Talk:Robert Stroud

Characterizations Based on Fictional Writings
In the penultimate section "Truth versus Fiction" is the quote "...Stroud was also known to write pornographic fiction, much of it perversely involving children. These surviving documents point to the fact that Stroud was at least a latent pedophile...." I'm not comfortable characterizing someone based on their fictional writings. I doubt that horror writers, for example, are especially violent or morbid. Moreover, in the previous sentence is "...much of it perversely involving children." The term "perversely" seems too opinionated, or maybe I'm thinking too journalistically.

To whomever maintains this article, I'd recommend excising the entire sentence containing the first quote and the word "perversely" from the second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.155.49.130 (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * On 6 October 2005, this edit toned down the text you quote, while a second edit removed the speculative second sentence. Over time, the text you quote, along with the whole section, has been excised from the article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Destiny of O'Brien
Does the literature on Stroud contain any information on what happened to Kitty O'Brien after his arrest? When did she die?

Clean-up lead
I have tagged this article as having multiple issues with lead section. Guideline WP:LEAD, at WP:LEADLENGTH indicate a good article should have a lead section of no more than 4 paragraphs or about 300 words. This article's lead section has extra information that is not included in the body of the article. resulting in the lead extending to 6 paragraphs. So I added the clean-up tag. Based on MOS:LEAD, the lead section should introduce and summarize an article, without being too verbose or detailed. The fifth paragraph, which is about subject's role the Battle of Alcatraz could be summarized in a sentence. Stroud's role, whether the real account, or an over-dramatized fictionalized movie version is not covered elsewhere in either this article or the one about the battle. This makes this biographical coverage appear inaccurate, which is worse than totally omitting it, because its presence teases the reader and raises their expectations about the full article only to be disappointed by the absence of further coverage. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)