Talk:Jeffrey Dahmer/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2022

Change A to B for the purpose of improved readability (see below):

A:

On November 28, 1994, Dahmer was beaten to death by Christopher Scarver,

B:

On the 28th of November 1994, Dahmer was beaten to death by Christopher Scarver, Rosedaler (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This looks reasonable. The edit has been made. Rosedaler (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The edit was undone because it was a violation of MOS:DATETIES. MarconiCheese (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for informing me about date policies. In light of this, I would like to change the date format of the entire article to 4 July 2022 (Day month year) format. Although this may not be the typical American format, it improves legibility in certain parts of the article including where I originally made the request. Rosedaler (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Resolved Rosedaler (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dahmer date format

Hi. Thanks for your post on my talk page. I think the readability of the date that was mentioned further down in the Jeffrey Dahmer page could be improved from where it is now because of the current high frequency of commas in that section. So I think removing extra commas where they are unnecessary would improve readability. So I’d like to make the change overall in the article to the 04 July 2022 date format. (This time with proper formatting!) Rosedaler (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I also mentioned this on the article’s talk page. Rosedaler (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedians are expected to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style, not their own personal preferences. What may be "readable" to you may be entirely unreadable to 330 million other people. MarconiCheese (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn’t a personal preference. I noticed something was hard to read and I wanted to change it. There are plenty of native and non-native English speakers that would benefit from the change. One of the core goals of wikipedia is to give people access to information. To take this to its extreme, if an article is hard to read, or illegible, that makes it functionally useless within Wikipedia’s larger goals. I may be a new user but I understand this. Also, most dates on Wikipedia are indeed formatted as the 4 July 2022 format, in articles as well as in the system interface, like in the dates in signatures by default for American users. I maintain that in the context of the Jeffrey Dahmer article, changing the date format overall to be 4 July 2022 instead of July 4, 2022, would increase legibility and clarity and follows in the spirit of Wikipedia. I’d still like to make the change. Rosedaler (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The article uses the standard American date format as the article is an American case. Similarly, spelling and grammar (jewelry as opposed to jewellery) should conform to American practices/preferences. A British case such as Buck Ruxton would use the standard British date and spelling format.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. Rosedaler (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

It was previously clarified for you twice: once on your talk page and once in an edit summary. Apparently you didn't bother to read MOS:DATETIES, which explains why the Wikipedia Manual of Style uses different standards for different countries. MarconiCheese (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Your comment is wrong. Rosedaler (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

(1.) [1] ; (2.) User talk:Rosedaler. MarconiCheese (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Why do we glorify murderers?

This person killed other people on purpose. It’s easier for me to learn about him than it is for me to learn about the people he killed. Let’s talk about their lives and learn about them instead of learning about an evil person. 2600:4040:A492:2A00:318F:CD1:4100:7CC0 (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I suppose then we should delete the pages on Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin as well since they were evil people. /s See further: Wikipedia:RGW Wikipedia:NOTADVOCACY Glenohumeral13 (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure which "Dahmer" is the subject in main article

Seems like the author is discussing both Jeffrey and his father without any distinction between the two. Barclin (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you clarify just how? Thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Victim selection as forensic countermeasure

Contesting removing of edit offering "forensic countermeasure" as playing a role in Dahmer's victim selection. The individual who offered the opinion is amply familiar with details of the case and would qualify as expert in a court setting due to expertise as criminal psychologist. That this theory may not have been confirmed by Dahmer directly should not exclude its inclusion since the preceding sentence references a different expert with no evidence that individual talked to Dahmer, either. Given the circumstances of the case, victimology, conduct of law enforcement who responded, etc., this information seems highly relevant and is offered by a qualified individual. "With enough butter, anything is good." ~Julia Child (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Preceding sentence reference is made by Jeffrey M. Jentzen. He was the chief medical examiner in Dahmer's case. He was part of the investigation team and was in charge of identifying Dahmer's victims. It was not his job to interview Dahmer, but it was his job to study the remains of his victims, etc. Since he was one of the main experts on the case, referencing his work is appropriate. CJC-DI (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This is pure speculation by an individual who never actually interviewed Dahmer. He never mentioned anything about even remotely believing/knowing police would be "less likely to search for a white suspect when the victims themselves were not white," and he was himself a member of the then-marginalized gay community in Milwaukee, which hardly felt protected by police, but rather persecuted and neglected. As for the term forensic countermeasure, several aspects of Dahmer's crimes classify him as a disorganized offender, progressively. He collected evidence of his crimes he wanted to preserve rather than dispose of it.

There is no shortage of speculation, but in this case, it would need evidence to support it. He was adamant two of the main reasons many of his victims were black was because of the demographics of where he lived and the largely limited search radius where he prowled for victims, and the fact black men were more likely than white or Hispanic guys to have the smooth, hairless torsos he preferred. Testimony at Dahmer's trial indicated his "obsession" was to "body form, not color." In addition to all this, YouTube is not a reliable source anyhow.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. General question: If YouTube serves as primary source for direct interview, does it still get perceived as unreliable? "With enough butter, anything is good." ~Julia Child (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Video-sharing host sites are generally not considered ideal or reliable sources. Info. can be skewed and edited, and their inclusion lower the quality/reputation of an article. The individual's after the fact opinions (and there are no shortage of opinions from individuals of varying calibers about aspects of Dahmer's crimes, psychology etc.) could also open up a myriad of "maybe this, maybe that" suppositions, elongating the article.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but if you have a documentary as the medium and the video is hosted on the production channel itself and no other format exists, why would it be perceived differently than another documentary that finds different distribution. I'm not speaking of short clips created by third parties of produced material, to be clear. It's obvious that manipulation and variable quality would be possible in the latter circumstance. This seems to create a bias in favor of legacy media but not all content is produced through such channels anymore. "With enough butter, anything is good." ~Julia Child (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Please delete the names of drugs he used, this kind of information should not be made public knowledge.

Please delete the names of drugs he used, this kind of information should not be made public knowledge. As a Society we should ensure, discretion regarding the tools serial killers use. So as to ensure these don't happen again in this world. 2A02:A03F:862D:6C00:194A:CE6D:3AB5:E963 (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not censored. This is public information, easily discovered. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2022

James Doxtator was a minor. Minors are not prostitutes.

Change “male prostitute” where it is used to describe James Doxtator. Doxtator was 14 years old. A minor can not be a prostitute. A few accurate terms that could be used are- exploited child or youth, trafficked youth K.rae.rae.v (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done - unsourced assertion. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done - K.rae.rae.v, I couldn't find any reliable source supporting that claim about James Doxtator. TanookiKoopa (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources confirming the fact, including pages 118-119 of The Shrine of Jeffrey Dahmer. It is in a lot of books about the case. Added another ref. to support inclusion.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Dahmer a rapist?

I again removed "Category:American rapists", as it doesn't seem to be supported by the article. The closest is some mentions that he fondled their unconscious bodies and with one victim he "drugged him into unconsciousness and performed oral sex on him." Other than these, it seems he either had casual sex before drugging and killing or straight to drugging and killing. The sex was post-mortem.

There is also a contradiction in this text between the bolded part and the last sentence. "He would drug his victim with triazolam or temazepam before or shortly after engaging in sexual activity with them. Once he had rendered his victim unconscious with sleeping pills, he killed them by strangulation" LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

He drugged and raped in the gay bathhouses.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not in the article. You can't add categories not supported by the article. LittleJerry (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It's clearly obvious that he was a rapist. After all, he frequently raped men. Patachonica (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

We all know the definition of rape. Even with euphemistic terms (for example, sticking with the bathhouses alone "For this reason, beginning in June 1986, he administered sleeping pills to his partners, giving them liquor laced with the sedatives. He then waited for his partner to fall asleep before performing various sexual acts"). The trial testimony of Dr. Becker states some victims he "performed anal sex" upon "before and after death", after he'd drugged them.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

And does that have anything to do with rapism? Patachonica (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not a rape when someone administer sleeping pills and then perform various sexual acts ? Bobbyjbj (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Forcing sexual acts upon unwilling partners?--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Does any of that count as rapism? Patachonica (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The penetrative acts against unaware and unwilling individuals alone? Woulda thought so.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

He performed sexual acts on unconscious men. That's sexual assault. And even if we remove live men from equation, he raped the bodies of dead men. The category is relevant and I don't understand why it should be removed. CJC-DI (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the original claim was that "it doesn't seem to be supported by the article." Maybe the trial testimony of Dr. Becker needs to be added. Currently the only "anal" in the article is in analytical chemist and anthropological analysis? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It is supported by the article in my opinion. Not only live men can be raped. Violating the bodies of dead people is still rape. CJC-DI (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

No, that's necrophilia. LittleJerry (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we should highlight here the passage(s) that support the claim, to avoid any misunderstanding. My only doubt is the legal definition of rape in the relevant US / State law. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The aforementioned bit from Dr. Becker's testimony was specifically about Oliver Lacy. She says, "Jeffrey reported that he did not use drilling on this victim. He drugged him, strangled him, performed anal sex before and after death, posed him and took pictures." The only anal sex in the bathhouses that she mentions was performed on Dahmer and that he didn't like it. CJC-DI (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I meant the passage(s) currently in the article. Sorry for not being clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, after doing some googling... Apparently, sex with dead bodies does not constitute as rape in US law. I guess I dropped a ball on that one. CJC-DI (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you look for more research? Patachonica (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

What would you expect that to reveal? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

How about "American sex offenders" category instead? That one definitely fits Dahmer in US law. CJC-DI (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

No objection. Article content certainly supports that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Patachonica (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Multiple media outlets have reported Dahmer raped soldiers during his period in the service; several include direct quotes from the alleged rape victims. Given that, it would seem Dahmer's inclusion in the category is appropriate, with the question being which of the numerous articles documenting rape claims satisfies the need to substantiate this. "With enough butter, anything is good." ~Julia Child (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This was already discussed. The consensus being it is not reliable. LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Reference to prostitute.

There's no such thing as a fourteen year old native American male prostitute. He's fourteen. He's too young to consent. Mikesmithitsm (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The sources state otherwise. Doxtator went to West Allis with Dahmer for $50 for sex. Legally he was below the age of consent, but he willingly went along. Actually, the main picture of him produced in the media and you'll find online was taken on September 23, 1987 when he was arrested for this offense.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

What do the sources say exactly about Doxtator and which ones specifically call him a "prostitute"? WP:RS applies and if the sources are not clear or reliable, the word should be removed. From a cursory search, it doesn't seem to hold much weight as he is more often described as a runaway kid. Mansheimer (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Wilson, Dvorchak etc. describe him as such. Dvorchak (p. 58) describes him as one of several boys who habitually hung around the bus stop outside Club 219 offering "the one thing they had of value to the men who frequented the club - their bodies." He was male and, ahem, prostituting himself despite his age. I haven't seen him described as a runaway kid; he lived with his mother, Debra Vega, who reported him missing on Monday January 18, 1988 (Norris p. 147). Nobody is being disrespectful; the sources state this fact.--Kieronoldham (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2022

In the section "Ambassador Hotel" CHANGE "dab driver" to "cab driver". Nubchewy (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2022

This page needs to add Tracy Edwards as one of his victims. It should also include any other living survivors. 2601:186:4301:7970:C860:831:E443:F133 (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The article already includes information about Tracy Edwards. RudolfRed (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2022 (2)

In 1994, Ithaca College Student Brigitte Bloch, who majored in Social Psychology with a minor in Criminal Juvenile Justice, chose to write her college senior thesis on Jeffrey Dahmer. “The Man Behind Apartment 213.” Her Professor and Counselor, Druanne Heckert suggested she send the paper to Dahmer’s Prison Psychiatrist to get his take on her findings. 6 weeks after sending the paper, she received a letter, etched with the return address of Columbia Correctional Facility in Portage Wisconsin. The letter was written by one of Dahmer’s Therapists, who stated that she had been accurate with her research and that he was impressed a college student had more of an understanding about Dahmer’s mental state than Medical Professionals from around the world. He had suggested in the typed letter that If Bloch were to pursue a career in Behavior Sciences that he would welcome her into sit with Dahmer to perhaps get material for a book. Graces at the bottom Of the formal letter was a handwritten message in blue ink “hundreds of letters from docs around the world come to me every day. I don’t read all Of them. But I read enough. Laughable that it took a college kid to get it right…keep up the good work, J.D”

After receiving the letter, She applied early admission at the prestigious University of Pennsylvania for their dual degree program - a Masters In Social Work with a Juris Doctorate.

A month after she was accepted into the Ivy League school, professor Heckert called her to relay then news that Dahmer was killed in prison.

She continued to exchange letters and emails with Dahmer’s therapist for decades to follow. The two became fast friends and he shared some of his thoughts on the Jeff Dahmers, Ed Kempners and Gary Ridgeways of the world.

In 2022, her 15 year old Daughter wrote a high school paper on Dahmer and first learned of her mom’s letter from the notorious serial killer. The IC student (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2022

199.195.15.173 (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC){Short description|American serial killer (1960–1994)}}

{{Redirect|Dahmer}} {{Use mdy dates|date=February 2022}} {{Infobox serial killer | name = Jeffrey Dahmer | image = Jeffrey Dahmer Milwaukee Police 1991 mugshot.jpg | caption = Mug shot of Dahmer taken by the [[Milwaukee Police Department]], July 1991 | birth_name = Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer | alias = The Milwaukee Cannibal <br /> The Milwaukee Monster | birth_date = {{birth date|1960|5|21}} | birth_place = [[Milwaukee, Wisconsin]], U.S. | death_date = {{death date and age|1994|11|28|1960|5|21}} | death_place = [[Portage, Wisconsin]], U.S. | cause = [[Homicide]] by [[blunt trauma|bludgeoning]] (severe [[Skull fracture|skull]] and [[traumatic brain injury|brain trauma]])<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.upi.com/Archives/1994/11/29/Dahmer-autopsy-completed/7274786085200/|title=Dahmer Autopsy Completed|work=United Press International|date=November 29, 1994|access-date=April 28, 2022|archive-date=April 28, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220428182004/https://www.upi.com/Archives/1994/11/29/Dahmer-autopsy-completed/7274786085200/|url-status=live}}</ref> | resting_place = [[Cremated]], ashes given to parents | victims = 17 | weight = | country = United States | states = [[Ohio]], [[Wisconsin]] | beginyear = 1978

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Katie Perry facing backlash due to Dark Horse

In the popular 2018 music video Dark horse. Jeffrey Dahmer was mentioned in this line “ She eat your heart out like Jeffrey Dahmer. People (mostly by gen z) claim it is disrespectful to the families who f victims 2600:1009:B063:607:D579:868B:C156:4EBC (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Trivia at best. Hardly worth mentioning.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

What happened to the apartment he lived in?

So the apartment he lived in was evacuted by police request because the whole building was technically a crime scene. All residents were told that they had to move by police. 174.251.242.56 (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

/* Inprisonment and death */ "Whirlpool" seems unclear

I tried to add a link to the last word in the second paragraph under the ''''Inprisonment and death''' section, '''whirlpool'''. I looked around wikipedia for a suitable link, however whirlpool discusses natural whirlpools and Whirlpool Corporation can't possibly be right (I know people that call washers "Whirlpools" after the brand, however I can't imagine someone being baptized in a washer. Do we know if he was baptized in a hot tub, a whirlpool tub, or something else? If someone knows, please link the word to its proper place, or perhaps be more specific with the word and link.

Thanks as always Wikipedia Editors for the time and effort you put into the work you do! It always means so much. Saltedcoffii (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

In Roy Ratcliff's book, the whirlpool tub is described like this: "We have a whirlpool tub that we use for prisoners who hurt their backs. It's about 4 feet long and 3 feet wide, and about 18 inches deep" and "The tub was fairly small, and he would have to assume a fetal position in order to fit in all the way." CJC-DI (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2022

Hello. I would like there to be an edit on the page that says that Dahmer's grandmother heard him and Ron. It says that he decided not to kill him because his grandmother knew someone else was there on this page. In the files and interviews with Dahmer, it states that his grandmother stayed in the living room, so Dahmer was unable to kill Ron, though he fully intended to if his grandmother went back to bed.

Thank you,

- Emmett EmmettAstrid (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a case file show on Netflix with actual recordings of Dahmer talking about what happened that night where he states that his grandmother stayed in the living room. They are also open to the public through a fast Google search. EmmettAstrid (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It is your responsibility, not ours, to provide actual links to reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

All of this is white supremacy:

"Dahmer was adamant that the race of his victims was incidental to him and that it was the body form of a potential victim that attracted his attention.[280][n 16] These contentions have been supported via an independent forensic specialists' study of Dahmer's victim selection, the anthropological analysis of which revealed his victims shared a "morphological similarity" and suggesting Dahmer was "psychologically attracted to a certain anthropometric body type."[316]"

Dahmer was a white supremacist, and so was this so-called forensic specialists' study.

More disgusting anglo-wikipedia 2601:5C4:200:5C40:C851:C486:250D:8ADD (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The 2017 Academic Forensic Pathology paper by J. M. Jentzen "was a white supremacist"? Errrmm, where's your evidence for such an amazingly stupid claim? Jeff just didn't like fat kids, did he? Even black ones. He just liked "the perfect Chippendale or gymnastic body of a 19-22 year old male": see Page 14. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh thanks Orangemike for updating the link. I was only pasting in what the FBI had written in their document. Bless. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

you've proposed a false binary (rejecting the conclusions vs accepting the conclusions). i dont consider that study's conclusions to be scientific at all. because i am criticizing the methodology. here's a fact: using skeletal measurements of victims of a crime in order to ascertain the motive of a white serial killer in THE white supremacist imperial core - that's patently white supremacy (in addition to, statistically stochastic regression analysis being absurdly inadequate with this type of data set). criminal forensic science isn't scientific at all. its the methods of confirming mainstream social bias. skeletal measurements and the white gaze upon crime victims - any defense of that methodology is disgusting 2601:5C4:200:5C40:11E1:53D0:D807:10B7 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you probably need to wear one of these. Meanwhile, perhaps you could clarify, for all of us disgusting unwitting defenders, what are J. M. Jentzen's racial origins? These were simple anthropometric data. What is your suggested alternative to regression analysis? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It's Soilax, not Soilex.

Multiple misspelled entries and I can't edit it if someone wants to Crackawoods (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It is Soilex which is alkali-based. Soilax is used in floor washing?--Kieronoldham (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Did Jeffrey Dahmer ever have a female victim

Did Jeffrey Dahmer ever have a female victim and were Jeffrey Dahmer’s parents? Glad he died or sad. 2600:4040:76AD:BA00:40F3:284B:4788:8EE9 (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Film

Please in film on references tab add dahmer on Netflix jeffery dahmer was played by Evan Peters in the show. 72.48.187.177 (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the television section.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Why did they want to kill Jeffrey Dahmer

?? 2600:6C67:857F:BA0C:9CFC:5A03:3888:8AAE (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Category

I added Category:American people convicted of sexual assault to this article partly because of this (tag mentioned CJC-DI), but now I think it is already covered by Category:American people convicted of child sexual abuse. Please, leave your thoughts. 7szz (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Also tag editor ‪Kieronoldham‬. 14:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Personally, the edit is correct as both categories encompass what Dahmer was convicted of. As CJC-DI rightly mentioned, the charges were morphed into what he was convicted of, and that is what the convictions are listed as. One category is more descriptive/precise than the other, but the more descriptive charge still encompasses the other. I can see both sides of your argument here. Child sexual abuse is still sexual assault? I think they should both remain, but would understand if the less specific category was removed. Maybe CJC-DI would like to give his/her feedback?--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC).

I think it's fine to have two categories because his sentence included two offenses. CJC-DI (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Is his apartment still there?

I would like to kno 2601:84:8681:95F0:E1D2:A886:A6E7:9F75 (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

See the Aftermath section.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Image replacement

A proposal to change the current image of Konerak Sinthasomphone to this one: [2]https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2022/09/28/PMJS/6b3f7cad-ca18-4c53-a5cf-cb0f5435a731-GMTI_photoj2000q2m06t27h11501000.jff.JPG

1. The current image shows him at a younger age. I think it's more appropriate to show the victim of a crime at the age they were at when it happened, and the proposed image does just that.

2. The three women who called the police correctly guessed that Konerak was a minor. But not everyone was as perceptive. The police officers obviously weren't, but they weren't the only ones. The Milwaukee Journal published an article where the witnesses' estimates of Konerak's age ranged from a minor to a 20 year old. It's impossible to believe that anyone could have mistaken him for a 20 year old from the current image. The second one on the other hand shows how that could happen.

One of FBI agents explicitly mentions this in their interview with Dahmer: "I saw the recent pictures of him. Not the pictures of the news with... He looked like a twelve year old kid on that picture. But when you see the older pictures of him, he looks 19, 20 year old".

3. Unfortunately, some sites (for example, murderpedia) list the second image as Somsack. But it is Konerak.

At 48:03, McCann shows it during his closing argument and identifies it as Konerak: [3]https://www.courttv.com/title/56-wi-v-dahmer-prosecution-closing-argument/

It's used extensively in the latest Netflix doc, "The Jeffrey Dahmer Tapes". They show footage from Konerak's funeral and that picture stands beside his coffin.

Wikipedia can help clear the misinformation. CJC-DI (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

What makes you think that photo is in the public domain? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The proposed image is a more accurate visual portrayal of how Sinthasomphone appeared at the time of his encounter with Dahmer. I understand this may be a sensitive topic to breach (and yes he was in actuality only 14), but a reduced size and quality reproduction of this image of how Sinthasomphone appeared in 1991 could counter public supposition as to his physical appearance to the cops in May 1991. I would support a replacement.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Medical benefits VA

Any information as to whether or not Dahmer received VA benefits after his discharge. 2603:9000:7100:7491:6980:DA31:7EE8:D463 (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Tony Hughes Death

The death of Tony is described as an injection of acid in to the brain which proved fatal. But in the Victims section, it is said to be strangulation 2A02:C7C:565E:B500:F4C7:4BD2:1083:53DD (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done.--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Where is his apartment

??? 2603:6080:8007:A776:BD5B:EFD5:56B5:4AA1 (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

See the Aftermath section. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Jeffery Dahmer's apartment building

It was torn down at the request of the victims families in 1992. 2600:8807:4C00:130:703C:F9FF:FE5C:D1C3 (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Dahmer as rapist part 2

So I added back "American rapists" as a category. This is based on the statement that Konerak Sinthasomphone "was bleeding from his rectum..." CJC-DI removed it stating "'American sex offenders' category for that." Sex offender refers to people convicted of a number of sex crimes. Dahmer was convicted of "second-degree sexual assault and of enticing a child for immoral purposes". This is a different thing. I don't think "sex offender" is a replacement for "rapist". A more appropriate replacement would be "people convicted of rape" which Dahmer was not. I think the category should be added back. LittleJerry (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

a) The bleeding from the rectum wasn't corraborated by the police and the fire department.

b) The witnesses' accounts of Konerak's physical state varied as well (some said that he wasn't bleeding at all).

c) The mother of one of the girls didn't mention the bleeding from the rectum in her concerns, only Konerak's age.

d) Dahmer denied that he had anal sex with Konerak while he was alive (he did admit to oral sex and anal sex with a corpse).

There is no hard evidence of rape in this incident.

Dahmer is listed under "American sex offenders" because he was a registered sex offender for his conviction in 1989. CJC-DI (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

CJC-DI, but in the last discussion you quoted Dr. Becker stating "Jeffrey reported that he did not use drilling on this victim [Oliver Tracy]. He drugged him, strangled him, performed anal sex before and after death, posed him and took pictures." LittleJerry (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Your initial question was only in concern to Konerak's incident, so that's the one I addressed. If we're gonna expand it to past discussions, I have to say that my stance changed since then. Because Dahmer's case can be very sensitive, I believe that strict adherence to legal side is a safest way to ensure the article stays neutral. For example, he shouldn't be listed under people with Asperger syndrome because he was never officially diagnosed with it, even though some specialists believe it's possible that he had it. Likewise, he was never officially accused, charged and convicted of rape.

By the way, Dr. Dietz set Dahmer apart from rapists, saying that Dahmer is a sex offender who has a paraphilia and a personality disorder unlike "rapists". So, apparently, it's not so clear-cut even to experts. CJC-DI (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

CJC-DI one last question. Did Dahmer himself ever admit to anal rape of a live victim? LittleJerry (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

You mean those who were drugged but weren't killed? As far as I know, he never mentioned anal sex. Several men who gave interviews haven't mentioned it either.

My personal opinion (and I'm not insisting on its accuracy) is that he did not have anal sex with those people because he didn't want to get into trouble. A person would obviously realize if they were violated anally and he didn't want to get his ass kicked or get arrested. Oral sex, touching, kissing is something that could be concealed and he could pretend that he didn't do anything to them while they slept, so he could get away with it. CJC-DI (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I should have should a victim before death. Thats what I meant. Did he admit to rape of a victim before death? LittleJerry (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Oftentimes, they would just use the word "sex" to refer to all sexual activity. For example, FBI asked if he had sex with his victims prior to their deaths. And he said that he had sex prior and afterwards. But there were victims with whom he had consentual sex before they were drugged, there were victims with whom he had "light sex" (oral and/or masturbaton) while they were drugged, there were most likely victims with whom he had anal sex while they were drugged. But they're just using the word "sex" to refer to all sexual activity. But if someone asked him about it specifically, I'm pretty sure he confessed to it. Not everything is available to us though. CJC-DI (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

15/16 murders?

The second paragraph in the lede says ‘He was convicted of fifteen of the sixteen murders he had committed in Wisconsin’

If he was only convicted of 15 murders, then he therefore did not commit 16 murders in Wisconsin? Murder is a legal term. Or have I misread something? Asperthrow (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

His first victim was killed in Ohio. Dahmer had no recollection of the actual murder of Tuomi in the Ambassador Hotel (or what had happened to the actual bottle of Paramount rum he'd been consuming that evening, for that matter), so he was never charged with Tuomi's murder.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Therefore it wasn’t a murder. And shouldn’t be referred to as such in the article. Asperthrow (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It was hardly a natural death.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It also wasn’t a murder and Wikipedia cannot characterise it as such. It needs to be reworded. Asperthrow (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It was a murder (by his own admission), but one he had no recollection of committing but could surmise the method of due to the extensive crush injuries to Tuomi's chest and the bruising on his knuckles etc. No evidence of the murder of Doxtator or Guerrero in '88 could be retrieved, but Dahmer recollected the act of murder plus his malice aforethought in those cases. Correct though, he was never charged with or tried for the crime regarding Tuomi.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your agreement. Even if Dahmer himself characterised it as a murder, we can’t say that it was when he was never convicted of it. Asperthrow (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The lede still needs to reference the fact that, by his own admission, he was still responsible for Tuomi's death, Asperthrow. As it stood, it contrasted not only with the main article content, but the infobox, and what is general knowledge, plus what documentary makers and authors alike state - 17 murders (or 17 victims if you'd rather). How about this proposal: "Convicted of the murder of fifteen of the sixteen individuals he confessed to killing in Wisconsin?"--Kieronoldham (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Please, can we leave the current version intact? If this escalated from my argument above, then I deeply regret it. This is becoming too pedantic and this was not my intention. CJC-DI (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Please don’t reinstate that material again. No matter what other sources or Dahmer himself described it as, it cannot be referred to as a murder when he was not convicted of such.

That wording seems fine. But the first paragraph still cannot say seventeen murders. Asperthrow (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Possibile error on the page

It says: "Dahmer was then sentenced to life imprisonment plus ten years upon the first two counts.[285] The remaining thirteen counts carried a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment plus seventy years"

So 1 sentence to life in prison plus 13 other life sentences, that is a totale of 14 sentences.

But a little after there is write that he was sent to Ohio to his first murder and he got the 16th life in prison sentence.

It should be 15th if he got 14 before or he got one more before. 151.44.76.254 (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

He received fifteen murder convictions in Wisconsin, and one later in Ohio, as the text indicates.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Question about the "Intermediate Incidents" sub-section's third paragraph under "Late 20s and early 30s: subsequent murders" section

So, it says that Dahmer performed "oral sex" on the corpse of Gurrero. Wouldn't this be more accurately classified as irrumatio? I don't have the source; I'm willing to go with its wording. It would be helpful if someone could review the source's wording here. Phil of rel (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The link to the source is searchable and the wording in the article is consistent with the source. Thanks! Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Stepmother Shari Dahmer dies

Hi, as I noted that his mother's death is included, I wish to know whether his stepmother's death this January is worth including.

She died in Seville, Ohio, some weeks ago. Source: Shari Dahmer dies at 81 190.246.97.81 (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2023

I have new information about Dahmer 152.97.180.73 (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2023

The addresses of Jeff say 808 North 24th Street but the actual address is 924 North 25th Street, you can see the empty plot in street view as the building was put down in 1992 Misaki08 (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: That was the '88 address. He moved to 924 N. 25th St. in May of 1990. Is verified in the reference.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Oups Misaki08 (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2023

Hello, in the article it says that Lionel Dahmer (father of Jeffrey Dahmer) lived with his second wife Shari until her death in January of this year (according to cited source). That's wrong. Cited source says that Shari Dahmer was in a nursing home and not living with Lionel Dahmer at the time of her death. -- 190.246.97.81 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

They were still husband and wife. CJC-DI (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: True Crime and Misinformation

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 2 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ea10233 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Dc10732 (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Misogyny

Disgusting how you portray his mother 2A02:C7C:9422:3200:ACFB:310E:B8C8:58AC (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Why? All referenced and provable. Any problem with Lionel's portrayal, or are you of the mindset the mere fact the gender is XX means true historical portrayal, via sterile and referenced recitation, is to remain untold?--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2023

Jeff earned 8.75$ as a mixer wondering if you want to add that extra info? ContestOtherwise (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Revert of copyedits

I made a few extensive edits to trim redundant elements and tighten the prose. These have been removed, and I can't see why. Examples:

• Several cases of WP:OVERLINK for terms such as masturbation, sledgehammer, Scotch whiskey, etc.

• Several cases of WP:ELEVAR, such as describing Dahmer's victims as "the youth" instead using their name or a pronoun.

• Several cases of dubious WP:SAID verbs such as "explained", when the simple verb "said" does the same job without implying the veracity of the statement (we are talking about a serial killer here).

• Several cases of WP:EDITORIALIZING, such as Dahmer had been an "energetic and happy child" but became notably subdued. (If the intention here is actually to indicate that other people noticed his becoming subdued, "notably" does not convey this — and I'd argue that we don't need to convey that at all anyway.)

• Elements of WP:QUOTEFARM — using quotations to explain a point that can be paraphrased -- eg restoring Hicks wanted to leave, but Dahmer did not want him to to Hicks "wanted to leave and I didn't want him to leave".

• Several cases of people "later" doing things even when the chronology is clear, such as in "He later recalled" (that's what "recall" means -- you cannot recall things before they happen).

• Revere High School (RHS). There is no need to give an initialism (RHS) for the high school name unless we are referring to the name over and over again.

• From an early age, Dahmer manifested an interest in dead animals This is an obscure way of saying "became interested in" or "was interested in".

• Dahmer mentioned to one classmate who inquired why he was drinking Scotch in a morning history class that the alcohol he consumed was "my medicine". This is a verbose way of saying Dahmer told one classmate that it was his "medicine", unless you think it's important to specify what time of day and in what class this conversation took place in.

• he continued to work at the sandwich shop but earlier we said it was a delicatessen. Keep the terminology consistent.

• that September becomes in September of the same year. Why?

These wholesale reverts strike me as hasty. Please reconsider them and whether the words you are restoring are really bringing value to the prose. Popcornfud (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this edit in particular, about this sentence: He initially claimed he had merely been urinating, unaware that there were witnesses, but soon admitted the offense. Think about this logically. We do not need to say "initially" here because we literally say in the same sentence that he changed his story. Popcornfud (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kieronoldham, I see you have continued to roll back my edits. Any response here? Popcornfud (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll comment on the drinking part if you don't mind. I think it is important to specify those things. He was just a teen, but he was drinking hard alcohol first thing in the morning during class. It shows how serious his problem was. CJC-DI (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Then we can convey that information more succinctly. Is it important what class it took place in, for example? Popcornfud (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a long sentence to require some serious adjustment. CJC-DI (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's just one part. There's an awful lot of inefficient writing going on in the article generally — a lot of irrelevant detail and tautologies. As WP:COPYEDIT puts it: vigorous, effective writing is clear and concise. Popcornfud (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't find them awfully inefficient. They look fine to me. Little tweaks here and there won't make the article significantly shorter. The article is bound to be long because the subject matter is so complex. CJC-DI (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

My copyedits reduced the article by 500 words, and I hadn't got anywhere near the end of the article. At a guess the article could stand to lose 2000 words without losing any clarity or information. Popcornfud (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Going back to the drinking example, I would say we would've lost a deeper context and appreciation of the problem. As for other examples, I think the sentence reads much better with "notably"; RHS initials are not out of place because they're mentioned one more time later; "manifested an interest in dead animals" nicely accentuates a worrisome hobby; "in September of the same year" fits the pace slightly better. And I don't really understand what the problem with "initially" is. I mean, expressions like "At first he/she said that, but then he/she changed his/her mind" are perfectly fine. Now, I'm not saying that little tweaks shouldn't be done at all. But your goal seems to be to shorten the article by whatever means, even at the expanse of losing valuable context or nitpicking at perfectly fine sentences. CJC-DI (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"In September of the same year" illustrates to the reader the fact Dahmer returned to Ohio in 1981, and not 1982 or '83 etc. Again, the article is concise, chronological, well referenced, and chapterized.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

You think the wordy sentences full of redundancies "fit the pace slightly better"? Well, there's no accounting for taste, I guess.

It's clear this conversation is going nowhere — shrug. But I recommend you take a look at WP:REDEX. It may better illustrate the ideas I'm trying to explain. Popcornfud (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

A phrase such as "in September of the same year" is not a crime against humany. It's a perfectly fine phrase. I just expressed my opinion on why I find the majority of your edits to be nitpicking. That's what the Talk page is for after all. Also, Kieronoldham removed a large number of links per your suggestion, so it's not like nobody is listening to you. CJC-DI (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't roll anything back - I fixed a few errors (here is one example from June 4):

"In June 1990, Dahmer lured a 27-year-old acquaintance, Edward Smith, to his apartment, where he drugged and strangled him. rather than immediately acidifying the skeleton or repeating previous processes of bleaching, which had rendered previous victims' skulls brittle, Dahmer placed Smith's skeleton in his freezer for several months in the hope it would not retain moisture."

There were some resultant errors from your edits. Here is another: "Although it was in a high-crime area, Dahmer's new apartment was close to his workplace and furnished, and at $300 per month inclusive of all bills excluding electricity, was economical."--Kieronoldham (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

As for the issue with "He initially claimed he had merely been urinating, unaware that there were witnesses, but soon admitted the offense" if you read enough about Dahmer, prior to his 1991 arrest for multiple murder, whenever he was arrested for offenses of a sexual nature in the 1980s (and even with the Konerak incident in 1991), he would always attempt to deflect, excuse or otherwise minimize his actions and predicament until either confronted with contradictory evidence or disbelieved. The article just reflects what is indicated in the sources.--Kieronoldham (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The interest in dead animals evolved/manifested from the age of four from playing with bones he found and listening to them clatter inside buckets and against each other to Dahmer exploring mammal bodies to feel and learn where the bones were located. This evolved into his collecting roadkill and slicing the animals open and dissecting them as a means of developing/exploring his curiosity; this interest also evolved into Dahmer collecting and bones and learning how to preserve their remains in jars of formaldehyde. The interest did not evolve overnight. It began at the age of four and continued into his teens.--Kieronoldham (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

If there are errors in my edits, then sure — let's fix them. But the majority of your reverts appear to restore wording that simply makes the text longer, without adding information or clarity. For example, using the word "manifested" does not convey any of the information you describe above.

What do you think about the several cases of WP:OVERLINK I cited, for common terms such as masturbation, sledgehammer, Scotch whiskey, etc? Do you think these are necessary? Popcornfud (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Well we can't make the article the length of a book, or greatly expound on everything pertinent to the case. Personally, I believe later text re: preserving animal remains in formaldehyde and collecting roadkill explains the evolving interest. As for WP:OVERLINK, maybe some links are unnecessary?--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. I'm advocating for making the article shorter — are you now agreeing with me? Popcornfud (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

No the article is perfect in length given the pertinent info. and the diverse and voluminous sources presented. It has been heavily edited over the years and has close to 1,000 watchers.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise the article is already perfect. We can all relax, in that case.

It sounds like you don't object to me removing the abundance of WP:OVERLINKs. I'll go ahead and restore that. How do you feel about the problematic WP:SAID verbs? Popcornfud (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

In the context, things are explained to officers or jurors in testimony etc. For example, Dahmer "explained" his morbid interest to a friend in the 1970s. Also, Park Dietz explained to the jurors there was "ample evidence that Dahmer prepared in advance for each murder."--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand. But we have a guideline about this, WP:SAID: the verb "explain" can imply it is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said. There is no need to guide the reader here on whether the statements were true, and there is no advantage of using "explain" over the neutral verb "said". Popcornfud (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

"Boy" vs "Man"

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1165313413&oldid=1165277285&title=Jeffrey_Dahmer

The transition from boyhood to manhood is a multifaceted concept and there isn't a specific criterion, such as age, that determines when a "boy" becomes a "man"; it's a gradual process involving physical, emotional, and social changes, as well as individual maturity and personal development. While legal adulthood comes with certain rights and responsibilities, it doesn't automatically signify complete maturity or readiness for the roles and expectations associated with manhood. In many societies, a 18-year-old would generally be considered a teenager or an adolescent, still in the process of transitioning from boyhood to manhood. Some 18-year-olds may still be in the process of developing maturity and navigating their transition to adulthood, while others may exhibit greater independence, responsibility, and self-sufficiency associated with being considered a man; not all 18-year-olds are "boys" and not all 18-year-olds are "men". —Vozhan (talk • contribs) 18:00, July 14, 2023 (UTC)

Legal recognition. Google "What's the legal age of adulthood in America." Nice bold text appears at the top of the screen. Would not refer to a 15 year old as a "man" or a 20 year old as a "boy".--Kieronoldham (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The legal age sets a standard for determining when a person is recognized as an adult in the eyes of the law but has no bearing on whether that person is labeled as a "boy" or "man". —Vozhan (talk • contribs) 15:50, July 15, 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the term to "male".--Kieronoldham (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2023

some of the information that was written is not entire true Tabbypascarella1979 (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

baster

drilled a hole in his skull through which he injected hydrochloric acid with a baster - a baster is, according to wiktionary, a tool for basting meat with fat or gravy, therefore this is completely inappropriate and distasteful. please correct me if this is a technical term for anything. thanks. --Gerlindewurst73 (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Describes an implement he used for his experimental technique to disable the will of a victim and render him submissive with implements at hand within the home (not a syringe which would have injected the solution into the brain as opposed to coating the organ). Was referenced at trial by Dr. Dietz.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Misidentification of Konerak Sinthasomphone's Photo

I've noticed an issue with the photo being used to represent Konerak Sinthasomphone. The image previously displayed in the article was, in fact, of his brother, Somsack Sinthasomphone. This is a significant oversight, as misidentifying victims (or their family members) can be distressing and misleading for readers, not to mention disrespectful to the individuals involved. I removed the erroneous picture last month, but it was added back to the article.

For reference, both Konerak and Somsack have distinct stock photos (Somsack's hair is parted and wears glasses, which was the picture in this article, but Konerak had a spiky/messy hair style and did not wear glasses) that have been widely circulated on the internet. A simple Google search can verify the correct identities. I've provided brief links below to both images for clarity, though again, these pictures can be found at quite a vast array of websites.

https://people.com/crime/jeffre-dahmer-victim-konerak-sinthasomphone-police-returned-boy-home-killer/

https://skdb.fandom.com/wiki/SINTHASOMPHONE_Somsack

LateralusAD (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The image used is indeed that of Konerak, not Somsack. The image you refer to depicts Konerak at a younger age. You can see at trial when the Polaroids Dahmer took of Konerak that Konerak had the same hairstyle as that in the picture used here. SKDB.fandom isn't exactly a reliable source either. For reference, you can see this exact image at around the 52nd minute in this documentary (well 52:21 to be precise).--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a main stock photo for each of these boys that has been around since the time of this investigation. Your photo doesn't match any official source, nor does any official source even show him with glasses; they do show glasses, however, in the brother's (Somsack's) stock photo --Lateralusad (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Some sources do. Masters' book for example.

Some sources state that was Somsack but it isn't. Check the talk archives--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like an exception and likely a mistake if it doesn't match most official sources. It does match other images of Somasack. LateralusAD (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Michael McCann himself shows this exact photo during the trial and identifies it as Konerak! It stood beside his coffin during his memorial service. CJC-DI (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

That one example shows a remarkable disagreement with every other official source. It does, however, match other official pictures of Somsack. I'd rather see no picture appear at all over displaying a misidentified victim. LateralusAD (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

There are other official sources that use this picture for Konerak. So it's not like every single source cites the wrong image. It's unfortunate that many do. But it can't get any more official than his funeral. This photo stood by his coffin! How more official can it get?

Michael McCann showed this photo during his closing argument with a plead to the jury to "don't forget Konerak Sinthasomphone". Why would he show a wrong image if he wanted to make a powerful point? Especially since the jury saw Somsack's testimony and knew what he looked like.

Please, watch "The Jeffrey Dahmer Tapes" documentary if you can. They show a close-up of the pictures that Dahmer took of Konerak. It's the exact same face, just without the glasses.

I have Somsack's picture from one of the school photobooks. That's not him in this photo. CJC-DI (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am declining your request for a third opinion because there are too many people involved in this discussionalready. Rublamb (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)