Talk:Mary Winkler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if 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. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Missing Aspects of the Case This article does not mention that Mary Winkler, deposited $17,000 worth of bad checks into the family account and then transferred the money to a private account just before the shooting. This shows premeditation and I think it is an important aspect of the case. The only thing i found detailing this was at this website. Someone should make the decision if it is credible. http://www.oxygen.com/TvShows/Detail.aspx?code=SNP&view=profiles&sub=MaryWinkler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.24.81.103 (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability requirements...

As we all know, there are several homicides every day and they don't make it to wikipedia... How does this one differ? It's a preachers wife, that's the only thing that really stands out about this... Not sure how every else feels about it, but I could really care less.

azakly- she is the preachers wife. Any the case was all over the news when it happened. Many were discussing the pressure that preachers wives are under. Muntuwandi 23:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If blogosphere is abuzz with the name and it's all over the news then it's most certainly a must to keep the article for as long as people show interest in it. --Dennis Valeev 12:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Men's group's

I believe that the absence of any mention of the allegations of abuse except for a men's group's perspective (i.e. that it was just "criticism") constitutes an NPOV problem. The author only mentions a key part of the case in terms of one political advocacy group's opinion of it.
There is little question that the allegations of abuse are the court's reason for the reduced charge, and also constitute one hypothesis as to motive. Reducing a charge to voluntary manslaughter is actually fairly common in cases involving such allegations. As such, whatever the author's personal opinion of the allegations may be, they are significant and their near-omission distorts the story.
The article also mentions the complaints of men's rights advocates but does not mention the responses of women's rights groups, although there have been comments from both. In a neutral article, both would be mentioned.
The sources for allegations about financial scams may need a second look too; a Google search reveals little to corroborate them.
Update: edited to correct these problems, and inclusion in "Americans convicted of murder" because Mary Winkler was not convicted of murder, she was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Randomundergrad (talk • contribs) 17:59, August 23, 2007 (UTC). Randomundergrad 17:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the allegations of abuse are important to mention, but it is also important to mention that there was very little evidence of abuse. The husband was critical of her handling of the families finance - possibly due to the fact that she lost thousands of dallars to Nigerian web-scammers. The media left that out of many of their accounts. I personally think that few people would regard loud, angry words on an issue like that to be abusive. The publicity mentioned the harsh criticism, but not the money. MichaelCYoung (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Some people reported on the financial problems, with more or less detail, yet it might be hard to track down those sources at this point (so that you could cite them). Happy hunting, if you decide to do so. It deserves to be mentioned as a significant piece of the puzzle.Josh a brewer (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Someone removed a bunch of the references and replaced them with a lot of nonsense, but I haven't yet put the original citations back in . . . nor am I sure that I know how to do so. Josh a brewer (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)