Talk:Shirley Finn

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shirley Finn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070629021519/http://www.police.wa.gov.au/MediaAndPublicAffairs/MediaReleases/3232.pdf to http://www.police.wa.gov.au/MediaAndPublicAffairs/MediaReleases/3232.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Move to 'Murder of Shirley Finn'

Having participated in an identical debate over Corryn Rayney (now Death of Corryn Rayney, and having reviewed several similar articles titled 'Murder of. . .', I saw it as an absolute no-brainer that Perth's long-dead petty brothel madam was accorded notability only by her controversial execution. However, the move has been speedily reverted with a request that consensus be obtained. Personally I'm happy to go with the flow, though I will always argue for consistency in such matters. The main problem I see with the article is its lack of detail in view of the large media coverage the unresolved 1975 case has been given in recent years. So, whatever the title, I will be putting my own time into fleshing the content out, as warranted by the huge weight of available references. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The two are not remotely equivalent. Had she lived, there is no way Wikipedia would ever had an article on Corryn Rayney: she was a minor figure in the legal bureaucracy well below our bar for notability, while Finn was a notable madam turned whistleblower; the same very much does not apply to her. A better analogy would be Sallie-Anne Huckstepp and Juanita Nielsen: also famous unsolved murder cases involving people with notability in life as well as death; see also, from the (not-dead) madam angle today, Mary-Anne Kenworthy. The consistent approach would to, like with Huckstepp and Nielsen, do her the dignity of not minimising her well-documented life in favour of a sole focus on her death. I hope you do flesh the content out, though, as it could definitely use some improving. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If Finn qualifies for notability independently of the murder, that is something not presently established in the article. I lack such pre-death sources. I can only work with the post-murder sources. Since you appear to have better information, please justify her notability before I get to work...it will save me making similar blunders by just editing what's on the page. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The article, as is, is rubbish, as is much of our coverage of this topic in this particular era (a very similar figure in Queensland, Shirley Brifman, has no article at all despite being heavily mentioned in a popular recent book and having an ADB article). Making assertions about what in her life is notable based on the contents of a poorly-mashed stub is bad editing, and if we did that as a rule we'd have a whole lot of seriously twisted articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

So there's no sound objection to a well-sourced article on The Murder of Shirley Finn, which has unquestioned notability? An article on Finn herself should await suitable verification. Bjenks (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't be obnoxious. The Murder of Shirley Finn is not a title, and it is only "questioned" by you. Per WP:BRD, you've been bold, you've been reverted, now get a consensus that you do not currently have if you're insistent on trying to go down this path. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the importance is minuscule and dialogue is limited to two (however "obnoxious" either may be), I remain content to go with the flow and leave the matter to the future judgment of others. Bjenks (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Kindle refs

Since I'm currently working from the Kindle version of Juliet Wills's book Dirty Girl: The State Sanctioned Murder of Brothel Madam Shirley Finn, I'm not able to specify page numbers from that source, but am giving chapter numbers instead. These can be refined to page numbers in due course. Though it suffers from lack of adequate proofreading, I recognise this book as a very important source. Wills is not a top journalist, but she worked from time to time at all of Perth's TV newsrooms and is clearly competent at exposing doubtful/deceitful matter. Over 12 years, not having any personal axe to grind, she has contacted and interviewed nearly all of the persons (mostly police and criminals) who associated with Finn or had knowledge of her career and death. Her accounts of those interviews include some lengthy and seemingly pertinent quotations. Bjenks (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

No objections here. Thanks for adding the info in. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I've now acquired a hard copy which, happily, turns out to be a "Revised and expanded republished edition". So I'm reviewing my former Kindle citations and providing page numbers from the updated book. Bjenks (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Witchcraft?

Can someone who has access to a copy of the Juliet Wills book Dirty Girl please check that it supports the assertion, 'She also joined a witchcraft coven which conducted "black magic and sex" activities in Kings Park'. If the assertion is unsupported by the Wills book - which seems to be the only citation for this claim - please remove it from the 'Early life and career' section of the main article. Thanks - Meticulo (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Meticulo:: I have a copy of the Wills book, and here are the references to "witchcraft" or "coven". I have no opinion about its inclusion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"Des says it was his interest in old English history and paganism that led the pair to dabble in witchcraft. It seemed decadent, wild and free, a world away from their struggling life in suburbia.

“Life was simple. Just things like walking round naked and being a witch was so exciting.” The coven mainly met in Kings Park in the centre of Perth. ::Amidst the bushes in the dead of night, they would join others, some respected businessmen, dancing naked in the moonlight. Witchcraft was popular in the Perth at the time, covens even advertised in the newspaper urging witches to meet: “Ever seen a virgin witch – go to the Grand”, one ad read, and another: “Black magic and sex! It’s all in virgin witch”. Shirley continued to practice witchcraft until she died, perhaps fed by her teenage years at the hands of the nuns, that tried to cleanse her blackened soul.

Scherry said the coven was not always as innocent as Des claimed. She remembers Shirley’s distress when a Doctor apparently brought an aborted foetus to a coven meeting for symbolic ritual sacrifice."

...[later]...

"At night sometimes, particularly on a full moon, they would sneak up to Kings Park and meet with the coven and dance naked in the moonlight."

That citation was in fact referenced at the end of the relevant paragraph in the article. However, I have reinserted it explicitly after the witchcraft content. Bjenks (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both - much appreciated. I'd never seen this mentioned in news coverage before, so thought I'd better check in case it was vandalism. Hope no offence caused by casting doubts on citation. Cheers, Meticulo (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Witnesses

I've wondered when it would become appropriate to report details of the inquest, but the appearance of a valid contribution on Rose Black's testimony has made me realise that we need methodical rather than piecemeal treatment of the testimony, some of which is very surprising and attracting plenty of media coverage. I'm therefore setting in place a dated list of the witnesses (those who have been reported by media) with the intention of summarising their evidence with appropriate citations in the near future. Please be patient and allow me a little time for what is quite a labour of research. Bjenks (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I've now assembled a good bank of references and will move to bring the subsection up to date before I'm swallowed up by Christmas and other pressing obligations. Bjenks (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Great work. Thank you, Bjenks. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Cause of death

The infobox has been edited several times today, with cause of death switching back and forth between 'Murder' and 'Homicide with firearm'. How about we discuss further changes here rather than edit warring? My own view tends towards 'murder' as a plain enough description.

@1.42.219.97: Can I suggest you read about the widely accepted Bold, revert, discuss cycle?

@HunMaster: pinging out of courtesy.

Thanks both. Meticulo (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Meticulo: I support 'murder', being clear to all readers.--HunMaster (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It should be 'murder', more specific in it's strict meaning, and a more common term in Australian English which this article is tagged to use. --John B123 (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, murder is the Australian term. Bjenks (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)