Talk:John Wayne Gacy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Audio version of this article

I'm an MSc Criminology student and have experience doing voiceover work as well and would be interested in recording the audio version of this article. With two relatively recent programmes about Gacy (Peacock and Netflix) being perhaps responsible for a renewed interest in his case it may be that this article will undergo a surge of edits so I don't know whether it's already in a fairly stable condition. I've never recorded an audio version of a Wikipedia article before so am not sure how the decision-making process works. Would anybody be able to advise? Thanks, Webster — Preceding unsigned comment added by Websterforrest (talk • contribs) 14:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The article was reviewed and deemed GA about two years back following exhaustive research and populating by myself and several others. Matter of fact, it appeared as one of the 25 most viewed articles upon Wikipedia for two consecutive weeks in April this year. I can assure you very little pertinent info. is missing. I know these articles are sometimes used as references for some true crime podcasts and YT videos and although I believe there would be no issue recording an audio version, I am unsure (particularly depending upon what purpose of use). Referencing the source may be of help.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'm not sure whether I've put my request in the right terms: what I'm actually talking about doing is recording the spoken version of this article, to be used on Wikipedia. I've only recently seen a few articles that have a spoken version accessed via the speaker icon in the top right corner, and wanted to record the Gacy article so it's available in that format. I'm not talking about using the text for something outside of Wikipedia. I found guidance on how to do this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia/Article_choice_guidelines and was following through on Step 4 of that process. As I say, I've not got that much experience in contributing to Wikipedia, but I'm keen to do this recording. --Websterforrest Webster Forrest, London UK (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't see that purpose of use being any form of infringement. Not researched further though. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Political Party

Why is the serial killer's political party listed in his bio? There is absolutely no information that he engaged in politics in any meaningful ways anywhere here. 2600:1700:1FF0:9260:2564:44AC:3777:3549 (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

He was a Democratic precinct captain in Waterloo and was involved in local Democratic politics. This is referenced by Sam Amirante in chapter one of his book 'Defending a Monster'. Webster Forrest, London UK (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

That doesn’t mean it should be mentioned in the infobox. It’s only touched upon very briefly in the article and is irrelevant towards his notability. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2022

Add subsection to Films and Documentary for music, including songs by Sufjan Stevens, Macabre, Low Roar, Balthory, Saint Loso. 64.131.121.236 (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You'll need to provide secondary sources to show that any of these mentions are noteworthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2022

2600:1007:B10D:96:D34B:462B:1EED:7C8 (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

John Wayne Gacy was a Lutheran, not a Catholic. Even the sources cited mention nothing about Catholicism.

 Not done: He was Catholic, and repeatedly referred to himself as such. The reference "Cahill p. 37" states "John was a devout Catholic".--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2022 (2)

Section: Early Life, Heading: Career Origins, first paragraph - the hyperlink for “patsy” redirects to “dupe.” It should redirect to “patsy.” 2600:1700:52C0:8D60:C88A:C80B:345D:8FD5 (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done –Daveout(talk) 07:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2022

Under the “Details” section, it says, “Span of Crimes 1972-1978

However, the article then states, “Gacy was convicted of the sodomy of a teenage boy in Waterloo, Iowa, in 1968 …”

I would suggest editing the “Span of crimes” text to “Span of murders” or expanding the years to “1968-1978.” 2600:1700:52C0:8D60:C88A:C80B:345D:8FD5 (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done –Daveout(talk) 08:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

He was only convicted in 1968. The known offenses began in Aug. of 1967.--Kieronoldham (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Dahmer Netflix series

I removed mentions of Gacy being featured in the Netflix Dahmer series because his appearances are so brief and served only to mention a trivia: that gacy was executed the same day Dahmer was baptized. –Daveout(talk) 08:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

He got a few minutes of screentime in quite a successful show (in terms of viewship) so I'm not sure I would classify that as trivia. Reflecktor (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

yea, I rewatched and it shows gacy in action, so i guess you're right. restored –Daveout(talk) 14:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Several documentaries devoted to offenders like this reference and compare other serial offenders. This series (about Dahmer) is a mish-mash of accuracy and fabrication/skewing.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you watched the show? It doesn't merely "mention" or "reference" him. As I said above, he was portrayed by an actor who got several minutes of screentime. Reflecktor (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Enough sections and episodes of the series, including enough to know the directors fabricated facts and scenes due to what I can only assume is either propaganda, poor research, or intentional abandonment of truth. Gacy is mentioned in several crime documentaries, some of which have minor sections devoted to him (The Killing of America for one). This instance is just a sensational tail-end trivial fact/addition which I personally can only assume is a last gasp wracking effort to sensationalize Dahmer, lassoing Gacy into the orbit as a means of doing so and mentioning an eclipse as one means of justification (with Scarver as a noble individual).--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Whether the show is a fabrication or sensationalism or whatever is irrelevant to what we're discussing. You reverted the edit on false pretenses, namely that it was a mere incidental mentioning. So given this is wrong what possible reason could there be to oppose the addition? Reflecktor (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I could have chosen my words better, but that series - despite the inaccuracies - is devoted to Dahmer, and is included there. This page is devoted to documentaries etc. focusing upon Gacy himself. This article is GA. If consensus goes against me re: inclusion, then fine. You could look at the media section of the Aileen Wuournos article and see what holds worthiness or not in the media section of a Wikipedia article as opposed to a blog, a Marilyn Manson or Church of Misery article, or an incidental mention in series 3 episode two of a series as opposed to here (and this is putting aside the potential elongation of tidbits of mention here and there).--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

There's no reason why a substantive portrayal of Gacy in a series could not be included so long as it is WP:NOTABLE. Dahmer is a very famous series and the portrayal is substantive enough to have a mention. Reflecktor (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

"জন ওয়্যান গ্যাসি" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect জন ওয়্যান গ্যাসি and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 20#জন ওয়্যান গ্যাসি until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2023

Please change the author’s name in the cited work of Robert Ressler and Tom Schactman Whoever Fights Monsters: My Twenty Years Hunting Serial Killers for the FBhas a typo. Please change the name to Shachtman, as can be seen on the cover of the book on archive.org.--Flaverius (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Flaverius (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--Flaverius (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Missing quotation mark in Trial section

There is a missing quotation mark under the Trial section in the text:

In his opening statement to the jury, one of Gacy's defense attorneys, Robert Motta, remarked: "The insanity defense has been looked [upon] as an escape; a defense of last resort. The defense of insanity is valid and it is the only defense that we could use here, because that is where the truth lies ... because if [Gacy] is normal, then our concept of normality is totally distorted.

I believe there should be a closing quotation mark before the citation.

Thisissomethingtolookfor (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Details

@Kieronoldham: your comment here is exactly the point. This article is intended to provide an accessible overview of the subject for a generalist audience. If a reader needs to have "read most or all of the literature out there about this individual" to understand the significance of a particular point, we have already failed. This article suffers badly from having too many trees and not enough forest, and adding more intricate detail detracts from rather than enhancing the narrative. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

On the surface I understand your observations. But, your mindset seems to override (maybe negate) the point you are trying to make. Seems solely you have these issues with these tags and maybe a GA article will be better with one editor's concern remaining for potentially years (I'll be happy to add a referenced note to both sections by the way). I never even implied that every last reader should be knowledgeable on the topic - on the contrary, my message implies otherwise but focuses on the fact you seemingly think the insertion of the info. is to the detriment of those who read the article in full for the first time. Tagging with "importance" or suchlike just reflects a personal view and potentially leaves a tag on a (hard fought for by several editors by the way) GA article. As for the sterile info. accompanying the two tags, there is no meandering derisiveness beyond the fact the crimes were committed inside his home, or the fact he was Polish in one simple sentence.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The article has already been pruned heavily before GA was established. There is very little meandering or superfluous info. left. A simple reference to the design of his home, or the fact he was half Polish and half Danish (given his crimes and burial grounds and public persona) is hardly impertinent.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I do think that the insertion of material without clear significance is to the detriment of the reader. If it were just this one sentence it wouldn't be a big deal either way, but this is a recurring problem here, and each detail added compounds it. And I think in many ways your mindset is obscuring that problem, because you do have the in-depth knowledge of the literature, and therefore of course you can justify in your own mind (and your edit summaries re-adding it) why each little detail is significant. But our readers don't have the benefit of that knowledge, and what might be clear to you is not to them - and so the article becomes less accessible, full of sterile info and lacking narrative. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

You have removed many tidbits and superfluous info. which hardly needed to be there. :) I understand an article of this nature is not particularly palatable for all, and in no way will all be content with what is revealed or withheld, Nikki. Others among the 672 active watchers both scythed the article to achieve GA status and submitted it for review - not me, even though I responded to suggestions etc. and did populate it to quite a large degree. They determined the best narrative for readers and I can only agree with the narrative of what others have formed the article into, from many a contributors' mindset and observation. I'll be happy to add notes or expound in response to suggestions.--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The nature of the article would be equally as unpalatable if we removed twice again as much, or added three times more. That's not the issue at hand here. It will never be emotionally easy to read, but we should strive to make it easy to follow. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's another example: this revert adds wordiness but little value. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the paragraph structure (I'm sure you'll at least agree upon that). As for the "value claim", the addition/reinsert clarified the father's abuse was not just toward his son. It is just a clarification of his relationship with his father and his father's dismissive attitude towards him, which psychologists have inferred led to his lifestyle pattern of striving for acceptance in addition to his denial of his homosexuality (another failure/mark of scathing in his father's eyes). Needless to say with all the info. out there, and the article generously referenced, the article shouldn't be a pocket book equivalent article. I'm not denying some unnecessary text has been removed here and there by you (and thanks for that), but I'll say again this article has been wrung, re-wrung, hung out to dry, and then forced through a lathe more than once over the years until, each time, it finally met consensus of someone's personal observations and concerns until, finally, after many edits by several editors, it finally passed GA review.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I would agree that there was nothing wrong with the paragraph structure, before that edit; I wouldn't say the same after. As to the article shouldn't be a pocket book equivalent article, it's meant to be much more concise than it is at present - see WP:DETAIL and WP:AS (which are part of the GA criteria). The clarification that the abuse was not just towards the son was accomplished by three words; the rest of the diff doesn't clarify. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)