Talk:Karla Homolka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

The article doesn't mention homosexuality so I've removed the category

Contents 1 Serious Problems with Murder timeline 2 Neutrality 3 Update 4 Myths 5 Suggestion on fixing this train-wreck 6 Cleaning up the myths 7 Myths and misconceptions 8 Other Victims 9 neutrality 10 Dates 11 NPOV 12 Even after reading the discussions, I don't see how this is NOT neutral. 13 Suggestions? 14 More updates to good feedback 15 New Section: The Tapes 16 Continuing to shave away misconceptions 17 Question about Jane Doe 18 Could someone please explain how this is NPOV? 19 Actually, she is still a "criminal" so that part is true 20 Political angle 21 American reference 22 Featured article? Hmm...

[edit] Serious Problems with Murder timeline

I came here for info on the dates of the murders; and specifically which order the murders took place [if her sister was first, or whatever]. I took a look at this timeline, and was lost immediatly. the dates aren't in chronological order, they jump around, and some of the dates of events contradict each other! this needs to be fixed.

[edit] Neutrality

I figured I'd add this tag due to the inclusion of the parenthetical sentence at the end of the current version of this article. I have to agree -- there is quite a bit of inference and assumption, which isn't quite the same as fact.

Solutions, anyone? -- Miwasatoshi, 19 February 2005, 0417hrs

I removed some blatantly POV language and "shock writing" from the "Murders" section. Don't know if it yet justifies removing the "neutrality tag" or not tho. Ignus, 24 March 2005

I'm not sure how to best edit this. Neutrality is definitely not achieved by loaded language such as "helpless teenager" "Indifferent at killing her own sister" "once again tired of their victim" etc. While these descriptors may be appropriate for a (slightly pulpy) book about the murders, are they appropriate for Wikipedia? If a neutral accounting of the known facts is desired, I think this needs to be heavily edited. See for example the entry on Homolka's husband, Paul Bernardo. Addition and editing of the "Myths" section hasn't seemed to help the NPOV balance of this article, just confused the issue. I won't edit without community support, however. -JG 29 April 2005

Technically, I believe it's improper to refer to Homolka as a "convicted murderer", since (under the plea bargain) she was found guilty of manslaughter, not murder. -- Richwales, 04:06, 3 June 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. Also, the first paragraph says ... she was tried and convicted of helping... . She did not get a trial, so I will remove that now. Cafe Nervosa | talk 17:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Fixed a few factual errors, added a section debunking common myths. Tried to add some balance, but may have tipped it too far in the OTHER direction. I tried to stick with "just the facts," and removed *SOME* of the "this author" type commentary.

[edit] Myths

The whole myths section, in its present incarnation, is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most of the information is useful, but the "myth number five" format is inappropriate and smacks of POV, particularly since all the myths it seeks to explode are critical of Homolka. It should be rewritten in a neutral fashion. Saforrest 20:21, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

All it shows is her activities, if other people outside wikipediahave a neutrality problem, why NPOV dispute?

[edit] Suggestion on fixing this train-wreck

This article starts very neutraly, my whole impression of the Myths section was that the author was taking a stance in her defence.

Best way to deal with this is to rename "Myths" to "Prison" and neutraly describe her activities in prison ex. "While some people refer to Karla Homolka as a psychopath, all the evidence collected by the psychologists observing her point to battered wife syndrom"

Please state the facts from unbiased point of view.

[edit] Cleaning up the myths

Okay, let's see.

1. Diagnosed as a psychopath - it says that she's never been diagnosed as such by a doctor who actually treated her. That's three clauses: diagnosed as a psychopath, by a doctor, who actually treated her. The parole board said she was a psychopath, but they weren't doctors. The doctors who said she was a psychopath based that on interview transcripts and case reports and articles, instead of treating her directly. The doctors who treated her directly said she wasn't a psychopath. Tidied up.
2. Didn't get any treatment in prison - it says that she took every treatment course that was recommended except for the one for convicted sex offenders, because a) everyone else in the course was male, and b) she hadn't been convicted as a sex offender. Fixed to remove the disingenuousness.
3. Didn't do anything to better herself - it says that yes she did, she got her bachelor's in psychology. That's true.
4. Had a birthday party in prison - it says that there's nothing unusual about that because she was in medium-security, that she got transferred to solitary afterwards, that she wasn't the first or last to have one. Cleaned up.
5. Made snuff movies. That's true, if only by definition. I've added that last clause.
6. Never showed any remorse - it says she expressed remorse lots of times. I changed "showed" to "expressed", because that's more objective, and added a point about how we can't truly know whether this is real (but then, we can't know that about anyone, can we), and how the letter to her doctors mentions how she feels guilty about those two deaths that she was involved in even though she was involved in THREE deaths.
7. Her prison girlfriend was also a child-rapist-and-torturer - it explains where that idea came from (a published photo of her and a c-r-&-t together), and says that her prison girlfriend was actually a bank robber. I'll give the monster the benefit of the doubt on this one - after all, people do get lonely in prison. Made the language a bit more objective here too - perhaps it's also more brutal, but this is a brutal topic.

Oh, and I think it's a bit more objective to refer to her as "Homolka" instead of "Karla", as that's how most entries refer to their subjects. Plus I switched "Myths" to "Misconceptions".

I think I've pretty much cleaned it up for NPOV, so if there're no more complaints within the next week, I'll remove the notice. Sound good? DS 14:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied that the tag should be removed quite yet. I think the recent changes are for the better. However, I question the need for a 'misconceptions' section specifically addressing disparaging rumours about Homolka.

Some of the rumours are sourced (e.g. the lesbian relationship one) but many are simply cited as rumours that are "running rampant". I'm not convinced they are important enough to deserve answering in this article, and if they are to be answered, it looks bad and POV to rebut only disparaging rumours.

I don't think there's all that much factual information that needs to be changed here, I think it simply ought to be reworded and organized differently.

--Saforrest 20:57, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Myths and misconceptions

I think the myths and misconceptions are absolutely crucial to this article. If for no other reason than the fact that this woman is to be released back into the world on July 5th, 2005.

As someone who runs a website related to Homolka, I'm inundated with requests for the Bernardo/Homolka Snuff videos, nude pictures of Karla, and people telling me all of the things in this list -- that she has no remorse, that she had a lesbian lover who was guilty of the same things! These do a disservice to the story. Search the web -- look for yourself.

A myths section helps debunk common nonsense that floats around the net. The Article *is* about Homolka, so the it's appropriate that the myth section should be as well. :)

Having said that -- the article should avoid either trying to exonorrate Karla or convict her. It should be NPOV and "just the facts". If there were common non-disparaging rumors about Karla -- I'd be the first to debunk them here. I just don't know of any. Her personality and fame is such that the only rumors likely to be floating around are the disparaging ones.

I had been a bit too lazy to register until now -- so I'm editing this to update the fact that I've registered and am now a Real Person(tm) --Rrandolph

[edit] Other Victims

Added the Other victims section and I'm working on a bit about Deadly (the movie). As always, I need an editor. I'm not the best writer in the world.

After thinking about things a bit more, I think the NPOV alert needs to stay until this case settles down. Karla gets out in 70-some-odd-days.... and a LOT of information is coming out on a day-by-day basis. Keep NPOV until the end of 2005 when "Deadly" comes out.

Rrandolph

[edit] neutrality

thie entire article to me seems very poorly written, especially the Common misconceptions.

[edit] Dates

It is entirely likely that Homolka will be released before July 5th (which is, indeed, the birthday of Leslie Mahaffy). It appears that the Canadian prison system has the authority to release her as early as June 24th, 2005 but she may be released no later than July 5th, 2005.

Leslie Mahaffy gives July 1, can someone investigate further? Circeus 18:51, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

-

Why does the wiki entry on Leslie Mahaffy say her birthday is on July 1st? Wouldn't that mean Karla Homolka is not going to be released on Leslie's birthday (unless she's released earlier than the latest possible time)? This needs attention. --RishiBoy

[edit] NPOV

I see no further debate on NPOV issues; I assume they have been resolved. Are there any objections to removing the neutrality notice? --Golbez 17:44, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Even after reading the discussions, I don't see how this is NOT neutral.

I understand that some "speculations" might have needed be included in this neutral discussion, but I found all of the material presented here currently to be factual, as much as can be determined. (And where it could not be, the author has made note of that.) The woman was convicted of drugging, raping, and killing victims. What is neutral about this subject? According to the law, she's guilty. In reference to the writing itself, again, I found it factual, relevant, and insightful. It did not sway my mind one way or the other as to what should happen to Karla (or other guilty parties) from here. It only filled me in on what is currently the evidence that has been presented, in summary format.

I am an editor with almost 20 years of experience. I find nothing wrong with this article as it currently stands. Obviously numerous corrections have been made before I arrived to read it, and perhaps those were needed. But now? I think you can remove the "non-neutral" rating, in my humble opinion.

J. O'Donnell USA

June 2, 2005

Good enough for me. :) --Golbez 00:18, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions?

That is not "excessively legalistic." It is correct. If the films do not show the actual death of the victim they are *not* snuff films. Horrifying, but still outside the definition.24.131.12.228 17:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Emily

I'm still uncomfortable with the wording of the Common misconceptions section. I'm not sure if I feel strongly enough about this to counter those suggesting the POV tag be removed.

I find it difficult to explain my specific objections or suggest any revisions which would make this neutral short of a major rewrite of the section. An example of an issue with which I'm uncomfortable is the following:

1. Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo created snuff films.
   • By definition, the movies created by Homolka and Bernardo are not snuff films, because they do not show the murders of their victims.

As a reader the impression I receive from this is that the writer is trying to exonerate Homolka by applying an excessively legalistic interpretation. Yes, she did not create 'snuff films', but she certainly created sadistic torture films, and that is not explored in the Common misconceptions section.

Opinions? Does anyone agree with me here, and if so do you have any suggestions for revisions? --Saforrest 06:29, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More updates to good feedback

The feedback on this difficult article has been exceptional.

I've gone through and added some references and additional detail, but like all wiki articles, this one is a work in a progress.

I've also removed two items from the misconceptions section as recent events have more or less rendered them moot -- and the Birthday issue could NOT be resolved. Best to leave it alone since that particular "misconception" seems to have faded anyway.

I also removed the "After prison, Karla is going to...." section, because news on this issue is coming out so fast that it would be impossible to keep up. After she's released, there may be an "after-prison" section added.

As for the value of the misconception section? It's crucial. The publication ban imposed by the Canadian government has created an information vacuum where as much rumor is passed around as fact. Many, many people believe these things, and as they fall out of favor or are debunked, they should be removed. Ultimately, there should not be a misconception section -- but alas....

I have TRIED to stick to "just the facts" and see that many others who have worked on the article have done the same. We have a very, very good summary of the whole ordeal here. However, as of July 4th, this story is going to grow significantly.

I'm a bit surprised at the Magic Moderators objections to this article, and I wish they would be more specific in regards to their objections. More references will be added -- because that was really the only specific issue that was raised, other than POV issues (which myself and others don't see... help us! Don't be general).

This article would get a LOT of attention as a featured article, and might fall right back into disputed category, but et ipsi scientia potestas, and because of the Canadian publication ban, information requires serious, serious digging.

[edit] New Section: The Tapes

Feel free to make me look like a decent writer. :)

[edit] Continuing to shave away misconceptions

I'm slowly removing this section and incorporating the content into the actual article.

[edit] Question about Jane Doe

The article has the following line: "She cannot contact Paul Bernardo, the families of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French or Jane Doe. She also may not contact any violent criminals."

Jane Doe? Is that supposed to be there?

Jane Doe was a fourth victim that was raped by Homolka and Bernardo, but survived and still lives to this day. We do not know who this "Jane Doe" is simply because she is still alive.

---

Yes. "Jane Doe" is the official name of one of the victims. Her real name is covered by the Canadian Publication Ban -- but she was an underaged (at the time) "friend" of Karla's.

[edit] Could someone please explain how this is NPOV?

After reading this article I had a pretty strong POV feel, particularly about the garbage "misconceptions" section. Why is this here at all? It feels very POV and, moreover, doesn't add anything useful to this topic. After reading this talk page I still don't see any legitimate justification for keeping the section.

There is a very well-known rumor that Richard Gere had to have a rodent removed from his bottom. Does this mean we need to edit the wikipedia Richard Gere entry to include a "misconceptions" section?

Can we agree to get rid of this garbage? I think it's clear from this talk page that many who have read the entry felt the section was POV. Otherwise I think this article should be tagged NPOV dispute.

--evilgreg3000

I have completed the merging of the section into the rest of the article.—Theo (Talk) 06:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I think you've improved the article significantly. Getting rid of the tightly grouped, apparently all "pro-Homolka" misconceptions section by spreading out the points works for me. There is still a link to the misconceptions section in the publication ban section, though. Greg (Talk) 14:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if the controversy surrounding Karla Homolka were explained in more detail. While the article touches upon this with:

"After the plea bargain had been confirmed, and Homolka had begun her sentence, the videotapes were discovered and the full extent of her involvement and participation was revealed." ...I feel this should be expanded for readers unfamiliar with the controversy and how public perception came to be as it is now.

Does this: "An absolute deal-breaker was lying during her interviews with prosecutors." sound neutral to anyone? Aside from sounding chatty, it is also inaccurate, as the deal wasn't broken. For whatever reason, I am having trouble re-wording it, though. Can someone please help? Emily

[edit] Actually, she is still a "criminal" so that part is true

Yamla just reverted saying that Homolka is no longer a criminal. A criminal is "one that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime". Since she was convicted of a crime she remains a criminal. She is only no longer a prisoner. - Tεxτurε 16:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I restored my edits. My statement about why the case attracted media attention is accurate.

I agree that all you added is true. Yamla, what is your objection to the changes? It seems appropriate to introduce the individual for the reason she is notable. Without the effect on Canadian citizens she would merely be a released criminal and not worthy of an encylopedic entry. - Tεxτurε 16:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This was a mistake on my behalf. I haven't had my morning tea and I'm always somewhat less than fully functional until then. I will make one minor edit to the new addition but I believe this is just a clarifying update. Sorry, everyone. --Yamla 16:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Political angle

Yamla just reverted saying that something I added about the provincial NDP in charge needs citations. Which parts are controversial? The NDP was in charge. The provincial Attorney-General had to approve the plea deal. She has been a big-time feminist (look at her bio).

It seemed to me that you were coming to conclusions. Remember, you are not to perform original research for Wikipedia articles. So, can you please WP:CITE your claim that the plea bargin was influenced by the NDP? And that this was particularly controversial at the time? A newspaper article in a respected paper would probably suffice. --Yamla 19:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American reference

I'm curious why the following book is listed as a reference:

• Flowers, Barri R. (October 15, 1996). The Sex Slave Murders : The Horrifying True Story of America's First Husband-and-Wife Serial Killers (New York: St Martin's, 1996) ISBN 0312959893.

From the title and a descrip at Amazon, it seems to be about U.S. serial killers only. But I don't have the book. Does anybody know if it was used as a reference in this aticle. It seemed to be added here first, in a resorting of the references (the only one added in the sort). --Rob 03:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right, it shouldn't be there unless we are referencing the book elsewhere. In fact, ALL amazon URLs should go, to be replaced with ISBN numbers. --Yamla 03:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I just removed it. I think, maybe, what happened, was somebody added the link to the Amazon page, for the purpose of adertising. Then, later, somebody else converted it into the proper ISBN format, assuming the book was relevant. --Rob 03:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article? Hmm...

I have absolutely no problem with this article being in the encyclopedia. It serves a valuable purpose. (I am one of those rare souls who never knew who she was nor heard of the case until today; I remember the a.f.k-h newsgroup but never knew it was a real person or what it was about.) However, it's hard to imagine ever having this be the first thing viewers of the main page see, no matter how much it is perfected. It's not that I think featured articles should only be about butterflies or famous peninsulas or charming child actors, but ... there's something so horrifying about the idea of people coming here and having Homolka's story be the first thing they see. Has there been discussion of this aspect of FAs?Lawikitejana 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The disturbing nature of the article is not the only reason this shouldn't be an FA. Just as the above writer, this is my first time reading about these events, but the article is so choppy and incoherant that I actually thought the article had been vandalized. Even the issues pointed out in the very first section of this discussion appearantly have never been addressed. This article needs some serious work.--208.51.73.51 00:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)