Talk:Murder of Sylvia Likens

December 2005

On the Jonesboro Massacre and this (Sylvia Likens) page, under Trivia, it is mentioned that John Blake is connected, however neither page mentions how he is exactly connected to Sylvia Likens... If I missed the connection, which is entirely possable, then I'm sorry, but if not, could somebody please shed some light on what John Blake has to do with her?-Jeramiah Windsor 11:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that confused me as well. I read the crime library article on this case. John Blake (born Baniszewski) is the son of Gertrude Baniszewski, who ordered her kids to torture Sylvia. Still, fataltourist 04:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

May 2006

the title of the movie based on these events has changed according to IMDB.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.34.127 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The "What If" Section

I see a possible revert war looming about this section; I'll say that the section is of very marginal interest and even insensitive. I would vote for its permanent removal.--Son of Somebody 05:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - this section contains no factual knowledge, and therfore has no need to be present. It offends me, as I wonder who we are to speculate on somthing that could have never happened. To say that some poor woman who died a horrible death would be headed into a life of substance abuse and further torture is both unfounded and unessessary. Leave it out! --Carmen marie03 15:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tone cleanup

I'm marking this for not having encyclopedic tone. This is written like a story, not like an encyclopedia article. Addressing the reader directly ("Understand, this was the mid-sixties, when child abuse was not nearly the taboo it is nowadays"), for example, is inappropriate. User:Angr 09:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned this up a bit, but it doesn't really matter. This article is basically the same as the crime site that is cited, and after reading the Gertrude page I realized that this one says nothing about her death. That article was just as bad so I didn't bother fixing it. I don't know what should be done to fix these articles. An article about the case might be better, though. 24.154.173.50 02:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How can she be a child if she is 16 years old?!!!!!

I am 16 years old and i personally believe that i am an adult, i live in scotland, great britian and i am classified as an adult so therefore this young woman is not a child. Yes she would be a child if she was 6 years old not 16. Ok? We 16 years old hate being called children, were ADULTS we are mature individual so dont dare call us children ok?!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.71.138 (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.247.72 (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, unfortunately in the United States and many other nations & jurisdictions, people under the age of 18 (and often under age 21) are considered minors...unless they kill somebody or sue for emancipation.--Son of Somebody 09:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I do believe myself to be an adult as well at the age of 15 but maturity has little to do with legal age. Technically you are not an adult until the age of 18. Oh and as a sidenote if you want to be treated as an adult act as one,... "We 16 years old hate being called children, were ADULTS we are mature individual so dont dare call us children ok?!!!!!! ... Does not exactly sound mature. --Crawford15 04:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"I, for one, am appalled and scandalized by this 16 year old from Scotland who calls herself an adult. Are you serious? Is that really what you pulled out of Sylvia's story? This girl was beaten, abused, mutilated, and, eventually, killed, and all you could grasp from her story was that they referred to her as a child? Are you saying that if something of that nature were to happen to you when you were her age that you would be outraged by the media calling you a child, more so than the fact that your life was taken? That, Miss Scotland, is why we refer to 16-year-olds as children. I can see now that you are older, so I should hope that you might be able to see now how immature and completely off topic you really were. I wish these sites about Sylvia were blocked for CHILDREN so the adult of us wouldn't have to run into anything quite so trivial and irrelevant." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.146.123 (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with you! In China under 18 years old is not classfied as a adult. I dont't know exactly how other countries classfied. "We 16 years old hate being called children."Hate is hate ,the true is you are still a child ,especially in your parents' eyes. And,most of the you(under 18 years old )even don't have the ability to classfied right and wrong.And maybe you don't have the sence of crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.56.218.136 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I was raised in rural MS. The things my father did to us was criminal. We told no one, because it would be worse if we told. I am a 43y.o. woman. I understand why adults abuse children, and I think a 16y.o. is a child. Children cannot vote, do not buy expensive articles, do not invest in the stock market, and are easily lost and forgotten. I applaud Wikipedia for bringing attention to Sylia's treatment and death. I think Banisweski is responsible for the abuse and death of Sylvia and the actions of the children who abused Sylvia. As a recovering addict, I do not think being under the influence of "liquid phenobarbitol" is an excuse. What escapes me is why this tired woman would spend so much time torturing Sylvia, unless she enjoyed it.[User-Southern Daugher] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern Daughter (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup and possible move?

Ths article still needs to be better. The melodramatic tone & purple prose used is at all appropriate for Wikipedia. I'm also uncomfortable with the step-by-step chronology of all the abuse Sylvia suffered -- not only is it a bit lurid, it's cribbed entirely from the Crime Library site. I think this would all be much better as an article called 'Sylvia Likens murder', to which both 'Sylvia Likens' and 'Gertrude Baniszewski' would redirect, since there's no information on Gertrude that isn't available in the Sylvia article as it is. Novazembla 00:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've finished editing this for now. I'm not entirely pleased with the article, especially considering it relies so heavily on a few sources (the only ones I could find online). Feedback would be welcomed, on the writing, info, and especially on whether this and the Gertrude Baniszewski page should be merged. Also, I deleted a lot of speculation and theorizing that was pulled from the Crime Library site; I think that was the right move, but I'm not sure. I'm still a n00b around here, so any help would be great. I was a little appalled to see how bad this article was, considering a movie based on this case is coming out very soon and this article is the second result on Google for "Sylvia Likens". I think it's better, but I still don't think it's great. Novazembla 05:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The external links definitely need to be changed to references, a task I don't mind doing, but I'm leary of doing so if the page will be moved and altered. I don't believe it should be merged, however, since both articles will be heavily visited once the movie adaptation is released. The story is also featured on the Crime Library, which is obviously bringing in traffic, such as me, heh. Any further comments are welcome, however; I'll hold back the refs until later. María: (habla conmigo) 12:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the part about the similarity between the "Let's go play at the Adams" because it's ridiculous and it's only on CrimeLibrary, which is rather prone to bad research. Not a fact, just somebody's opinion. Er 01:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing and references

I've done quite a bit of work on the references in this article and feel like it looks a lot better. I'd personally be happy to find other references to put in besides the Crime Library ones and will keep looking for them. I substituted the Indianapolis Star article as a reference in places where it was possible. Wildhartlivie 07:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Opener

File:Seth Gecko.jpg

The Rastafarian everybody calls Seth Gecko.

Gecko is my name... Seth Gecko. Anyways, I don't see the point of a past perfect verb being put after "Sylvia" and all that other clutter including "was". I don't see the point. I'll be changing it RIGHT now. Comment below on my changes. -- ₪ SETH GECKO ^{¥ Give me a conversation ƒ My Contributions ¥|} ₪ —Preceding comment was added at 09:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Abuse & Death... Section

Hello! I have a question about this article. In the Abuse & Death... section in the 4th paragraph, the article mentions a man named Richard Hobbs. There is no previous mention of this person in the article. Could the author of this article please clarify who Richard Hobbs is an how he is related to the article? Thanks! Cijimcb (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is in the opening paragraph. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My heart and my childrens hearts go out to the family and Sylvia

I watched the movie and still can't figure out why a human being can do something so horrible to a baby no matter how old she is she is still someones baby. Mine are 13 and 15 and are still my babies also I am 34 and am my mothers baby. My heart bleeds for what that child went through and I know she has a special place where she is now at the hand of God! That is the only thing that makes me feel better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.64.228 (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is reserved for comments about the article and how to improve it. Comments such as above, while obviously heartfelt, do not belong here. There are more appropriate places to discuss your personal feelings about the abuse of children and teenagers. Sylvia Likens was not, by the way, a baby. Rather, she was 16 years old at the time of her death. Infantilizing her by refering to her as a "baby" doesn't aid the discussion of her case or the advancement of the article. Perhaps you might find the discussion pages on the Internet Movie Data base page for this film a better outlet for your obviously strong personal feelings since Wikipedia is not a chatroom. Here is a link to that messageboard: An American Crime Discussion Board on IMDB. You'll find discussions there that are less about the facts of the case and more about individual reactions to the film. LiPollis (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I really see no point in such an extensive response in regard to a non-article comment posted 8 days ago, nor the need to present even brief retort to the posting. I added a {{talk page}} banner to the page and opted to not respond to this posting. There was nothing more required for a random comment left by an anonymous IP that was essentially harmless and non-controversial. It would be archived soon anyway. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from 2 years ago on this page are not yet archived. I don't see why this comment would get special treatment in terms of rapid archiving or deletion unless you or another editor decided to remove it as being off-topic. That said, I added the comment that I did because the film is available on On Demand through some services and all the articles related to the subject have seen increased activity since the film's Showtime Premiere. I tried to be polite and redirect any other users reading the page and feeling the need to post such highly personal feelings to a far more appproproriate forum. Simply putting the Talk Page tag at the top of pages doesn't often drive home the fact that Wikipedia is not a chatroom. I wish it did, but when it comes to films, it is often insufficient. LiPollis (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of links to the Baniszewski Trial Transcript

I've had links to the Baniszewski Trial Transcript which I transcribed on my website sylvialikens.com on here, but apparently some Baniszewski family members or fans there of have removed them. Is there anyway to stop them from doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Mathew McCormick (talk • contribs) 15:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I am neither a Baniszewski family member nor "fan". I am a Wikipedia editor who corrects errors, such as your adding a link that qualifies as a "link to avoid" as explained in WP:LINKSTOAVOID - please read it. You are not allowed to post this link because your site requires registration in order to read the transcripts. Either remove that restriction on your site, or refrain from posting the link here. If you continue to readd this link without correcting your site restrictions, you will be reported for disruption and edit warring.Mytvc15 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Where

did the nonsense about Sylvia being convinced she was pregnant come from? In all of the books and articles written on the subject, including the trial transcripts, this is never mentioned. I removed it. Can any of you egg-heads site or prove it? Busceda (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other users. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Shut up

Blatant sexist propaganda

Do we really need so much real estate dedicated to Kate Millett's sexist propaganda, when other (and some even factual) depictions of the case have between 1/6th to 1/3rd as much? Why not a short 2 line description in line with the rest of the section? MrZoolook (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How, by any definition or standard, is Millett's work "sexist"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.12.127.5 (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

3 lines dedicated to a feminist author, culminating in the statement that "Gertrude seems to have wanted to administer some terrible truthful justice to this girl: that this was what it was to be a woman."

That statement alone seems to indicate that the author is attempting to justify her actions as a lesson in how a woman is to be treated. As a self confessed feminist author, it seems reasonable that the lesson is more correctly in keeping with teaching the child how MEN would treat her. And with a whole 3 lines given over to it, it's both a sexist view of how men would treat her (odd considering it was a woman who tortured her) and far too much writing when less sexist writers have less write-up. MrZoolook (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree it was excessive; I've removed the quotation. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Gender's role in not getting death

The wiki article reads, "On May 19, 1966, Gertrude Baniszewski was convicted of first-degree murder, but was spared the death penalty and sentenced to life imprisonment due to her gender." but there isn't a source. Saying she got off because she was a woman is a pretty significant claim and should have a source if it's true. Speculation shouldn't be in the wiki article.66.188.228.180 (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Sadly, Wikipedia is a playground for simpletons who want to vent their resentment toward feminism or women in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.12.127.5 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Very confusing regarding John Baniszewski

The Wikipedia article on Gertrude Baniszewski states that John Baniszewski died in the year 2007, but this article states he died in 2005. They both state that he changed his name to John Blake. It seems that Blake was no longer married to Gertrude by the time of Sylvia's death, but this article quotes him saying "After the Westside Middle School massacre, John Baniszewski, by then calling himself John Blake, made a statement claiming that young criminals are not beyond help and describing how he had turned his life around." If Blake was no longer married to Gertrude why would he make such a statement about himself? Is it possible that the author is confusing a son of Gertrude Baniszewski for the father (I'm not even sure she had a son, as neither article lists all the children)? My assumption is that this is indeed the confusion considering this quote from the article: "Attorneys for the young people on trial (Paula and John Baniszewski, Richard Hobbs and Coy Hubbard) claimed that they had been pressured by Baniszewski." The author lists John Baniszewski as one of the "young people"--he can't be one of "young people" and her husband. Additionally, this article states that Blake died leaving behind a wife and 3 children. But he had 5 children with his first wife, Gertrude. This article was very confusing. McHendry (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)McHendry

Yes, she *could* have been married to John Baniszewski, & also had a son called John Baniszewski. The 13 yo son who was convicted was named John Baniszewski, JUNIOR. It is he who changed his name to John Blake so as to not be associated with the crime as an adult. John Baniszewski, SENIOR did not figure at all in this crime. He was no longer a member of that household when it occurred, & Gertrude Baniszewski already had an infant son with another man. The article now lists Gertrude's children: Gertrude Baniszewski, the mother of the girls' new friend Paula Baniszewski (aged 17) and Paula's six siblings Stephanie (15), John (12), Marie (11), Shirley (10), James (8), and few-months-old Dennis Lee Wright Jr. John is John Jr & he is the one who was quoted under his new name of John Blake. ScarletRibbons (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Crime Library shut down

TruTV has taken the Crime Library site offline. I'd imagine this closure likely affects hundreds of Wikipedia true crime articles, in addition to this one, because now primary links are dead & gone. I only happened upon this article as it was linked from another site's listings of films based upon things that really happened, so I'm no true crime expert....does someone now need to find other source for citations since Crime Library no longer exists? ScarletRibbons (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Murder of Sylvia Likens. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010807200635/http://www.indystar.com/library/factfiles/crime/history/likens_sylvia/sylvia.html to http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/crime/history/likens_sylvia/sylvia.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090719004707/http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/crime/history/likens_sylvia/articles/040399.html to http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/crime/history/likens_sylvia/articles/040399.html

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

why most of this will go away

Firstly, the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedic reference and NOT a repository for "original" writing. Secondly, the amount of lovingly lurid detail establishes that this is lacking in calm objectivity. Do people really need to be beaten repeatedly with recounting of the awfulness? The minutiae surfeit must be greatly reduced, on the grounds that a casual reader — the "ideal" Wikipedia user — doesn't need the granular detail that will be provided elsewhere for the fanatic few.

Pilfering multiple journalistic sources is NOT journalism. It is essayism, mere aggregation, a class paper. Fully one-fourth of the references merely rehash John Dean, and these need to be summarized rather than running on at great length. Almost as many refer to long-past television shows (pretty much primary sourcing) rather than objective summaries of those programs.

A random scan of the citations does not bode well. Notes #1 and #3 go to a Time article archive behind a paywall. The Huffington Post page no longer exists (getting a 404 error). And many of the Dean links go to a Google Books (Australia) page where all you'll get is
:You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book.
therefore I declare these invalid, and recommend that all WP content dependent on them be removed. Seeing as others are so steeped in this case, certainly THEY can provide better links, unless nobody cares in which case I'll simply delete.

Any editor who claims to want to protect this article ought to begin by demonstrating the ability to Name a reference. Many of the current 61 footnotes are redundant.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

While I agree that this article needs to be thoroughly copy edited, I want to point out that a source's reliability does not at all rely on its being accessible for free online. As the essay Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost points out, the fact that a particular person would have to spend money to examine a source (such as buying a subscription} does not mean that it is an invalid source. Likewise, the fact that a book is not available online does not mean that the book is not usable as a reliable source. Indyguy (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Backgrounds section unnecessary?

I would argue that the Background section is unnecessary and should be removed, or, at the very least, heavily trimmed. Why this article, among its many other issues, requires a detailed background story of the perpetrator, is not entirely clear to me. Looks like clutter to fill the page and justify the emotional tone. Same goes for Ms Likens part. If there is enough information out there, then Baniszewski and Likens could get their own Wiki entries. Soulman78 (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It needs adjusting in order that the contextual flow of the article reads better overall, that's all. It is obviously her pathetic failure-laden background and the incipient emergence of the perpetuation among that of her older children too which is why a tragic perfect storm was created regarding a decent young girl being at her mercy in her home. This is just my opinion of course.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Clarify date

<COMMENT START>

I don't know anything about editing a Wikipedia entry, so I bring this to the attention of anyone who may be able to address the issue.

Phrased this way, it looks as though the murder took place in May 1966, when in fact the murder took place in 1965. What took place in May 1966 was the conviction of the murderers.

CURRENT TEXT:

Baniszewski; her oldest daughter, Paula; her son, John; and two neighborhood youths, Coy Hubbard and Richard Hobbs, were all tried and convicted of neglecting, torturing, and murdering Sylvia in May 1966...

PERHAPS CHANGE TO:

In May 1966, Baniszewski; her oldest daughter, Paula; her son, John; and two neighborhood youths, Coy Hubbard and Richard Hobbs, were all tried and convicted of neglecting, torturing, and murdering Sylvia...

<COMMENT END>

I modified the sentence in question to make it clear the trial, not the murder, was in May 1966. Indyguy (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Article on mementos of the Likens family

Found an Indianapolis Star article: https://web.archive.org/web/20090719004707/http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/crime/history/likens_sylvia/articles/040399.html WhisperToMe (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

Kieronoldham, why are you re-editing all my edits needlessly back to original state? Your reasons given are more often than not either arbitrary (for instance, why is "Sunday school" an unnecessary link but other linked terms, such as "skating rink," which I'd consider just as common, not removed? I would argue not everyone in the world understands the commonalities of the Christian religion as practiced in the West..?) or just without merit in their reversion? You went back and added the original words to almost everything you could find that I'd tried to streamline.The article had a LOT of run-on sentences I simply tried to break up or rework in order to streamline, while also trying to change as little as possible. Sentences were attempting to fit nearly an entire citation into single sentences a significant amount of the time. There were many instances where what was ultimately trying to be conveyed was confusing and laboring to read. Thewickedfae (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

​Ref: m:Wikipedia:Edit warring Thewickedfae (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring* Thewickedfae (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The books are online (or many of them). You made erroneous edits such as suggesting only the prosecution inferred this was the worst case to ever come before a jury. Even some of the defense attorneys agreed as such saying things to the jury to the effect of "I have never seen a girl so much abused." Also, you italicized earlier instances of direct speech while failing to do so with later text. This article does have 182 watchers, by the way.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I stand by my observations on your talk page. Best regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

What the hell?

How is 16 a child? ????? 2600:6C54:4400:C76:1DB5:7870:A305:92D9 (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

In the United States, anyone under 18 is a minor - i.e., not an adult - unless they have been granted emancipation by a court (which is rare). Indyguy (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Problems with synopsis

@Edwin trinh14:, if you have seen this film, can you fix some problems in the fifth/next to last paragraph?

The plot reads: " Paula quietly helps Sylvia escape from the basement. Gertrude is awakened by one of her daughters and tries to prevent Sylvia's escape, but Paula stops her. Ricky finds her and drives her to her parents, who are horrified by Sylvia's condition when she shows them her branding as proof. Sylvia asks them to drive her back to the Baniszewski household to make sure Jenny is okay which they do."

This is the part that needs clarification. The bold indicates where I think changes/ need to be made, but I have not seen the movie. However, the current text does not make sense....

"As soon as she (note: this is Sylvia?) enters the house, she oversees a distraught Stephanie leaning over Sylvia's dead body trying to revive her with Ricky helping—to no avail. The escape is proved to be a hallucination. Gertrude believes that Sylvia is faking it until Stephanie sadly announces that Sylvia is dead."

I understand that the escape is supposed to be a hallucination. But shouldn't it read as "... Sylvia enters the house and sees a distraught Stephanie leaning over her own (Sylvia's) dead body"?

If you can add clarity to this plot summary, I would greatly appreciate the assistance. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong on the talk page for An American Crime?--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)