Talk:Who put Bella in the Wych Elm?

regarding speedy deletion

For anyone considering speedy deletion, I did a quick search and found this link [1]. So it is a real story. Improbcat 18:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Article and title

This article is almost entirely about the murder mystery itself, whereas the title refers specifically to the graffito. I realise that the two are closely intertwined, and that there isn't a terribly satisfactory alternative (most books etc are just called things like "The Bella Mystery" and such a title would be little help to non-locals) but perhaps more about the various graffiti themselves could be added?

We don't even have a photo at the moment - though that's easily fixed, as many of the photos on this site were taken by me in 2006, and I'd be quite happy to release a higher-resolution version of one of them under a free licence. Once I find what I've done with the things, that is! Loganberry (Talk) 16:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Article needs work - sounds like you have a lot to offer here! My gut says this is the right title as the origin of the name of the mystery is from the graffito. Cutler 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm by no means an expert on this, but live fairly close (Bewdley) and am interested in the case so will do what I can to help. I'm trying to find an acceptable reference for the Stourbridge Theatre Company's version, which apparently (I didn't see it) concentrated on the "German spy" theory, but no luck as yet. Loganberry (Talk) 22:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Right; I've added in my photo. Unfortunately it doesn't show up that well at thumbnail resolution (it's much clearer at full size) but as I've released it as PD anyone who feels like it is welcome to improve it if they can. I have no idea whether obelisks count as creative works in themselves (as statues do) but since the thing is 249 years old I doubt copyright comes into the equation here! Loganberry (Talk) 01:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed the following from the text on the grounds that it was basically an advert:

• A feature film is being written of a full reconstruction to whom bella was, and why she was murdered.

IF ANYONE IN THE HAGLEY/STOURBRIDGE AREA HAS GOOD KNOWLEDGE OF THE BELLA'S MYTH AND STORIES PLEASE GET IN TOUCH, WE ARE LOOKING FOR PEOPLE TO PLAY AS EXTRAS, LOCALS WELCOME. AS THIS IS A LOW BUDGET CREATION WE WOULD ASK YOU TO VOLUNTEER. please see http://www.myspace.com/bellainthewychelm

Of course mention of the film itself can go back if and when there's third-party verification (eg a newspaper article) but the ALL CAPS bit is pure ad and shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article. Loganberry (Talk) 14:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Plus , "A feature film is being written of a full reconstruction to whom bella was, and why she was murdered." is inaccurate because, well, nobody knows the truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.210.84 (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bella?

The article doesn't mention why they call her Bella. Does anyone know? Katharineamy 21:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's something to do with a graffiti quote written in chalk on walls around the area in 1943 which refers to the body as Bella, I think. --Factorylad (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the theories about the woman's identity was that she was a Dutch woman spying for the nazi's and her name was Clarabella Dronkers. There are several theories but that one seems to account for the name used in the graffito. You can read about that theory here. Hope that helps.LiPollis (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hazel / Elm?

The wiki entry states, drawing from the second external link "Bella in the Wych-Elm - A Midlands Murder Mystery", that the tree in which the body was discovered was a witch hazel and not a witch elm. However, on checking wiki entries for the respective trees, it appears that wyith hazels are not native to Europe, nor can I find any information relating to the witch hazel or "hamamelis virginiana" having been introduced into England. Would it thus be fair to delete that portion of the sentence from the wiki? 21122012 (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The claim is in the cited 1999 Independent article. It's written there as "wych–hazel". I seem to remember that the thing about elms is that they're all very difficult to tell apart, and nobody quite agrees how many species there are. (Perhaps it would be safer to say "kinds" instead of species, I don't know.) So for instance I found a book about trees, Silva, written for the Royal Society in 1825, and that book says of Ulmus glabra (the tree we call the Wych Elm):

This sort grows naturally in some of the northern counties of England, where it is called Wych Hazel, from the resemblance that the young shoots and leaves bear to those of Hazel.— It grows to a tree of great magnitude.

The Witch-hazel article backs this up. On the other hand, the book says that Ulmus campestris is the Wych Elm. That's Latin for Field Elm, isn't it? In List of Elm synonyms and accepted names there are four different elms which may at some time have been called Ulmus campestris (I think science has given up on that name as a bad job by now). One of them is Ulmus glabra, and another is Ulmus minor subsp. plotii, from which I quote "As with other members of the Field Elm group, the taxonomy of Plot's Elm is a matter of contention". So it's fair to say there's some risk of confusion when trying to specify elms. Besides being non-native, the witch-hazel is usually a shrub, rarely a small tree, and even more rarely a big tree, so while that's possibly the tree in question, the odds are small. So, I'm going to make an edit to point out that we don't know what the source means when it says it was really a wych-hazel. (I don't know if Joyce M. Coley's book gives any clarification on this point.)

The external link you mentioned has been removed, but it was just a redirect to the page on Brian Haughton's site, and that page is ambiguous: it says in the main body that it was an "elm tree ... mistakenly called a wych elm", and then it has a picture, allegedly of the tree, saying "actually an old hollow wych-hazel". Since wych-hazel is a synonym for wych elm, that tells us nothing apart from providing a tiny picture (of unknown providence) of a stumpy, heavily-coppiced tree.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wych elm (Ulmus glabra) is the only elm tree native to Great Britain. (The English Elm is an Italian species inyroduced by the Romans). The word `wych' is Old English for `pliant, flexible'. Witch Hazel in an American shrub which is sometimes grown in the UK. You could not put a body in a Witch Hazel trunk, because being a bush or shrub it has no trunk. `Wych' is not an alternative spelling of `Witch' Barney Bruchstein (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I lived very local to this for 50+ years. Wych (Wyche) is widespread in the area in place names. A 'witch elm' (locally)is a black poplar, rare, short tree with thick trunks which naturally hollow out but with thin, spindly branches resembling a witch hazel.

Who Put Bella in the Wych Elm 2A00:23C6:C38F:C201:F4DE:63F2:5F2C:8BEB (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Witch-hazel? But that is mostly limited to "species in North America". Who would make the comparison in England? Dimadick (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Vandalistic title change

The article's title was changed last year by an editor without consultation with other editors or advancing any source for the change. The grafitti connected with the case never used the wording "down the Wych elm"; furthermore a 2022 play and 2023 opera used "in the wych elm" in their titles. Retitling only causes confusion. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: It wasn't vandalism, it's a variant. The sources vary. DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The 'variant' appears to date from considerably after the original events. The summary of the 1 June 2003 edit does not inspire confidence. The image provided - and a whole lot of recent docudramas - prefer the wording "in the Wych elm". The present change to the wording of the lede is a satisfactory summation of the status quo, per WP:BRD. Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The image is recent, and docudramas are not reliable sources. The Sunday Mirror of Sunday 02 April 1944 has "Who put Luebella down the wych elm" for the graffiti in Hayden Hill Road. The Evening Despatch Thursday 30 March 1944 has "Who put Bella down the Wych elm, Hagley Wood?" for the Upper Dean Street graffiti. The Birmingham Daily Gazette Tuesday 04 October 1949 has "Who put Bella down the Wych elm, Hagley Wood" for it. So "down the Wych elm" is attested at the time of the events, it absolutely does not "date from considerably after the original events" as a few moments research shews. DuncanHill (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

That's impressive spadework, DuncanHill, and thanks for sharing it. I was wrong and perhaps I should not have referred to vandalism. Maybe the main point to bear in mind is that until the undiscussed change last year, the article's title has remained constant and has informed the work of those who use WP as an information source. The article was created near the start of 2007 and contained a reference then (subsequently removed) to Simon Holt's 2002 chamber opera of that name. The illustration of the grafitti on the obelisk is from 2006 and, while not a reliable source for the origin of the phrase associated with the story, its use was at odds with the renamed title....as are the cultural references, now restored with more to come. What I was trying to argue in my reply to you above was that the name most people now search for is the "in" reading, regardless of how it started out. And it's certainly the wording used by most in Hagley now, like the commentator immediately before this thread. I guess we're discussing WP:COMMONNAME? Sweetpool50 (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Earlier today I edited the opening paragraph so it would say that the original 1944 graffiti used the words 'down' and 'wych', and the variant said 'in' and 'witch'. My edit was reverted and I was told I should read the talk page and not edit against consensus. Well, I've just read the above discussion, and Sweetpool50 you appear to accept that the 1940s newspaper coverage had the graffiti as saying 'down' and 'wych', so why did you revert my edit? NB: I did not edit the article title by the way. I accept that the version with 'in' is more common now and should be used as the article title. But the opening statement refers to the 'graffito that appeared in 1944' so should quote what the historical sources say the wording of that graffito was. Either that, or the opening sentences should be reworded to say something different to what they currently say, which is incorrect. Dubmill (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It is the convention to begin the lead with the actual name of the article in bold and then proceed to alternatives or variations - and for them you'll probably need to offer a source (unless such variations are discussed in the body of the article, which they already are). Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

That's fine for the most part. I accept that the convention needs to be followed. The problem, and it is a problem, is that what appears in bold at the start is enclosed in quotation marks, which makes it appear to the reader that the graffiti written in 1944 had that exact wording and is being quoted. That is incorrect, as there are multiple newspaper reports from the 1940s where the wording is reported as different. What needs to happen is the opening statements need to be adjusted so someone reading that first paragraph would be clear on that. I don't have time to do it immediately, but I'll work on a revised wording. It's quite a tricky problem, because what is referred to as the 'variant' is actually the original thing, which has got changed over time. That change is most likely due to the graffiti on the monument having a different wording, leading to the writers of the more recent titled works assuming that the correct wording used 'in'. The result is that what was the 'variant' is now the more usual wording, but nevertheless the reader should be clear that the wording most commonly used now is not what the original graffiti said. Dubmill (talk) 08:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Dubmill, take a look at the 2007 message here on the Talk page and you'll see that there's an ambiguity about the subject of this article. Without the initial murder, there would have been no grafitti, so it would logically follow that the main subject is the murder and subsequent investigation. Unfortunately, the grafitti have given the murder mystery its name and there's no way the title can be changed. However, there's plenty of editorial guidance to help make the article more coherent, starting with WP:LEAD. What stands in the place of a lead at present dives straight into the subject without at all providing a synopsis. We therefore need to replan the article and explain in the lead what it is about: an unexplained murder to which attention was continuously drawn over the course of a half century of variously worded grafitti. One of the later sections (the germ of which already exists) can explain how the the wording of the grafitti has changed over time - including the spelling of wych elm. It should also include speculation about the possible author(s). To start the article with a history of the changes in the grafitti would be illogical and mystifying. If we can agree on this approach, then I'll provide a brief new lead and, if you wish, you can rewrite the later grafitti section to you heart's content. Another guide here would be WP:BALANCE. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. You are right that it would be better if framed differently, and to repeat, I am not seeking to change the article name. There are many articles on Wikipedia framed as 'Murder of [name]', but of course that isn't possible here because the identity of the victim isn't known. Then you have things like 'Whitechapel murders' as the common name of the Jack the Ripper case, or 'Black Dahlia' as the common name for the Elizabeth Short case, but no such convenient common name exists for this and, as you say, the graffiti, with different wordings and spellings, has become the way it is identified.

Off the top of my head, you could start by saying something like: "Who put Bella in the Wych Elm?" is graffiti that refers to the murder, believed to have taken place in 1941, of an unknown woman, whose remains were discovered in 1943 in a wych elm tree in Hagley Wood, Worcestershire, England. That might not be exactly what you had in mind, but would certainly remove my objection to the current opening wording, by avoiding appearing to say that the bolded phrase was the exact wording of the graffiti found in 1944. Dubmill (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)