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)

Hi there, um, I'm new to this whole shindig so sorry if I make some mistakes. I didn't make any changes to the article, but I did notice the line about her last meal being KFC, while on this site: http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/wuornos805.htm (which was referenced in the Wiki) it says she refused a last meal and instead had a cup of coffee. Uh, yeah. Just wanted to throw that out there for you truth-wielders. 24.136.38.122 (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)KC 17:49, 5 April 2012 or as I know it, 5:49pm 4/5/12

I too am concerned about this issue. One source claims "a cup of coffee" as her last meal, while another one claims KFC, and this source is a film, not a documentary but one based on the true story, which I think is not 100% accurate. Which one is correct? It concerns me because I am editing her Japanese page based on English version. 直蔵 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Based on my research, "a cup of coffee" story is based on an article http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2002/10/09/Serial-killer-Aileen-Wuornos-executed/91991034175817/ by UPI, which seems to be legit. The film mentioned above is indeed a documentary film, which is true as far as it can be seen. On the remark of the last meal, however, Nick Broomfield, the director only mentions that her best friend Dawn Botkins met her at her last meal and it was KFC and french fries. This is indirect evidence, not observed by Nick himself. Although UPI's credibility is another matter, does the indirect statement in the documentary film enough to be a reliable source? 直蔵 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2016 (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)

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)

I know for a fact she had issues with men

I lived in Palm Coast in 1989, and one day I was at the Daytona Beach library looking up info on an old book from 1810 in the "Bookmans Guide to Books" in the reference section there. To my right at the other end of the room i saw a woman in a denim skirt....she had this look to her that made me wonder if she was homeless or not, but I could not tell for sure. There were some newspapers on the large round table that she was sitting at, and a man with a beard came over to the table....I noticed that she severely over reacted to that guy when he came to the table for the paper.....It caught my attention it was such an unusual reaction on her part. She then started staring at me from her end of the room.....I guess she noticed me looking at her.....I just sat there minding my own business for a while, then eventually left the library. A while after that i saw the news report about her arrest on TV, and I immediately recognized the face that I saw staring me down at the library.....Her over reaction to the man going to the table that she was at shows that she clearly had issues with men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.135.182 (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A victim who ended up as a murderer

Her father was imprisoned for raping a 7-year old, schizophrenic and killed himself in jail. Her mother gave her for adoption. Her grandma died of liver failure when she was a teenager. Her grandpa, an alcoholic sexually assaulted an beat her. Her grandfather throw her away and she had to live in woods and support herself as a prostitute. What was she supposed to end-like? A lawyer? A doctor? What were the odds she wont end up as a criminal and hate men? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.216.122 (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ten or 11 years of letters?

The section about the book Dear Dawn: Aileen Wuornos in Her Own Words says its based on ten years of letters. The making-of video for Monster (2003 film) includes an interview with Dawn Bothkins where it's mentioned there's eleven years of letters. I suspect the book itself will be a better source. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Richard Mallory was not a convicted rapist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.140.240 (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Bias

IT doesn't matter what the singer of her death song thinks about her, she's completely unqualified psychologically, and hadn't even met the woman. y'all need to remove the obvious biased bullshit from this article.

This is why Wikipedia's a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4202:C7F0:A12F:214D:AE2D:357F (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Irrelevancy is not the same thing as bias. There is no bias in our inclusion of that statement; as for relevance, Ms. Merchant is a well-known musician whose song was used in Ms. Wuernos' funeral and documentary. Moreover, the statement you appear to be objecting to—Ms. Merchant's only comment on Ms. Wuornos—"Aileen Wuornos led a tortured, torturing life that is beyond my worst nightmares":

1. Is not a detailed psychological analysis;
2. Is included in the article (as part of a longer quote) merely to show Ms. Merchant's reaction, not to prove that Ms. Wuornos led a tortured, torturing life;
3. Is a reasonable interpretation of the facts as related in the article.

Perhaps you meant to object to Mr. Broomfield's speculation about Ms. Wuornos' thoughts and motives ("I think this anger developed inside her . . . .")?  Rebbing  talk  12:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

By "bias" I meant that those sections were included to push a certain viewpoint, obviously she was victimized as a child, but it does not justify or make her crimes ok, and the page seems to be dripping in that.

we'll use the example I used earlier, about the singer who's song was used for her funeral, why are her opinions important? why should they be included in the page, when she didn't know Aileen? the only reason to include that passage is to try to soften Aileen's crimes and humanize her, which isn't wrong on it's oown, it's just that very few criminals are given that humanization in the first place. why should she be the exception? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4202:c7f0:a12f:214d:ae2d:357f (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2016 UTC

Ah! now I understand. However, I don't agree that the article softens her crime or is "dripping" in justifications. Her background, including her traumatic childhood, is well-documented and relevant to her crimes. And isn't Aileen Wuornos § Early criminal activity fairly unflattering?

Humanizing background information would be considered relevant and acceptable in any article about a criminal, not just this article; and I believe many articles already have such information. Do you have in mind another criminal with a documented and comparably tragic background that is not covered in the corresponding article? Adding that type of content where it is missing would be better than removing it from this one. By analogy, some observers have criticized "Wikipedia . . . for having fewer and less extensive articles about women or topics important to women," yet, rather than removing or paring down biographies about men, the response has been to improve coverage of women.

Of Ms. Merchant's comments that are quoted in the article, the only opinion about Ms. Wuornos that we're including is "Aileen Wuornos led a tortured, torturing life that is beyond my worst nightmares." I don't think that's particularly sympathetic. But that's also not really why we have that quote: most of the quote is about Ms. Merchant's reaction to her song being used. I believe that's relevant, and many other articles mention notable individuals' reactions to their subjects; for instance, Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan § Aftermath discusses Ms. Jodie Foster's reaction to that crime at length:

Jodie Foster was hounded relentlessly by the media in early 1981 because she was Hinckley's target of obsession. Since then, Foster has only commented on Hinckley on three occasions: a press conference a few days after the attack, an article she wrote in 1982, and during an interview with Charlie Rose on 60 Minutes II in 1999; she has otherwise ended or canceled several interviews after the event was mentioned or if the interviewer was going to bring up Hinckley.

That said, Wikipedia policy isn't based on analogy or examples: I merely provided them to show what other articles have done. The policy is WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE, and I believe this article's writing complies with it.

As a closing remark, please remember to sign your posts: type ~~~~ at the end of your comment and it'll be expanded by the system to show your name and the time you wrote your response.  Rebbing  talk  14:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)