Talk:John Wayne Gacy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Anchored references

In fact, there were objections posted on this page to the change in citation styling annd they still stand. There is no agreement here to institute a widespread change to a citation style that the majority of editors do not know how to use. This sort of change requires a firm consensus of editors on the page. You did not have that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been waiting almost a month for some sort of substantive objection, or, indeed, any discussion at all. So... can we discuss it?—Chowbok ☠ 00:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, you have once again done a wholesale revert on my edits, including earlier ones where I did not change the citation style but only added OCLCs and such. There was no reason for you to revert my earlier edits, except for your personal grudge.—Chowbok ☠ 00:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You can wait until the moon is made of green cheese, but the objections still stand and there is no requirement that I post itemized objections in order to satisfy you. The objection is twofold. First of all, you failed twice to obtain editor consensus to institute this change and then reverted in the face of clear objection and secondly, the majority of editors, and more importantly, new editors do not know how to use it. You clearly misrepresented in your edit summary that "No objections stated on talk page to anchored ref format, starting implementation", which is blatantly false. Don't flatter yourself. This isn't personal. However, changing over the style of the citations in this article without clear consensus here is a violation of WP:CITE, which says, as you were told before, and I quote: "Each article should use the same method throughout. If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus before changing it. That is is in the opening paragraph of the guideline. It further says again at WP:CITE#Citation templates and tools: editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. (Emphasis not added). Please stop violating this guideline to institute something that is not widely used or clearly understood. You are in the wrong here in changing it over and worse yet, edit warring to keep the style in the article. This has nothing to do with WP:OWN, which is something that gets trotted out every time someone objects to arbitrary changes that raise objection. It has everything to do with violating WP:CITE, in the face of clear objection. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you'll note that I didn't revert you. How about we stop discussing each other's behavior and just talk about the content? I think that the anchored format is superior, as it will hyperlink all the individual page citation references to the main entry, which makes it easier to read. I don't think the format change is particularly difficult for editors, and I'd be happy to explain it to anyone who is confused.—Chowbok ☠ 01:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And I think it is confusing to use and doesn't clarify anything enough to warrant a wholesale changeover. I don't any featured or good articles that use this format or see that it is recommended as a preferred style. None of the WP:CRIME or WP:BIOG articles in which I'm involved use it, and my gut instinct is that it's rarely used. And what? A new editor has to know enough to come to this talk page and hunt you down to learn how to use the citation format? I can point you to thousands of examples where a new editor can barely cope with <ref></ref> style formats. In this situation, overall, however, we're talking about experienced editors who have no clue about this style. I've notified other regular editors as to this discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

'*Comment - I'm pretty neutral on the actual change itself (as I've done it myself, but with a different format). However, I did ask first; and WHL is absolutely right about needing consensus to radically change an article's citation style. I say I'm neutral because usually: a) editors will learn a new way of citing (even a complicated one), or b) the editors watching a page will incorporate new refs into the new cite style. But consensus is definitely needed for a change like this, and so far it seems one is for and one is against (I'm a "no-vote" as truly neutral to the change). It's important to remember that even one character typed incorrectly can render a valid reference useless in a big change like this, so great care must be taken in this process... Doc9871 (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know nor do I understand this kind of referencing. I am just getting used to the way it was before this change. I am against this type of reference style. I've not seen this kind of reference style anywhere that I've been in any of the articles. Please keep the normal referencing style. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and basically it'll be impossible to gain consensus because of Wildhartlivie's vast army of meat puppets that she can canvass at a moment's notice. No doubt Pinkedelia and LaVidaLoca will show up should anyone else express even tentative approval for this change, or indeed anything else she doesn't like. Consider the suggestion withdrawn.—Chowbok ☠ 16:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the anchored referencing style. It may take a while to get used to, but I agree that it is superior to the other alternative. I don't see any reason at all why if it's become more of the WP standard this article can't utilize it. If it's better for the article, for the reader, and for the good of the project as a whole, the anchored referencing style should be used. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm no meat-puppet, I can assure you. As for a "vast army of meat puppets"... what, is she Saruman? "You will taste... Man-flesh!!!" ;P Doc9871 (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you with that remark. You seem to be making a good-faith effort to resolve the issue. I'm overstating matters somewhat to refer to it as a "vast army", but the same names do seem to pop up again and again to back her up whenever anyone challenges her on, well, anything; one even was shown to be editing from the same IP at one point but apparently this wasn't suspicious. Anyway, that's all I'll say about it, I know we're supposed to be commenting on articles, not editors. Wildhartlivie, I'll let you have the last word: commence freak-out and attacks below.—Chowbok ☠ 16:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No offense taken :> You do understand that no one owns this page, and that the suggestion for a massive standard citation change for the page is in no way "out of order", right? The standards to similar articles cited by WHL & Crohnie apply, but you should not necessarily withdraw your question so soon... Doc9871 (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: Wildhartlivie and I recently had a little "spat" here at this article. I "cite tagged" a section, and she corrected the citations. Then, I fixed the "A clown can get away with murder" quote, which had erroneously been there for too long. Who really "won" as the result of our initial "differences"? The article (& reader) won... Doc9871 (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Chowbok, you clearly were attacking me and because of that, I'll give you one opportunity to delete your attack and accusation above and if you do not, this will go directly to WP:WQA. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Gacy film

The film titled Dear Mr. Gacy is not released, nor can I find any confirmation that it has a release date or that it even has a distributor. Therefore, its status is in limbo. We do not generally list future films like this. Because the production company set up a website and submitted the information regarding to IMDb is meaningless. It has not been shown at film festivals or similar venues and is therefore not notable. The website killerreviews.com is not a reliable source and anything sourced to that site is therefore unreliable. There should be nothing added to this article that is sourced there, especially what is presented as historical facts in the narrative of this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Photographs

Following up on my entry above, I removed the photographs of the unknown victims. They are poorly sourced, they all look alike, and they add little to the article. This article could certainly stand to have more photos (a picture of Gacy's house?), but the John Doe photos don't seem to be of use. Vidor (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A picture of one of his paintings i feel may add to the article. Perhaps a portrait of his persona pogo or a picture of "Baseball Hall of Fame". I feel it may add to the readers experiance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl777 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can find one of his pieces of artwork at a reliable source that isn't copywrite protected that would be good. The copywrite protection though is very important. Vidor is good at finding these, Vidor?  :) Vidor, I agree with your removal. Sorry somehow I missed this and some other conversations going on. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

John Wayne Gacy, Jr. - is this correct?

Was John Gacy's fathers name John Stanley Gacy or John Wayne Gacy? Some books/web pages etc. (I can list a few arguing both cases) state the name to be John Wayne Gacy, whereas others claim the name to be John Stanley Gacy. One example can be seen here--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would say this needs some investigating. Good catch; keep looking and see what is more common. Also, the Stanley discrepancy could be added to the article with a reliable reference. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

From the sources I have — online and in books — the ratio is roughly 50-50, and some of the online sources stating the full name of the father to be John Stanley Gacy are from less reputable sources.

I am more inclined to believe, however, that his fathers name was John Stanley Gacy (one reason being that some sources write that the middle name Wayne sources from homage the film star John Wayne and his father was born at the turn of the last century), but if I used one of the reputable sources I have to make the edit, I feel others would dsisagree. I don't feel I (or someone else) should make the edit unless others approve.

Examples stating the father being named John Wayne Gacy are:

Trutv

Books include:

• Linedecker's Man Who Killed boys

• Sullivan & Maiken's Killer Clown

Examples stating the fathers name as John Stanley include:

Mayhill Catholic Cemerery online records

'Gacy Facts' page

Books include:

• Cahill's Buried Dreams

• Serial Killers (ISBN 0-7835-0000-9)

Regards--Kieronoldham (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• • According the A&E Biography of Gacy, Gacy was named after John Wayne, as previously mentioned, because the Duke was Gacy's mother's favourite actor. There's a photo shown of Gacy's birth certificate that shows he was named John Wayne Gacy, Jr. This is mentioned clearly and indicates that, according to A&E anyhow, the senior Gacy's name was not John Wayne. Video of the episode of Biography is on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNW4pfeJLb8. Forward to 2 minutes 25 seconds. --Bentonia School (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

LGBT serial killers?

why is there no category for this at the bottom of the page?? Big Mac Sauce (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Because apparently that category doesn't exist. Vidor (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Alias" Pogo...

I thought I brought this up before, but I guess I didn't. In the Infobox, Gacy's "alias" is listed as "Pogo the Clown". I'm not entirely convinced that this is how the "alias" parameter should be used, as it certainly doesn't fall into then vein of, say, Richard Ramirez being known as "The Night Stalker". Otherwise, I would think than an alias should be further restricted to cases such as Jean-Claude Duvalier being known as "Baby Doc". To say that Gacy was "also known as" Pogo is stretching it for the Infobox, I think, and is more than covered in the body. Any opinions, please? Doc9871 (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember if he was referred to as Pogo the clown in the newspapers but I doubt it. I think the info box should be used for aliases used not for the other names the person worked under. Pogo the Clown didn't go kill people, Gacy did at least that's my memory of it. Remove it from the info box and let the article tell about him working parties as Pogo. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing my point exactly, Crohnie: "Pogo the Clown didn't go kill people...". Ramirez as the "Night Stalker" is one thing, as it was a well-known "aka" before he was caught. Or Albert DeSalvo as the "Boston Strangler". I'll wait for more editors to chime in before removing it, but hopefully they'll see what we agree on concerning the "Killer Clown" - wait! No, we shouldn't add that to the Infobox "aka" parameter either ;> Doc9871 (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

None of those are aliases. An alias is a fake name used by a person to conceal their true identity, like when Ted Bundy called himself "Chris Hagen" while a fugitive in Florida. Night Stalker, Baby Doc, Boston Strangler--all nicknames, not aliases, bestowed by the media. And Pogo was a character that Gacy played so that's not an alias either. Vidor (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Five months later is better than never: thanks, Vidor! Doc9871 (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Note to editors

This is a horribly written article. Requires rewriting almost entirely. The content (which may be factually accurate) loses credibility when delivered so poorly. Not good at all.88.104.190.140 (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)18/7/10

Make suggestions here for the "betterment" of the article - or introduce your own changes. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I also find the writing very distracting (and almost clicked "edit" a number of times for the most glaring mistakes, but decided with such poor sentences anyway "why bother") but to me the credibility did not suffer. A study showed recently that Wikipedia articles compare extremely competitively on a factual basis with more august sources, but just have poorer writing and editing. 92.230.64.158 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The only thing worse than a badly written article are idiots who complain about badly-written articles but do nothing to improve them. Vidor (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Only living survivor

I was removed some time ago from the Gacy article. Jeffrey Rignall, was actually tortured and raped. I was not. I was offered a ride by John Wayne Gacy in front of the Des Plaines, Illinois Bus Depot, in front of a number of people, including an old couple who looked back at me. I refused the ride. I believe my story is important for three reasons. I was probably one of several who turned him down and this may have led to him carrying a weapon, as he did in the December, 1977 abduction at gun-point. I am also a witness to the fact that he even made offers from his car window in front of people. Also, he offered me a ride when a woman had reportedly just moved into his home. Jeffrey Rignall died several years ago from complications from AIDS. Daviddaniel37 (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The film Gacy House

It should be noted that it is obviously a work of fiction. It has been presented as factual in a round about way. I see no value as it does not outline any facts about the Gacy case. It is merely an attempt to make money off Gacey's notoriety using a formula as Blair Witch Project did. Respectfully, 75.159.210.55 (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 173.24.246.29 (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)well then173.24.246.29 (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Improvements

I'm trying to get this article's quality up: perhaps FA, or at least GA quality. The main points that need to be rectified in my opinion:

• Some unverified bits need sources or removal: WP:VERIFY
• Citations need consistent formatting: WP:CITE
• Formatting in general needs to follow WP:MOS
• The lead section needs to be more comprehensive, summarize the contents of the article: WP:LEAD
• The paragraphs need to be more integrated (they are very cut up at the moment)

Other than those things the article is looking quite good. Any help is much appreciated. Regards, Jujutacular ^talk 22:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

File:John Wayne Gacy art.jpg

The file description of this image says it was done by Gacy, but the source of the image (Flickr) does not make that claim. Even if it was drawn by Gacy, the image would not be free, and hence would be deleted from Commons and would need a non-free fair-use rationale. The image should be removed from the article. Jujutacular ^talk 22:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I saw it in the commons and put it on. There is no image of Gacy as pogo, so it could work, and I changed the description to say Painting depicting Gacy as "Pogo".

There is a photo of Gacy in his "Pogo" getup further down in the article, which I think should suffice. Also, I think it would be bad form to include some random person's artistic depiction of the clown. Jujutacular ^talk 23:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Gacy as an artist

Just a thought: wouldn't the 'Gacy as an artist' section be better placed directly beneath the 'death row and execution' section?--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Doc talk 20:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The picture of him as Pogo needs to be moved as well, back to where it was in the section that mentions Pogo. Doc talk 20:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Doc talk 20:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Good job. I was pondering where to place the actual image myself, but you've taken care of that concern. --Kieronoldham (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! The Pogo picture actually used to be where it is now, but got moved down to the bottom for some reason. I'd always thought the artist section was out of place but wouldn't have noticed it again unless you pointed it out. Cheers :> Doc talk 21:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jscherer26, 3 July 2011

Spelling name of Judge should be Louis B. Garippo not Garrippo

Cook County http://www.cookcountyclerkofcourt.org/?section=RecArchivePage&RecArchivePage=john_w_gacy

Sullivan & Maiken http://books.google.com/books?id=9MILgxGF11kC&pg=PA247&dq=Louis+B.+Garippo&hl=en&ei=zr4PTvabGOmPsQLMjLX9CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Louis%20B.%20Garippo&f=false

Jscherer26 (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually I don't see any mention of the name in your second source, but it's clearly there with a single "r" in your first source -- and also later within the same section of this very Wikipedia article. So I fixed it. -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.19.54.33, 11 July 2011

John Wayne Gacy was actually born in Waterloo, Indiana.

76.19.54.33 (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What's your source? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done please provide sources to back up claims. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - culture - music - "John Wayne Gacy Jr" by Sufjan Stevens on Illinois

Please add a "Music" subsection to the "Culture" section and cite Sufjan Steven's song about John Wayne Gacy, named "John Wayne Gacy, Jr." on the album Illinois.

from the wikipedia page about this album (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_(album)): "John Wayne Gacy, Jr." documents the story of the 1970s Chicago-based serial killer of the same name. Several lyrics make explicit references to events in his life: "[w]hen the swingset hit his head" refers to event in Gacy's childhood, when a swing hit his head and caused a blood clot in his brain;[6][19] "He dressed up like a clown for them / with his face paint white and red" alludes to the nickname given to Gacy—the "Killer Clown";[2] and "He put a cloth on their lips / Quiet hands, quiet kiss on the mouth" references Gacy's use of chloroform to subdue and molest his victims.[6][19] The song ends with the narrator turning inward with the lyrics: "And in my best behavior, I am really just like him / Look beneath the floorboards for the secrets I have hid." Stevens stated in a 2009 interview with Paste that "we're all capable of what [Gacy] did."[4]

216.239.45.4 (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

edit request for final paragraph, murder section

Summerdale is interpreted as a street further on in that paragraph, please remove [which is what? a street?], unless of course you can come up with a better way to form the sentence/paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theicebeamcometh (talk • contribs) 20:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Simple Typo

Under the section Arrest and confession, "Most victims were buried Gacy's crawl space where..." needs to say "Most victims were buried in Gacy's crawl space where...." Thanks

 Done Thanks for spotting this. --Kieronoldham (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Biased

I noticed how they make John Wayne Gacy look angry in every photograph of his while all his victims have photographs of them smiling and looking so happy. It's totally biased and not professional for a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.227.148 (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, folks don't get smiley when posing for mug shots. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - dead link

The link for reference #151 (i.e. the article "Stephen Koschal, the Creepiest Man in the Memorabilia Industry, Is a Proud Miamian" from the Miami New Times) is dead. The article to which it was once pointing is now located here: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/cultist/2010/04/meet_stephen_koschal_the_most.php . Can someone with the ability to edit the page please correct this? -208.81.148.194 (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - Fact wrong

In the "Trial" section, it states that the trial was conducted in Rockford. Although this is cited to the Sullivan book, it is incorrect; possibly misunderstood from the reading of the book. Judge Garippo was a Cook County judge. When Gacy's defense team moved for a change of venue because due to the heavy media coverage of the story in and around Cook County it believed Gacy couldn't get an impartial jury. Judge Garippo denied the motion, but ordered that the jury would be selected from Rockford. Thus, Judge Garippo presided over jury selection in a Rockford Courtroom, but for trial the selected jury was brought to Cook County. Trial was conducted in the Criminal Courts Building at 26th and California streets in Chicago. This can be verified in the recent book by Gacy's defense attorney, Amirante, Sam L.; Broderick, Danny (2011). John Wayne Gacy Defending a Monster. Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN 978-1-61608-248-2. Discussion of this begins on page 241. I made this change on 9/6/11, but either I failed to save the edit correctly or someone changed it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.64.233 (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Gacy Documentary

In early or mid-nineties Russian television aired an American documenary on Gacy's case. I still can remember black and white police surveillance camera footage of Gacy's home, including police raid and site investigation, witnesses and neighborhood dwellers in typical fashioned otfit of 70's as well as investigators' backgroud comments on strong smell of decomposing corps inside the Gacy's house and in close distance from its outer walls which was another lead towards the murder case. I think it would interesting to find the details of that documentary film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.206.59.8 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Execution - please clarify

In the following bit of text:

"In the summer of 1984, the Supreme Court of Illinois upheld Gacy's conviction and ordered that he be executed by lethal injection on November 14.[140] Gacy filed an appeal against this decision, which on March 4, 1985, the Supreme Court of the United States denied. On the morning of May 9, 1994, Gacy was transferred from the Menard Correctional Center to Stateville Correctional Center to be executed."

...it seems to suggest he would be executed in 1984, but then skips straight to 1994 without explanation. The source is a book, so could someone who knows what happened in the ten missing years please clarify? Thanks. BearAllen (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It could certainly use expansion: but FYI, basically he just kept on appealing for all kinds of ridiculous reasons, basking in his celebrity behind bars, giving interviews and selling his paintings. This article indicates that he exhausted his very final possible appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court in October of 1993 - so there were many other appeals between 1985 and then. I'll see what I can dig up. Doc talk 15:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What happened in the interim was the so-called "collateral appeals" process.

In a death-penalty case there are two lines of appeal -- first is the "direct" line, which in Gacy's case took place in 1984-5: conviction in trial court >> appeal to state supreme court >> appeal to U.S. Supreme Court.

After the direct appeals are denied, the collateral appeals process begins: motion to set aside conviction in original trial court >> state supreme court >> habeas corpus petition in U.S. District Court >> U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals >> U.S. Supreme Court.

And then it can go through the collateral appeals cycle again, if a new appeal basis is found -- and then again ... so you can see why these guys sit on Death Row for years and years. I don't know the specifics of Gacy's collateral appeals, but it's all in the public record, so a Google search should turn it up if you're interested. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 15:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was aware, of course, that these things drag on endlessly and it often takes ten or twenty years, but in this case the wording - a date was set for Nov '84, he appealed, it was declined, and he was executed...in 1994 was so misleading/confusing I thought to check if it was a typo. Thanks for clearing it up. BearAllen (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I added a little blurb based on the article I found (which is short and somewhat temporary until it can be expanded). Hopefully it's a little less confusing now, but the whole article needs a lot of work. Cheers :> Doc talk 05:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Theodore (Ted) Szal

CNN reports that a suspected victim was excluded by DNA from his family and has been found alive:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/21/man-believed-to-be-victim-of-serial-killer-john-wayne-gacy-found-alive/?hpt=hp_t3

G. Robert Shiplett 23:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that the one who had actually run away from home and recently turned up in Florida or some such? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oregon. Someone already added a mention of it, and I'm going to clean up the barelink ref they left. At least it was referenced! Doc talk 23:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha, so there's at least 2 of them now. This[1] is the one I was thinking of, a Floridian named Harold Wayne Lovell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there'll be more stories like this emerging since the renewed massive identifying effort began, with seven more bodies still unidentified and plenty of questions as to who they are. Pretty cool when they turn up alive: if I were this latest guy's family, I'd be like, "You know, you could have CALLED once in a while!" Doc talk 00:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - unmentioned fact

According to the Discovery Channel show, Most Evil, episode 2, Cold-Blooded Killers, Gacy's father shot their family pet, a dog, to punish his son. As addressed in Most Evil and many other psychological studies, the circumstances and events in a person's childhood greatly effect who they are. I can see that many things in his childhood are addressed, I was just wondering if that event could/should be added? Thanks. mlatimor (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"For no reason"?

"A friend of Gacy's named Richard Dalke recalled an incident in which Gacy's father, drunk, began shouting at his son for no reason, then began hitting him." Now I'm not a regular editor on here by any means, but this just seems like a rather un-encyclopedic way to phrase that. I'd say it fails as a "neutral point of view" as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.13.230 (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• The word structure of page 32 and 33 of the reference are not too dissimilar to those you refer to. I will look into what you say.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No media links?

A recently added "In Music" section with info about the Sufjan Stevens song "John Wayne Gacy Jr" from the album Illinois has been removed. I see a comment at the top of the page reading:

DO NOT ADD "TRIVIA", "IN POPULAR CULTURE", OR "MEDIA" SECTIONS TO THIS ARTICLE. HE'S A CONVICTED KILLER, PEOPLE, NOT SOMETHING TO BE CELEBRATED WITH TRIVIALITIES. THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE ENTRIES WOULD BE NON-FICTION FILMS, BOOKS OR TELEVISION SPECIALS, OR SONGS THAT HE WROTE HIMSELF. REFERENCES IN A SONG BY BANDS OR SONGWRITERS, OTHERWISE UNRELATED TELEVISION SHOWS SUCH AS THE SIMPSONS WILL BE REMOVED WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION

This comment seems overly subjective for an encyclopaedia. I'm aware that Gacy is a serial killer. I don't interpret an encyclopaedia stating facts about his being referenced in popular culture as a celebration of him or his crimes. Nor do I consider references in popular culture trivial. In fact, I'm not really sure what qualifies as a triviality in this context. Why the ban?

--Smnwhtkr (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's really quite simple. The WikiProject which oversees this article has determined that it is inappropriate to add "trivia sections", "in popular culture" or other similarly titled sections and that the only acceptable "trivia" would consist of historically accurate mentions in films and television programs. Please see WP:TRIVIA, which discourages the creation of such sections, such as the one removed from this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Coffee I've just pored over the top-importance projects governing this article and found no explicit references to media or trivia. I'd like to read what's being referred to in terms of governing media content referencing murderers, for I feel it's missing the point to dismiss a song such as is being discussed above; the number of times people have attempted to add it to the article, compounded with the biographical accuracy of its content seems to me sufficient to make its perspective relevant and perhaps 'tasteful' enough to merit inclusion. I know that years ago I found the link of sufficient merit as to cause me to hunt down the lyrics, and isn't the useful nesting of information an end-goal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.8.199.80 (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Gacy hosted a Kinks gig

Should the suspicious mention of Gacy apparently hosted a Kinks gig - mentioned (as far as I am aware) solely in Mojo magazine in the mid-1990s be entered in the article? Personally, I believe it is dubious trivia, at best based upon the suspicions of the bass player of the band that some "greasy, fat guy" (or suchlike) has made passes at him at a 1965 gig. I wonder if other references can be found.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Concur. Even if true (dubious), not encyclopedic/noteworthy. This is analogous to the many women who are "pretty sure" that Ted Bundy followed them around, or picked them up hitchhiking one day, and maybe he did, but so what? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a limited number of people who (1) lived to tell about Gacy's M.O. and (2) were willing to talk about it. I like that everyone else saw Gacy as pillar of the community and at least one of his intended targets could see him somewhat at the time for what he was. Mojo is a British classic rock-oriented magazine, neither a pulp fanzine, nor the New York Times. The reliability of the account falls on Quaife, not on the magazine, unless they misquoted him. I don't know that every detail in this article has to have forensic significance; it just has to be interesting. Why does the public know the names of JFK's mistresses? It has no significance to the presidency. But it makes any article about JFK interesting. An imprecise analogy was Deborah Harry's belief for years (later confirmed incorrect) that Ted Bundy had enticed her. They were not in the same place at the same time, so the perp must have been someone else. If Debbie had been correct, though, it would be an example of a serial killer having cast such a wide net that at least one near-victim became prominent. Additionally, this was not the account of Dave Davies, whom Gacy was trying to hit on and is eccentric; if it was he who mentioned Gacy, I would question this, too. Obviously as the edit was mine I am a proponent as it adds interest to the article. Swinterich (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistencies + Style Issues

Someone with expertise should really read through this entire article for inconsistencies and style issues. I realize this is Wikipedia, but the article absolutely reads as though it was written by multiple authors who didn't pay much attention to what other authors contributed. This makes for a rather confusing read. Just two examples that stuck out (I can't bring myself to re-read in detail right this minute--lots of really emotionally heavy stuff in there):

"Michael Rossi was interviewed a second time: on this occasion, Rossi was more cooperative" There's nothing at all written in the account of the first interview that indicated he was at all less than cooperative. This line implies he was a willing accomplice. (Maybe he was; the article's not very clear on who he is, aside from being a former employee.) The section on his polygraph test confuses that matter even further, but considering the length of the aside, it's never given that much consideration and is never referenced again.

"The jury deliberated for less than two hours and found Gacy guilty" One paragraph later: "The jury deliberated for more than two hours before they returned with their verdict"

It is difficult to condense so many references into one article without being 100% sublime, isn't it? This is esp. true when attempting to avoid the article being too long without going too far off the tangent. Just my own opinion (I don't know what other editors will think) but for your 1st point, I think the second paragraph reveals in its words Rossi did not significantly contribute info. in the first interview. (A lot of "No" replies in that 1st interview which largely focused upon how the Plymouth Satellite belonging to Szyc came to be in his possession - the book used as a reference for that paragraph harks to this.)

The second point is interesting and I think, personally, it should be reworded slightly to avoid 2 instances of subsequent sentences starting with the same word sequence --Kieronoldham (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Gacy was attacked and stabbed in the arm in February 1983

It should be mentioned that John Wayne Gacy was stabbed in the arm by fellow death row inmate Henry Brisbon in February of 1983 at Menard Correctional Center. This was obviously a significant event and was publicized in several news articles at the time. This should be in the article under the period of his imprisonment, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.79.200 (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. That was added earlier upon your mention. Thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Is poetry worthy of inclusion

An ip editor added a reference to a poem, inspired by Gacy, in this edit. The poem "West Summerdale Ave", appears in the book Tonight the Summer's Over, by noted poet Rory Waterman (ISBN 978-1-84777-207-7). The addition was subsequently removed. Why should a reference to this poem not be included here? Poetical treatments of serial killers are quite unusual. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that was almost trivia. To me it certainly wouldn't classify as belonging in the subsection 'books' which are all factual books relating to the case. Maybe another subsection entitled 'In other literature' would be appropriate to place it in? If that does happen, I worry we will see people ignoring the filters and placing incidental trivia like the Church of Misery song about Gacy in there, though.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps debatable, but to me not trivia. "In literature" or "In fiction" would be fine by me. Possible trivia arriving in future no reason to disallow it. Personally don't see what's so different about a song. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Elmer Wayne Henley

It was said Gacy was influenced by Elmer Wayne Henley, and when one looks into his crimes, it seems reasonable to include, if there be a spot.

For example, see this article from the Sarasota Herald on 12 Feb 1980, Youth Who Escaped Gacy Testifies At Murder Trial Cake (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a mention to his being being influenced to construct the board used to manacle his victims by what he had read about the Corll/Henley/Brooks case. It's included in the confession section.--Kieronoldham (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Link to a song

Really does that seem appropriate? Shouldn't it just go on the Gacy disambiguation link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dghavens (talk • contribs) 05:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Murders Section TOO long

THis needs to be broken down into sub-sections by year or something. It is far too long. --Inayity (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wholly agree. It's way too long and cumbersome. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It has been that length for several years and covers pertinent details, but could be split into sections or condensed a little if that would appease?--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure it's all relevant material. But I've seen smaller amounts split off into separate articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sections would be a good start, by year or by something. At least make it easy to read.--Inayity (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I could split into sections and perhaps move a few sentences. Matter of fact, even though I don't think there is anything detrimental with the current structure, I think that creating two or, perhaps, 3 subsections to the chapter would be an improvement.If there are no objections I'll do so tomorrow.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Done as requested. Hope that suffices.--Kieronoldham (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much better and very easy to read. Cruising years still a little long and it should not be a subset of divorce. The investigation section is also too long. I am not editing it b/c it is better from someone familar with the topic. I am just a fly by observer. --Inayity (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Just adjusted the divorce section to become a subsection. Adjusted the investigation chapter to include subsections. As you stated, it is easier to navigate now. Regaqrds.--Kieronoldham (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a vast improvement. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"convicted of the sexual assault and murder of a minimum of 33 teenage boys and young men"

I take issue with the phrasing of "convicted of the sexual assault and murder of a minimum of 33 teenage boys and young men". As far as I know, courts do not convict people of a minimum crimes, and the article itself seems to say that he was convicted for 33 murders (not 33 murders or more). I suggest the sentence should read something like "John Wayne Gacy, Jr. (March 17, 1942 – May 10, 1994), also known as the Killer Clown, was a convicted American serial killer and rapist who committed sexual assault and murders of at least 33 teenage boys and young men in a series of killings committed between 1972 and 1978 in Chicago, Illinois." --Sus scrofa (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)