whose brother was one of Bell's victims.

source: BBC NEWS Programmes - Breakfast | Mary Bell Case (2003) (last paragraph of article) --Vwanweb (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  Not done not enough support for any of the proposed titles (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

---

• Mary Bell → Mary Bell (child killer)
• Mary Bell (disambiguation) → Mary Bell

– In the 15 years since the creation of this article, the Mary Bell (disambiguation) page has expanded to the current 8 entries. There has never been a discussion to ascertain as to whether Mary Bell is, in fact, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the dab page. The qualifier "(child killer)" is taken from the Daily Mail cite appended to the article, pending the possibility of another qualifier gaining consensus. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Better to disambiguate. Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - in terms of the historical view/the long game, the child killer who was but a child herself is most important. We also avoid WP:RECENTISM - that's why Samantha Smith, the child peace activist gets Samantha Smith and Samantha Smith (actress) doesn't, despite being more well-known to younger people. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Mary Bell (juvenile murderer) would also be okay. 08:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support For a modern British person, "Mary Bell" immediately means the 1968 child killer. However, there are other people called Mary Bell with a Wikipedia article, so a disambig would be standard practice.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I've changed my mind on this. Mary Bell here is the best known and most viewed page, so there is no immediate need for a disambig in the article name. A hatnote per WP:SIMILAR is enough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ianmacm: No, this is definitely not "standard practice". Please read WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. There are other called George Washington with a Wikipedia article, would you consider it "standard practice" to make that a disambiguation page? bd2412 T 18:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - child killer while literally correct is also sensationalist and to an extent mitigates and ignores the abuse that was a significant factor in this case. If there does need to be a change could we use The Case of Mary Bell instead? Mighty Antar (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. As the nominator, I considered that the main objective was a resolution of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC uncertainty. To that end, I would not oppose The Case of Mary Bell, any other reasonable title or any other reasonable qualifier. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Even if we assume every person looking for another Mary Bell lands here first, this Mary Bell still gets at least 85% of the pageviews[2]. There's no reason to force the majority to a dab page rather than the article they want. Station1 (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose it appears that this person is well-known in the UK, and "child killer" is an awful disambiguator. (Mary Bell (juvenile murderer) would be OK). None of the other people seem prominent enough to force a move. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Picture

No picture of Mary, Norma, Betty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Mary Bell

Whi were the boys that she killed? 73.45.132.182 (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Details are in the article.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The crime was manslaughter

@Kieronoldham:No, the trial does not clarify the conviction. The conviction determines what the crime was. If, for instance, a defendant successfully pleads self-defence, then no crime would have been committed. That is the way the English legal system works. It may be different in the USA, where I read recently that someone had been convicted of murder and manslaughter for the same killing. This would not be possible in English law. The killings in this case were probably spoken of as murder at the time; I left the word ‘murder’ in the section about the trial because the charge was murder. But Wikipedia is writing many years after the event, and should not mirror what may have been said at the time. In addition, this is a BLP – Mary Bell should not be referred to as committing murder when her conviction was for manslaughter. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

There have been no replies to this comment. Would there be any objections if I went back to the wording of 19:49 10 February 2023 in respect of the use of the words ‘murder’ and ‘killing’? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I have now made the amendment. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Homicide is not a competition

To Kieronoldham: I don’t know why you reinstated the information about who is the youngest female killer, and who is the youngest murderer. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the crime, and makes it sound as if homicide is a competition. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't a competition. However, it is often wrongly said that Mary Bell is the youngest British female murderer, which is incorrect on two grounds. Firstly, she was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, and secondly, the youngest British woman convicted of murder was Lorraine Thorpe in 2010. As with the Murder of James Bulger, the fact that the killers were very young is notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The current wording reads to me as if Wikipedia is saying that it is some sort of achievement to have killed someone at such a young age. Can you suggest a different wording, which does not give this impression?

Also, the lead is supposed to follow the body. There is nothing in the body of the article about this. If this inf is to be included, my view is that it ought to be only in the body, not in the lead.

Sweet6970 (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Sharon Carr is the youngest British woman convicted of murder. She was twelve at the time of the crime. Lorraine Thorpe committed two murders and is often compared to Mary Bell, but she was fifteen at the time of the crimes. I think this could be moved out of the lead section as the lead already makes clear that Bell was convicted of manslaughter, not murder.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: whatever gave you the idea that we are describing it as a competition?! Dispelling the common myth that Mary Bell is Britain's youngest murderer is actually part of an encyclopaedia's job. AUSPOLLIE (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It’s the way it reads to me – it reminds me of things like: ‘youngest person to swim the Channel’ and ‘youngest person to get a degree’ . Sweet6970 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It is nothing gratuitous or something to marvel at - just sterile facts which makes cases like this something of a rarity.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems that I am the only one who has such an adverse reaction to this wording. But is there agreement that this inf should be moved from the lead to the body? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I have now moved the material to the 'Conviction' section. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Reads better in the lede. If it gets placed in the Conviction sentence, instead of simply reading that she is Britain's youngest female killer, maybe it should be morphed into the text there (also) by reading "At the time of her conviction, Bell was eleven years and six months old, making her Britain's youngest female killer" (or something similar).--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not significant information about the subject of the article. It is a comparison with other, unspecified killers, and has no place in the lead. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

the fact that you have a hang-up about the word "record" on this when Guinness World Records do include unsavory records, points to a non-objective personal moral conviction for your objection IMO. AUSPOLLIE (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The Guinness Book of Records is not an encyclopaedia, and Wikipedia is not a book of records. Regarding your reference to Mrs Mary Whitehouse: I have done a quick search on the internet, and I cannot find any reference to Mrs Whitehouse making a comment on Mary Bell. So I can only conclude that you are intending to say that I resemble Mrs Whitehouse in some way. Which would demonstrate that you are absolutely hopeless at judging character from contributions on Wikipedia. Do you have any actual argument in response to my comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)