Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:26, 11 February 2010

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. Chicago High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago High This article has been rated as High-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. Illinois High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois High This article has been rated as High-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. 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. 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

Archives

Through April 2008

Recent edit reversion

I appreciate that the contributor spent some time with the additions today, but there are some issues with it that made me decide to remove it. The material was largely unsourced, with only an extended listing of items taken during a search having a citation. The listing had POV issues in that parts of it were bolded, imparting some air of significance to those items with no explanation of why that was done. The additions also had spelling errors and some grammar problems. Part of the problem is also that it gave undue weight to the disappearance of one individual. Finally, I have no idea why the list of known victims was rearranged by date of birth, but that made no sense. The listing as it exists in the current version is a listing in order of disappearance, which is more relevant to the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Open containers"?

In the third paragraph of the 'Trial and execution' section the article states that there were arrests for 'open containers.' I have two main questions about this statement:

1. Containers of what?
2. Why does their opening make any difference?

The answer should probably be written into the article as well due to this lack of clarity. --Hydraton31 (talk) _{{Contributions}} 21:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In the US, there are many "open container" laws, which are basically laws that prohibit possessing or consuming an open container of alcohol in public. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Eight John Does

I removed the John Doe that is no longer a John Doe. I wonder, though: do we need the other eight in the article? Specifically, don't they all look alike? I don't know what technology is used for those reconstructions but it looks like eight different versions of the same face. Vidor (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

First homosexual experience?

Removed as unsourced and at least partly erroneous, as the birth of their first child could not have been before 1965. Vidor (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, I think

Especially since neither of the two books I got ahold of as sources have anything past his trial. Vidor (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You've done a great job with this article, Vidor. Thanks so much! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

he was a seriel killer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.196.87 (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag for external link clean up

I removed some of the links there and the reasons can be seen in my edit summaries so I won't annoy everyone with repeating them now. I do not know whether this link, should remain. Personally I don't really see any reason for it though it is 'his' artwork so maybe. So input on whether this should remain or not is welcomed. If anyone disagrees with my reasoning and removal of the other external links, please do not hesitate to replace them, it does not upset me at all to be reverted. Also, I didn't remove the tag for clean up since it was just put there and I want to allow others time to see what I did and make any changes they feel necessary. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 15:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I returned the Find a Grave link. I've never seen it removed as a violation of WP:EL before, and I can find nothing in that policy that would indicate this site is a violation. I also don't see what on the page would be a WP:BLP violation, everything on the page is included in this article (for instance, the name of his ex-wife). Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I was using my judgement on this and that is the reason I posted it here so that others could see what I did. --CrohnieGal 16:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Guinness World Record holder?

What specific record does Gacy hold? C1k3 (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Father's death

The article first states that his father died in 1965 and then goes on to say 1969. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.118.51 (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, the ref used says 1969 so I changed it back. I am assuming that it was probably changed during one of the may vandal attempts to the article which was just missed. I hope this helps. --CrohnieGal 11:48, 18 January 2009 (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)

Victims

I have changed the date of disappearance of John Gacys second known victim from July 21, 1975 to July 31, 1975. In several sources, this has been specified as the correct date of disappearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieronoldham (talk • contribs) 19:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, you changed the date that is currently referenced. If it conflicts with other sources, then you need to provide specifics on the "several sources" you mention and the discrepancy would be noted. When you just change sourced data, it gives the impression of falsification. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

The intro says that Gacy killed "33 boys... 27 of whom he buried in a crawl space". According to the "Arrest" section, "Twenty-nine bodies were found in Gacy's crawlspace" and that Gacy confessed to throwing five more off the bridge for a possible total of 34. 75.84.122.117 (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the "Arrest" section says "Twenty-nine bodies were found in Gacy's crawlspace and on his property", so that is not contradictory. And while Gacy confessed to throwing five off the bridge, it doesn't mean that was confirmed in any way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

One victim, Butkovich, was buried under the garage. I am rereading "Killer Clown" and I'll check the numbers again. Vidor (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And another victim was found under the barbecue pit, and a third under the kitchen floor. 26 in the crawl space. I'll make sure the numbers all match. Vidor (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2009 (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)

Pogo?

Before I boldly add the image, can anyone tell me why there's no image of Gacy as Pogo? There used to be one, didn't there? The fact that he's deceased and no free images can be created of him (and there are no known free images of him as Poco available) should be more than enough to keep the image in. Any input before I add it? Doc9871 (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think you are correct but not sure. Go ahead and add one if you have one. Happy holidays, --CrohnieGal 13:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Chronie, and Happy Holidays to you as well! After looking further, I realize that it's not the image itself that's the problem - it's where to put it. Pogo is only mentioned in the last sentence of the intro, and that's it. I'm looking for a place to insert even the smallest image, and I'm having considerable trouble. I wish I had my Gacy book here (The Man Who Killed Boys), as I remember a good chunk of info about Pogo, including how Gacy violated professional "clown rules" by painting the corners of the mouth makeup into an upwards-pointed grin, which frightens some children(!) Anyone got a sentence or two to add about Pogo in the article body? My books are out-of-state, otherwise I would do it... Doc9871 (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

All done... Doc9871 (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit revert

I have reinstituted the change in citation styling which the editor who added it called "a fairly minor organizational effort. Besides, you wiped out new information in addition to the formatting" I agree with the rationale given by the editor who reverted the first edit who said "no discussion or consensus to switch citation styles." No one approached this talk page to propose such a change in citation styling, nor was consensus obtained to implement such a major stylistic change. I don't know how to use that style and I am certain neither do the majority of editors who work on this article. It was an inappropriate implementation of a major style change. Such changes really require consensus. The only new information was small and lacked proper citation for the statements added. I oppose this change. LaVidaLoca (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am copying over the comment the editor left for me and my response to him regarding this issue as my statement about this:

Instead of just reverting and wiping out all my changes, including ones not related to the citation formatting, you could have discussed it first. I don't see any reason why having the references more organized is a problem, but of course I wouldn't since you didn't actually say what your problems were. How about taking it to talk instead of just wiping it as if it's vandalism?—Chowbok ☠ 22:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it rather ironic that you suggest that I discuss reverting your edits when, in fact, I clearly stated in the edit summary my issue with your edits: "no discussion or consensus to switch citation styles." What you did was not simply a minor organizational edit, you implemented a citation style change across the entire article without so much as a proposal, much less garner consensus to do so. In my opinion, this was a major style change to a style of citation that is not widely used on Misplaced Pages, and is one that with which most editors are unfamiliar. Your content addition included "33 counts of murder in the first degree" which was uncited and "Gacy was investigated and caught for all the murders apparently because of one simple case of his own carelesness: killing a youth who lived in his own neighborhood." which was also uncited. Major changes such as this requires consensus amidst editors on the page and not have it thrust upon them. Your revert of my opposition edit was inappropriate given the edit summary I left. Such changes must have consensus before instituting it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You are overstating the degree of change. What in particular are your problems with my reformatting? I didn't mean to readd those other statements, like the "33 counts" stuff -- I didn't add those originally and they got caught up in the revert.—Chowbok ☠ 00:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No. You came in and implemented a complete change of citation style. That was not done with consensus of other editors, it was done arbitrarily by you. If you can't see the issue with having done that, then further explanation will not clarify it for you. You made a major citation style change without consensus or even seeking it. That is not how we do things here. WP:CITE says specifically: "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). I'm looking back over the talk page and not findng where you sought, or obtained, consensus to do this, effectively violating WP:CITE. Is that clear enough? LaVidaLoca (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But I didn't change the citation styles! I just added anchors. Oh well, fine. Now that we're talking about it, can you tell me specifically what problems you have with it? And can you at least restore the non-controversial changes I made and spent some time on?—Chowbok ☠ 00:40, 15 January 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 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)

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 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'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)

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class Chicago articles
• High-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• B-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• High-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• B-Class Crime-related articles
• Top-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles