Talk:Aileen Wuornos/Archive 1

Archive 1

Phrasing

"Although the marriage to Fell was a stroke of luck, Wuornos was too destructive to understand when things were good for her. Wuornos treated Fell badly, getting into fights at the local bar and was sent to jail for assault."

I don't think the above is particualar good nor NPOV wording. An encyclopdia shouldn't pass judgement on what is 'a stroke of luck' for someone (to me personally, for a 20 year old marrying a 69 year old typically doesn't sound like a stroke of luck but that's besides the point). Perhaps if she considered it a stroke of luck it could be changed to say just that. Otherwise (her reported lifestyle certainly doesn't support that Aileen Wuornos considered herself particularly lucky) I think the bit should be changed and just stick to the facts, that is that they married, she got jailed for assault and that the marriage was annulled soon thereafter --84.190.188.5 23:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The "publicity" section at the end says Aileen had engaged an agent within weeks of her arrest to sell the rights to her story. This is WRONG. Her lover and members of the police sold their stories.

This page gives only the briefest mention that she was a prostitute, and the specifics of how that played into the majority of her killings. Seems a bit remiss.

I dont think anyone should be defined simply as a prostitute ?? surely she was a woman who worked as a prostitute ??

And here's a man working as a policeman . . . 67.160.174.24 (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Murder count

Does anyone know whether Aileen was suspected of killing more than she was convicted for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.26.174 (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2004 (UTC)

The opposite, in fact -- she confessed to more than she was convicted of. Naturally there were some unsolved cases that the police tried to pin on her as well, but she categorically denied involvement and there was no evidence either. -- Jpatokal 15:12, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, to be more precise, she confessed to 7 murders, was convicted of 1, and pleaded no contest to 2 and guilty to 3; the seventh wasn't prosecuted because they still haven't found the body. However, yes, some investigators believe there may be two other victims. Securiger 18:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Serial killer

How can Wuornos be categorized as a serial killer? Her motivations appear to have been traditional (need for money and transportation). Shouldn't she just be considered a thief and murderer?

While robbery was clearly part of her motive, there was psychiatric testimony that she was partly motivated by the desire to control her victims. In all other respects of the usual definition ("three or more murders over an extended period of time with cooling-off periods in between; in between their crimes they appear to be quite normal") she fits exactly. A history of child abuse is quite common in power/control serial killers, who often ritualise a related form of abuse on their victims before killing; this may well explain why some of Wuornos' victims who were extremely unlikely to be prostitution customers, were found naked. Securiger 18:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, i too have a bit of a pbm w/ that label. But the advantage of leaving it in is that it provides a link to the "serial killer" article, making it one mouseclick away for consulting and drawing one's own conclusion. --Jerome Potts 18:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio?

The text reads: The majority of the following text comes from Marlee MacLeod's biography on Aileen Wuornos from CrimeLibrary.Com. Is this a copyright violation? --khaosworks 06:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It sure looks like it. This edit [1] by DrBat has multiple paragraphs directly copied from Crime Library. I have asked DrBat if there is permission. Securiger 18:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Balance

This article, as it stands, is appallingly POV. It might as well have been written by her defence team. The victims are almost erased from this attempt at canonization; the only one even mentioned is the one whose character can be slurred. Securiger 18:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Edit it a bit so it is NPOV and we can take it from there --Chazz88 17:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• How was the guy's character 'slurred'? He did serve ten years for violent rape, did he not? --DrBat 15:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, it only mentions the victim who would have been most likely to have committed the crimes she accused all the men of, based on his past record. The article seems to focus on the tragedy of her life and the miscarage of justice (whether her story was believed or heard, whether the State of Florida should have executed an insane woman).

Last Meal before Death

I watched the British documentary about Aileen in her final days a while ago. I remember seeing that she had KFC chicken and french fries for her last meal. The documentary mentions that she had her last meal with the friend who scattered her ashes.

The article does mention the $20 limit, which is consistent with the documentary.

Victims?

How can the men Aileen Wuornos killed be considered victims? They violently attacked her, and she killed them in self-defense. The only reason they've seen as victims is because women's lives are worthless to the US legal system, as women who act in self-defense are regularly sent to prison or labelled insane. If a man killed someone who was trying to rape him, there is no way he would be labelled insane and he would probably have the sympathy of the judge.

Except that you are extraordinarily naïve in your belief that the story that Wuornos told (which is the only basis for your assertion that she was "attacked" by anyone, or that any rapes were attempted) is true. Murderers tell the stories they think will result in the least punishment for them, and Wuornos did, too, though not terribly effectively. - Nunh-huh 22:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It disgusts me that people call into question the validity of violence against women. At least Holocaust deniers are only denying history, whereas you are denying women being raped and killed constantly all around you. When their lives are so worthless, I guess their voices become worthless as well. I hope you never get raped and then have a court inflict further violence on you by calling you a lying whore.

By the way, Aileen ended up saying she killed the men in cold blood when she became suicidal after being left to rot for years on death row. But then she admitted in secret (as depicted in the film "Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer" that she really did act in self-defense. Where is her reason for lying then?

Doubting the word of a convicted murderer is not equivalent to "denying women being raped and killed constantly all around you". You seem to be unable or unwilling to notice the fact that just because something happens doesn't mean it has happened in every instance in which it is alleged. Aileen Wuornos is a completely undeserving candidate for poster-girl for violence against women. As for why her story changed: She was crazy as a fruit bat, and not very bright. - Nunh-huh 00:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe she was responsible for her crimes (as responsible as one be, considering her mental state); however, she was clearly very mentally ill. She suffered her entire life, and saying that "she was crazy as a fruit bat" is very tasteless, imo. Show some compassion. As for not being very bright; she ran away at 14 due to an abusive household and other traumas, so I'm assuming she never got a good chance at an education. --DrBat 00:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Whereas I think "crazy as a fruit bat" is mostly unfair to the fruit bat. And I didn't allude to her lack of education, but to her lack of intelligence - two different things, neither of which is as important to her crimes as her lack of morality and conscience. The notion that an unrepentant dead serial killer deserves our compassion is fairly repellant. - Nunh-huh 01:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So you have no compassion for her despite the horrible life she endured? --DrBat 01:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Many who have endured far more horrible conditions managed not to become vicious serial killers. Using her privations to justify her predations is morally vacuous. - Nunh-huh 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. I'm sure that most people put in the same situations she was in would come out the same way she did.. And I'm sure the people you mention got something Aileen Wuornos didn't, such as help.

Furthermore, while most serial killers are known for the nature of their crimes (how cruel, sadistic, strange, ect), she's only well-known for being a woman. She shot some johns; she didn't sadistically mutilate and eat little children. --DrBat 02:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

She's not well-known for being a woman, she's well-known for being a killer. - Nunh-huh 07:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Her claim-to-faim was that she was the first woman serial killer (which is untrue). That's why she is so well-known; whether other serial killers are well-known for what they did (ie, Dahmer is well known for being a cannibal, ect). --DrBat 15:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You, echoing her self-serving testimony, mock her victims as johns:- Nunh-huh 07:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

She was a prostitute. Her victims were johns. When her clients came to her, she killed them. How is that mocking them?--DrBat 15:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

we have only the word of a killer on that. Minimalize her crimes if you must: I decline to participate in that. I reject your implication that the only vile crime is mutilation and ingestion of children,- Nunh-huh 07:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is; while shooting someone is wrong, it wasn't horribly vile or sadistic as most other serial killers who are famous are. Again, she wouldn't be as well known if she was a male serial killer, as none of her crimes were gruesome or horrific.--DrBat 15:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

and I'd once again say that Wuornos quite properly had to bear the consequences of her evil deeds: her murder spree was not predetermined by her past. She didn't have to kill: she chose to. - Nunh-huh 07:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

She was seriously ill and not responsible for her actions as a result. It's easy to condemn her, but I'd like to see how you'd fare if you went through the horrors she suffered her entire life. She should have been institutionalized and given help, not execution. --DrBat 15:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly a jury and a judge thought she was healthy enough to be responsible for her actions. I think they were right; you think they were wrong. - Nunh-huh 17:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, in Florida. "In some societies, she might have been given life in prison considering her circumstances, but she lives in Florida, so it's no real surprise that the jury has her executed. It's like a sport there."-MrCranky.

And they did a real good, foolproof job at her trial. Wuornos cited self defense for Mallory's murder, maintaining that he had attempted to rape her. She was convicted for this first murder in January 1992 with help from Moore's testimony. In November of the same year, Dateline NBC reporter Michele Gillens uncovered that Mallory had served 10 years for violent rape in another state. Despite this, Wuornos was never given a re-trial. But I'm sure its just a coincidence that the first person Wuornos said had tried raping her was an actual rapist, right? --DrBat 19:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Unindenting a little. They did a good job: prior offenses don't impact on whether one has done the offense presently charged. That's why a prior record is generally inadmissible in court. Even if we spot Wuoros one murder, there were still six others for which she quite rightly paid a penalty. Her story that all seven of the men she murdered were trying to rape her is, quite simply, ridiculous. It's like the killer in Chicago whose excuse for stabbing her husband to death was "He ran into my knife. He ran into my knife ten times." I don't find such excuses in the least sympathetic, but if you do, so be it. - Nunh-huh 01:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall saying all seven men tried raping her, or that all her killings were in self-defense. I recall saying she was obviously extremely mentally ill and should have been institutionalized instead of being murdered, which would have happened if she wasn't in a state run by a redneck who had her killed so he could show the voters he was tough on crime. --DrBat 15:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You may not have said it, but the she did, and the article did, as though it were the truth. That's been fixed now. - Nunh-huh 16:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

First she's crazy as a fruitbat, and now she's perfectly sane? Make up your mind.

http://aileenfilm.com/media/ http://www.dvdoutsider.co.uk/dvd/reviews/a/aileen2.html

It is so clear that Aileen is mentally delusional and paranoid in her last interview, the day before her execution. There was no attempt to give her any psychiatric treatment during the twelve years she was on death row...Jeb Bush had Aileen examined by three psychiatrists, who in a fifteen minute interview found Aileen mentally fit for execution yet she was hearing voices that she claimed were controlling her mind.

As for what she said; when she believed the camera was off she told Broomfield that she had only said what she did because she wanted to get it over with and be executed. When she discovered that the camera was still on, and what she had been taped, she started screaming angrily at him. --DrBat 17:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, she killed several people. That's a bad thing to do no matter what the circumstances. The fun part about self-defense is that it has to be somewhat reasonable. That she managed to get into circumstances in which killing the sod is the only way to defend herself seven times (or how often was it exactly?) is a bit unlikely. Maybe she was just incredibly unlucky, but Occam's Razor suggests there's a considerable probability she might have not been speaking the truth.

Now, I know some feminists think that everything the man does is just trying to put women down, but not every person who seeks sex with prostitutes is a rapist or psychokiller, just as not every prostitute ends up on death row (and I'm saying this in a country in which prostitution is a legal business and the death penalty is unheard of). Even though I do think the United States might have a tendency to produce an awful lot of fucked up nutcases (some of whom may or may not run for governmental offices), I wouldn't consider the self-defense scenario any further, because apparently those people who do law stuff for a living didn't deem it trustworthy either.

The reason the lack of re-trial was considered a bit disturbing was not that she may have actually been acting in self-defense but that she may have been mentally unstable and thus not sane enough to be capable of committing a crime in the technical sense (or at least not capable of being tried for it, when she was tried) -- not like killing people should ever be considered much of an indicator of sanity anyway.

Yes, she did have a fucked up childhood, but that's pretty much a non-issue if she's considered sane enough to be able to be aware of her actions. If she wasn't technically sane enough and the trial was, thus, a farce, that's a shame and I mean it, but as she happens to be dead now, there's no way to find that out retroactively and no point in wasting any time on speculations. Dead people have the tendency to stay dead no matter how long you contemplate whether or not they should have been put to death in the first place.

Secondly, I really like the film. Charlize Theron is playing a pretty credible character (although, especially in some of the first scenes, it's obvious she's having problems with the make-up -- especially the false teeth) and Christina Ricci is always kinda cute, even if the person she's based on happens not to look anything like her (but I guess a lesbian romance between a lunatic and Christina Ricci sells better than a lesbian romance between a lunatic and a butch). The film is pretty emotional and makes you really feel sorry for the fate of the poor woman and the fucked up life that she must have had -- but that's the movie and not an accurate description of real events. Even if it were, the murder of the guy who seems to be the only good human (with the whole "love thy neighbour" shite every real-life fundie seems to forget about) in the whole movie and the murder of the cop who really didn't do anything appaling and the murder of the guy she only killed because he had questionable erotic fantasies (arguably pedophile but by no indication an actual child molester or bad person) and, oh, pretty much every other murder after the first one, all this didn't exactly make her look like a saint either, even though crimes and misdeeds committed by the "good guy" always tend to feel less wrong in films than in real life.

That said, I'm by no means a chauvenist, conservative or any other long c-word I can think of right now. I don't have a problem with lesbians OR gays (or homosexuals, or bisexuals, or transexuals, or heterosexuals, heck, I just don't care what you have under your shirt, skirt or panties, or whom you screw -- as long as you do it with mutual consent) and I don't even find lesbianism particularily sexy or gay-...ism particularily nasty. I don't think the death penalty is a particularily good concept (but maybe it's just its application that sucks so bad) and I do believe she might have come off a lot better in a legal system giving her a more considerate benefit of doubt.

The whole mess is pretty sad, but life just happens to be incredibly unfair and cruel, even though the occassional high points and nude scenes help selling it. She was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of several men (and please spare me any demonisation of prostitution and what it does to women -- that would carry this whole discussion REALLY off topic) who may or may not have (intended to or have actually) had sex with her and/or tried to rape and/or attack her, that's pretty much the accepted reality. The exact specifics about her mental state are disputed, but she was never re-tried. That's also accepted reality. In other words, the whole thing smells a bit fishy, but not any more than your average US trial.

There's not an awful lot anyone can do to fix this mess up retroactively, so the energy of all the feminists and other nutjobs (note that I'm talking about feminists in the "women (should) rule, men suck" sense, not normal egalitarians) would be better spent on preventing future cases like this by doing something useful, like, I don't know, try to fix the US legal system or something. Maybe try to legalise prostitution so prostitutes who become rape victims can actually go to the police -- or try to find the root cause of this kind of problems rather than fighting the consequences and symptoms. (Sorry for the long rant, though) — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 02:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

1)I believe the first guy did try raping her, but the others didn't.

2) The reason why Selby wasn't 'butch' like her real life counterpart Tyria Moore is because Moore is still alive, and could sue them or something. Besides that, Monster was as accurate to what really happened as they could be.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say,as far as the article goes, though. --DrBat 15:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Bat, you're going to have to accept the fact that attributed, referenced opinons can't be excluded from the article simply because you disagree with them. - Nunh-huh 04:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro is just that, an intro. And the info you put up there misleadingly makes it look like she wasn't mentally ill, even though that obviously wasn't the case. You yourself said that she "was crazy as a fruit bat"; the fact that you're now trying to say she was mentally fit enough to be executed is very hypocritical. --DrBat 12:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)--DrBat 12:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the article, which is not to convey how I feel, and not to convey how you feel, but to portray how people on all sides of the issue feel, and to convey facts. You began the "reform" of the intro by adding that she was executed "despite protests" which requires the addition of the opposing views. You were not content with the removal of the "despite protests" clause, so they were added. You have repeatedly removed attributed, referenced opinions because you disagree with them (not because you disagree with their placement in the article, for you removed them rather than moved them!), and this is inappropriate. In fact, Wuornos's execution was notable because there was so little protest, probably because she was such an obnoxious human who alienated those who might otherwise have been sympathetic. The real Wuornos was unsympathetic: sympathy seems to have been engendered primarily by the fictional "movie" Wuornos. - Nunh-huh 01:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

My sympathy is due to the horrible, tortured life she had. It was there before the movie was made. She was obviously mentally ill; the information you put there misleadingly makes it seem that she wasn't. --DrBat 03:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Your latest edits - eliminating documented and cited facts from the introduction because you don't like them, citing that they are dealt with elsewhere, without moving the citations, but rather simply deleting them, verge on bad faith. You need to recognize that the article should not be advocating your beliefs: this should not be either a condemnation nor a nomination for sainthood. I've removed your editorializing from the intro, and placed the information you've been deleting elsewhere in the article. - Nunh-huh 05:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Could it be because you've described her to be obnoxious and as crazy as a fruitbat, and yet are painting the article with selective quotes she said, when she was suicidal and desperate to be executed after spending 12 years on death row, to make it look like she was mentally fit (despite the massive evidence to the contrary) to justify Jeb Bush executing her? --DrBat 18:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The idea that your viewpoint is right and that the article should be prejudiced towards it is not appropriate. I am merely adding additional information that conflicts with your viewpoint: that's appropriate. You are removing information that conflicts with your viewpoint: that is not appropriate. Perhaps we should request comment on the state of balance in the article. - Nunh-huh 01:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no question as to whether or not she was mentally ill. Whether she deserved to be executed or not is a matter of opinion, but whether or not she was mentally ill is a matter of fact. Trying to imply she wasn't mentally ill, as you are doing, is wrong. --DrBat 14:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Your notion of what I'm doing doesn't correspond to my notion of what I'm doing. I'd once again suggest: don't remove information just because you don't like it. I've asked for further input: I'd suggest waiting until other parties are heard from. - Nunh-huh 03:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If I recall, in disputes like these you're supposed to leave it at the earlier version until the dispute is solved. --DrBat 10:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not so, there's no such rule. I think it's truer to say that you don't do deletions of cited, attributed material without obtaining consensus. And you need to stop making ad hominem arguments, expecially in your edit summaries, and address the substance of your desired deletions and privileging of your viewpoint by placing it alone in the intro. - Nunh-huh 22:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, you need to discuss your desired changes rather than repeatedly making them accompanied by ad hominem edit summaries. Also please be certain not to revert 4 times in one day, lest you fall afoul of the WP:3RR - Nunh-huh 23:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If I've done 3RR, then you have as well.

And what did I say that wasn't true? You've repeatedly shown your bias against Wuornos, and your unwillingness to accept the fact that she was mentally ill (something which shouldn't even be up for discussion; it's not an opinion or viewpoint that she was seriously mentally ill, it's fact).

Not to mention your sloppy grammar and punctuation errors... --DrBat 00:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to recheck your math, by the way, on the 3RR, as you've violated it and I have not. Well, if you don't want to discuss the changes to the article, but only make snide comments about me, that's the way it will have to be. I've marked it as biased; when you're ready to discuss your changes, I'll be here. - Nunh-huh 01:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm counting more than three reverts in 24 hours from you... --DrBat 02:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Still not interested in discussing the bias in the article as you prefer it then? Two places we might begin: why does your version contain details about which song Wuornos had played at her funeral, yet doesn't include even the names of all the people she killed? And why does your version contain editorializing about "despite protests" in the introduction? - Nunh-huh 02:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to include the names of her victims. I don't care.

As for bias; you've referred to Aileen as 'evil', 'obnoxious' and 'crazy as a fruit bat.' You mean to tell me that isn't bias? And the fact that you're trying to make it look like she wasn't mentally ill, when you stated she was 'crazy as a fruitbat', just reeks of hypocrisy. She WAS seriously mentally ill; stating it is not 'editorializing'.--DrBat 14:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't care if the names of her victims are included? They are clearly needed in an informative article! Why did you repeatedly remove them, then? And I reject your mischaracterization of what I am "trying to make it look like". Further, one is free to express opinions on a talk page. Your opinion that she was "seriously mentally ill" (which you hold as a firm belief despite never having spent as much as 15 minutes of time interviewing her) on this page doesn't disqualify you from editing her article. - Nunh-huh 15:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand how people can state as fact that she was "mentally ill", when a team of psychologists examined her and fond her competent. While they are state appointed for the purpose, the fact that there are three who attested to her sanity is compelling enough that one cannot state unequivocally she is crazy. She may be wicked and crazy, or just crazy, or just wicked. But please do not state as fact that she is crazy as if everybody agrees.

Oh please; they interviewed her for only fifteen minutes so they could say she was fit and go on and execute her. She believed her mind was being controlled by radio waves and that she would be taken away by angels on a space ship. She obviously had serious and severe psychological problems. [2] --DrBat 15:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Your 15 minute interview was more like 30 minutes, which is more than enough time to determine what they had to determine: that she knew that she'd die when executed, and that she understood what crimes she is being executed for. This is something that you've also removed repeatedly from the article: why? By the way, saying you believe your mind is being controlled by radio waves isn't the same as actually believing your mind is being controlled by radio waves. - Nunh-huh 15:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The link I posted wasn't the interview Bush's people gave her, it was the interview Broomfield gave her; Bush's people interviewed her for 15 minutes and judged her to be mentally fit, despite the fact that she was clearly delusional. And it wasn't like she was saying she was mentally ill to get out of being executed; she deliberately pushed to get herself executed, and denied multiple times that she was crazy (as most people who are mentally ill don't realize it themselves).--DrBat 17:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I watched the video Dr.Bat provided, but it does not attest to her mental state when she committed the crimes, it only addresses her state several years later. I once again disagree with your view, and state that not everybody thinks she was unfit to stand trial or receive the punishment she received. I do believe she had a childhood detrimental to a helathy view of the world, and that her ability to live what we might generally view a normal and helathy life would be difficult. I also think she chose a wicked lifestyle, and could not reconcile that with what she knew intrinsically to be true principles of healthy living. The fact that she seemed concerned about "getting right with God" implies that she knew what a right path would be, but she had not taken that path. Her mental difficulties result from that, and therefore would have been resolved could she have resolved that issue. --Howardd21

She chose a "wicked lifestyle"? What are you trying to get at? What lifestyle?

And why is it so hard to accept the fact that she was mentally ill, considering the hellish life she had? Just because some people with horrible lives managed to overcome them doesn't mean it's unusual for someone to snap after enduring a lifetime of suffering and abuse. At one point in her life (before she became a killer), she attempted to kill herself by shooting herself in the stomach. --DrBat 17:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes - she chose her lifestyle - one of self love and lack of care for others. At the expense of oversimplifying, her adult life measured in the whole is a testimony to seeking her own gratification. I have no doubt that the seeds of this were sewn in her childhood and poor examples from everybody around her; but that does not negate the fact that this is the way she acted, and that she on many occasions acknowledged the wrongness of it. She knew right from wrong, and she had chosen wrong. That is a wicked lifestyle that no lasting society can stand with. Let me also state that the “johns” are equally seeking self-gratification at the expense of anybody who may rely upon them (e.g. family), and the prostitutes they consort with. In other words, people thinking of self is a wicked, wrong, unloving approach to life. Her actions describe externally the extent she had gone to internally with that. If you do not believe that people are to be held responsible in love that is your choice; but that is not a sustainable architecture for a culture. --Howardd21

Umm... it was the other way around; no one loved her. And she did love her girlfriend, but I'd guess you'd consider that to be a 'wicked lifestyle' as well. In fact, she confessed to her crimes in the first place so her girlfriend wouldn't get in trouble for what she did (though unbeknownst to her, her girlfriend was secretly working with the cops against her). --DrBat 18:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge(d) that she received very little love and concern from others, especially in her important formative years. But her love for her girlfriend was also a manifestation of self love – she did things for her girl friend so she would not leave her, emotionally or physically. When Aileen chose to kill a john for the “love” of Tyria Moore who was using Aileen, is nothing more than an attempt to maintain control and use of Tyria. Had she been more caring for everybody around her, and less caring of herself, would she have killed as she did? I think we agree that Aileen received little love, and I would hope we agreed she showed little. I am simply expressing the thought that it was her choice to do so, as a fulfillment of love for self rather than others. That is a wicked lifestyle, and no culture can be sustainable that does not demand that it cease. As we can clearly see, it propagates from generation to generation, and person to person when unchecked by the twin pillars of love and discipline.--Howardd21

Gee, I'm glad everyone here sees the world in black and white.

Aileen confessed to her crimes so Tyria wouldn't get in trouble for what she did. I'm sure her love for Tyria was more deeper than you make it out to be.

And seeing as how Aileen tried killing herself once, I'm sure she had more self-loathing than self-love. --DrBat 19:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I would view suicide is really the ultimate self love – it is saying “the world is not treating me the way I deserve to be treated, so it will not be blessed with my presence”. Only a person who truly loves themselves would be able to do that, regardless of the impact to others. --Howardd21

And ignore the part about her confessing to save her girlfriend... --DrBat 20:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not ignoring her confession – I am consistent with my stance that it is still an act meant to save the relationship she valued – not the person on the other side of the relationship. Simply put: she confessed to save the relationship not the girlfriend. If she valued the person on the other side of the relationship she would seek for her a better way of life; one of self-capability rather than dependence upon Aileen. What she fostered was a dependence; not a better person. Why would she be any different in her confession? It is consistent with her life to that point. Please do not ignore my point below that it is not a universal stance that she was mentally incompetent and that the victims names should be listed. --Howardd21

Not one thing is universally held by everyone; not even that all races or genders are equal.

And according to you, any kind act for a loved one is actually selfish. Get off your high horse. --DrBat 23:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, and more on point – her victims names should be listed on the Wiki, and it is not universally held that she was mentally incompetent to stand trial.--Howardd21

It's pretty obvious for anyone who has a brain that she had severe psycological issues and was severely mentally ill. But I guess it's easier to say she was perfectly sane because that makes it easier to excuse Jeb executing her to show the voters he was tough on crime. --DrBat 19:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I will not respond to the ad hominem attack or the political overtones; just restate my view that it is not universally held that she was mentally incompetent to stand trial, and that the victims' names should be part of the wiki, without which this account is not really relevant, since that is in fact what she was known for. --Howardd21

Now we need to discuss why DrBat feels that "despite protests that she was not fit to be executed due to her mental illness," is appropriate in the introduction. It suggests that said (unreferenced) protests should have been determinative, and so gives only one side of a question that is disputed. I'll wait for [1] a citation as to what "protests" took place, and [2] justification for presenting only one (unattributed and uncited) opinion in the introduction before proceding to its removal. But as NPOV is not negociable, either it must go or all views must be represented: we cannot privilege one view by presenting it prominently as unopposed. - Nunh-huh 02:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Without valid citation that is not appropriate for the wiki. --Howardd21

Done. --DrBat 19:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

All of the sources with the exception of the last one to some degree or another have a political bent which brings to question their reliability in this context. I am fairly new here, but my review of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_sources indicates a problem with some or all of these sources. In one case, the main page on the site states a death row inmate was ‘exonerated’ because he received a new trial. That is not exoneration in a legal or language sense, it is a new trial and the possibility of exoneration exists, bit has not happened. This site would appear to not be reliable (http://www.oranous.com/). I suppose if these sites are cited, then Rush Limbaugh’s site is also valid. Or perhaps this one: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin022504.asp I do not believe these links warrant the inclusion of the statement made in the opening paragraph. Perhaps a later section named "Controversy" would be appropriate to list these concerns. Howardd21 02:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• The first citation from http://www.prisonpotpourri.com/EXECUTED/Wuornos/KRT%20Wire%20%2010-08-2002%20%20Execution%20set%20Wednesday%20for%20female%20serial%20killer.html does not state anything about a protest being done. It does cite an attorney stating that he was “convinced of Ms. Wuornos' mental illness”, but no protest.
• The second link is to a biased political organization (CCADP) that protests every death penalty.
• The third link also makes no mention of a protest. It indicates her attorney was fired, but does not cite any mental illness or protest.
• The fourth link is also from a biased source, but is on point.
• The fifth link is biased, but on point.
• The sixth link is on point.

--- The links to advocacy site simply highlight the POV problem: there's no reason to discuss "protests" in the introductory section. And none of the referenced websites actually refer to any actual protests, unless by "protest" you mean "someone who doesn't like executions has expressed that opinion". The "despite" clause and its refs need to be placed elsewhere; I'll let DrBat suggest a spot before I move it. - Nunh-huh 05:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Howardd21 19:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

While the second link is against the death penalty, all it did was post articles from various newspapers about Aileen, such as the Miami Herald. --DrBat 00:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked again at the second link, it does not even use the word "protest" in the page. Given that none of the other links were defended, it is not reasonable to include reference to any protest in the introduction. Nunh-huh - I am strongly in favor of your creating a new section called "controversy" or whatever is appropriate and move the statements DrBat makes there. --Howardd21 19:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Ohio Resident Asks to File Appeal on Behalf of Aileen Wuornos". --DrBat 21:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank for the pointer; but it still is (IMHO) inappropriate in the introduction section. It is simply a disagreement about the purpose of the article as far as I can tell. We are asking to create another section titled "controversy" or similarly named to address this. DrBat - Will you concur? --Howardd21 02:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I'll be ok with a separate section on the controversy over whether or not she should have be executed. --DrBat 03:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you DrBat. Nunh-huh can you create this and move the items from the intro to there? then we can all contribute as needed and agreed. --Howardd21 20:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Since now some time has gone by, I'll make the changes needed. If DrBat wants to start a "debate" section, he can. - Nunh-huh 22:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As discussed previously, "despite" is inappropriate in the initial paragraph: it implies that the following opinion should be dispositive, and as such is an unattributed point of view. It's completely unacceptable. - Nunh-huh 00:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the final sentence of the first paragraph and associated links to the Execution section. I believe we have all agreed this was the correct place. Also, to be consistent with the review above of the links, I removed two of them that were off point. The others were retained that may be from biased sites but are consistent with the statement that there were protests. - Howardd21 11:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Confusion about final Broomfield interviews

"In her final interview before her execution... When she discovered the camera was still on, she became hysterical and was led away." The events this paragraph refers to actually take place over two different interviews. I also think the paragraph distorts the reason for her rage in the latter interview. In the film's penultimate interview, where Broomfield secretly records her "confession" from behind the glass, she's all smiles at the end (I think this is the one where she says "I love you Nick" as she leaves). The hysterical outburst is in the next interview, her final one. She describes herself as a "rape victim", he implies that she has contradicted herself and asks her what really happened, she sees her fasttrack execution under threat, and raves about press manipulation. There's no indication that she ever knows about his betrayal in the previous interview. I wanted to check that I wasn't alone in interpreting it like this before I made any changes. --80.189.250.66 09:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

i dont know what your name is who has writen above me but you are correct about the interviews because she was only angry in the last interview with nick broom field because, like you said, she felt that her execution might be affected if she changed her story. when you look at the reason she wanted execution, its really quite sad because after all she had been through in her life, all she wanted to do in the end was die, it was her way of commiting suicide i guess. she was betreyed by everyone that was close to her and her only real friend was Dawn Botkins who was with Aileen when she had her last meal. she was never going to get out of prison and she knew it and she didn't want to spend the rest of her life in a 6 by 8 cell with nothing but her thoughts and 12 years of that had already taken its toll on her mind and if i was her i would have done the same thing. i find her life so interesting and im always feeling sorry for what she had to go through because everyday was a long grinde to survive. she was a stronger person than i would ever be.

I have edited that section of the Wuornos page to accurately reflect what happens in Broomfield's documentary. DRoninLA 11:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)DRoninLa

Copyediting for Clarity, Additional External Links

I just fixed some minor spelling errors on this article. I would like to copyedit some of the run-on sentences in this article for clarity without changing the meaning in any way. This article is dense with information! I would also like to see an external link to the Opera Wuornos http://www.wuornos.org and something about the opera in the music section. I don't think I should be the one to add anything about the opera, though, because I consulted on their program insert/links page. The opera was awesome, so I'm biased. Carla Lucero, the composer and librettist, didn't take a position on Aileen's guilt or innocence by the way. I'd also like to see a link to Nick Broomfield's second movie Aileen--Life and Death of a Serial Killer http://www.aileenfilm.com

I am not interested in debating Aileen's guilt or innocence. PTSD is a mental illness. After 20 years of peer counseling,I've yet to meet a single incest survivor who didn't suffer from PTSD, so I'm not interested in debating whether she was mentally ill, either. I'm just interested in copyediting and adding to the facts.Berkeleysappho 08:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of this article is either unsourced or the links are irrelevant

The reference must actually demonstrate where the material comes from so readers can check for themselves. Just having links to Aileen Wuornoes articles does not count if the links do not specifically reference the information in the article that is being cited. See Wikipedia's Polices:

Policies

• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Citing sources

KarenAnn 23:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Then we have our work cut out for us. I would like to see this article brought up to code.Berkeleysappho 08:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Copy-edit

I have copy-edited the article and beleive that it reads pretty well now so I am removing the copy-edit tag. I have also rmeoved the extra {{reference}} tags, as it is stated at the top. Furthermore I have gone through and removed the unnecessary links in accordance with Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. JenLouise 07:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Tone

I've replaced the inappropriate tone banner, as someone else had removed it. Until this article gets a really thorough scrubbing, and lines like Wuornos was too destructive to know when things were good for her are fixed, the tag should stay.

   Fixed the paragraph about her insanity examination.  The entire artice does need a good scrubbing, I started with what jumped out at me first.  Tag should stay, as stated above.  Anacita 07:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

References

I rewrote the references using predefined templates and fixed some minor markup stuff here and there. However, I did not verify the content of all referenced articles. I also removed the following links from the article: [3] [4][5][6], they were placed at the bottom of "Execution and last words" section. Maybe someone wanted to use them as references, so see if you can reference them. --Bruce 09:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

When she loses her temper she does look like a "monster" and is quiet scary. But as the time passes it becomes more than obvious that the woman is not sane. Her story changes and her original plea of self-defense becomes cold-blooded murder and then she changes her tale back again. She suffers from paranoia and begins to think the police knowingly allowed her to murder in order to clean up abusive men from the streets of Florida. Wournos attempts to explain how the prison is rigged with sound waves in order to destroy her brain.....here is where I lost it. This woman suffered her entire life and while I do not agree with her resorting to murder to appease her own weary soul I do feel our justice system owed her better treatment. Should insanity be punished by death? I questioned my own thoughts on the death penalty for days after watching this film.

Wournos was supposed to have been given a psychiatric evaluation by 3 doctors a day before her execution. As an ordinary lay person I was able see peaks and troughs visible in attitudes and personality. There was rage followed by an instance of a normal outlook. The flicking of her head as her thoughts pour out an egocentric feeling of injustice despite her crimes. She did it, but she didn't. I only saw moments of deceit, in amongst the loss of reality. The lady was clearly mentally effected. Where does reality begin and justice commence in such a sad and abhorrent case?

Her crimes were merciless, but the reports indicate, abuse, bad treatment, blows to the ego and poverty. Wournos deserved some pity, a life in an institution paid for by the society that didn't see her coming. Was the death penalty correct in this case. Well ask the victim's families after they saw the interviews of this sad lady. I will take their vote on the chin. Mine would be thumbs up anyway, for the instituation, that would keep her clean, hygenic and give a measure of pity.--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell7650 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Monster movie.jpg

Image:Monster movie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Famlial information

I understand how the background information can be useful and of interest to anyone who is looking into Wuornos' mental state and genetics, etc. and thus to do not wish to discredit its usefulness. In my edit, however, the information I removed felt irrelevant (it felt more like reading a history of her family than about Aileen herself) and clumsy. I could see adding something along the lines of a "family background" section and putting this information into it in a more perusable format; or giving these folks their own page so as to not jumble up this article with lots of birth/death/burial information.JaST (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Borderline personality disorder

Why was it not ever mentioned on this article that she was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder while in jail? I think it's a good subject to discuss because Aileen is the perfect example of how a borderline sufferer can be dangerous, if untreated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.88.116.96 (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources [7] discussing the borderline personality diagnosis then there shouldn't be a problem. I think it just keeps getting deleted from the page because there are no sources posted for the information. - Stephoswalk (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as its properly sourced, I have no problem with it. :) --DrBat (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Where are the actual murders?

Paragraphs upon paragraphs on the trial, her stories and claims, her sentencings, her checkered past... and all of maybe fifty words dedicated to the actual murders themselves? There's more dedicated to speculating about her final meal than there are about the deaths that brought her there, how the men died, the crime scenes, the details of the murders that came out from the trials, or anything of the sort.

• Phase 1: troubled drifter
• Phase 2:  ???
• Phase 3: death row media circus!

Guppy313 (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lock this page?

This page seems to have become a target for persistent vandalism. Given that this article is a level-5 vital article, it would probably be a good idea to lock this page to reduce the rate of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TransWomanOnline (talk • contribs) 18:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Posted at RfPP.--Hippeus (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk page was used correctly.

It was used to correlate marriage laws to tragic results. How it is viewed tends to be reduced to gender political. It is no secret that these marriage laws exist. All resources for all articles are the same. Anywhere you look including the states' laws themselves, will tell you, it is legal for a child to get married. Look in the state of California for example. I'm not violating anything by saying it's dangerous for a child to get married. It subjects a child to trauma they shouldn't have to be subject to. Pedophilia. Disagreeing is the tragedy. 173.75.43.9 (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that anybody around here would disagree with you that child marriage is a bad thing. The point is that article talk pages are not chatrooms where we discuss the subject of the article; they're for discussing improvements to the article. So, if a sociologist or similar had recently published a paper which discusses marriage laws in the context of this subject, we might discuss whether or not to include a mention of that work in the article. We don't discuss our own thoughts on the situation though - that simply isn't Wikipedia's purpose. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, it's not a place to discuss topics unrelated to the subject, which was the point I was repeatedly trying to spell out. $chnauzer 23:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)