Talk:John Cooper (serial killer)

"diagnosed psychopath"?

If Cooper was indeed diagnosed as a psychopath, this certainly needs to appear, with suitable source(s), in the main body of the article, not just in the lead section. The current sources provided, from iNews: [1] and from (the allegedly "highbrow") Stylist magazine: [2] hardly seem sufficiently robust. (Or maybe he had a psychotic hairstyle?) Furthermore, I have yet to find any source which suggests, let alone states, that any diagnosis was made employing the Psychopathy Checklist. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

p.s. I really don't see the need here to restore "six-year-old content" (sic). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

i is quality press; its reliability is not in doubt. Stylist is a sufficiently upmarket publication, far above tabloids (supposedly the only available sources). I agree that the PCL-R is not sourced, and have thus removed it. 94.2.69.221 (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You honestly think that Stylist magazine is a suitable source for reporting a clinical diagnosis in a multiple murder trial? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

PRWeek reports that Stylist is "aimed at affluent career women", and covers world news and politics, along with the celebrity stuff.[3] I don't see much of a problem with it, especially when it's being referenced alongside a high-end outlet. 94.2.69.221 (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

These are the only two sources you can offer? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Why would quality press be insufficient? The content is reliably sourced. It's clear from your passive-aggressive "lol"[4] and "ahem"[5] that you are editing from an emotional perspective. 94.2.69.221 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"lol" was to the suggestion that the content had been written by a six-year-old. "Ahem" was for a source aimed at "affluent 20 to 40-year-old female commuters.. that includes fashion, travel, beauty, people and careers news". Hardly the The Law Society Gazette? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, it's "aimed at affluent career women", and covers "world news" and "politics", along with the celebrity stuff.[6] Hardly Heat. 94.2.69.221 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, still somewhat unconvinced. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

So I assume these are the only two sources you can offer. If this diagnosis is a fact, why do you think it needs to appear in the lead section? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Why would quality press be insufficient? Anyway, I added another source (North Wales Live). I'm not saying it needs to appear in the lede, but that's where it was originally, and it seems like a fairly pertinent detail. Psychopaths are rare. 94.2.69.221 (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

People who commit two double murders are rare. But people who appear as contestants on Bullseye are also comparatively rare. The sources currently used for the article are not the best. I suppose because the case has (or had) more regional than national interest. But it seems surprising that not one main national newspaper source, apart from iNews, reported the diagnosis as a significant fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

And the three sources provided are all rather sketchy. They say he was "a diagnosed psychopath" but none say when, where, why or by whom, any diagnosis was made. In fact, iNews just says: "He’s a diagnosed psychopath, too, making him a perfect subject for a dark, disturbing ITV drama." More of a "must-watch TV" dramatic teaser than a signifcant medical detail? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I share the opinion of Martinevans123 as outlined above here entirely.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote, as I'm sure you are aware. So we have one argument against another. Users should make a solid case for removing longstanding content. 94.2.69.221 (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I've cast no vote. My argument is that the sourcing is inadequate. I'm sorry if that was not clear. What do you mean exactly by "longstanding" in this case? Would you argue to retain "longstanding" material if it was wrong? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

p.s. there is WP:CONSENSUS that the word "psychopath" does not need to appear in the lede? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)