Talk:Aileen Wuornos

Unsourced, inflammatory statements

I have moved the following paragraph here pending proper sourcing:

During the trial she was adopted by Arlene Pralle after Pralle had a dream in which she was told to "take care of" Wuornos. According to Pralle, Jesus told her to write to Wuornos, and so she did. What Wuornos did not know was that Pralle was taking money for interviews, including one with Nick Broomfield, who paid her $10,000. Part of the money went to Wuornos' erstwhile lawyer, Steven Glazer, whom Pralle hired. The relationship between Wuornos and Pralle was not to last; Wuornos began to suspect that Pralle was only there for the publicity and the money. Wuornos told Broomfield in an interview that Pralle and Glazer were even telling her ways to kill herself in prison. They also advised the no contest plea because Glazer, known before Wuornos' trial as "Dr. Legal", was too inexperienced to handle a multiple murder trial.

I did not put the words into the article but, for what it is worth, much of the information in the paragraph above comes from Nic Broomfield's documentary, "Aileen Wuornos - Selling of a Serial Killer" in interviews with Aileen Wuornos herself as well as other characters involved in the case. I don't know what the Wikipedia policy is on citation but it would seem strange that one could watch the subject of the article say something in a documentary but then not be able to refer to it because the interview had not been transcribed and made available on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I also removed the unsourced statements regarding Wuornos' claims of sexual abuse by her grandfather and her mother's claim that Wuornos killed her grandmother.

Information such as this has to include proper citations from reputable sources. --*momoricks* (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Although she played Wuornos as a sympathetic figure, she made not one mention of Wuornos in her acceptance speech.[42]" -- This seems like an editorial comment. The source cited is the imdb page for the film, which doesn't include the text of her acceptance speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.213.217 (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

More edits

After the cleanup, I realized that this article needed a major overhaul. A fellow editor and I have been working on this.

• I removed the information about her last meal (not notable enough and just plain bizarre).
• I removed the majority of the pop culture references; this is an encyclopedia, not a repository for trivia and pop culture references.
• I deleted her last words and added a Wikiquote tag pointing to her page there, where her last words are located, in addition to other quotes from her. If you are thinking of adding more quotes to this article, please add them to her Wikiquote page instead, per WP:QUOTE.

--*momoricks* (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Natalie Merchant quote

I cannot located a reputable source for the Natalie Merchant quote in the Post-mortem section. I'm adding this note with the hope that the editor who added it can provide one; otherwise, it will have to be removed. --*momoricks* (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like DrBat found this on Natalie Merchant's website. Doh! I feel like a dummy. Thanks! --*momoricks* (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit wars

This is a reminder to the editors involved in what appears to be a minor edit war regarding Richard Mallory's sexual assault conviction: Wikipedia is based on verifiability not fact (see WP:V) and exceptional claims require exceptional sources (see WP:REDFLAG). In this case, the information provided by the Supreme Court satisfies these requirements. --momoricks ^talk 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV violation? & quality overall

In my opinion the following sentence is not badly written but POV:

Some argued that she was in no state for them to honor such a request.

I changed "they" to "the authorities" since that word comprehends both the courts and the governor of Florida, the only ones who could have granted a stay of execution or, the case of the latter, commuted her sentence.

Overall, the article needs a serious rewrite, especially the transformation of the list of victims into a paragraph.

PainMan (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Adopted mother Arlene Pralle?

One of the articles on Broomfield's documentaries mentioned she had an adopted mother Arlene Pralle. This article doesn't mention her. Who was she? Шизомби (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Father strangled?

Both http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/wuornos/2.html and Aileen Wuornos: The Selling of a Serial Killer state he committed suicide. The latter, incidentally, also says she was born in Troy, Michigan; right now this article says Rochester, Michigan. Шизомби (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

Adoption "by the Wuornos family" or "by the Wuornoses" would be correct. The trailing apostrophe is not correct, for two reasons. One, it's not a possessive. Two, it's not proper construction for a plural. "by the Wuornos family" is probably better since it's a little bit clearer for anyone who might not understand the other usages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well...I disagree that it's not a possessive plural (which would make using the apostrophe after the /s/ okay), however, I agree that saying "by the Wuornos family" is a better choice all around. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you're talking about the family, there is more than one of them, and the plural is "the Wuornoses". As to the possessive, there isn't one in this case. But if it were a possessive, it would be Wuornoses', or Wuornoses's as some editors write it, which is a tricky issue in itself. But if you just say Wuornos', or Wuornos's, that's a singular possessive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Since we agree on the wording, this is just reduced to a query about English usage. If you're interested and/or think it's worth the trouble, we could raise this question at the language ref desk. Maybe we'll both learn something new. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree to the new wording also, esp. since I started it all. :) It just looks strange to me the other way which is why I changed it but I think you are right Baseball Bugs. When you reverted me the first time I laughed and thought to myself, 'Oh yea why didn't I think of that!' But anyways it's better the way it is now since readers may have looked at it the same way I did. Thanks everyone, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional information on victims

I added the occupation of Aileen Wuornos' last victim as all the other occupations of victims were there. Tens 1988 (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Motivations

I added information about her claims of why she committed the murders. This is important in the academic community when categorizing her by serial killer typologies and speaks to the complexity of her case. The article said she recanted her self-defense defense, but it didn't talk about what she then claimed. Leininge (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you changed completely what was there and sourced. And you added a source to it that in no way is checkable to substantiate your claim. But in perusing the Journal article, you drew conclusions that were not presented in that article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Media

I added the books written about Wuornos by Sue Russell. The only discussion of Wuornos in books was about FBI profiler Ressler. This almost seems to misrepresent how heavily she and her case were covered by the media. Leininge (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You added the books in a separate section within the article. Books go in a future reading section, not in the main body of the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Murders

I added a summary of the murders. There was a lot of information about the victims, but not much about the crimes themselves. Also, the format that the victims were listed in did not show the clear similarities that exist between the crimes. Leininge (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of the content you included in your summary was content not included in the individual victims section nor in the journal article. Summarizing something that is not there is original research. You've referenced that to an article from the Journal of Forensic Science, with no link to check it. I could not verify all the content you added from that Journal article to be factually present. That would include saying that Wournos personally stole the automobiles, and it mentions that one body was never found. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That is entirely my fault. The link to the article http://forensis.org/PDF/published/2005_TheRoleofPsycho.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leininge (talk • contribs) 06:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

http://metal-archives.com/release.php?id=44624

There, I managed to link it. Will you leave me alone now? You guys simply could have looked it up in two seconds instead of being all condescending about it. You don't understand that your whole attitude and way of talking pisses a lot of people the hell off, stop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.171.1 (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's really too bad that you're making this such a personal thing. It's quite clear regarding adding sources. If you want to put something in, it's your job to add a reliable source. As it is, Encyclopaedia Metallum isn't considered a reliable source, but you know, thanks for the tantrum. I challenge the inclusion of this song. I've seen nothing that supports that the song is factually about Aileen Wuornos or that it merits inclusion that would otherwise violate the rule of thumb from WP:CRIME to avoid mentions of song. It's entirely trivial and doesn't meet criteria for mention in the project. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well you can accuse me of throwing a 'tantrum' all you want, but the reality is you are being pretentious and uppity, and many people would find it annoying. Also its kind of annoying when you do your first edit in 4 years, and some ridiculous person is being excessively picky. I did source to it and it takes you two seconds to go look it up, I was having trouble getting the link to work. Metal-archives is widely recognized as the most authoritative site on metal lyrics and albums and is on other pages. Songs are just as valid a media as any other. I'm sorry you're being so uptight and care enough to revert my edits about 6 times. Just leave it alone and go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.171.1 (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

And still it continues. No, dude, I'm not going to go away. Your addition doesn't meet criteria for inclusion in this article, it isn't even a notable song on its own. It doesn't much matter how long you've not edited, you are still required to satisfy criteria. Your post above is contentious and argumentative. Metal archives may be a go-to for you, but it still isn't considered a reliablle source here. You can't win this argument, it's rule of thumb governing all articles under WP:CRIME. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

And it continues. It would be way easier for you to get lost, right? instead you spend so much energy trying to insist that you are right. I don't really care what you say because MA is cited in other articles. I won the argument already, too bad. Go be pretentious elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.171.1 (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Give it up. It is not going to go in this article. The introduction of non-notable songs is not supported on articles in WP:CRIME. It's really hard to win an argument when you are attacking editors and trying to push something that isn't supported. Try gaining a bit of maturity. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wildhartlivie on this. First off this isn't a thing about winning or losing. The song isn't notable so it doesn't belong in any articles except maybe an article about this or the writer/performer. Your behavior is also not acceptable with assuming good faith and no personal attacks. Please discontinue the behaviors of attacks and rudeness, it is neither funny nor is it acceptable to behave this way. If you want this in so badly, start an RFC or a new thread. In a new thread start by explaining why you think it should be in the article with sources. Then others can comment too and maybe a consensus. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A new editor, Tranm6 (talk · contribs) has created a slew of new edits to the article, including the section "Discussion of Aileen Wournos". I'm really not trying to be mean or rude, but I already cleaned up a whole bunch of very basic English grammar errors before this new section (with the last name misspelled) was created. I am very tempted to simply delete this section, references or no, as it is written in an extremely unencyclopedic fashion, uses completely improper English and most likely contains original research. This is the English Wikipedia, and WP:COMPETENCE is required to add extensive additions to articles. I have notified the editor of this thread, and I await their response as well as those of others. Doc talk 08:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was the first to notice and correct the errors that I saw while I was browsing various articles. Horribly written and in need of fixing. Such a shame. The page has potential to be a great article. Grim Littlez (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Article format

"Early Life" "Murders" "Legal System". Aside from ignoring any logical naming convention, this organization of headings seems to have spawned a total lack of overall continuity. Read sequentially, it's all out of order. Why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.154.209 (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Keith dies twice?

Wuornos' brother, Keith, is cited as dead under 'Childhood-Adulthood behavior' from throat cancer when Wuornos was a teenager and again under 'Early criminal behavior' from esophagel cancer when Wuornos was in her 20's. Are either correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.189.96 (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it's now fixed. Her brother did die from thoat cancer but the first location of this was incorrect. Thanks again,--CrohnieGal^Talk 12:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Breech birth

Aileen was born breech birth. Aileen's mother said it in a interview. She said it affected Aileen mentally.204.99.118.9 (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)