Jump to content

Talk:Dennis Nilsen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Homosexual"

[edit]

Throughout the article Nilsen is described as the archaic-sounding "homosexual" rather than the colloquial "gay", would "gay" not be more appropriate based on reliable sources? JJARichardson (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the occurrences of homosexual were fine in context, but for several others I have been WP:BOLD and altered them to "gay". JenniferGovernment 08:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted: encyclopaedic tone is formal and impartial, not 'colloquial' and opposed to some idea of it being unfashionable/archaic. Kevin McE (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted. The use of "gay" is perfectly acceptable. See WP:GAY?. What's the issue? Graham Beards (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And 'homosexual' had been considered perfectly acceptable by contributors and readers for a long time previously. Get a consensus before you move from long-term stable version per WP:BRD. And if you want to consider WP:GAY? as though it were a policy rather than an essay, then pay equal attention to its final sentence "Significant mass changes of articles from gay to homosexual, or the reverse, require a supporting specific consensus or are likely to be viewed as disruptive." Kevin McE (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edits and changes to this article were inevitable given the recent publicity. I didn't make the initial change, but I agree with it. This is how we reach a consensus. I don't have to "get" one. Graham Beards (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring is categorically not how we reach a consensus. Once we are in a BRD cycle, that aspect of the article should be left stable. And you do need to establish consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who is edit waring? I have made one revert whereas you have made two. "Establish" and "get" are not the same. I will be happy to continue this discussion when you stop being motivated by anger. Graham Beards (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The style guide at WP:GAY? is clear and concise. As for your argument that "'homosexual' had been considered perfectly acceptable by contributors and readers for a long time previously", I refer you to WP:STABLE: It is important to note that outside of the limited administrative context, a "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to edit war. Stable versions are not superior or preferred to disputed edits in any way, boldly making changes to articles is encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing good faith edits for the sake of preserving "stable" content is disruptive. JenniferGovernment 07:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GAY? is not part of the style guide, nor is it, as Graham has claimed, a guideline. It is an essay, an opinion. Kevin McE (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the examples from independent style guides listed there. And what is your response to your contested "long-term stable version" argument? Graham Beards (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BRD. You only provided one link, and you said that it was to guideline. Singular. Kevin McE (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries are not usually considered part of BRD discussions. My apologies for the confusion. You still haven't responded to the "stability" issue. Graham Beards (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You keep trotting out BRD; how about WP:BRD-NOT: BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle. You haven't advanced a single valid reason for your reversions. Your preference for "homosexual" over "gay" is not a valid reason; welcome to the 21st century. JenniferGovernment 18:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And in any case "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once." I suggest unless a valid reason is given to suppress the changes, we adopt the ones recently made. Graham Beards (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Must agree; deferring to a single editor's intransigence is not how the encyclopedia is built. JenniferGovernment 20:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP has no style guide preference as to the use of 'homosexual' or 'gay'. The only reason proffered for use of 'gay' is that it is "more colloquial". Encyclopaedic tone is formal and precise, not colloquial. If my preference (and apparently that of whoever first wrote it) is not reason to retain, then your preference (and you have established nothing more than that) is not reason to change. Kevin McE (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons offered for change are laid out very clearly in WP:GAY?. As explained, "homosexual" is "a word whose clinical history and pejorative connotations are routinely exploited by anti-LGBTQ extremists to suggest that people attracted to the same sex are somehow diseased or psychologically and emotionally disordered." (Indeed, it was that very vein of homophobic attitude running through the police that allowed Nilsen to go undetected, despite surviving victims making formal complaints!) Language and culture continually change, and "homosexual" has been considered derogatory for at least the past 40 years, with its usage, as both a noun and an adjective, declining in published, edited text for the last 30 years. Style guides for published text all advise the use of "gay" over "homosexual." Unless you can point me towards a Wikipedia policy that clearly states that "homosexual" should be used instead of "gay", I'd say we're about done here; you invoked BRD, wrongly or otherwise, and the majority of those who have taken part in the discussion have expressed that "gay" should be used. You could, of course, request more opinion on other noticeboards, but this seems a peculiar hill to choose to die on, so to speak. JenniferGovernment 08:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I note that the article is in the category "Gay military personnel", which was renamed from "Homosexual military personnel". You may find the discussion behind that elucidating. JenniferGovernment 12:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Gay" is not colloquial. It is an accepted formal term. I suspect homophobia is the real reason for the objection. I suggest again we adopt the changes. Graham Beards (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you know about me to make such an allegation? Appalling that an admin would make such a libellous ad hominem comment. Kevin McE (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the impression given by aggressive edit summaries. Graham Beards (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You really are dangerously ignorant. Kevin McE (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. When are you going to discuss the arguments for the inclusion of the proposed changes to the article? Or do you have nothing more to add? Graham Beards (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the reference to the preference "of whoever first wrote it" is WP:OWN by proxy. There is a clear consensus in favour of the updated language. Graham Beards (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't, what patent nonsense. It is proof that I am not the only person who considers 'homosexual' to be appropriately used here. And in an article that has had nearly 6m views, and more than 3 million n the last fortnight, only three people have felt moved to comment here. If you want to propose a change to the MoS, then go ahead, but 3-2 is not a convincing consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's patent nonsense. We all know that most readers do not know about our Talk Pages, let alone how to use them. And besides you, who is objecting to the changes? Graham Beards (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is nonsense to suggest that an editor who uses a word considers that word to be appropriate???? You will need to explain that one? Kevin McE (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to propose a change to the MoS, then go ahead There is nothing in the Manual of Style that insists we use "homosexual" instead of "gay". So, no change proposed or needed. There is a style guide maintained and created by LGBTQ Wikipedians that proposes "gay" instead of "homosexual"; there are multiple reliable, trusted external style guides that recommend "gay" instead of "homosexual." You are behind the curve, and have offered nothing to this discussion apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your second revert when edit warring this content ended the BRD cycle, which should never have been invoked in the first place. I am reinstating my reasonable edits. See you at ANI. JenniferGovernment 21:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with user Kevin McE. Homosexual is appropriate. The word 'gay' is a street level colloquial term. Maybe it would be appropriate to use on a Reddit discussion thread, but not on a Wikipedia article. I would not wish for a heterosexual serial killer's Wikipedia article to refer to him as a 'straight' serial killer. Nobody is being homophobic, here. We all know offenders of this nature are more likely to be heterosexual.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'gay' is a street level colloquial term. I think you will have a hard time arguing that in 2020. I'm intrigued to see if you have the minerals to take that to any noticeboard in 2020, to be honest. JenniferGovernment 21:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in the context of a professional article of this nature as opposed to a Reddit thread. "Olav informed his mother Dennis was gay" reads better than "homosexual", to me.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, noone is calling Nilsen a "gay" or "straight" serial killer; but where his sexuality is discussed, we are objecting to the use of "homosexual" as a noun or adjective instead of "gay". Catch up. JenniferGovernment 21:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I am confused by your affirmation of my edits with your statement "Olav informed his mother Dennis was gay" reads better than "homosexual", to me combined with your complaint that Homosexual is appropriate. They are, obviously, mutually exclusive - or, in simple terms, a demonstration that you don't know your elbow from your asshole. I appreciate your work on these articles, but I'm also intrigued to know if other editors contacted you to suddenly appear and support their position, despite their opinion being contrary to policy? You certainly present as someone who doesn't know what the actual fuck they're talking about. JenniferGovernment 23:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jennifer Government. When I wrote "Olav informed his mother Dennis was gay", what I implied was a boy or young man would be more likely to use this term in a household conversation than "homosexual", eve though they had been watching a topic about "homosexuality". As a prv. contributor observed, homosexual is more formal and precise. "Gay" is generic. It is better to use a precise term within an encyclopaedic article. The word "gay" is understandable to use in instances of direct quotes, or references to issues such as gay rights. I just hope this does not encourage other less formal language to become acceptable on Wikipedia.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah some people do contact me. They certainly don't use profane language, but, never mind.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kieronoldham: That was absolutely uncalled for on my part, and I'm deeply sorry I let the frustration get to me in that way. I've struck the offending comments, but left them there to be seen as part of my contrition. I really didn't mean that, and I do genuinely think you do a lot of great work here. Sorry. JenniferGovernment 09:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And are you going to withdraw your absolutely scurrilous and unfounded accusation that I recruited Kieron's support, or that he would respond to such had it been sought? Are you really that arrogant that you believe opposition to your opinion can only exist in a small circle that needs to be drummed into action against you? Kevin McE (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin McE, And you had the nerve to complain about personal attacks? Behave! Graham Beards (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So do you consider it acceptable to accuse editors of breaking wp:canvas without any evidence? And given that you considered yourself as justified in making all sorts of presumptions about me, because you interpreted my edit summaries as angry, I am sure you will in consistency make rash conclusions about Jennifer's ethics because she, self-admittedly, edited in anger. Kevin McE (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC uses "gay" in preference to "homosexual" all the time these days.[1]. As does the NHS. [2]. It is not colloquial. This use of the word has been part of the formal English language longer than "mobile phone". Graham Beards (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you are citing a BBC youth documentary and a helpsheet for adolescents as your proofs of formal, technical use? Kevin McE (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin McE, ...and the your rebuttal of the NHS usage is? Graham Beards (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read either my comment or the NHS page? The answer is there. Kevin McE (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin McE, and it is? Graham Beards (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did Nilsen ever call himself gay, or did he call himself homosexual? DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look I'm not arguing with anybody here. I am sure we all agree we are collectively trying to improve the article. Talk page is the place. I stand by my viewpoints but if consensus goes against me I will abide. The word is too informal, to me. If more of you disagree with me than agree (as has happened on a few other articles in the past), I can live with that. Best regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot justify offending readers because a word is considered "too informal". It is like using "negro". Graham Beards (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Totally inappropriate comparison. Can you cite one example of anyone claiming that 'negro' is the proper formal term? Kevin McE (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin McE, Oh come on. Can 't you do better? Graham Beards (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm challenging you on how you did. Do you wish to defend the example that you chose? Kevin McE (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin McE, I have, below. Graham Beards (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the term as offensive. The word negro has only one meaning. A woman I work with describes herself as gay.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, this discussion is not about you or how you perceive the term – or your work colleague, (which, and forgive my bluntness, was a stupid argument). Graham Beards (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, the objections to the proposed changes to this article are from just two editors who think the word "gay" is informal and colloquial. Those in favour of the changes are concerned that the term "homosexual" is archaic and offensive to a significant minority of our readers. I suggest we restore the changes. Failing agreement, we can open a formal request for comment from the wider community. Graham Beards (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Highly disingenuous to number those on one side of the discussion as 2, without acknowledging that the other opinion is represented by only 3. Kevin McE (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I used that argument to broadly illustrate the fact that, in society, females as well as males identify as "gay", hence the imprecise term, belonging on a Reddit discussion thread but not an encyclopaedia. No offense taken, Graham.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kieronoldham, Oh I see. But "homosexual" applies to both genders too. So it is just as imprecise. (And, BTW, I have never heard of Reddit). Graham Beards (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS. "homo" here means the "same" from the Greek. Not "man" from Latin. Graham Beards (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin McE, I acknowledge that the objectors are a minority. Graham Beards (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't admit that your comment was disingenuous? Interesting. Do you believe that 3 people constitute a meaningful consensus for change in an article that has had more than 3 million recent views? Kevin McE (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin McE, A minority is 49% and below. (Yes, I too can be a pedant). And I have already demolished your page view argument. Graham Beards (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously I know that, but it brings us round to the colloquial argument. Even though I agree with Kevin McE's point of view, and stand by my explanations made here on the 24th, I hope we can bring this issue to a close soon. (Reddit is a waste of time in my opinion but is a perfect place for discovering informal banter and lexicon relating to most topics.)--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kieronoldham, Actually, I don't think you did and it doesn't bring us round to the colloquial argument at all. Why can't you guys address the argument that we are causing unnecessary offence? Graham Beards (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a matter of opinion. The only people who see offence are the ones, in this day and age, who seek to find or sense any offence.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So why do we need hate crime legislation? [3] Graham Beards (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no commitment to avoiding offence, but it does have a commitment to using a formal tone. Can you reference any charge ever brought against anyone on hate crime legislation for using the word 'homosexual'? Kevin McE (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin McE, Don't be a pendant. It is clear that I was referring to perceived offense. Grow up. Graham Beards (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well we are talking about a Wiki article here so I am not going off-topic beyond saying society will never be perfect.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kieronoldham, That's not an excuse for not trying. Graham Beards (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but utopia cannot be achieved this side of consciousness. We are in better days than decades past. Viewing offence in a clinical and formal term such as "homosexual" does not help. If we were using an informal word viewed with derision on here I would agree with your observations 100%--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]

Should this article use the term "gay" instead of "homosexual" when sexuality is mentioned in non-clinical contexts? Graham Beards (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you mean is, "the guidelines we have on this issue are non-existent." WP:GAY? is not a Wikipedia guideline, and it says as much at the top of that page. Kevin McE (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, with provisions, and. per-context - I do not think that the word 'gay' should be used when discussing time periods before the term existed (in the mainstream, anyway). So, that would be,at the earliest, around 1969-70. So, when talking about his discovering his sexuality at the onset of puberty, in the 1950s, we should not use 'gay' because there was no such sexuality called 'gay' at that time. (Likewise, I also think most uses of 'homosexual' in contexts from before the late nineteenth century when the modern conception was first manifested is equally inappropriate - unless discussing modern speculation about the past). Also, regarding an argument made in the above thread, about the word 'negro': while it is unquestionably the case that a few generations ago negro was the most acceptably polite term, the word 'black' has existed in English for at least as long, if not longer, than negro; gay is, however, a recent term, and it is a sociopoliticocultural term - which absolutely should be the favoured term (and not homosexual) in the contexts for which it exists. To counter any arguments that might be put forth about consistency, I say this: the 1960s and 1970s were periods of radical cultural change. Articles that encompass periods of such radical change can suffer a bit of inconsistency ;) Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are fallacious on several counts. The use of the word 'gay' meaning sexual preference dates back much further than the 70s. It was in common use in the 1920s. Since then it has been adopted into several other languages including Japanese (ゲイ), Russian (гей), Punjabi (ਗੇ), Italian (gay), Estonian (gei), Tamil (கே), Catalan (gai) and others. To say that it is acceptable to use an offensive word because it was not offensive during the subject of an article's childhood is similar to saying that it is acceptable to say that Mohandas Ghandi was a wog when he was young. I don't fully understand your point about "sociopoliticocultural" (if that is indeed a word). (BTW the way, I have taken the liberty of removing your bolding - we try not to shout in discussions). Graham Beards (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After over a month, their is a clear consensus that the use of "gay" instead of "homosexual" in non-clinical contexts is to be favoured. Graham Beards (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Number of murders

[edit]

According to this article in The Times (link: [4])(it's pay-walled), he "is thought to have murdered 16 young men". I have always heard on documentaries the number was believed by the police to be either 15 or 16 (though he only admitted 12 murders).--Phil of rel (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He initially stated "fifteen or sixteen". At the police station, he listed fifteen. In the years following his conviction, he stated he fabricated the unidentified Irish labourer with rough hands, the English skinhead and the hippy.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"This ruling ensured Nilsen would never be released from prison, a punishment he accepted."

[edit]

This statement is not accurate, possibly on two counts. A whole-life term MAY be commuted to treatment in a hospice if the individual subject to the term is terminally ill. There are ways in which an offender MAY get out of prison when they've been served a whole life term. Compassionate grounds, as far as I'm aware, is not disallowed even for whole life prisoners. While Nilsen was alive, had he been reasonably informed about the legal system, he would not have accepted that he would have been locked up forever, as there was an (admittedly small) chance he could have been released on those grounds.

I don't have the source material to hand from which this statement was taken, but maybe someone who does could check it for the reasons outlined above.--Phil of rel (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He never expected or wanted freedom, and he was litigious. The source states Michael Howard increased the sentence to a whole-life tariff, and that "Nilsen himself does not expect to be released, and accepts his punishment."--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Gallichan

[edit]

Is this the same man [5]? The age fits and it's a very unusual name. 86.188.121.61 (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves me correctly, Gallichan died in 1992.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea where he died? As there is no death record for anyone named David Gallichan listed at FreeBMD between 1982 and 1992. There is a likely birth record here for a David K. Gallichan, born in Bristol, in Dec 1955. But even if this is/was him, there is no reliable source linking him to Nilsen. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No idea where he died, Martinevans123. After he left Nilsen he met an antiques dealer and relocated to the West Country. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I guess it could be the same guy. But only if he didn't die in 1992. But all very tenuous, and of no real relevance to Nilsen. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if he died late in 1992, he will not appear at FreeBMD, as it only has records for before 1993. Brian Masters (1985), tells us that his nickname was "Twinkle". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stench

[edit]

The accounts of foul odour are indubitably correct but still appear hard to believe. In his last dwelling, he occupied the flat on the top floor. We learn that officers immediately noticed the stench as they opened the door. And yet... Did the property have any other occupants? Did they never notice anything? Keep it to themselves, mustn't be impolite and stiff upper lip and all that? It seems very strange that you could have several rotting bodies in your flat in a multiple-occupancy property, especially given how shoddily constructed and draft-ridden British homes usually are. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:65C6:96EB:D265:E131 (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We just have to follow sources. By the end the neighbours were complaining - that's why "On 4 February 1983, Nilsen wrote a letter of complaint to estate agents complaining that the drains at Cranley Gardens were blocked... It was a bargain though, in 2015, at only £300,000. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nilsen occupied the attic flat. The middle flat was unoccupied. A young woman named Fiona Bridges occupied two bedsitting rooms on the ground floor; a Dutch woman named Monique Van Rutte and her friend Vivienne McStay occupied another two ground floor bedsit rooms. They had only moved in just after Christmas of 1982.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Muswell Hill Murderer"

[edit]

The lead section claims "Nilsen became known as the Muswell Hill Murderer, as he committed his later murders in the Muswell Hill district of North London. But this is wholly unsourced and not mentioned in the main body of the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a citation. I could be wrong, but I believe it is mentioned in the 1997 referenced publication Murder in Mind too.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irresponsibly Graphic

[edit]

May contribute to further crimes inspired by graphic descriptions of murder and necrophilia. 2600:6C40:1F0:DB80:6883:B661:D2D8:A0D3 (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything can be found online in written or video format.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Highly specific details of sex crimes against the living or the dead are not necessary in order to convey the historical, cultural, or social significance of violent crimes. Wiki articles like this one reflect a fetishization of violent crime rather than the encyclopedic tone suitable for general informational purposes. The existence of graphic violent materials online does not necessitate their description here. 2600:6C40:1F0:DB80:6883:B661:D2D8:A0D3 (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus governs. Nothing is written in a gratuitous or perverse way - clinically sterile, if anything. Everything is already elsewhere online and/or in book format.

Wiki. uses reliable sources. I understand it cannot be palatable for everyone (obv. incl. yourself no personal offense intended), but maybe the original book authors or the reputable websites should be those to complain to. Human behaviour is human behaviour (by which I mean even deviate criminal) and the likes of The Sun or The Guardian will report the graphic details to their target market here in Britain alone, and authors will follow in tow - before the documentary makers. In time themselves before the podcasts, etc.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dennis_Nilsen&oldid=1253817796"