Talk:Dean Corll/Archive 1

suggestion: redirect from "Dean Corall" or "Corell"?
good idea, no? Since I've seen the name spelled both ways, and had to use GOOGLE to find out the actual name. 96.52.130.129 (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never seen it spelled any way but Corll. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing I think we should change - or at least point out as an alternative - is his middle name. A lot of news sources contemporary with the event report his name as Dean Allen Corll. See http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,907718-1,00.html for example. This article points out the error: http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Dean_Corll. Google turns up a lot of hits using this variant. Thanks - Kurisu rs (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Many newspaper articles initially claimed his middle name to be Allen (occasionally spelled as 'Alan'). Corll's took his middle name from his father: Arnold.

You can check the internment records for the Grand View Memorial Park and you'll see his middle name was Arnold.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing identified victim names
I have recently been browsing internet sites regarding this killer and have noticed that as of 2008 following the identification of R. Harvey as a Corll victim, there are now only two unidentified Corll victims. However I can only find references to 22 identified Corll victims anywhere I look either on the internet or in any of the books I have on this serial killer, whereas there are now 25 victims identified. I have read that the missing 3 identified victims were identified in the 1980's, but cannot confirm this to be true. If anyone can find the identities of the 3 further identified victims please either add them onto the Article page or inform me of their identities to enable me to add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieronoldham (talk • contribs) 18:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead
There has been a minor disagreement between DoctorJoeE and myself regarding the structure of the lead for this page. I don't feel "the so-called Houston Mass Murders" would read correct on this article as 'so-called' suggests a dismissive attitude for the term (even though these were actually serial killings, the term 'serial killer' was not created until around a decade after these events which is why they were given this title at the time) and also I feel 'also known as the Candy Man' reads better, rather than 'nicknamed the Candy Man'. I have tried to structure the lead to be in line with the leads on other Wikipedia articles for serial killers and 'also known as' tends to meet consensus on these other serial killer pages.

I also consider the ages of Henley and Brooks to be very significant in this case, so a reference to their ages ('younger accomplices') should be noted in the lead too, rather than simply 'accomplices David Brooks and Elmer Wayne Henley?'

I made some reverts on this page before creating this discussion topic as the previous lead seems to meet every one else's approval.

Basically I hope we can reach an agreement on this page, as I readily acknowledge your intentions are for the improvement of this article.

Cheers--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your understanding that I'm only trying to improve the article, just as you are. That said, WP guidelines say the lead should be an "accessible and inviting overview of the whole article." Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, everything in it should be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.  And the guidelines say it should be three or four paragraphs in length. (Please see WP:LEAD.)


 * I think you're right that "also known as" is better than "nicknamed" -- that was a hasty and poor word choice on my part. However, "so-called" does not belittle or dismiss the murders; it simply says that that is what they were called at the time -- the term that was used to describe them, collectively.


 * The term "serial killer" was coined decades before these events, in Germany, although it didn't enter the popular lexicon in the US until Ted Bundy came along. But that doesn't mean we can't use it here.  I have no problem with describing the accomplices as "young" -- but why did you take out the descriptor "pedophile?"  Corll certainly was one, don't you agree?  Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, DoctorJoeE. I do apologise if my initial explanation for undoing your first edit sounded somewhat terse. Having looked earlier, I can see how the lead did need to be shortened somewhat. :)


 * I agree with much of what you say. To me, however, 'so-called' could give the wrong impression in a lead as it radiates too much negativity for the article to follow a given lead. Perhaps either a greater explanation for the incorrect label of 'Houston Mass Murders' to describe these serial killings elsewhere in the article (or very briefly with a different choice of words in the lead) would be apt? I am thinking of the sentence within the paragraph which contains the words 'the Houston Mass Murders, as they became known, hit the headlines all over the world' as a point in the article to describe the inaccuracy of the term Houston Mass Murders? Perhaps a description of the inaccuracy of this term would be better at the end of the paragraph I referred to could describe ths error in the terminology?


 * The term 'serial killer' is already used in the first sentence of the lead and myself and others have not (I hope) attempted to use the phrase Houston Mass Murders to overshadow the fact that these were serial killings, but they were called the Houston Mass Murders at the time.


 * Obvioulsly Corll was a pedophile, the ages of many of his victims alone points to this, let alone his actions before he is known to have killed, but I would have thought that his actions regarding the abduction, abuse and murder of the younger victims, plus his abuse of boys in the 60s elsewhere in the article, would explain this fact to readers, so this is why I removed this edit. Also (and I know this may sound cruel to some), Corll is known for his actual killings and not his abuse of young boys. I don't object to the term pedophile being instated again in the lead, but I would have thought the contents of the article attest to this fact. Best regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * But again, the lead should summarize the article, so it should be in the lead, IMHO. "Became known as" is entirely appropriate, I'd absolutely be willing to go with that.  Let me propose a few modest changes to bring the lead up to WP guidelines -- not immediately, I'm in the midst of getting Ted Bundy promoted to GA status, and that's taking up most of my current spare time -- but eventually I'll get to it, let me know what you think, eventually we'll arrive at something mutually acceptable.  Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think we're already making major progress in the improvement of the lead here. I believe the words 'a series of killings' would read better than 'a crime spree', however. Would you agree?--Kieronoldham (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitely an improvement -- but now we have "murdered", "killings", and "murders" in the same sentence, which is a bit awkward. Maybe a split to 2 sentences would be better. Eventually we'll get it. DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have moved the section describing the serial killings as the 'Houston Mass Murders' to the next sentence in the lead. The opening sentence does still contain the words 'killer', 'murdered' and 'killings' in this sequence. I think that in a condensed form for the lead this will still meet your approval or at least, still be viewed as an improvement.


 * If the third inclusion ('series of killings spanning from 1970 to 1973') sits uncomfortable in the sentence in question then, if you wish, I can equally see the benefits of a second paragraph to be built upon here from the sentence containing the words 'At the time, the Houston Mass Murders were considered the worst example of serial murder in American history'? Perhaps this could be built upon using a small portion of text from the first paragraph?


 * What do you think?--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. Eventually, the lead needs to summarize the entire article, which will take 3 or 4 paragraphs. DoctorJoeE (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Pedophile ?
On this discussion page two editors seem to agree that Corll was a pedophile. One editor says, "Corll certainly was one, don't you agree?" and the other replies, "Obvioulsly Corll was a pedophile, the ages of many of his victims alone points to this" and adds that, "I would have thought the contents of the article attest to this fact." In this encyclopedia the definition of pedophila is, "a psychiatric disorder ... typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary)."

My point being that Corll's youngest victims were 13 years-old which is the upper end of what is generally considered pedophilia. In the article itself, the word appears twice, once in this lead you're debating and in the body of the article it appears in the context of the unproven claim that Corll was involved in an organization, "catering to pedophiles which bought and sold boys" which doesn't actually claim that Corll himself was a pedophile but rather that he was, or might have been, selling boys to other folks who were. The source for this claim, the article culled from the Lewiston Evening Journal archives does not use the word pedophile, so the word's appearance in the article is so far unsourced and un-evidenced. Therefore, the five statements by our two editors quoted above are not correct. It is not "certain" that Corll was a pedophile, it is not "obvious" that Corll was a pedophile, the ages of his victims do not point to this, the contents of the article do not attest to this, and it is definately not a "fact". I suggest that if you want to have the word pedophile in the lead it should appear in the article with a source that says so unambiguously rather than rely on your own judgement.  Cottonshirt  τ   20:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Having given editors opportunity to respond I am removing from the article references to pedophilia as unsourced.  Cottonshirt  τ   09:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Excessive non-free images
Please remember that every non-free image needs to comply with all ten criteria of WP:NFCC. There are 24 non-free images in this article (making it the article with the 18th most such images on the entire English Wikipedia of 3.5million+ articles) and some do appear to be spurious; there are multiple photographs of the victims and also of Brooks and Henley. Whilst the people themselves are relevant to the article it is unlikely that WP:NFCC is passed by many of them, whilst of course the very weight of number of images fails WP:NFCC. A discussion may be useful as to which images could be usefully removed. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking through the content, I can see that of the 24 tables and images, approximately 11 of the quote boxes and images should be removed with little need for discussion. In the case of the quotation boxes, much of the content within them is already within the chapter of the article the quotation box is within and therefore the article will hardly lose the content. Also as there are multiple photos of Henley and Brooks, two of these can be removed (but perhaps not the image of the two together?). The image of the two victims together doesn't fit the general pattern of victim pictures, so this image could also be removed; as could 2 other victim images as the link to their original source is now broken, so they could also be removed from the article? I also think the image of Corll as a child is not the most important image.

The 'timetable of discoveries' table can also be removed? This makes a total of around 11 images and quote boxes. If there are no objections, I will remove these eleven quote boxes and images. Best regards--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)