Talk:Jeffrey Dahmer/Archive 1

---

User:Someone Else: Thanks for correcting the "wife named susan" bit. I was somewhat wondering about that, since Dahmer is famous for being strictly gay. Also, I think some of the articles would have mentioned if he had a wife. --Pakaran 16:07, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Should there be mention of Ed Gein, seeing how he was a famous serial killer, also from Wisconsin?

--

Personally, think That the Ed Gein mention is completely out of place in this article, so am removing it.

DreamGuy

40 year old virgin should be mentioned, the serial killer reference refers to dahmer

Registered Offender?

Was there a registry in Ohio in 1988? The statement should be sourced or removed.71.205.222.97 (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails

This video from 1992 by Nine Inch Nails should be included in the article as it was inspired by Dahmer's killings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgipBYvrRpU&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bimbamboum (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

An interesting review of the movie: http://hnv.nin.net/hnv8/broken.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.96.231 (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Parallels or parallelisms

What do you guys think is the proper form?

• Parallels with the British serial killer Dennis Nielsen are often drawn.

or

• Parallelisms with the British serial killer Dennis Nielsen are often drawn.

English is not my mother language, but parallels sounds quite incorrect to me. xDCDx 16:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi, xDCDx.

English is my mother tongue, and "parallelisms" sounds quite incorrect to me, and to God ("parallels" 42,800 v "parallelisms" 119).

chocolateboy 16:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

It might simply be better to rephrase the sentence, something like this:

• Parallels are often drawn between Dahmer and the British serial killer Dennis Nielsen.

Different structure and no need to squibble; "parallel" serves the need correctly. Hope that helps! <3

24.238.203.44 03:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC) (Chacharu)

---

Hi there, the google thing is not proof enough for me. For example "fun" appears more in google than "funny", but both words are correct, and usually they are non-interchangeable. Investigating some more I found these: definition of parallelism definition of parallel The following quote from the latter one actually makes both of us right, but "parallel" is more widely used as an adjetive, and "parallelism" is only used as a noun, so I continue to think that "parallelisms" is more suitable for that particular phrase. Quote:

 parallel
 (...)
 n.
  3. The condition of being parallel; near similarity
     or exact agreement in particulars; parallelism.
 (...)

 parallelism
 n.
  1. The quality or condition of being parallel;
     a parallel relationship.
  2. Likeness, correspondence, or similarity in
     aspect, course, or tendency.
  (...)

xDCDx 20:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi.

Your "fun"/"funny" analogy misrepresents the Google stats, which compare the usage of two marginally overlapping nouns in the context used in the article i.e. "draw parallels", "parallels are drawn" and "drawing parallels" vs "draw parallelisms", "parallelisms are drawn" and "drawing parallelisms". The "fun"/"funny" standoff is completely unrelated.

Rifling through dictionary definitions to improvise an inappropriate usage is like rifling through inconsistencies in English orthography to argue that "fish" should be spelled "ghoti". Common usage, common sense, clarity and good taste disfavour any number of constructions that could legally be concocted by someone determined to use a dictionary to generate meaning rather than analyze it.

"Parallelisms" is at best clumsy and at worst clueless. Of course "parallelisms" can also mean "parallels". The transitive verb "to rule" can also mean "to draw something with a ruler". As a result, one could say "parallelisms have been ruled between Dahmer and Nielsen ... "; however one wouldn't and one shouldn't in an encyclopaedia.

chocolateboy 00:42, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Hello again,

I thought the google links were like the googlefight one, that's why I did not check them and provided the "fun"/"funny" comparison, my fault. These ones are more appropiate in the context. So you must be right then.

My stubborness came because in spanish we say "paralelismos" rather than "paralelos". One of the many false friends, although a rather subtle one.

Sorry for the trouble.

xDCDx 12:47, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dahmer Rumors

I don't really know if you want to add anything about this or not but there are rumors that Dahmer actually posted on a newsgroup called alt.tasteless

Also, there have been a lot of rumors about Dahmer listening to Industrial music. Some claim that he picked up victims at a Skinny Puppy concert and was also listening to an album from Clock DVA called Buried Dreams. Buried Dreams is a concept album about sexual fetishism, sadism, and violence. It was supposedly on his stereo when the cops raided his home. Buried Dreams was also the title of a book about John Wayne Gacy.

Another strange rumor is how Dahmer felt about Star Wars and how he related to the power the Emperor had over others.

Artists discussing Dahmer [1] [2]

Info from alt.tasteless about his posts [3][4]

Geee, early 90's... The guy was into Internet early...

Newsgroups have been around for years. They started in 1979 and his address was from a school computer which woud have had access to newsgroups back then.

Newsgroups and forums discussing Dahmer rumors in the Industrial music communities [5] [6] [7]

A strange interview done with Dahmer about Star Wars and how he related to the Emperor [8]

          Edit: The Star Wars one is a fact.  It's from I Have Lived in the Monster: Inside the Minds of the Most Notorious Serial Killers by Robert K. Ressler.

There were other movies he was kind of obsessed with, it says in the "American Nightmare" book, the first to be written about him. He identified with the yellow-eyed monster in The Exorcist 2 or one of the Psycho sequels, these crappy movies, and he bought yellow eye lens and wore them, according to the book.

Rebaptized?

This is the first I've heard of someone being re-baptised. I thought in most cases a person was only baptized once. I know sometimes a person may be baptized a second time if their converting from one form of Christianity to another and the church they're entering doesn't recognize the baptism as valid. In the Catholic Church, that's generally the case. And in the off event that there was a question as to whether prior baptisms were valid, the person would be conditionally baptised. I'm not sure if rebaptism would be an accurate description of what happened or not.
JesseG 06:17, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Being rebaptized is a real thing. I think it tends to be more in the charismatic style churches though, where they are big into the dramatic stuff. It can also creep into other sects now and then too. I remember the church I grew up in had a couple instances where they were going to do it and many people thought it was unnecessary and abnormal. DreamGuy 20:17, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I know two people who were re-baptized. Since baptism obviously has no legal binding, if someone leaves the church and perhaps is then convinced to return at a later date, it's a way for them to re-commit, publicly to being a Christian. -Wikitoddia 23:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Simple error that needs fixing

The article states that the 14-year-old victim in 1991 was the older brother of the 13-year-old molested in 1988. This, obviously, is not possible - likely a simple mistake, but it needs fixing, and I've no idea where to look for the information.

This is actually true. It is a coincidence though, Dahmer was surprised to learn they were related.

This cannot be true: A is 14 in 91, B is 13 in 88, when A should be 11 -- in which case, A cannot be the older brother of B. --84.59.205.95 15:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, although I think its obvious that the word "older" was accidentally put in for "younger"...

You could have fixed it yourself... [candice dobson]

Fixing the tables

I am a relatively new Wiki editor and I was just wondering if someone could please fix the tables on the victims. I tried to give them a tribute of sorts by showing their pictures to not make them so anonymous so to speak. If you could organize it by Date/Year, Name, Age, and fix up the pictures including the Potential Victims headline with Tracy Edwards that would be great. Sorry to make it look so bad, but I admit that I am new and am only asking for help. Thanks!

ChrisSimpson 05:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Something weird going on?

The following sentence struck me as a little strange, factually questionable and grammatically atrocious:

"Later live 2 year old boys were found starck naked in his closet, with poopy underwear wrapped around their head. "

-Anonymous 03:27, 2 May 2006 (GMT-5)

I removed the following passage from the Early Life section. It looks like vandalism.

He then went to work for The Waltos Group, in Newport Beach, California. When later asked as to why he sought a rewarding career, he replied, "...it was a difficult time for me, and I thought it was best to join a team of upstanding citizens who resembled circus clowns."

--JChesley, 2/9/2007

Such vandalisms happen several times a day. I figure, just revert 'em and mark it as minor; don't bother to log them or recount the details, as it will waste your time and clutter the archives.--Orange Mike 16:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That nonsense was posted before my edit on the 8th, and I missed it somehow. I usually check those things. >:( Wahkeenah 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Steven Hicks

Perhaps a brief description of how Dahmer got away with his first murder would be in order

If you mean a description of how he disposed of the body, I can probably do that, with sources, but I'm inclined to think it's a bit sensationalist and unnecessarily graphic. Would anyone else care to weigh in? 24.131.12.228 18:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice the repulsive fact that at the end of Trial and Imprisonment, there is a sentence which is something along the lines of "I like little boys"? I find this extremely disturbing, and a little unnerving that someone is altering this article in such an inappropriate way.

That was standard vandalism of the sort this page seems to attract; it's long since been removed. --Orange Mike 16:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just read the article and am completely confused as to whether or not he got away with the first murder, and how and when it was ever found that he was the murderer. Peoplesunionpro 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

i know the answer seeing as to the fact that steven hicks was my mothers cousin dahmer admitted to the murder and directed police to where he had scattered the remains. further more he was stopped by the police of bath township with the body in garbage bags in the trunk when the officers inquired about the oder he replied o thats just garbage and they let him go seems to me had the investigated further 15 deaths could have been avoided don't ya think? dst stratford ct69.120.197.36 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Tracy Edwards

Just edited the table for Tracy Edwards, could someone check that it's correct, cheers. --Tarzipan 11:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Serious re-write

I re-wrote a lot of the section about Dahmer between 1978 and 1987 (between first and second murders) because it seemed really incomplete and you'd have thought he sat in a box for nine years. Also re-arranged section about his early life and made a couple small changes here and there. Just wanted to make it flow better and offer more explanation (to the degree possible) about Dahmer's progression as a person and the course of the slippery slope to his trial. I did make a lot of changes, hope folks aren't upset. Obviously feel free to change what you don't like but I might come back and do likewise. It was a very interesting article. Cheers. -01:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Konerak

"Jeffrey forked over his ID and told the cops that the kid was his 19-year-old gay lover. Dahmer said that his boyfriend had gotten hammered on booze and just wandered away. Despite the protestations of witnesses at the scene, the cops figured this was just a fag thing and escorted the kid back to Jeffrey's apartment.

Somehow the officers failed to notice any of the corpses and dismembered body parts stashed around the place, not even the one which had been decomposing for three days in the next room. Or, for that matter, the hole in the boy's skull Dahmer had made with an electric drill. The police chalked it up to "a homosexual lovers spat" and left. As soon as they were gone, Dahmer strangled the boy, raped his corpse, and ate some flesh from the carcass. It was his twelfth victim."

Do not remove the grotesque nature of his crimes from the article when they are evidenced. This article is woeful. It has a "pretty" copyrighted picture of Dahmer when it should be using the free mugshot licensed under public domain.--I'll bring the food 03:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of weasel words and implied point of view in this article. Also, I think his trial needs to be explained. The way the article reads now is strange and hard to follow. I actually had to go to the BBC site to make sense of parts of it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why Konerak Sinthasomphone was removed from the victims list, and Stefan Triana isn't recorded as a victim. What are the sources? Also, the victim found by the police was 14, not 17 as is listed. Look at the John Balcerzak article. Professor Cornbread (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed a repeat and a few other things

The song "213" by Slayer was mentioned twice, fixed it. Also switched Literature and Attempted Victims. Cleaned up a few grammar errors. SamuraiFez 05:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a serious problem with the later murders. I am watching an A&E documentry on him at the moment and a lot of what is stated does not match with what I'm seeing and A&E is a pretty reliable source.

Childhood Signs

As we all know the main sign of a possible serial killer is the act of torturing and mutilating animals. This usually occurs in the pre-adolecent stage. This degree of abuse can range anywhere from simply killing an animal or going so far as to remove innards and sometimes even consume them. Such as Richard Trenton Chase, AKA, The Vampire of Sacramento. He would kill an animal and then remove it's insides, Take them home, Place them in his blender and consume them with the belief that his heart would shrink and he would die if he did not complete this ritual at least once every day. Jeffrey Dahmer showed signs of animal mutilation in his pre-adolecent years mainly consisting of beheading and impaling. Dahmer could be compared in some ways to Chase but their ways of ritual were different. The obvious reasoning for Dahmer's killings of young male's was because he was homosexual. Sometimes in a situation of a man realizing his sexual orientation he may become violently confused, Therefor maybe holding a grudge of some sort against other male's without conciously realizing it. As it states in his document he had an incredible fear of abandonment which stems from his parents leaving him alone often. He also like Gacy and many others, Never did stay in one place long enough to aquire any kind of social life.

Actually the well-known triad of torturing animals, bed-wetting and fire-setting is viewed with increasing skepticism. It's also hardly typical for people to become so distressed upon realizing they are homosexual that they become serial killers/necrophiles/cannibals. The crimes of Richard Chase were superficially similar, but they were very different people. I'm not sure how much of this, if any, you intend to include in the article, but it would be best to refrain until you can provide some references to back it up. 24.131.12.228 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Capture and death

There's nothing about his capture under this sub-heading.

The subheading might need to be altered. It wasn't as though he went on the run and there was some massive manhunt, which is what 'capture' sounds like to me. He was arrested in his apartment after an escaped victim brought the police right to his door. 24.131.12.228 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Death

Contrary to popular belief, Dahmer was not killed by a broomstick. His killer stole an iron bar from the prison gym and bashed him on the head with it. Even his father Lionel has confirmed that that was the case.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amber213 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You should cite your source (book,news article,etc). Pixelface 00:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted a line in the fifth paragraph about the conflicting reports regarding Konerak Sinthasomphone. The author states that most of the witnesses were "poor and uneducated, so an accurate account of the events would be impossible to ascertain." What does being poor and uneducated have to do with witnessing a crime and being able to relay what one saw? Is it established fact that the witnesses to this event were poor and uneducated? I am sensing bias on the part of the author.

REDACTED - Verification of Murder Weapon Scriptor Rex 16:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal Scriptor Rex, but Wikipedia requires verifiable sources (generally of the written variety by reputable publications/websites). Because of the anonymity of user names on Wikipedia, there is no way to verify that you are an employee of CCI. I could claim the same place of employment and disagree with you, but it would not be true. Ward3001 00:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Random content blanking

I am restoring the content to this article that is repeatedly being blanked by DreamGuy. No valid reason has been given to remove the content in question, while retaining other similar content, so the attempted removal can only be viewed as an act of random vandalism. --Centauri 12:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

With the statement

IN "who's on the microphone" Notorious BIG say "Cannabilistic like that nigga Jeffery Dahmer,"

that seems to border on vandalism (or maybe grafitti)?

--76.184.94.111 09:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Why was his picture removed?

^^^^ PitchBlack 20:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably because it was a copyright violation; that's the most common reason for image removal hereabouts. --Orange Mike 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference in a Video Game

I added the reference to the video game Shadow Man ... It's not that much of importance but that one more lil thing to add to general knowledge ...

Oxford Apartments

In the "aftermath" section, the Oxford Apartments are mentioned. I assume these are connected with Dahmer somehow, but the article does not say how. Could someone with knowedge of the connection fix this? If it cannot be fixed, the mention of the apartments should be removed. 137.229.25.181 03:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Diana?

Under "Attempted Victims" Diana Wiesnowksi is listed as one. She is not mentioned anywhere else in the article and I can find no other sources mentioning her. Can someone back this up with a source and some explanation? 68.116.143.113 15:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

8 Year Old Murderer?

According to the victims' list, Dahmer committed the first murder just two days after his 8th birthday (unhappy with the present???), and two more before he was twelve. Is this correct, or has someone confused the dates of the murders with the dates of birth? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Franklludwig (talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

some one is confusing the dates. he was in his early 20's when he killed steven hicks his first victem. dst stratford ct69.120.197.36 21:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

He was actually either just 18 or not quite 18 when he killed Steven Hicks. It was the summer of 1978, right after he graduated from high school. (this is according to his father's book.) 68.116.143.113 04:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture references

Is it just me, or does this section seem way too long? Especially references in music, there's dozens of bands/songs that don't really matter. Perhaps we should shorten this, and only include the three to five most popular/well-known instances in each category? - seinman 17:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything (band etc) that doesn't have an article can probably go. If it's too long consider splitting it off into a separate article and perhaps keeping some of the highlights here. Spearhead 19:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the pop culture suggestion. Three to four popular musical references tops. But I wanted to comment about the victim list. I can not verify the very first victim on the list "Luke Newton". Also, other websites which go into detail about each murder victim, list murder victims not on this list. As an example "Steven Hicks". This was Dahmers first victim. I haven't gone all the way throught the list. It does appear that MANY are missing though.

I've removed the tag in the music section - the list as is seems fine, perhaps it was much longer when tagged. Benjiboi 11:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Anybody want this added? From Wiki - Demolition Man - movie- When Simon Phoenix is going over the list of cryocons, he comes across Jeffrey Dahmer's name and decides to release him ("Jeffrey Dahmer? I LOVE that guy!"). At the time the film was shot, Dahmer, who was one of the most infamous serial killers of the 1990s, had just been sentenced to life imprisonment for several murders. This scene is frequently deleted in modern broadcasts of the film due to Dahmer's subsequent murder in prison in 1994, thus making the scene anachronistic.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.88.228 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cops Got Off Easy

It would be nice to know more about why the cops that helped kill Konrack were exonerated. The evidence supporting - at least- gross negligance seems pretty clear cut. Maybe someone familiar with the case could fill out that part of this article. I'd like to know what kind of mind thinks a 14yo kid with a hole drilled in his head is a "fag thing".

Milwaukee's police department had a bad history with the local gay community, and had been trying to clean up its act. The two cops claim to this day that they thought it was a mere lovers' quarrel (the severity of the wound was not obvious), and didn't want to get in bad with the local gay community by aggressively interfering in a domestic dispute (Milwaukee's police department also has a spotty record about appropriate responses to domestic violence). Their Association has a great deal of clout with the local conservative authorities (though not with other unions), and successful prosecutions or even disciplines of police here are rare. --Orange Mike 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be added that the officer was elected president of the UNION, not the 'association' which led me to believe it was an official city position and also award. Union? Means nothing. The guy should be in prison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

Official city position? The police union hated the police chief and mayor as much as anybody; if the city officials liked him, he would never have gotten into office. Like I said, they call themselves a police "association" rather than union (except when it's useful to be a union), and have a much better relationship with the local right-wingers (which is why successful prosecutions or even disciplines of police here are rare) than with local labor, minorities, Democratic elected officials, gays, etc. I'm in no way justifying what they did, to put it mildly; but somebody asked a while back and I tried to give a truthful, neutral answer. --Orange Mike 23:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why were they "named officers of the year"? Rachey (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It was an "Up yours, buddy!" to the then police chief and mayor, by the police union, celebrating the fact that the two cops had gotten off. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Susan Voth link

I'm inclined to remove the Liquored Words & Afterthoughts link from the "References in Poetry" section (and, for that matter, from the similar section on the Ted Bundy page): the link appears to have been added by the book's author, the book itself was published by PublishAmerica, Amazon's got no reviews for it and nothing else under the author's name, and so on . . . speaking from admittedly limited experience, I'd say it adds up to non-notability. Given that the links here and on Ted Bundy have been up for a few days unchallenged, though, I thought I'd better mention it on the talk page first. Iralith 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm taking it out. Iralith 16:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Race of victims?

Could this detail be mentioned in the table? The article mentions some Laotian victims but then mentions Dahmer attacked blacks. This should maybe be fleshed out? Malick78 10:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My Friend Dahmer comic book

I notice this was taken out of the Pop Culture references 9 May 2007 ("removed nonnotable/spam/self-promotion/trivia/fictioncruft/whatever you want to call it"). I added it in (not logged in - apologies) and have no personal connection with the book, but have just read it and thought it a useful and interesting addition. I would disagree that it is non-notable, being a unique first-hand account of Dahmer's school days, an Eisner Award nominated title, and authored by a notabe cartoonist. It certainly stands up alongside some of the other references. Obviously I won't add it back in, but would be pleased if it would be re-considered as a notable addition. Thanks for reading. User:Tybaltstone 10 May 2007

That graphic novel by Derf was also published in Galago, the swedish serious comic periodical; that's where I read it. Unless its content is a hoax (which I have no reason to believe), it belongs under "Further reading", just like you say. I am adding it there. Also see [9]. JöG 22:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's fiction, not a reliable source, and not notable. At some point you have to step back and think about what an encyclopedia is here to do. Promoting cartoons in articles about serious topics isn't one of them. DreamGuy 20:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It may just be a "cartoon", but it is a serious NON-FICTIONAL work that won the most prestigious award possible in the medium. I definitely think that the "My Friend Daher" is noteworthy in the same vein as Dahmer's father's book. The information in it--regarding ages and dates of events--was actually far more accurate than the continually revised list on this wiki page. Just a thought. I think an award-winning comic, written by someone who knew Dahmer, is more relevant than listing obscure death metal songs that reference his name. It's not "fiction" or a silly little "cartoon", so please don't dismiss something that you obviously haven't looked into. 78.86.140.151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Early life / Later murders

I believe this point was brought up earlier (regarding Dahmer's life between 1978 and 1988). The article jumps from "early life" to "later murders" with no transition. The "later murders" starts by saying one of Dahmer's victims escaped, but the article doesn't address his MO directly nor his victims prior to Konerak Sinthasomphone. Is this a result of vandalism or something? - IstvanWolf 12:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this sentence necessary?

Under "Early life" it says: "However, in 1988 there was not yet a law requiring offenders to register when convicted of a sex crime against a minor." This has nothing to do with what is being discussed in the paragraph. 72.197.84.207 00:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't feel it's applicable you can change it. the_undertow ^talk 01:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up Talk pages & archive

Could an editor familiar with the article please format some of the loose talk page threads and archive all the non-active discussions? It would greatly help folks newer to the talk page understand what issues need attention. thank you! Benjiboi 11:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Dahmer's Brain paragraph

The following paragraph was removed. If there are reliable sources it can be added back in.

After Dahmer's death and the subsequent legal proceedings, Dahmer's remains were cremated and divided in half between his birth mother Joyce, and his father and stepmother. Popular myth states that his brain was donated to scientific study, but in a court battle between Dahmer's mother and father over whether his brain should have been examined, the judge ruled in Lionel Dahmer's favor that his brain be destroyed.

Benjiboi 21:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

G.G.F.H. Musical Reference

Why is "(Frozen Heart Mix)" in the title? The original track Room 213 is just as much about Dahmer as the remix, and was released in 1992 on the Reality EP.

Natural Born Killaz

Should I add that he is mentioned in the song Natural Born Killaz by Ice Cube and Dr Dre. Specifically in the line: "So I'm gonna pull a fucking Jeffrey Dahmer" TheTrojanHought 15:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is already a section on references to him, so go ahead. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the kind of material we're trying to keep out of the article. An entire book, song or program about him, yes; but not every passing mention. --Orange Mike 14:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Referenced in the tv series Criminal Minds

He was shortly referenced in an episode of "Criminal Minds" (episode 2x16 - Fear and Loathing). Just thought it could be added to the corresponding section. 85.177.217.209 00:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the kind of material we're trying to keep out of the article. An entire book, song or program about him, yes; but not every passing mention. --Orange Mike 14:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete

I am researching Dahmer for school and I've noticed that this article is very incomplete in talking about the victims, details of the murders, ect. I'd be happy to help add some... --Csrtman005 01:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Atheist

I just,JUST saw Lives of Crime:Jeffrey Dahmer on Crime & Investigation.In it,it says he's an atheist.Well,he was one.Christian to Atheist to Christian.He even said he blamed his actions on atheistic beliefs and the devils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.41.86 (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

Trial

... At his sentencing hearing, Dahmer expressed remorse for his actions, also saying that he wished for his own death.

Imprisonment and death

...

Dahmer suffered from Antisocial personality disorder. He did not express remorse for any of the murders he committed.

I don't know which is true, but only one can be as it's written Chris M. (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I just saw "Confessions of a Serial Killer" on MSNBC. Jeffery confirmed that he feels regret. I'll change the reference under imprisonment and death, but I don't have a website to link to and I don't know how to reference a tv show. Can somebody help with that? Sonicsuns (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Everworld mention

Is this mention enough to be listed in the pop culture section?

"Imagine Jeffrey Dahmer thinking someone else was really a hard-core psycho. 'Hey, man, sure I kill guys and cut them up and put them in the freezer and cook certain body parts for lunch, but see that guy over there? That guy is crazy.'"

From K.A. Applegate's Everworld, Book 6, page 4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.1.162 (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope; pretty trivial passing mention. Now if Applegate did an entire book about Dahmer, that would be another story. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Music Reference

I would really really really like to add the reference of Big L off the 1995 release lifestyles ov da poor and dangerous where Party arty mentions him.. i've been trying and trying but it keeps getting deleted.. i saw something about natural born killaz reference about pulling a dahmer and it was allowed? Enjoisktboarding (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't include mere passing references to Dahmer; only works in which he is the sole or principal subject. Folks keep trying to include them, and we keep yanking them out. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference in movies

In the movie Demolition Man, in the scene where Simon Phoenix (played by Wesley Snipes), was attempting to unfreeze various criminals from the cryo-freeze, while going through the data base said "Jeffrey Dahmer?! I love that guy!". I feel this should be added to the references in popular culture sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revan Sion (talk • contribs) 04:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't include mere passing references of this sort; only works where he is a sole or primary subject. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In the movie "Scream 2" after Mickey accuses Randy of being the murderer, Derek says that he is harmless to which Mickey replies "that's what they said about Dahmer". 19:55, 28 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horrorlover90 (talk • contribs)

What's with the "creationism" links in the References section?

Have you noticed the "creationism" links in the References section of the article?

I think they should be removed. They have nothing to do with the subject.

I Bork for Mork (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

They are relevant, for if you click on the arrow, it'll take you to statements that concern Lionel Dahmer, Jeffrey's father - the links are just sourcing the subject. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The death date of Stephen Hicks

He was killed in June 1978 (the table in the middle says "June 6, 1987", typo I guess?). Ints (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Hicks was picked up by Jeffery Dahmer on 18 June, 1978, according to a missing persons report in Wilson, Colins. The Giant Book Of Serial Killers. The Book Company, Sydney (1995). NEON CONDITION (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Violent Femmes popular reference

The band the Violent Femmes have recorded a song called Dahmer's Dead, on the album Rock!!!. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Femmes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock%21%21%21%21%21 75.8.42.94 (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)bloosmurf

               I was going to mention this if no one else had yet. I agree, it should be added as it is a whole song about Dhamer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.215.20.57 (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 

Bad Links

This "Video of Dahmer and his father speaking about his conversion to Christianity" apaprently was removed from the site it links to. Xdugef (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

short article?

For one of America's most notorious serial killers, this article is rather unsatisfactory length-wise. More should be added to early childhood, as well as a somewhat decent amound of information added to the murders section, including more details on his other murders instead of just the Sinthasomphone incident. I do not understand what the gobbledygoop about the police at the end of this section is about, as it has nothing to do with Dahmer himself. I suggest that a good starting place would be to stop with the 'Dahmer was mentioned in this song, should I add it to the page?' NEON CONDITION (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

what about the key murder of steven hicks??? Hicks was picked up by Jeffery Dahmer on 18 June, 1978 and became a friend of Dahmern who killed hicks with a dumbell in a sudden attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.247.178 (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What about it is the first name on the list??? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering it was his first murder (1978) and the one that propelled him into becoming a serial killer dont you think it should be mentioned in the 'murders' section as well as in the list (with no info)? As said above by neon condition,"including more details on his other murders instead of just the Sinthasomphone incident". I agree.

This article needs a lot of work. 81.129.242.13 (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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^{Talk) 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)

Maybe he claimed to have killed 84 people, some killers claim to have more victims so they can be seen as 'most feared' or whatever. On Adam Walsh's page it mentions that Toole claimed responsibility for more then 200 murders even though they were proven to have no relation to the murders. Tydamann (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2009 (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)

Is there a specific number of people you would like to see that were out raged, like one million? And it's not like the police knew that he was a serial killer. I was disgusted when I read they handed him back, but they didn't know. Yes the boy did object and cry out, but weren't you ever a child once, throwing a hissy fit in the mall because your parents wouldn't buy you some lame toy? Tydamann (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ehh... hello? Dahmer told the police that the boy was 19 and they had a dispute, plus he was bleeding out of his butt. If a supposed 19 year old starts crying out it's more than not just getting a new toy, that should be enough evidence that there's something wrong and that the boy doesn't want to go back. 83.79.65.169 (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2009 (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^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 "[y]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 Wikipedia: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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" (emphasis added). We aren't in the business of outing, which is what that statement seems to imply. You can't label someone homosexual because you think the evidence points to that.

The other troubling point 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 - maybe they wanted it or enjoyed it. I did not remove solid, verified sourcing. I removed two citations - one from a source not proven to be reliable because it does not indicate sources 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. For one thing, I'm female; there are others. Don't presume that I had a life of privilege, you don't know what you're talking about. This isn't personal, don't make it so. The issue here is the manner in which these conclusions are drawn. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A couple of quibbles: First, as a homosexual man, I'd like to point out that it's much more homophobic to omit all references to Dahmer being homosexual than simply to mention it in passing. He's a historical figure who is generally believed to have been homosexual, and if the facts of his psychology were more subtle and complex, then that must be explained within the article. Second, as a man, I fail to understand how a rape can be committed without sexual arousal. (Unless you mean the kind in which some non-genital implement is used, like a finger or a broom handle; but if that were what Dahmer had done, I think it would be mentioned somewhere.) No one is denying that rape is about power and control, and no one claimed that it is itself a sexual act, just that there is a sexual element in it. It involves genitals or erogenous areas, by definition. More to the point, it stands to reason that the victims of a given rapist generally would be limited by that perpetrator's sexual preference, assuming the availability of preferred victims. I don't know if this assumption is borne out by actual data, but it's hardly an unreasonable assumption for someone to make who is not familiar with said data. - Goueznou, 65.119.203.193 (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The issues in all of that above was not really as much to do with Dahmer as it was with a carry-over issue from other articles on which the now indefinitely banned Werdnawerdna was waging a homophobic, racist, very inappropriate effort to out article subjects based on his perspective of them, blah blah blah. I wasn't really trying to argue the "was he" or "wasn't he" with that editor as much as I was trying to assert Wikipedia policy about reliable sourcing. Most of the responses you read above were about that editor's assertions and logic. The points about rape were about the physiological arousal of a victim, which is not a prerequisite for being raped, the response of power and control upon the perpetrator as the primary motivator. With proper sourcing, there is no issue with adding that Dahmer was homosexual. It's probable that he was. The problem is the sourcing, which was something the editor who was banned could not seem to grasp. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Torture"

Dahmer's murders were gruesome, but he did not torture his victims before killing them: most of the time he killed them by strangling, as he, capable of remorse and empathy for his victims, only wanted their bodies for sexual gratification. I have watched his trial on video and know for a fact that the word "torture" does not have place in a description of Dahmer, though it is common for people to assume so. I have removed the word torture from the introductory paragraph as it is not fitting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.161.175 (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether it was the intention or part of his process, when he drilled holes in the heads of victims and injected acid, it was torture. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it was definitely torture what he did to his victims. Torture should stay in. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What did he do that would be torture? When I think of torture I think of car batteries and jumper cables. As the first person said, what happened was gruesome, but I don't think torture should be used. Unless someone can cite a specific murder. Tydamann (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. I'd consider drilling holes in someone's head and injecting chemicals to be torture, even if that wasn't the ultimate intent. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please change uncommunative -> uncommunicative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.141.18 (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Jamie Doxtator

The victim listed here as Jamie Doxtator was referred to as James Doxtator during his trial (I downloaded/watched the Dahmer trial and it has genuine courtroom footage). May I fix this? GSMR (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't Jamie be a familiar form of the name James? Most sources refer to him as Jamie and honestly, I think it is fine as it is. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it could also be written as James 'Jamie' Doxtator. I know this is used in some of the wrestling article for example, sometimes also with quotes around the common used name. Just a suggestion. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Understand

I think people should try to understand Dahmer a bit more. Yes he did kill all those men but he needed company and he was lonely, he simply didn't want them to leave him and that doesn't make it right but he was seriously pshycologicly damaged. I think it would be wrong to say "why arnt more people outraged" because what he did he thought was right. He was screaming for help as a child when he used to collect bones and the divorce of his parents didn't help at all; his father left and after a few weeks his mother went on vacation, and I'm sorry but and child even a murderer would feel neglected and even more lonely than they were through the divorce. so with this Dahmer could not develop social skills since there was no one to talk to which made him very withdrawn from the world and unable to communicate with other people. when he did communicate though all his guests had to leave and because he wanted them to say he strangeled them and kept their corpses for company. The reason he ate them was so they would become a part of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kat alog sales (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that knowing what a serial killer did makes understanding that he was just lonely is very naive and far too simplistic. He did this whether he was alone or was living with other people. Most people in the world don't strangle and eat their visitors because they want them to stay, no matter how dysfunctional they are otherwise. He ate them because he wanted them to stay? Try to understand him a little less and see him as a psychopathical aberrant who needed to be stopped. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Media portrayals

{{editsemiprotected}} I feel that there should be some mention under Media portrayals of Jeffrey Dahmer's character in the 2006 episode of South Park "Hell on Earth 2006" where he was portrayed as being sent by Demonius, alongside Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy, to retrieve a ferrari cake in time for Satan's super sweet 16. I would do it myself but the semi-protection is stopping me, thank you.

Why? It's ultra-trivial. Stuff like that is why "in popular culture" sections have such a horrible reputation in Wikipedia. It's not encyclopedic content every time somebody makes a Dahmer joke. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not done: I agree. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I only meant to add it as South Park is a well known and popular show of the past 12 years so I felt that this reference would be culturally significant to the modern day portrayals of Jeffrey Dahmer. The episode also generated a lot of controversy on its release for this portrayal. But I can accept your comments and agree with them, thank you again for your time.--Leocanto (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Reduce the Sensationalism

"By the summer of 1991, Dahmer was murdering approximately one person each week." Three victims are listed. True, that is once per week, but stating it in that way makes it sound like A) a longer timespan than three weeks, and B) Dahmer was keeping a schedule or working on a quota. The facts are straightforward enough: "Starting at the end of June 1991, Dahmer murdered three people in three weeks." --Whbjr (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

IMDB

First, why does he have an entry on IMDB, secondly, why is it linked to this article? Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

He has an IMDb entry because clips of him have been used in documentaries and films. The link there is included here so that readers can go see what films and documentaries that might have been. You'll find Adolf Hitler has an IMDb entry too. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dahmer's childhood

At age 8 Jeffery was believed to have been sexually abused by a neighboring boy. His father recalls that he was a loner and a poor student; he was unaware of his adolescent sons use of alcohol and his growing scientific interest in dissecting roadkill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.43.239 (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

info error

This article states that J.D. was killed with a weight bar in the gym. He was actually on cleanup duty in the bathroom with Scarver and another inmate. Scarver beat J.D. with a broom handle and also the other inmate. J.D. was DOA at the hospital while the other inmate died several hours after getting to the hospital. Crwhite2 (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Crwhite2

Citation for that? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)