Talk:Helen Morrison

Untitled

Removal of Proposed Deletion As per proposed deletion rules, anyone objecting to a deletion can remove the deletion notice and rules also state it should not be added back in following the removal (just in case people were thinking that). I am objecting to this deletion because I disagree with the reason stated for deletion, which was related to the article not being noteworthy. At least from what the article says, I disagree with this point on the basis that this individual has conducted noteworthy psychological study and has published books and academic papers to that effect. I would content the article is badly written, has no references. Instead of deletion I would propose that a quality template be put in place. Asking for the article to be improved and enhancing the content of Wikipedia is preferable to deletion. Freakchild (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

24 May 2010 - added criticism

Criticism seems to have had a habit of disappearing from this article. I took a shot at writing a reasonably NPOV and sourced section. I should hope it doesn't disappear also. 71.254.6.87 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, criticism of Helen Morrison seems to disappear from this article. This interesting and worthwhile entry was deleted "Morrison's probity and stature as an expert were put into question by a long investigative piece published in 2004 in the Chicago Reader" Now I don't know the Chicago Reader, but if it is out there such that an ed or guest contributor knows about it, surely it is as noteworthy as the person the article is about. I've seen suggestions that thoroughly sourced criticism is being removed. What of this? Can it please be put back in and not deleted? I write from a non neutral POV, because Helen Morrison's whole book struck me as a bit sensationalist and self serving. The fact that Helen Morrison kept Gacy's brain or portions thereof in a jar at home is clue enough to me if she didn't relinquish it to one of the many institutions that could put it to far better use for humanity by analyzing it than would be served by letting it gather dust in her home. To me that suggests it is kept more as a claim to fame and macabre memento than for any safekeeping for future scientists. Of course this is not reliable, it's not even research, it's totally unacceptable personal sentiment on my part, but if someone else dug up some interesting criticism of Helen Morrison herself, I would be interested in it and I believe Wikipedia readers would have a right to see it in her article. Now I'm going to see the Life Among Killers article I believe is on this site for Morrison's book and see if any criticism is in that page. --Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.34.222 (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I also read that article that you are referring to, and agree that it should be referenced on this page. I looked for any data I could find to back up the claims of her 80 interviews of serial killers, and I could not find anything that comes close to that number, so I added a passage about this. I guess I will wait and see if it gets deleted as well. If so, I will bring it up the Wikipedia Chain of Command until I know why it was removed! This site wass created by average people, who are not professional journalists, so as long as we fact check our information, follow Wikipedia's rules, and don't set out to lie,deceive,or defame there should be no reason for people to be deliberately deleting things! Wish me luck!! :-D Danigirl007 (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)