Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:02, 18 November 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ohio This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.OhioWikipedia:WikiProject OhioTemplate:WikiProject OhioOhio ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Wisconsin Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Through September 2008

Law & order: Criminal intent reference?

I'm in no way an expert on Dahmer, but the season 4 episode 3, titled "Want", of Law & Order: Criminal Intent has a serial killer who tries to turn girls into zombies, who's a cannibal and who's killed in prison by a fellow inmate and thus reminds me a lot of Dahmer. Should this be included somewhere? Has someone with more knowledge about Dahmer seen this episode? -- x-Flare-x 02:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope; L&O:CI does that all the time. It's not notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the trend needs to steer away from this type of inclusion. The majority of plot devices in L&O and other crime shows are based wholly or in part on someone's real crime. It isn't relevant to the person who committed the real crime. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is wrong

I saw a documentary on dahmer and he killed much more than 17 people. I think he killed about 84. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.62.88 (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

84 sounds waaaaay off; I think it's well sourced enough to say it's 17 - also see List of serial killers by number of victims for a basis of comparison to get an idea of how many other killers murder - only a rare few are as much as 84. Are you sure you have the right serial killer? There are enough of them, after all ;) ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been speculation that Ted Bundy killed close to that number, but that's mostly Ann Rule's idea. Dahmer ran out of time and space for his bodies. There was never a question that Dahmer "out-killed" Gacy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't more people outraged?

Why aren't more people outraged that the police not only handed a victim back to a serial killer, but was awarded and promoted for it? I can't believe how disappointing the police are in all of these horrible crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.66.230.68 (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

People were outraged; but Milwaukee's police department is autonomous, due to laws unilaterally imposed by conservatives in control of the state legislature, originally intended to insulate the MPD from control by the city's Socialist mayors and city council. As a result, they're virtually immune from public pressure. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Article fails to mention he was homosexual

Dahmer was definitely homosexual; virtually everyone knows and fully accepts that proven truth. His homosexuality was a massive part of his life, identity, crimes and notoriety. To define him in three words would always be "homosexual serial killer". The only more relevant point about him than the fact he murdered many people is that he was homosexual. It is more relevant to his identity and infamy than the facts he was a cannibal, a necrophile and American. Despite that, this article irrationally censors any mention of his orientation. To have an article on Dahmer that fails to mention that he was homosexual is extreme propaganda that is attempting to prevent the public from finding out that there are some extremely evil homosexuals. No-one tries to claim that all heterosexuals are perfect, nor denies that evil heterosexuals, such as Ted Bundy, existed; it is ridiculous to push a similar falsehood about homosexuals. No encyclopedia article should ignore an elephant in the room. I added the necessary information, backed by two separate, reliable sources - yet it was wrongly removed. Those removing it claimed that whether or not he was LGBT is unknown, and that the information was added inappropriately. The fact is that he was homosexual; documentaries, written studies and the official paperwork on him will all state that clearly. I correctly and appropriately added the information in the first sentence, as it is a massively relevant part of why he is notable. Whilst it is true that for someone whose orientation is not central to their notability, their orientation should not be mentioned in the first sentence, Dahmer is notable for being a homosexual who murdered many men and boys because he was a homosexual, extremely violent, control-and-power-obsessed sadist. Therefore, I placed mention of his orientation, correctly, reliably sourced, and added the LGBT people from the United States category. If someone can state where in the article the fact he was homosexual should be added, then do so. If someone can give a genuine reason why the LGBT category should not be on this article of a man who was definitely homosexual, and for whom orientation is central to why he is notable, then state it clearly. To remove properly sourced information and a category that are proven, constitutes vandalism. Werdnawerdna (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting several things and not demonstrating a good understanding of the pathology of someone like Dahmer. The salient fact is that he was a serial killer. His sexual identity has little or no bearing on that fact except to determine the gender of the victims, and "truth" is something that is not verifiable. It is a POV statement to say that it is "a massive part of his life, identity, crimes and notoriety" or that it is more relevant to his "infamy than the facts he was a cannibal, a necrophile." In that, it is clearly your opinion. I would suggest that being a cannibal and necrophile, as well as a psychopath whose souvenirs were the victims, is far more important in terms of what lent him infamy. No one claimed that his sexual identity was unknown, I said clearly that it was far more complicated an issue than slapping a "homosexual" or LGBT label on him, that it is more involved with a singular pathology that can't be readily categorized. I would also suggest that the perception that he was a "homosexual who murdered many men and boys because he was a homosexual, extremely violent, control-and-power-obsessed sadist" is also your POV. I note that you mention homosexuality twice in that sentence. That he was a person who violently tried to control and possess his victims is what is relevant. You would have to prove that homosexuality is even an important factor in these crimes. It only defined the victims by gender, it didn't dictate his actions, it didn't govern his behavior, any more than it did any other serial killer. It is bad faith to claim vandalism and that will not be tolerated. A source means nothing outside of the words that written from it. At this point, to me, those changes you made reflected a homophobic tone, as does this argument. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to agree with Wildhartlivie on this issue. What is said sounds more like a homophobic rant than a good reason to have it mentioned. He was a serial killer, a canabalist and a sadist among other things. We don't need to tell sexual orientation, which is not in the other serial killers articles that I've seen. Wuornos is the only one that I am aware of and that's because she was with her girlfriend during her arrest. I think it should be left out. --CrohnieGal 11:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting anything (let alone several things) about Dahmer, who was undoubtedly one of the worst people who ever lived. That he was a serial killer is not the only relevant point regarding his life and crimes. He is more notorious than most serial killers because of the details, severity and number of murders and other serious crimes he committed. Readers of the article want to know what motivated him. His homosexuality, combined with other major aspects, such as his sadism and his love of abusing his power in extreme ways, were why he committed his crimes. Wildhartlivie admits that Dahmer's orientation determined the gender of his victims, yet claims his orientation is irrelevant. That is a contradiction; of course the demographics of a serial killer's victims are relevant, whether it be gender, race or age. By admitting that Dahmer's orientation determined the gender of his victims, Wildhartlivie has confirmed that Dahmer was homosexual. Therefore, even by his attempt to minimize the importance of Dahmer's orientation, it is still relevant enough to include Dahmer's orientation on the article. What does "truth is something that is not verifiable" supposed to mean? That he was homosexual is definitely both true and verifiable; I provided two sources, both of which clearly confirmed it, yet they were removed without justification or reasonable explanation. The statements of mine that Wildhartlivie claims to be POV were never on the article, only on the talk page, and were necessary, because of the unreasonable opposition, to explain why Dahmer's orientation and an LGBT category should be added. In any case, most of the people who are aware of Dahmer would agree with the two statements of mine, so they are the view of the majority, not just of me. More people know that Dahmer was homosexual than know that he was a necrophile and cannibal. The edit summary by Wildhartlivie, when he first removed my addition of the LGBT people from the United States category, asked me how I know that Dahmer was LGBT; thereby he claimed Dahmer's orientation is not known. I am not claiming it should be the only category present on the article, but that it should be there in addition to other relevant categories. I know that Dahmer was homosexual because it is a proven fact that I learned. It is clearly stated in many reliable sources, online and offline: encyclopedias, biographies, media articles and documentaries all state it; no reliable sources claim otherwise. LGBT categories are meant to be applied to biographical articles on Misplaced Pages of people who are definitely LGBT. Contrary to the claims of some Wikipedians, said categories are not only for those who are 'out and proud', they are correctly applied to people whose sexuality is/was definitely homosexual or bisexual, even if they have never admitted they were, including people who were secretive about their non-heterosexual orientation and activities; an LGBT category should definitely be added to this article, which is of a man who repeatedly proved he was homosexual. Dahmer's sexual orientation can clearly be defined as homosexual. Wildhartlivie is the only person I have ever known of to question that fact. In many instances, removal of categories that undoubtedly apply are defined, by many Wikipedians who have reverted such removals, as vandalism. That is why I stated that to do so with the category I added also is. How can it be homophobic to state that a person who is definitely homosexual should have that fact added to his article and that that an LGBT category should be applied? What is the real explanation for removing any mention of a major and very relevant aspect of a very evil person's identity, when it is verified fact? Would anyone on this talk page try to claim that any famous actor, musician, comedian, artist, scientist, inventor or sportsperson who is definietly, verifiably LGBT, is either straight or of unknown orientation? Of course not! There is nothing in the guidelines or rules for applying LGBT categories that says not to include anyone who has been convicted of serious crimes. The only reason for censoring mention of the proven orientation of someone like Dahmer is to try to deny the general public their righful opportunity to find out that there are LGBT people amongst the world's worst people. Crohnie states only being aware of sexual orientation being stated in one other serial killer's article, that of Wuornos, and that the only reason for mention of it on there is because she was with her lesbian lover when she was arrested. In fact, LGBT categories are on some other serial killers' articles, including those of Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy and Dennis Nilsen. Wournos' orientation would be, and should be, mentioned in her article regardless of the circumstances of her arrest. Those facts invalidate said commenter's case that Dahmer's orientation should not be stated in the article. Werdnawerdna (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I started to respond to this line by line, then I realized that every sentence you've written only reinforces my statement that this is an issue of homophobic perspective. You've got several goals in your edits on Misplaced Pages. Among them is to force categories into articles despite having a poor concept of criminal deviance and psychopathology. You tried to force this perspective onto pedophilia and pederasty and you are doing so on a page of a serial killer. You don't show an understanding of the psychological pathology of persons who commit sex crimes. It isn't censorship, it is a clear question of unqualified people drawing convoluted conclusions based upon a limited understanding of psycho-social dysfunction and the overwhelming need to cut and section individuals into convenient but arbitrary categories. The fact that you're claiming Dahmer was a serial killer because he was a frustrated homosexual speaks for itself. I'll reiterate the sentiment left on your talk page here. What might or might not be someone's sexual identity has nothing to do with whether or not that person is a pedophile, pederast or serial killer. Serial killing has little to do with sex. It's a lot like rape that way. A serial killer's notoriety/notability comes from the killing. Stop trying to pigeonhole and classify things for which you have little understanding. Your focus is "homo", as you called it in an edit summary. Like the editors with whom you argued about pedophilia and pederasty, I suggest that "ou clearly have an axe to grind, and you are not going to be allowed to make the edits you want to make. Save yourself some trouble and don't try." Please direct your editing energies on topics against which you have no bias. Your charges of whitewashing are disengenuous.

As for your question What does "truth is something that is not verifiable" supposed to mean? I refer you to the basic tenet of verifiability on Misplaced Pages: The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. Truth is a nebulous concept, quite frequently based on one's personal perspective and much harder to prove than verifiability. Therein lies the difference, and my point. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not responding to my comment 'line by line' is due to the fact that it is not possible to reasonably refute it all, due to the fact I wrote the truth. To add to this article the fact that the subject was homosexual is not 'homophobic'; it is proven truth, necessary to complete the article. In fact, to remove that fact from the article is homosexual supremacism and/or heterophobia. The comment immediately above this strongly implies that I have added POV edits to the articles pedophila and pederasty; the truth is I have never edited either of those articles. It is not necessary to have certain educational qualifications in order to edit Misplaced Pages. Categories exist, biography articles are meant to be categorized. The dozens of categories I have added to various articles are correct and are improvements. I never stated that 'Dahmer was a serial killer because he was a frustrated homosexual'. His homosexuality was one of the main motivating factors behind his crimes, along with sadism and an obsession with misusing power and control. However, he could not, and would not, have committed his crimes had he been heterosexual. He didn't just murder, he committed various homosexual offences against many victims. Had he been heterosexual, but identical in every other respect, he would still have been a prolific violent criminal, but he would not have targeted any of the same people. That makes a big difference - had he not been homosexual, most, if not all, of the people he murdered would still be alive. I never claimed that orientation determines whether someone is or is not a pedophile or a serial killer. Unlike some people, I do not dispute proven truths. It is fact that there are pedophiles and serial killers of each orientation. However, to be a pederast requires that the man is homosexual or bisexual, as pederastic acts are, without doubt, homosexual. Wildhartlivie claims that serial killing and rape have little to do with sex. The truth is that many (but not all) serial killers' crimes are sexual and sexually motivated. Many of them rape of otherwise sexually abuse their victims. That many serial killers ejaculate in or on their victims proves that, in those cases, their crimes are sexually motivated. Rape is always sexual. Rape is a type of sex, it is, by definition, false that rape has little or nothing to do with sex - it has a lot to do with sex. It is about abuse of power and control, and often sadism as well, but always in combination with sexual motivation. Some people, especially feminists, claim that rapists' motivation is only to hurt and subjugate their victims, and has nothing to do with sex. Such feminists often use that false notion to attempt to lend weight to false claims by many sharing their politics that 'all men are evil', 'all men are capable of rape' etc. However, whilst subjugation and causing suffering are a major part of rapists' motivation, rape is always sexual. Whilst rapists usually target the vulnerable and weak, the individual rapist's sexual preference is the main determining factor of the demographics of his victims by gender, age and sometimes race; if he has no preference, then his victims will be demographically varied, provided he has easy access to prospective victims of varying demographic classifications. For example, a gerontophile who is also a rapist rapes old people; a pedophile who is also a rapist rapes children. Dahmer's notoriety and notability is not merely due to the murders he committed, it is also due to all the many other sickening, perverted things he did to his many victims, both before and after he killed them. If all he had done to each victim was quickly killed them, and had never done anything sexual or cannibalistic to them, he wouldn't be half as notorious. He'd still be infamous and notable, but to a much lesser degree; there would not have been anywhere near as much media coverage, and far fewer people would know his name. Dahmer was a sexually motivated serial killer. All of his victims were male not due to coincidence, but because he was homosexual, and as a consequence, always chose male victims - he gained a huge amount of sadistic sexual gratification from doing all he did to them - he could not have got what he wanted from females. Werdnawerdna (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The implication that I use the shortened form of homosexual 'homo' as some kind of insult is untrue. I sometimes use it, along with shortening heterosexual to 'hetero', due to the limitation in the number of characters that can be submitted in an edit summary. I have never heard anyone suggest that 'hetero' is in any way insulting; it is no different a shortening than its antonym 'homo'. Werdnawerdna (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie's most recent comments on here have tried to discredit me by incorrectly stating I am unintelligent ('don't show an understanding', 'unqualified'), yet in the same comment he claims I am using complex dishonesty. A retard would not be capable of 'drawing convoluted conclusions' or of being 'disingenous', both of which he accused me of. Wildhartlivie possesses a degree in psychology, and is obviously intelligent. He is an experienced Misplaced Pages editor, who is a member of the WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography and the Serial Killer Task Force. It seems he is not young, and that he has a considerable amount of life experience. For someone privileged, dedicated, and who chooses to concentrate on the subject, to deny that a serial killer who was, without a shadow of a doubt, homosexual, was either hetero of of unknown orientation, is an extreme case of POV pushing. What I added, that he was homosexual, and the addition of the category LGBT people from the United States, are both true and verifiable. To claim that 'truth is not verifiable' and 'truth is nebulous' is ridiculous. A massive number of truths, including that Dahmer was homosexual, are both certainly true and verifiable. I added two independent, mainstream, reliable sources that both clearly stated that Dahmer was homosexual - yet they were unjustifiably removed; how can that not be censorship? The whole world (except for one Misplaced Pages editor) accepts that Dahmer was homosexual. If anyone disputes a known, verified truth, it is for him to (attempt to) provide evidence in order to refute it. Disputing Dahmer's known homosexuality, or its relevance to his biography, is the one of the most incredible claims I have ever read. No-one objects to Dahmer being in American categories, yet his national identity is of far less relevance than his orientation. No-one attempts to censor the fact Dahmer was American (by claiming it to be irrelevant and/or a smear on Americans or the United States in general), so what legitimate reason could there possible be to censor his orientation? Werdnawerdna (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

break

I did not state at all that you added anything to the pedophilia or pederasty, I said you tried to force your perspective on those articles, which resulted in the discussion on your talk page here, which was because you were adding pedophile LGBT film and other tags to articles, using rationales like "all pedophilia is homosexual; all pedophile characters are homosexual". In your postings above, you have said "Readers of the article want to know what motivated him. His homosexuality, combined with other major aspects, such as his sadism and his love of abusing his power in extreme ways, were why he committed his crimes", "man who was definitely homosexual, and for whom orientation is central to why he is notable", "More people know that Dahmer was homosexual than know that he was a necrophile and cannibal". Again, I will restate, you don't have a clear understanding of the pathology involved. That is not calling you stupid or retarded. Let me reiterate: It is not calling you stupid or retarded. However, it does mean that your understanding of the pathology involved in serial killing is not thorough. You said "However, he could not, and would not, have committed his crimes had he been heterosexual" and "had he not been homosexual, most, if not all, of the people he murdered would still be alive." I won't go into a line by line, despite the fact you want me to, but your excuse that "statements of mine ... were never on the article, only on the talk page" are irrelevant. The statements reflect the basis from which you are operating. Of everything you've written, this is one of the most troubling: "Contrary to the claims of some Wikipedians, said categories are not only for those who are 'out and proud', they are correctly applied to people whose sexuality is/was definitely homosexual or bisexual, even if they have never admitted they were, including people who were secretive about their non-heterosexual orientation and activities; an LGBT category should definitely be added to this article, which is of a man who repeatedly proved he was homosexual." The other is the anti-feminism in the most recent posts. Rape is about control and power. Rape is the tool used to exert control and power. It is no more a sexual act that the physiological response experienced by men and women who have been raped and then did not want to report it because the physiological response (erection or stimulation) made them believe there was "something wrong" with them. I did not remove solid, verified sourcing. I removed two citations - one from a source not proven to be reliable because it does not given a source for its statements, and another that stuck the word homosexual in an introduction and did not attempt to address it anywhere. The whole issue here isn't any more complicated than that it is trying to pigeonhole persons, films, etc. into conveniently cut categories that cannot begin to cover the complexities involved. Please do not attempt to profile me, the listing of your assessment of me is quite inappropriate and factually incorrect in places. It is not personal. For one thing, I'm female; there are others. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• C-Class Ohio articles
• Unknown-importance Ohio articles
• WikiProject Ohio articles
• B-Class Crime-related articles
• Top-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class Wisconsin articles
• Mid-importance Wisconsin articles
• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics