Talk: Lorena Bobbitt
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
This article has a paragraph beginning, "Ten years after the conviction", yet according to an earlier paragraph Bobbitt was acquitted. So which was it? —Psychonaut 10:21, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This was once considered for deletion, but here is the discussion that decided to keep it:
- This isn't encyclopedia material. This is something that belongs in a travel guide or newspaper, but not an encyclopedia.
- Keep. Yes, it really happened, and it achieved enough national prominence that, I would argue, it belongs. I think it would be a mistake to, umm, sever that piece of information from Wikipedia. Mike Church 20:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Still going strong as a staple of late night comedians. More people in the U.S. probably know who she is than know who the First Lady is. -- Decumanus 20:11, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This made headlines around here. -- Matty j 20:19, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, quite famous. Everyking 20:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. The event is quite notable--major headlines, and widely discussed at the time. Probably needs some clean-up, tho': A) has red link to John Wayne Bobbitt--I don't think they both need separate articles--probably could move this content to something like John and Lorena Bobbitt, and have all variations of both names redir there. B) the last two paragraphs need help--the theory is probably worth mentioning, but the author is pretty POV, so it should probably be more "qualified" in it's presentation--I've made a start in this direction, and have added context so readers will know the view of the author, so they can decide how much to buy into it, but it could probably still be improved. Niteowlneils 21:13, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, absolutely! Quite well known case! Moncrief 22:37, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. She is not a historically significant figure. Her actions add nothing of value to history, science, education, law, psychology, or even domestic violence. The media was just having a slow news day at the time and followed the idea that 'sex sells'. Her biography or the facts of the case belong in a newspaper achive or some other repository, but definitely not an encyclopedia.
- Your criteria is overly limiting for a project like Wikipedia, in my opinion. Moncrief 00:10, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Part of a "compendium of human knowledge". But so is a List of severed penises... - Nunh-huh 23:23, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, though it could use some NPOVing. RickK | Talk 23:25, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep! Why is this on VfD? If there are problems with the article, send it to Cleanup, but that is no reason to delete an article about a very well-known person. Darkcore 03:31, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep! Lets face it, if there were more women like her, there'd be less men that rape. She's a hero of mine. Antonio Sexobotic Martin 1:14, 15 Mar 2004 (MTC)
- Or give them incentive to kill their victims. Mutilation is a haphazard punishment.
Dr. David Reardon? Who?
Who was this Dr. David Reardon? This article, IMHO, could use some house-cleaning. Dr. David Reardon's theory, looks to me, is more or less anti-abortion propaganda. Millions of women aborted. Few of them end-up to become dick-slashers. Even if Dr. David Reardon's story is true to Lorena's mental condition, it only dipicts a seriously distorted mind. Lorena's sickness is surely not caused by abortion itself, but by other people.
If Lorena Bobbitt did not want the baby, but John Wayne Bobbitt asked her to keep the baby and abused her, could Lorena develop some kind of mental illness and chop off John's dick? Dr. David Reardon's theory, IMHO, is biased. Unless he was an important participant of Lorena's criminal case, I don't see the need to keep his story in this article. There are thousands of professors or doctors writing Lorena-this and Lorena-that. Most of their theories are just worthless and quickly be forgotten. -- Toytoy 18:15, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
