Talk:Christa Pike

Questionable source

Several statements in this article are sourced to this psychological evaluation stored on Google Docs. That seems to be a huge WP:BLPPRIMARY issue, in addition to a random Google Doc surely not being a reliable source! Helpful Cat🐈 13:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Other questionable sources: court document, another court document, petition stored on Google Docs, court document, court document stored on Google Docs. All these sources should be removed.
Even if she is executed soon and BLP no longer applies, the Google Docs sources would still not be of acceptable provenance, and some of these sources are used to make claims about other presumably living people (such as her family members). Helpful Cat🐈 13:56, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I have removed a large portion of this article due to sourcing issues. It may be prudent to look at the parts sourced to the Straits Times as well. There may need to be some background rewritten in to provide context. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. @Stanzsd: I removed the content you added here because it was cited to a court document. Please read WP:BLPPRIMARY; we can't use court documents to support assertions about a living person. Thanks! Helpful Cat🐈 11:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out WP:BLPPRIMARY. I have revised the material and replaced the court-document citation with independently published secondary sources reporting the same testimony. I have also attributed the information to Jones's testimony rather than presenting it as an independent finding. I hope this addresses the BLPPRIMARY concern. Stanzsd (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Murder of Colleen Slemmer

As per Wikipedia policy, I believe this page should be renamed to "Murder of Colleen Slemmer" and edited accordingly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%22Murder_of%22_articles

Jahgro (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Put in a formal move request if you want, but I would not assume that it will be agreed. PatGallacher (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Tadaryl Shipp

the first name of the other participant in the murder is only mentioned once briefly at the end of the article. Iamhanuman (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

This is because a lot of information was removed due to poor-quality sourcing (relevant to the thread 2 above this). I didn't go back and rewrite in the relevant details from the reliable sources because I am more concerned with omitting potentially damaging information. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit that makes a lot of sense. I'm sure once the dust has settled the first name can go back in at a sensible point. Cheers for looking after the article. Iamhanuman (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2026

EXECUTION WAS HALTED 1 HOUR BEFORE IT WAS SLATED TO BEGIN. WITNESSES WERE ALREADY STARTING TO ARRIVE. ~2026-52656-72 (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The change was already made 13 minutes before this request was added. I hope you can fix your Capslock. Cabayi (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The botched execution section states conclusively that Pyke never lost consiousness. In the source provided, that is what Pyke's attorneys stated, but they are not medical professionals. It should be changed to clarify that it was the opinion of her attorneys, because that opinion doesn't match the description in the same source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-52719-34 (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

PTSD claims

WP:NOTAFORUM Jdcomix (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

So she argues she cannot be executed because, due to her PTSD , it would cause her harm? But causing harm is, well, kind of the idea behind an execution, isn't it? Please clarify. ~2026-49405-23 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

It is clarified in the article. "Her attorneys argued that these conditions could complicate the execution and cause pain and suffering, violating her constitutional rights". The US constitution prohibts "cruel and unusual punishment". The idea behind an execution is to kill a prisoner, not to cause harm. If you think those are one and the same, that's fine, but the state of Tennessee does not. But essentially, these are efforts by her defense attorneys to make it difficult, if not impossible, for the state to legally carry out the execution. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 20:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The legal view in the US is that it's okay for the government to kill you, but not to cause you pain or suffering. So even though it's absurd, it does make sense from a legal point of view. ~2026-52667-66 (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

SCOTUS has ruled that incidental unavoidable suffering during execution is legal but deliberately making the process extra cruel or painful is unconstitutional. ~2026-38386-07 (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Eve Martin was a murder victim, not an executed criminal

Death penalty research has shown that Eve Martin, sometimes referred to as Martin Eve, was in fact the victim of a murder in 1820, and was not executed by the state. This would make the last woman executed in the state of Tennessee an unnamed black woman in 1819. https://www.wavy.com/news/incomplete-records-shroud-tennessee-history-of-women-executed-in-uncertainty/amp/ ~2026-52686-66 (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Please provide detail as to the change you are requesting. Currently the article states "in over 200 years"--Asr1014 (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2026

You should add about the drug injections recently that happened, and how they failed to stop her heart. You should also add additional info like recently. Keep this updated because it's a very important story. JeremyBernardo (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Yep, probably going to be vandalised over a few days if not (semi-)protected. Dublinaviationfan (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Failed vs botched

Seems like the media loves to throw around the term "botched" but according to a quote by a lawyer specializing in failed executions in this article , botched means the procedure went wrong but still caused the death of the inmate whereas a failed execution results in the survival of the inmate. I think the header highlighting the attempted execution should read "Failed execution" or "attempted" rather than "botched." Mazeau (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Glad you caught the difference, I came here to make the same argument. The distinction is notable as there have been several botched executions in recent time where the inmate still died, but very few where the lethal injection was administered and the inmate survived. ~2026-53153-32 (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

They’re calling it both “botched” and “failed” interchangeably in the NYT. Sugarbat (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Poor MSM semantics shouldn't deter a professional editor. ~2026-52974-19 (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The distinction is not so clear-cut. Note EO's info on "botch". Also, the Reflecting Pool work was widely labeled as "botched", but the pool is still there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Clarification

I see this statement right at the outset: "Pike's sentence remains controversial, as some experts have stated that her legal defense failed to present mitigating evidence at trial, including the effect of her youth and childhood trauma on her decision-making abilities." Coming from outside the US, I do not understand why that should be so prominent. Is this basically an attempt at saying the character is encyclopedic because her defense lawyer failed to defend her properly? I would argue that is not, rhetorically speaking, a good opening for that section, because it conflates all the reasons for her notability into the assumption her lawyer could have done better. I argue she is encyclopedic because of all the other things. Even if the lawyer had presented mitigating evidence, she would still be convicted. But that is beyond the point. The point is that such statement doesn't sound like a good summary of what makes her relevant. ~2026-52974-19 (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Before the botched execution there was widespread media coverage in the United States of her case both because of the above stated reason and because she would have been the first woman executed in Tennessee in 200 years. The mitigating evidence was relevant because the United States requires states to use a dual-phase trial procedure in death penalty cases where the jury decides guilt and then separately decides if the defendant should be sentenced to death or to life imprisonment. In that phase the jury is instructed to weigh the mitigating and aggravating factors and only vote to impose a death sentence if the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors. I will add these details to the lede, along with a source. Herbfur (He/Him) (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-52974-19 638926keu ~2026-53086-49 (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

something missing in this sentence

am I the only one missing some part of this sentence? "It was also before the procedure she had been kicking the so hard, she kicked the sheet off she was laying on" maybe "the" is extra, and "also"? Feel free to edit - I would have tried, but I don't want to lose the meaning. Camypaj.rs (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Camypaj.rs that's a poorly written sentence and should be removed. ~2026-53229-25 (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Details about being caught and arrested?

Hi all, I haven't used Talk pages all that much so apologies(!). Having read the article I'm surprised at how little information there is regarding Christa's capture and arrest; it just seems jump from details about the murder to the trial. Just thought it might be worth raising - hope that's OK. Burnitslowly (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The following passage was previously in the article but has been removed:

"Pike began to show off the piece of skull around the school, and the three were arrested within 36 hours. The log book showed that Pike, Shipp, Peterson, and Slemmer left together and only three returned. Detectives found the piece of skull in Pike's jacket pocket. Soon after her arrest, Pike confessed to police of the torture and killing of Slemmer, but insisted they were merely trying to scare her and it got out of control."

It was sourced to the Strait Times piece and seems relevant information to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Losing Consiousness

Saying as a matter of fact that Pike did not lose consciousness during the procedure is obviously biased. According to her attorneys she did not lose consciousness, but that is not a scientific or medical opinion. It should be clearly stated that the opinion is according to her attorneys so people know that the opinion is coming from her advocates.

According to witness and WVLT anchor/senior reporter William Puckett, she appeared to be having "the best sleep of her life". Neither one should be taken as fact because neither is a doctor, but at least one is supposed to be a neutral observer.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/christa-pike-execution-lethal-injection-latest-updates-b3060192.html

~2026-52719-34 (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Potential unsafe external link associated with the Star-News citation

After following the Google Books newspaper archive and its publisher links, I encountered a fake human-verification page asking me to run a Terminal command. That command installed a malicious macOS LaunchAgent. Please review the outbound links. The archive also contains an old subscription link to nytrngsecure[.]com that now redirects elsewhere. I cannot yet identify the exact redirect responsible.

citation leading to Google Books and a Star-News link there Mralienbg (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Edit request: wikilink to Colleen Slemmer in the lede

Colleen Slemmer is mentioned in the lede and has her own article, but it is not currently linked. ~2026-43629-55 (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Well what happened was, earlier today someone removed the redirect to here and turned it into a standalone article - I'm not convinced there's a consensus for that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)