Talk:Parker–Hulme murder case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Murder weapon[edit]

I could've sworn she was killed by a brick and not a rock. Does anyone know which it was?

The movie definitely has a brick, but one of the contemporary news reports on the NZ library site has a rock. ---Ihcoyc
According to this page, which is the text of a pdf of the newspaper report, it was a brick. That seems like a good case for primary source? ---limegreen

the murder weapon was half a brick inside a stocking — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Where is she?[edit]

where is melanie rieper at? (pauline parker) located in Scotland she moved there after she was set free — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The friendship[edit]

What about the girls' relationship was so disturbing? Scorpionman 02:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

there was nothing desturbing between the relationship they were simply just friends but when the mother wanted to split them up thats when there relationship became closer and they needed to remove the 'obstacle' — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Rule of Rose[edit]

I've removed the following line: Do we have any evidence that the game is inspired by the case. The google references I find trace back to the Wikipedia claim.-gadfium 06:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I can attest to the fact that it is, although I'm hard-pressed to find any information on it that isn't in Japanese, considering that's the language the game is in...

Citing evidence in Japanese is a lot better than no evidence. I suggest you reinsert the line with changes such as:
A current Japanese video game called Rule of Rose is inspired by the murders. [(Discussion in Japanese)]
I tried to improve the grammar on the line while I was retyping it.-gadfium 02:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Daughters of Heaven?[edit]

Why is Daughters of Heaven, the play, not mentioned as a portrayal in fiction, and where is it's page?-- (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Allowed to Contact each other?[edit]

Citation #3, that states that the girls were never to be allowed to contact each other is contradicted by Citation #8. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting contradiction. I'll try to find a copy of So Brilliantly Clever later this week and see what it says.-gadfium 01:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. So Brilliantly Clever, p 261, says
"The Sydney Sun-Herald quoted Barnett as saying ... Asked if the girls had been given, or been asked to give, an understanding to keep apart or refrain from corresponding, the secretary for justice said they had not been released on such a condition."
Samuel Thompson Barnett, who we don't seem to have an article on, was the secretary for justice (ie in charge of the prison system) from 1949 to 1960.
I've adjusted the article to mention the discrepancy between sources.-gadfium 02:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

BrooWaha article removed as source[edit]

I have removed all references to a BrooWaha article written by "LW" from this Wikipedia article. The link given was

The problem is not only that BrooWaha very likely does not meet the criteria listed in WP:RS for reliable sources that can be used in Wikipedia articles but that the article in question was very clearly heavily plagiarized from this very Wikipedia article. Wikipedia cannot use text ripping off earlier versions of the same article as a source for the current article.

I also checked to make sure that it wasn't a case where the Wikipedia article ripped off the other article. That article was published on November 8, 2007, and contains sentences like "The trial was a sensational affair, with allegations of lesbianism and insanity." and others that were present in this Wikipedia article before that date.

(Also, we should in general avoid using links as much as possible. One of the major rules of Wikipedia is that we do not link to pages that are copyright violations, and unless the site has explicit permission from the copyright owner, making a copy of an entire page of another site and putting it online is a clear copyright violation.) DreamGuy (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge Pauline Parker to this article[edit]

Pauline Parker is different from Juliet Hulme in that she is known only in relationship to this case. I see no reason for there to be a completely separate article on Wikipedia about her. Absolutely anything about her life notable enough for mention in an encyclopedia should go in this one. If it's not notable for this article it wouldn't be notable for another article either. All the two articles do is duplicate efforts. That article should be redirected to this one, and anything in that one of any significance (and that has reliable sources) should be copied into this article. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I support this merge - unlike Juliet Hulme, there doesn't seem to be enough to say about Pauline Parker to justify a separate article independent of this one; her article largely duplicates content already in this one. Robofish (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. Ask any group of New Zealanders who Pauline Parker was, and a good proportion would know. Given that we are talking about a 1950s murder, the event wasn't just recent news; her being well-known would thus indicate notability to me. Schwede66 19:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I support the merge, for the reasons given. I presume there would be a redirect for Pauline Parker to this article, as her name is clearly well-known in NZ. Kerry (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I support a merge with a redirect. She is not independently notable like Juliet Hulme. TheBlinkster (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


What was the motive for the murder? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC82:E590:6132:4588:E3A8:EBBA (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you just read the article? Schwede66 02:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of reason for moving to South Africa?[edit]

Juliet Hulme had already spent time in South Africa - solely for her health. Her father and mother were both returning to the UK - albeit separately. I would conclude that Juliet was therefore to be "sent to live with relatives in South Africa—for her health". There was no "ostensible" about it, and a more "effectively, if not permanently, separated" was not the aim at all, merely a happy result. Do not forget that the Hulme's had not been in NZ very long, and had no reason to stay. (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Bad link[edit]

Reference #1, Dutiful Daughters is now a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I've linked to an archive.-gadfium 18:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Class Conflict Issue[edit]

Rightly or wrongly, this event raises issues of class conflict. These were strongly hinted at in the film, where they were shown as the real reason for officialdoms discomfort at their close relationship, rather than lesbianism or insanity, which were pretexts. Should the entry include something relating to this. (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The film Heavenly Creatures is a fictionalised version of events and in no way a suitable source for this article. If you have suitable sources analysing the case in class terms, then it might be appropriate to add a sentence or two.-gadfium 19:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Parker–Hulme murder case. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)