Talk:Albert Fish

Too detailed?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a collection of horror novels. Whilst, of course, Fish's crimes should be mentioned, one could dispute if it is necessary to get so detailed about how exactly he tortured, killed and cooked his victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.28.95 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree. "He sent a letter detailing how he killed and ate the child to the parents," would be much better. There is a link to the full text for those who wish to read it. these block quotes are unnecessary and sensationalistic. untwirl (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, here are the issues. Firstly, Wikipedia isn't censored, so to remove the block quotes based on them being too detailed would seem to me to be censoring it. The first block quote has the text from the letter sent, and in that it has historic significance, much as the letters Jack the Ripper sent. The second quote is the exact confession, which also has historic significance, keeping in mind that this is what Fish said he did, not necessarily what he did. The other issue is that this has been designated a good article, which, I believe, occurred with the blocks intact. There is the point that cutting the quotes, which GA reviewers accepted, could jeopardize the GA status. Having said all of this, I mostly monitor the article to remove the endless vandalism, and I wasn't one of the editors who worked so hard to get the article to a GA status and it would help to get their input. You might try Richard Arthur Norton and Wjhonson. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your response. i didnt want to start making edits without first hearing the rationale. (btw - the first post in this section isnt mine- only the second.) the main difference i see between this and the jack the ripper letters is the length. i'll look at other articles with quotes from primary sources and see what the standard is. thanks. untwirl(talk) 04:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite ludicrous to be honest. I know Wikipedia isn't censored but children can access this site no problem and the block quotes are really disturbing. I agree with the idea to make a link to the quotes and remove them from this site. Bonzostar (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is one of the issues, I think. There really isn't a standard, except in the case of copyrighted material, something for which these don't qualify. In the case of Jack the Ripper, the letters weren't long, so that is a self-limitation. I'd still urge talking to Richard Arthur Norton and/or Wjhonson or asking them to comment here. They were the ones who worked on the article at the time of the GA review. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• There's no question of whether this would offend people or if it is inappropriate for children to read. Those points have no bearing on inclusion or exclusion within Wikipedia. If the argument to remove is based on either/both of these points, the argument will fail. If you want to remove it, show an encyclopedic reason to remove it. A possible parallel situation is the Death of Kurt Cobain article, which includes the entirety of his last writing. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not just collapse the letters? Censorship is subjective. We can't delete content because it may be offensive in some country somewhere in the world. Wayne (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

15,000 words

There is no way that this is true: "The last question Dempsey asked Wertham was 15,000 words long, detailed Fish's life and ended with asking how the doctor considered his mental condition based on this life." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcolive (talk • contribs) 23:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Gcolive (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is stated in the reference given. If Dempsey detailed Fish's life then 15,000 words is probably right. Wayne (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In a murder case, if the defence counsel believes that asking a 15,000 word question will improve his/her client's chances of acquittal/insanity plea then they will ask a 15,000 word question. The question will be for the jury's sake, reminding them of all the occasions in Fish's life where he would appear to have shown signs of mental illness. In another case the defence might go on for 15,000 words about how much of a upstanding citizen the defendant is, obviously that would not be appropriate in the Fish trial.--EchetusXe 12:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter from an individual concerned that this article constitutes a copyright infringement of the film Portraits in Evil. The article has been blanked as this allegation is investigated. Contributors to the article who may have seen the film are requested to, please, help clarify this matter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, that claim is specious and (with apologies) crap. The entire article is clearly not a copyright violation of a film or documentary. It would help immensely to know what parts of the article are being disputed as copyright violations. Everything I can find on this documentary indicates it was released on DVD in January 2009 [1]. This article has remained relatively unchanged (see version last edited on July 22, 2009), mostly having stylistic changes, since September 2, 2007, not long after it was first designated as a good article [2]. The article is fairly well referenced, indicating where the content was obtained. If a documentary released in January 2009 is too close in content to an article that was designated a good article in February 2007, I would suggest another explanation should be considered. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what parts of the article are in dispute. I'm afraid that the letter we received was rather vague on details, though I have already requested clarification on specifics. It may very well be that the film infringed on Wikipedia (seems likely if the film came out in 2009). If the concerns are misguided, it should all be cleared up fairly quickly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you echo my sentiments, I think. Hopefully this will resolve soon. As I said, I've followed this article for years, and it developed honestly. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If the correspondent points out a specific passage of concern and it predates the film, we can swiftly remove the template. If we don't get a response in a timely manner, the template will also soon be removed. A comparison of the dates you provide above, [3], confirms that not much has changed.

In the meantime, I'd ask contributors to please be patient with the process, which is here after all to protect the project. If these concerns aren't substantiated, we'll have at worst the inconvenience of blanking a great article for a couple of days. If the correspondent responds more swiftly, it could be cleared up sooner, and I am watching for his response. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that this is entirely spurious:

1. The article, in substance, predates the documentary.
2. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a text article to be a copyright infringement of a movie (copyright protects expressions of ideas, not the actual ideas themselves— it's possible that a text article copying dialog or narration might be a copyvio, but the prose style of the article doesn't match either)
3. The person who complained to OTRS is unable or unwilling to state a verifiable claim.

My call would be, remove the blanking and close the ticket. — Coren ^(talk) 10:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Having just read the latest communication from the letter-writer and finding he has not responded to my request for an example of problematic text in this article, I am restoring the text pending production of some additional evidence. (I'm with you in most points, but I'm not sure I understand this: "It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a text article to be a copyright infringement of a movie." It seems not only possible (as you say), but quite simple for a text article to infringe a movie by transcribing either dialog or narration...not much more challenging than it is to infringe on a prose source. I haven't seen the film, so I have no clue what the prose style is of that film. ) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am certain there is no copyright violation here, at least on our part. Whether prose styling on the documentary is like this article, which predates the documentary, says something else entirely. I'm glad this is closed now and appreciate your attention. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What I've been trying to figure is whether the documentaries predate the collection. I'm not that familiar with the direct-to-video market (read: at all), but it seemed plausible to me that a 10-hour documentary series might have collected some kind of previously televised miniseries. If so, it could be that a single episode that aired some time back was used here. But I haven't found anything to indicate that these documentaries were previously released, and I'm thinking from the Mill Creek Entertainment boast on its sell sheet that this is an "Exclusive Documentary Series" that this is probably not the case. (I am confused, though, why they evidently have a title-screen for each hour-long episode.) I'm willing to rent the Holmes video, since I'm with a service anyway and it is evidently at least some kind of award winner, but this one is not available for rent and I will not buy it. Wikipedia can have my life, but my husband would kill me if I started spending my entertainment budget to evaluate copyright concerns. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything to support the films being shown anywhere prior to release either. Perhaps it was made in anticipation of sales to some cable network like Court TV or Biography? I wouldn't buy it either, from the little I've read, it's badly made, full of errors and inconsistencies from other sources. I'll be interested to see what you find out. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Execution story

I had read in more than one source (which unfortunately I do not possess at this time) that when electrocuted, the many needles and other objects he inserted into his groin short circuited the electric chair and they had to adjust the wiring several times before successful execustion. I see no mention of this while it is certainly interesting and notable. Of course, I obviously don't have any sources at this time. Just bringing it up for someone more studied to include. Or perhaps debunk. -206.24.49.1 (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never read that and basically, I can't see how that would happen. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I read a Biography on him called Deranged and the author Harold S. states how this did NOT happen at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.58.60 (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Cite template

Cite policy if you are going to remove data from the citation templates please. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard, this is an extremely old issue with you.It isn't an issue of policy, it is an issue of understanding what you are adding. The title of the newspaper article you added does not include the old-fashioned way of including excessive sub-titles. The title of the article to which you link is "Police Try To Link Budd Girl's Slayer To 3 Other Crimes." It is not "Police Try To Link Budd Girl's Slayer To 3 Other Crimes. Fish Questioned On O'Connor, Collings And Gaffney Cases. He Denies Part In Them. Westchester To Try Him Transfer Of Prisoner To That County Now Pending. Child's Skeleton Is Unearthed. Police Try To Link Slayer To 3 Crimes." Those subtitles are not necessary. Nor are your copy and pasted quotes, which basically encompass everything present on the page of the link you added. There is absolutely no reason to slop in a quote that simply repeats the content in the link. As hard as I realize this is for you, it is totally excessive and unnecessary. If the content wasn't presented in the link, then the quote would be valid. As it is, it isn't valid fair use. Not to mention you hid what you were doing on the next to the last revert under a deceptive edit summary, which effectively hid your actions. Also please stop adding empty parameters to the citations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have given up and reported the above editor for violations of 3RR and making personal attacks on his talk page. Unfortunately, he just doesn't seem to get that using blank parameters, excessive subtitles and copy and pasting entire article contents into a quote function isn't good practice. Discussion is futile as he only reverts, hides his reverts under deceptive edit summaries and can't see the forest for the trees. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For the fifth time, please cite a written Wikipedia rule. If there is no Wikipedia rule, you are imposing your arbitrary personal taste in how you want Wikipedia to be formatted and what parameters should be used and not used in the citation template. If you think a rule should exist that the title parameter should be restricted to a single sentence, lobby to get that rule passed. That way it can be enforced globally, and not just here at a single article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

• Must unused cite parameters be removed from templates until they are filled in?
  • No they may be filled in later and are not seen by readers when empty. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• Must titles of books and news articles be limited to the first sentence?
  • No Full titles should be used, there is no compelling reason to remove the full article title. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• Must quotes be removed from citations because the violate copyright?
  • No See arguments at: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Quotes in citations Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

RAN asked for my comments.

How much quoting is appropriate depends on several factors: the function in the article, the free availability elsewhere, the encyclopedic rather than sensational or propagandistic purpose, the extent to which the quote might replace the needs for a long rewording of the same material. The actual fair use restrictions in the US will rarely come into the picture, but the key variable that will affect us is the proportion of the quote to the original work: one cannot claim fair use for an entire short newspaper article, regardless of length.

Whether the quote should go into the article or the footnote is also a matter of judgment--my view is that a long quote in the article should not be repeated in the footnote. The key point of putting it into the footnote is to provide for WP:V, especially of non -free or especially of hard to access material, and particularly of material likely to be challenged, such as controversial political or critical opinion, or a disputed fact such as year of birth or nationality.

As for style, I think short quotes are usually best, and I think adding emphasis to a quote by boxing or especially by pull quotes to be something to be done rather sparingly.

The question for this article seems to be the letters: I would remove the box. I would probably keep only the key portions. I would source them not just to the convenience web source used, but to the actual original. I think our writing about crime does tend to be a little over-sensational and over-detailed. This article is not really very much over the mark in that respect, considering the unavoidable nature of the material. I would make it clearer what parts of this depend only upon his own account of his life and his own confessions. Personally, if it were not for the x-rays, I would have considerable doubts about his basic veracity.

The question of homosexuality was raised above. In his day, this would no doubt have been seen as adding to the extent of his perversity and even as explaining all that came after his early experiences. I think most people can realise the historical element as well as I can. To a considerable extent, this is helped by the use of quotations. DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Emma Richardson

I see references for all of the others listed as having been killed by Fish or suspected of having been killed by Fish, but no references for Emma Richardson or any details for her other than her being listed as one of his victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.213.240 (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's the same reference as for Francis X. McDonnell and Billy Gaffney. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Rapist?

Fish is described as a rapist on this page and the Glasgow Smile page (from which I got to this page), but as I understand it, he never actually sexually assaulted anyone, and the sexual charges were made to avoid bringing up the cannibalism. I am aware that what he did do is quite horrifying in its own right, but I don't think describing him as a rapist is quite accurate.204.119.140.66 (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"He also said he began raping young boys, a crime he kept committing even after his mother arranged a marriage.", the source for which is http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/fish/index.html. Geoff B (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong famine?

I'm curious if this part of the letter is any bit real? All I can find mention of is bubonic plague in that year and some famine a little earlier, but no mention of the children being kidnapped and sold for food. I'm guessing it's fake, just wondering what other info anyone might have on it. User:-Wa-Wa (User talk:-Wa-talk) 03:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that it happened, but it's certainly possible. Cannibalism isn't as uncommon as we would like to think

On the other hand, Fish suffered from delusions and invented a number of excuses to explain his behavior. This could be one of them. 173.78.66.133 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Nauseating

The contents of this article are sickening to read.
I am 50 years of age, and this is possibly the most grotesque thing I have ever made the mistake of reading.
It is like something you would expect to find at Ogrish.com.
I like the suggestion made up above that the letters be collapsed.
Varlaam (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

They are confessions written by a cannibal child-rapist, one might expect the letters to be gruesome. I don't think a warning is necessary.--EchetusXe 12:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

LGBT project

The LGBT WikiProject's banner was recently removed, with the edit summary "no obvious connection." Given that the article clearly states one or two of Fish's relationships with men, I propose the banner be replaced. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's best to consider this subject in a structured way.

Firstly, on the WikiProjects LGBT Studies discussion page, you qualify Fish as 'gay', which you have interpreted from the text subjectively. Is it not difficult to justify the term 'relationship' when applied, as I imagine you did, to his exposure at the age of 12 (consensual?) to a youth who "introduced Fish to such practices as drinking urine and eating feces" or later experiences "raping young boys"? Is it not also difficult to justify your use of 'men' (WikiProjects LGBT Studies discussion page) when it is clear in the article that Fish was almost exclusively paedophiliac in his tendencies? Apart from his relationships with women, that is. As I'm sure you're aware, the difference between 'men' and 'boys' is vitally important (homosexuals ≠ paedophiles). Nevertheless, if we really do want to entertain that Fish was homosexual, how are we to know that his 'relationships' stemmed from the fact he was 'gay' and were not in fact a manifestation of his mental illness? In addition, while it might seem obvious to a modern audience that having 'relationships' with 'men' makes you a homosexual, is it as clear-cut as that (cf. gender relations and Islam, pederasty from antiquity to the late 19th century, etc)?

That is an aside. An important aside. Please now refer back to my comments on the discussion page. I assume you agreed with my first question, namely that LGBT, despite its strong cultural associations developed and defined in the 1990s, apply directly to Fish (though I would like you to explain that too). To make reference to my second question, then, you now need to prove that Fish's sexuality and gender identity-based culture is sufficiently important as to have contributed to his notability, i.e. at least partly because he was 'gay', as you say, he committed his crimes. I'm sure at the time of his trial the fact that Fish had had 'relationships' with 'men' and the fact that he then went on to eat children was considered part and parcel of his insanity; is that the case today?

There is no justification for including Fish under the WikiProjects LGBT Studies banner. It is flimsy and casual and ill considered. Not only that, but it plays directly into the hands of those who would see LGBT extended to LGBTP. 83.244.230.115 (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You have some very strong emotions on this subject, I sense, so I want to tread lightly here :)

I have no idea if Fish was gay (or more likely bisexual). As you state, these are constructs that seem to have come about in the 1950s or so, though estimates and experts disagree on when and where they came about.

WP:LGBT is a WikiProject aimed at improving articles in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Studies topics. The project has had several discussions on whether or not that includes pedophilia and/or pedophiles. My opinion, however, is that Fish's article is a "bisexual topic" and/or a "queer studies topic". His attraction as a boy to other boys, his later (age 20+) male prostitution, and his (age 28) "male lover", along with his marriage and relationships with women, would seem to indicate that he was attracted to both sexes - therefore the "bisexual topic".

Furthermore, the pedophilia, "morbid interest in castration", his self-mutilation of his genitals, all of these are part of "queer studies topics".

I'm interested to hear some third opinions on the question of putting the LGBT banner back. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I too weigh in with a certain trepidation -- as I am neither gay, bisexual, transgender, nor a pedophile, I'm not sure if my opinion will count for much -- but for what it's worth, I have to agree that listing Fish under the LGBT banner would serve no useful purpose, and will only provide ammunition to the bigots and ignoramuses (ignorami?) of the world who assume, in their blind prejudice and hate, that "gay" and "pedophile" are synonyms. My two cents. DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Fish was gay, bi questioning or other. The LGBT banner states "WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues." Note my emphasis on "related." Also note "comprehensive." Fish exhibited a homosexual attraction. It is related to LGBT. This article falls under this broadly defined criteria and the banner should be restored. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

But in your zeal to incorporate every single article with even a remote association to LGBT, is it not possible, at least in this case, that you will be doing more harm than good? I, for one, can see the downside of including Fish under the banner, but I don't really see any upside. If there is one, please educate me. DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Zeal? Anyway one of the benefits is that via the project's Recent Changes facility more eyes will be watching the article to help with NPOV. What is the "downside"? – Lionel ^(talk) 06:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

See my earlier note. More bigots will be watching too. DoctorJoeE (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I came across this page after reading an article on another website, and thought I'd offer an opinion. Removing the LGBT banner because those who label themselves as part of said group don't wish to be associated with him is an absurd argument, it's not as if it's being proposed that he's some sort of role model. Equally, people who will use Fish as representative of a relationship between peadophilia and the LGBT community are going to find ways to express their fear/hatred anyway, wikipedia shouldn't be influenced by fear of ignorance. In my opinon this discussion is like a project on United States politics refusing to cover any pages on Republicans because they don't agree with their views - he either belongs within the project or not, but how much we like him is completely irrelevent to that. Reading the article, and the points raised by both Lionelt and SatyrTN, to me suggests the article falls within the very broad scope of project LGBT. BulbaThor (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting. I would respectfully suggest that you take a deep breath or two, relax, read WP:TIGER, and adjust your attitude toward a more civil form of conversation. The only "absurd" arguments are, of course, the ones you don't personally agree with. And you're going to have to explain your political-orientation-vs.-mental-illness analogy in a bit more detail. Are you saying that pedophiles are to LGBT in the same way that Republicans are to politics? My understanding is that there is no more approval of pedophilia within the gay community than there is of heterosexual men molesting young girls (or women molesting boys) within the straight community. It's not a question of "agreement", it's a question of right and wrong.

And I will repeat my initial question, which no one has bothered to take a shot at answering: What is to be gained by including a pedophile, and a particularly ghastly one at that, under the LGBT banner? What will it accomplish, beyond satisfying some sort of compulsion to include anyone with any sort of connection, however tenuous? The downside, as mentioned, is fairly obvious; what is the upside? Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

For me absurd is the correct word to use, rejecting covering a topic due to ill-feeling towards it when it satisfies the criteria being set to be included is somewhat irrational. I wasn't suggesting a literal relationship, that Republicans are the peadophiles of politics, but one of the main arguments against his inclusion seems to be a form of WP:JDLI. If I use myself to hopefully express a better example; I have an interest in philosophy, and due to that I have opinions on which philosophies/ers are more legitimate than others. If I let my personal beliefs judge which pages should be included under WP:Philosophy then entire schools of thought would be ignored because I simply don't agree with them. I don't believe him being a particularly vile person should merit his exclusion if he fulfils the criteria of WP:LGBT. His inclusion doesn't facilitate a necessary link between homosexuality and peadophilia, but his qualification for the project has been pointed out by other editors - the right or wrong of his actions are irrelevent.

I appreciate that people will not wish to connect themselves to him, but if his homosexuality is relevent to his fame (by which I don't mean it was the necessary cause) then he belongs in the project - Elton John's homosexuality isn't directly relevent to his fame, nor is Stephen Fry's, yet they are both included (clearly I'm not suggesting John or Fry are like Fish in any way other than homosexuality). If the project has a rationalisation behind distancing itself from anyone who could reflect badly upon their community it's one thing, but doing so due to a fear of being judged guilty by association by people who have already judged LGBTism unfavourably seems pointless, and actively striving to exclude people like Fish ultimately is a form of censorship with a tacit (and wrong) admission that it is LGBT's who should be ashamed of man/boy peadophiles, not other groups in society. I imagine no-one in the project even comes close to approving of what he did, but if his sexual orientation is relevent to his fame then he is relevent to the project.

I apologise if I sounded (sound?) uncivil, I don't mean to, and I have no great feeling one way or the other on his inclusion, but presented with the facts of his being and the facts of WP:LGBT, logic dictates that he belongs. BulbaThor (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

To summarize, then:

Lionel, any person in the history of mankind who has exhibited a 'homosexual attraction' falls under the WikiProject LGBT studies. Deep breath. So, bearing in mind that for many adolescents puberty involves episodes of homosexual attraction before our spotty friend later decides that he or she is exclusively heterosexual in orientation. For you, however, homosexual attraction has been attested, so in they go. What about an errant sexual fantasy, in which one was attracted homosexually? What about moments where men or women have been caught off-guard, thought "phwoar he's a bit of alright", but realize later, to abject horror, that it's a person of the same sex? Well you've just warranted a LGBT banner - good for you. Lionel, there are tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of articles that are in need of their rainbow flags. Godspeed.

Bulbathor. Stephen Fry and Elton John are contemporary personalities, self-proclaimed homosexuals to boot, who have not only lived through the development and definition of this elusive concept of LGBT but who, care to admit or not, have seen their notabilities reinforced by their sexualities. They are ridiculously bad examples in this matter.

SatyrnTN, your comments are bizarre beyond analysis. Having said that, if I later develop the urge to castrate myself, my SO or a complete stranger, or touch up a child, I may find some comfort in the fact that I'm simply acting within the broader limits of 'queer studies'. As defined by you.

Much as I envy all of your black-and-white mentalities, and this apparently insatiable need you feel to categorize everyone and everything like a group of demented taxonomists, give it a break. Were Fish alive today, I doubt he would be declared fit to stand trial; his 'sexuality' was a manifestation of his mental illness and, like it or not, cannot be defined within our rudimentary system of sexual orientation, try as you might to mash that jigsaw puzzle piece into place. 78.147.64.233 (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The argument that a WikiProject shouldn't tag an article because they might have to tag thousands of articles is way out of line. WikiProjects tag articles that fall within their scope - WP:MilitaryHistory has over 117,000 articles, WP:Biography has almost 1,000,000. WP:LGBT's paltry 12,000 is not going to overburden anything.

Furthermore, the project is pretty good about only tagging articles where the sexuality or sexual identity is notable. As previously shown, Fish's obsession with sex and/or gender in his victims and his psychoses makes it notable.

Finally, the project tags articles so they can watch over them and take care of vandalism as it pops up - you may not agree, but anti-gay vandalism is rampant, and removing it is an ongoing goal. Also, having the article tagged means that LGBT editors that may take an interest in the article are more likely to review it and improve it. Both of those are obvious benefits. The "downside" you've proposed is not relevant, IMO.

I'm replacing the banner. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

SatyrTN, you have now added new arguments (anti-gay vandalism?), not taken into account others and acted in the face of a number of dissenting opinions, both here and on the WikiProject talk page, without really providing a satisfactory rationale. You have also reinstated the banner (and why wouldn't you, considering your own natural bias?).

If the WikiProject LGBT studies banner is truly as meaningless as you seem to suggest it is, i.e. now covering anyone who is obsessed by sex (?) or who happens to be psychotic (?), then I have no problem whatsoever; it is a completely arbitrary label and not worth worrying about. However, that is not constructive, and probably doesn't reflect the reasons why you work on the project.

Assuming good faith, it seems that the Project suffers from a fundamental definitional problem, which could do with being considered. If we look at a number of sources, including Wikipedia, we cannot totally reconcile 'LGBT' with 'Queer Studies'; they overlap, of course, but this is a controversial area as recognised in the Wikipedia article itself. By suggesting that any 'antinormative sexual practice', such as castration or paedophilia, is covered by a WikiProject carrying the name LGBT, you are pushing for your own extremely inclusory definition of the term LGBT and ultimately using the WikiProject to further that view. Is this really desirable? 83.244.230.115 (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Once again, as someone not involved in that particular project I really have no dog in this fight (I follow the article as a member of the Crime & Criminal Biography Project), so y'all can do as you wish. But I would make three final points: (1) I still do not see how inclusion of sadistic sociopaths is in any way consistent with the goals of the LGBT project, as I understand them; (2) I don't see any reasoning behind the assertion that the downside of such inclusion -- that the connection is tenuous at best, and it plays directly into the hands of bigots and religious zealots -- is "irrelevant"; and (3) one and a half opinions in favor hardly constitutes "consensus", so I would guess you're much closer to the beginning of this debate than the end of it. DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I was surprised to see the LGBT banner there. I thought perhaps it was vandalism, so I was completely taken aback when I saw that a representative of the LGBT project was insisting the banner remain, whilst those outside of the project were arguing that the banner should be removed. I do not see how Fish relates to LGBT, even if he may have slept with a man at some point in his life. It does not make sense that this argument entitles Fish to have the LGBT banner and yet not be in the Category:LGBT people from the United States.--EchetusXe 11:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

William King

I hope that someone who is capable and qualified to write a historical article will read this. I see a dire need to write an article about the man who eventually captured Albert Fish; William King. I find it a bit distressing that so much is made of this reprehensible serial killer but little mention is made of the person who brought him to justice. Apparently King was relentless in his pursuit of Fish and is the primary reason Fish was arrested. Wikipedia needs an article about King, not just Fish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.84.152 (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly laudable that Detective King brought Fish to justice, but do you have any other information about him? Is he noted for anything other than doing his job as a police officer? I did a fairly deep search and drew a blank. I'm afraid that if all we have on him is the fact that he arrested Fish, an article about him would be scarcely longer than the two sentences you have already written. DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Like DoctorJoeE said, if the only thing King is notable for was his role in the Fish case, then that is not enough to base his own article on. In that case, the only reason King would be notable for is that he investigated and arrested Fish, and any information about him should appear in the present article. Do you have any more information about King that appears in reliable sources? Have any books or articles been written about him? Especially detailing his activities apart from the Fish case. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)