Talk:Most Evil

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

TVRage.com links are not spam links. It's a TV episode guide similar in format to TVTome. You can read about it at the

Does the episode list document anybody mentioned in the episode, or just someone given a detailed history and analysis? Richard Chase and Joseph Kallinger are briefly mentioned and given ratings on the scale in the episode "Psychotic Killers", but they aren't "profiled" as much as the typical subject. Should they be included in the list? - Scarr 06:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say if they're rated on the scale of evil, they can be added to the list Pixelface 10:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to convert the episode list to the standard episode list format, complete with episode descriptions. Can we use what's already at http://investigation.discovery.com/tv/most-evil/ep-guide/most-evil-ep-guide.html until someone has a chance to reword? GregChant (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Samuel Collins in Season 2, Episode 1 is not the British doctor that the link points to.

Should the term Stone Scale be directed here when searched? The scale is detailed here. In the show synopsis the Stone Scale is referenced? Soreil (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End of first section currently states "Another similar attempt is Michael Welner's The Depravity Scale." I find this misleading, given the fact the Depravity Scale (I quote wikipedia's article) "is the first such research". I think the current closing sentence should be something like "Dr. Stone's scale of evil is similar to Michael Welner's The Depravity Scale" or "The first such list was..", whichever sounds better to the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowday (talk • contribs) 23:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] reference is interesting, 2001, Stone appears as Welner's warm up act, it would seem. Stone also sounds like he gave credence to

Elizabeth Bathory killing 600. Well they didn't have WP in those days. Rich Farmbrough, 08:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC).[reply

]

For this reason, among others, I am removing the un-sourced statement that teh scale is for scientific purposes. Rich Farmbrough, 08:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

In the Charles Manson Episode, It states that there was an attempted murder using "10 Hits" of LSD. This is False. The LD50 for LSD is thousands of milligrams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.157.242 (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were a number of names without articles in the scale of evil list. If these names are from the shows website or the episodes, we would need a source for EACH NAME if there is no article. otherwise, and i think this is likely, these are names of ordinary people placed there as a joke. If thats true, of course, its a violation of WP policy on biographical info on living persons (if they are still alive). I did check each name to see if there was an article for them, before removing them.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.199 (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong about the BLP violation (the names are listed in the episode summaries, at least for the most part), but i was right to delete, as while the reference given shows the names, it doesnt show their rating. we would need s separate reference for that, like a transcript or summary which includes the ratings.(Mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.199 (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd how one of the worst and most sadistic torture-rape serial killers of all time, Dean Corll, is not on the list. I wonder if his story was too awful to cover? Seems like it is not so well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.218.71 (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea who the UK narrator is? There is no narrator listed but on IMDB there seems to be an American narrating which I don't think is the same as in the UK 86.173.98.24 (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This show is very inaccurate in terms of killers being given appropriate "categories" of evil.

Just a few blatant errors Stone makes:

Jim Jones and Jeffrey Dahmer are listed as the worst evil at #22 (being described as torture-murders whose primary motive is torture) yet Dahmer did not torture his victims. He mutilated and dismembered them post-mortem. Jim Jones also did not torture any people yet he is also listed in the "worst" category of torturers. David Berkowitz is in category 17 described as "Sexually perverse serial murderers: Rape is the primary motive and the victim is killed to hide evidence" yet he never raped or sexually assaulted any of his victims, they were all shot and the motive was primarily one of power not "sexual perversion".

Stone should be completely discredited in my opinion as an expert on murderers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.116.21 (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that while the category descriptions say what they say, Dr. Stone meant those descriptions as general and not specific, and I think he sometimes ranked them considering how evil in a general sense he thought they were. So while a description of a particular killer's ranking might include rape, they might not have actually raped, but they qualify under another point or two of the description and/or they were at that level of evil more in the general sense of evil then by the specific rank description.

As for Jim Jones, he may have indeed been responsible for torturing people. The ID Discovery shows mention all the time about what certain poisons put people through. It's not like the movies where people just drop or slide down dead immediately.

I don't think Stone ever said the scale was perfect anyway, but he himself accepts it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.73.200 (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UFxwiRq-VHc#t=87s

I have linked that video which comes from an episode of the show (the exact point of the video is where I am disputing so my link should automatically direct people to what I'm talking about). That directly contradicts which is written in this article. Someone recently changed Jones back to a 12, yet the youtube link is one of two episodes that focuses on Jim Jones (S2 EP5 & S2 EP10, in BOTH episodes it clearly states he is a 22 on the so called scale) and very clearly states in this episode that I linked that Jones' is REEVALUATED to a 22, not a 12. His original ranking before Stone spoke to the survivor and found out just how bad Jones' atrocities were, it wasn't a mass suicide, it was mass murder.

Granted, I don't think much of the scale, but my opinion is irrelevant if we're going to put people in the categories the show uses, we should at least put them where they are listed in the actual show. I won't make the edit myself, but I do think it should be looked into given I've seen both episodes where it very clearly ranks Jones as a 22 and his associates a 15 both times. Molamelerieth (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I have put Jones's name at level 22 instead of 12, as Dr. Stone clearly states he places Jim Jones, after re-evaluating, at level 22. Jeroen1961 (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My difficulty with this article is that it lacks the NPOV - neutral point of view - that is the hallmark of all good Wikipedia articles. Nowhere does it discuss the objective issues of fact raised by the theory of evil presented by the show's hosts. Nor does it properly canvas the ethical or legal issues implicit in its linking of the concepts of crime and evil.

The basic premise of Michael Stone's "scale of evil" is this: that there exists an entity, substance or quantity - something! - which we name "evil" - that we can observe, and measure - or at least rank in order. Yet at no point do the proponents of this idea explain:

1. how to objectively observe this "evil"; or
2. how to objectively rank or measure it.

The whole theory lacks any kind of testability or falsifiability. It makes no specific predictions, beyond a vague hand-waving about higher rankings on the scale suggesting a greater likelihood of recidivism. The scale lacks precision and objectivity; from the descriptions suggested (but never elaborated) for particular scale points, different equally trained observers could easily arrive at very different measures for any set of test cases. In short, this theory is not scientific, but is merely given a superficial semblance of science by describing Drs. Stone and Mohandie as forensic psychologists.

If these people actually learned any psychology at any time, they'd know that a scientific theory has to be testable, by making specific predictions that subsequent objective experimental measurements can potentially falsify. And that to measure something objectively, you first have to define it in objective, repeatable terms such that different observers using the same apparatus can and do measure or rank it at the same value or scale point.

Having done a quick google on "scale of evil", I found a top result to be an article at NPR - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129175964 - that lists and exemplifies the scale with many interesting and varied criminal cases. But what is most illuminating is the comments by many, including practising psychologists, and the scorn they heap on both NPR and the show's hosts for lack of scientific value. One even wrote: "I weep for psychology ...", and who could blame them?

I don't have the resources to improve this article, but I'm hoping somebody can, and will, correct its balance soon. yoyo (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially this article is about the television program (and debatably the related book), not the theory of whether the scale is valid. If this television program had evaluated each of the killers and communed with Spirits from Saturn to determine which Animal that if they had seen as a child they wouldn't have been tempted to kill anyone, that would be part of the program, and grouping the 17 people that the Spirits had said Hedgehog would be appropriate as part of the article, I think.Naraht (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is adding this criminal at level 2 on the scale, if we are basing contributions according to what the documentary says, the rank of this killer is unknown, but as far as I know she would fit. Some criminals are mentioned but not classified, Seung-hui Cho is another example. We could make an estimation of the most accurate level given the crime and its circumstances but we cannot add it at any level (in this wiki) since we don't really have the forensic's opinion. Let me explain, some people would agree that Banizewski or the boys who killed Furuta deserve level 22, but it is not reviewed in the program, same happens with Harris, it's rating is actually accurate but not fully supported by the documentary, if somebody else can show me otherwise, is free to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.152.244.12 (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]