Talk:Ed Gein

Last name pronunciation

My father was born in 1947. He lived in Plainfield, Wisconsin on a farm as a child when the authorities were looking for Ed Gein. Ed Gein's last name is pronounced "guyne" like guy, as in that's an unusual guy, and -ne like that "n" in the word "no." I was told this by my father as him and I watched the Ed Gein (2000) fictional movie. If anyone can prove me wrong, go for it. However, I'd expect some passed down knowledge from an individual who came from Plainfield, Wisconsin. Cyberman (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

While most folks expect a Germanic looking name like "Gein" with an "ei" to be pronounced like the English long "i" as "Gyn" (the pronounciation I assumed for years from reading about the case starting with lurid detective magazines in the late 1950s), it does appear from sources that claim to know that the Ed Gein family used the English long "e" as "Geen" (which admitttedly is counter intuitive if you know even a little German). --Naaman Brown (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Who or what were these sources, and was there any voice recorded documentation or written information from such sources on pronunciation? Cyberman (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I was able to get in contact with my father again about this situation. The last name is pronounced to rhyme with spleen. My apologies for my former discussion of pronunciation. I have read on the Internet that this is often questioned by many individuals. Cyberman (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"Who or what were these sources?" Appleton Post-Crescent newspaper, Wisconsin, Jan 24, 1968, at Ed's sanity hearing... the man himself :: http://www.weavils.com/edpc4.jpg WQ59B (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)WQ59B

Citations needed?

I have only read a little bit and I can already tell that most of this made up. The section label "Childhood" need good information

not made up things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.239.62 (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an unfounded accusation. The article needs more citations, but it is all taken from valid and reliable sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey gang -

Everyone gets Ed's birthday wrong - he was CHRISTENED on August 27, 1906, not born. His actual birthdate is: August 8th. Here is proof, and I have more from the actual court transcripts published in out-of-print books that I own, in which Ed states his correct birthday as August 8. If you need additional info, contact Greg Vadimsky at greg@tangopalace.com

Dear Charles Montaldo: You need to correct an error. In your review of Ed Gein the Wisconsin’s ghoul you list his birthday as Aughust 27, 1906. This date is incorrect. In 1974 after viewing the movie The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I was curious to find if this movie was true or not. After some lenghty research I finally made contact with Judge Robert H. Gollmar from Wisconsin. In 1981 Judge Gollmar who presided over Ed Gein’s trial…tried to have a book published about this case, but an injuction was placed against the book by a legal action brought upon him by the people of Plainfield. Judge Gollmar was nice enough to put me in touch with the publisher who was nice enough to sell me an original hardcover book by Judge Golldmar “Edward Gein”, America’s Most Bizarre Murderer. The judge also sent me a book the he had published before, pertaining to unusual and funny cases he had presided over in the very rural Wisconsin. Years later a new book “Deviant” by Harold Schechter came out about Ed Gein. In this second book, Ed Gein’s birtthday was listed as August 27, 1906…while in Judge Gollmar’s book it is listed as August 08, 1906. I spoke to Judge Gollmar about it. His response was pure and simple. The court transcript during Ed Gein’s trial reveals that his true birthday was the 08 of August 1906. Judge Gollmar explained that way back then, in most rural very small village, a birth certificate was issued by the church when the infant got baptized and not when he was born. Ed Gein was born on August the 8th and was baptized on the 27th 1906. Ed Gein and his parents knew very well the date he was born, for having celebrated his birthday on the 08, throughout his life. And during his trial when he was asked on what date he was born, Ed Gein correctly answered August the 8th, 1906. The date in Judge Gollmar’s book is correct. Harold Schechter based his date of birth of August 27th, 1906 on the day of baptismal…which is incorrect. Due a bit of detective work Mr. Montaldo and you will see that Judge Gollmar was right. You, him, and me might be the very few who know the truth on Gein’s true day of birth. Steven Book-Lover / Librophile@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.108.20 (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

^ IMO, this needs another look. If Gein testified his own DOB was 8/8, why would a published source that stated anything else be used? Why was the published source that stated 8/8 not used, esp when it quoted Gein? WQ59B (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

more plagiarism?

There seems to be more material from the Crime Library page in the "Deaths of family members" section.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/gein/2b.html

In fact, rather large parts appear to have been lifted directly, though occasionally a sentence is missing or slightly different. Tabethah (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this, I was wondering why the article reads like a biased biography rather than an NPOV encyclopaedia reference. This needs a re-write, citations and independent verification of facts. I'll put this on my watch list and try to contribute when I can. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten parts of this to diminish the plagiarism. It's not all been checked and still needs more copy editing and sourcing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

New picture

Can we please remove the picture standing of Ed Gein right now? It seems relatively unknown and I could provide a much better one of him right after his arrest. Also, is it alright to add pictures from the crime scene, or would it be too grisly for wiki standards? Crazyconan (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Can you post a link to the other picture here, so we can see it? And for your second question, if you mean the picture of Bernice Worden's corpse hanging by its ankles, I don't know if that's appropriate. It's not TOO gruesome, so it may be alright. GSMR (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, I'll get that as soon as I can, and I was thinking we could also add a picture of the inside of his house (I'll try and find a mild one, but knowing Gein, that may be hard). - Crazyconan (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Eddie?

Just wondering, why is Gein referred to as "Eddie" several times in the article? This is unprofessional, I assumed it was vandalism at first, but even now, several weeks after I first noticed, "Eddie" is present in the "Death of family members" section many times.

I believe he be referred to as either "Ed" or "Gein", but not "Eddie". Can I fix this? GSMR (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• He was mentioned as Eddie in the films and some documents, but yes, some of this should be revised. - Crazyconan (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, done. GSMR (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking...

Am I the only person who seems to notice that this article is ridiculously overlinked, judging by the guidelines of WP:CONTEXT? Links to things barely relevant to the topic exist everywhere in this article, just take a look at it to see for yourself. I'm too lazy to fix it all myself, but just letting you all know that it probably SHOULD be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.49.132 (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree this article has mild overlinking, but that's not all bad. Many newspapers state credible information worth linking to, especially for new developments, but those pages often expire after only a few weeks. Having multiple, even redundant, links makes it more likely that one good link will survive. Topics like this are covered by questionable web sites and print media, but then the topic itself is bizarre so the articles may actually be correct. Increasing the number of independent sources helps to sort out which case it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookfield53045 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

cannibalism ?

I noticed that this article is in the "American cannibals" category, but except severe corps mutilation, I find no reference of cannibalism in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.156.18 (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Based on the text of the article, as well as reading various other sites about him, any references to cannibalism and necrophilia are unproven, though certainly it's a fine line in cases like using skullcaps as soup bowls. --Rob (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what necrophilia means if you don't see that keeping body parts and etc. is clear cut textbook proof of it. I restored that category. DreamGuy (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You can keep it there, but it doesn't mean he was a cannibal. That information is misleading and someone should edit that out. Thank you.68.156.142.92 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhFqm9Q-TN0&feature=watch-now-button&wide=1 Second half of the documentary, after Manson, follows Gein. He had sex with corpses, and latter ate the flesh.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.150.169 (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If a documentary says so, it must be true eh? And DreamGuy, I think that most people think the word "necrophilia" means sexual interest in corpses, but of course that is only half the meaning. Necrophilia also means obsessive fascination with death or corpses so yes, regardless of any possible sex activity with corpses Gein carried out, he was a necrophiliac. However I would be careful in deeming anything "textbook proof" of something, textbooks by definition are not irrefutable rules that will always be true. -Lyco499 (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Necrophilia and cannibalism are part of the popular lore about Gein (including "entertainment" media like films fictional and "pop doc" lurid crime semi-fiction), but there simply is no positive evidence to prove either cannibalism or necrophilia by Gein: hints, insinuations and implications galore, but no evidence (and the State of Wisconsin, doctors and lawmen, searched hard). Grave robbery, corpse abuse and the murders of Hogan and Worden: undeniable evidence. Judge Robert H. Gollmar presided over the 1968 criminal trial of Ed Gein when he was finally deemed competent to stand trial. He wrote a book "Edward Gein" (Pinnacle 1981) which appears to be a reliable source. Gein was interviewed by Dr. E.F. Schubert 9 Dec and 12 Dec 1957: "He denied any sexual relations with any of these bodies and gave as his reason that 'they smelled too bad'" but Schubert also noted: "Questioning this man requires a great deal of tact because he is extremely suggestible and will almost invariable agree to any leading questions." When Gein arrived at the Wisconsin max security mental hospital, Central State Hospital, the Wechsler test showed Gein's IQ as 99 (100 being average adult). He was not as stupid as he acted at times. Judge Gollmar had several interviews with Gein. Overall, it appears that when confronted with undeniable physical evidence, Gein was forthcoming; in abscence of evidence, Gein seems to have played mind games. Gein told investigators he had never killed a deer: "Stories of Gein's cannibalism sent dozens of people to their doctors suffering from stomach problems after they remembered eating the packages of "venison" given them by Gein." (Gollmar p.80.) However, witnesses noted Gein offered to accept pay to serve as a deer-hunting guide, Gein did own guns, and Gein told the doctors he loved skiing and archery. His "never killed a deer" story may have been his idea of a sick joke on the townspeople he admitted hating. --Naaman Brown (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Pop Culture

There is also a song by Mudvayne called Nothing to Gein that is all about this guy. I'm not a good writer but if someone might want to include that?

Please note that trivia additions, whether they are called "Trivia", "Popular culture", "Further information" or any other similar title, are discouraged on Wikipedia and are likely to be removed. Further, the decision for articles within the scope of the WP:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography group has been to limit the listing of what essentially amounts to trivial and pop culture mention to those items which are notably and specifically about, or by, the person in question in film, tv, literature and music and to avoid having, adding to, or starting, extensive and exhaustive lists of each and every time the person's name gets mileage in the entertainment field. These are largely articles about convicted murders and/or rapists and there is really no place in a fact-based, straight-forward article about someone who fits that description for inclusion of "fun facts" like mentions in songs, South Park or The Simpsons. It is outside the focus of Wikipedia and inappropriate. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the comments about not adding trivia additions I have remove this from the article[1]. I really don't think the listings should be added as all it adds is unneeded information to the article. This edit opens the door to anyone who finds anyone who does artistic renditions about the subject to be added.--CrohnieGal^Talk 13:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I support your removal. An effort needs to continue to keep this sort of haphazard listing out of this and similar articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The first "official murder" for which he was charged occurred on December 8, 1954 and the next on November 16, 1957. He attacked his last victim in her store and dragged her body to his truck, which was parked out back (he later said he was examining the cash register to see how it worked and she thought he was trying to rob her. Enraged at being called a thief, he beat her to death). Later that evening the victim's son, a local deputy sheriff, stopped in at the store to check on his mother and found the doors unlocked, the cash register missing and a trail of blood leading out to the back door. He recalled that he had seen Ed at the store earlier that afternoon. When the police went to his farm, they found her headless body in his shed (they also found the cash register, which had been taken apart, but there was still money in the cash drawer. Apparently Ed was telling the truth when he said all he wanted was to see how it worked). In addition, they found his strange human "furniture" and a refrigerator full of human organs. Gein was arrested and immediately confessed to his crimes. On January 16, 1958, he was judged insane and sent to Central State Hospital at Waupun, WI. In November 1968 he was tried again. He was now diagnosed to have chronic schizophrenia, found "not guilty by reason of insanity" and returned to Waupun. It was later theorized that Gein may have killed two men who hired him as their hunting guide and were never seen again, and two other unidentified women whose body parts were found at his farm. In 1978 he was moved to Mendota Mental Health Institute. Gein was a model prisoner and died quietly in his sleep in the geriatric psychiatric ward.75.53.88.69 (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, what a nice little summary of the life of Ed Gein. You should really pursue employment at IMDB as the person who writes the film summary. Is there a point to this? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(Note: You changed around your post so now my comment that follows no longer made sense. Thanks for that. I've edited it in light of the changes so it is easier to understand what I was disagreeing with you about.) Regarding Trivia Being Disallowed: Why is this? It's a huge help to people who research a topic and want to know of significant references to it in culture. Also in the case of "Nothing to Gein" it is one of the links that SHOULD be included given that it is not simply "a band named after the person" but actually a song biographically about the person. Actually a song that is biographically about the subject is much MORE relevant than some band that happened to be named partially after the subject.Yacoub80 (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Because such references aren't relevant to the article's subject or the reason the person is notable. If you want to research songs about Ed Gein, may I suggest Google? Exhaustive lists of songs and the like are unencyclopedic and ... trivia. Songs aren't generally "biographical", but only highlight small parts of what is mostly common knowledge and aren't reliably researched. The project has determined such lists are inappropriate for these articles and will be removed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Triviality is an inherent part of encyclopedic facts, it is not something you can separate out from among such facts, as all facts can be used as trivia. It is not possible to use "trivia" as a label or differentiator of what should or should not be included. If you look around Wikipedia you'll note that most of the better pages have a section that notes substantial or significant references to the item the page is about. It is a very useful/helpful/educational aspect to any complete page. Oh and apologies for the poor formatting of my previous reply. I am new to the "talk" aspect of Wikipedia. Yacoub80 (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would be your interpretation, but the fact is, the Wikipedia project discourages the use of "Trivia", "In pop culture", etc. sections. Most of the best pages, read that featured articles and good articles do not have such sections. The WP:Crime project has defined what is trivial relative to articles under its provenance and determined that the only use of "pop references" would be those that are direct depictions of the subject in a film, book, or perhaps a television presentation, but not to allow trivialized uses of a name in an otherwise unrelated manner. The best example of the proper inclusion of "pop" would be in Charles Manson. Depictions on The Simpsons, South Park, or use in songs not written/performed by the subject won't be included. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Best" is subjective. I'd argue that many of the most useful pages -do- have such sections. They are certainly more helpful because they provide more information about the subject to the person who is reading it and is interested in learning all they can about the subject. In fact, given that a properly formatted Wikipedia entry begins with a summary-style definition, anyone -not- wishing to read trivia or details (which are found near the end of a page) simply does not need to scroll down and read that section. It's clear that there is no real downside to having such a section, only a benefit to having it for those who seek such information.

But the thing that really irks me is that we have here an entry about a historic person that includes an "Impact on popular culture" section where you are alright with mentioning that the person was an "influence" in the naming of a couple bands, but claim that it's just "trivia" to mention the title of an entire song that is about the person and their life. In actuality, listing band names "influenced" by the person is "trivia", where as a song written about the person and the historic events in their life is a much more relevant thing to note. I don't even like the band, or the song, I just think your decision lacks logic or real merit and it bothers me that such attitudes are what influences the content posted on this site.Yacoub80 (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I have not changed anything I posted to this page. I moved the insertions of commentary that you put in the middle of my response, a policy violation I notified you about, to the bottom of the thread where they properly belong, which you acknowledged here. So here's the thing. You're new here. You've made one single contribution to mainspace articles in the project since July 2007, and since, have only made a few talk page posts. [2] This doesn't give you much working knowledge on the policies and guidelines here, nor much insight into discussions which have gone into decisions that resulted in them. I'm not interested in continuing this debate, which will not conclude anything on an individual basis and won't change the guidelines regarding trivia. I'm also not much interested in continuing a conversation with someone who, when approached about inappropriately refactoring other's comments, responded with "go away." If you want to research how many bands have referenced Ed Gein in a song or written a song about him, try Google. I do not have to argue the same arguments that many people argued eons ago about trivia in articles just to satisfy one person and won't do so. It's policy, based on the consensus of a large multitude of editors and it is what will be followed on pages. It isn't just my decision and I don't plan to waste my time trying to explain that to you when you haven't bothered to learn anything about policies, guidelines, procedures and process, much less civility. [3]. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone object to including the song "Nipple Belt" by the SubPop band TAD as pop culture? TAD was also known to sell Ed Gein T-shirts around this time to promote the song. The song is off the bands 1st LP "God's Balls" which was very influential in the early Seattle Grunge movement days: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Balls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superswade (talk • contribs) 07:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

TWO victims?

I've read at several sources that there were probably about 12 victims, based on the number of stored bodyparts around Gein's house. Why does the article say only two? --24.21.149.124 (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• He was only every convicted of two murders. GSMR (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The article only give information about one murder, what about the other one? And were he under suspicion for a greater amount? In that case there should be atleast some info about those somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertzxcv (talk • contribs) 00:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The other ten or so partial sets of body parts were the result of grave robbery. According to the judge in the case, a sample of the grave sites Gein claimed to have robbed of body parts were exhumed; after a representative sample matched Gein's descriptions, the remaining graves were left un-examined. As often happens in such cases as Gein's, unsolved murders and missing persons cases were reopened to see if Gein could have been involved. Gein was cleared in those cases: it was established he was proven to be elsewhere when the murders occurred or the persons went missing. It appears that Gein started with ten or so grave robberies (easily hidden offenses) and then committed two murders, from desecrating the dead to desecrating the living. Naaman Brown (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

>>"it was established he was proven to be elsewhere when the murders occurred or the persons went missing"<< It was not physical alibis that disproved his possible involvement here (RE the murders other than Worden & Hogan), but the results of lie detector testing given to Gein & no physical evidence linking him to them. WQ59B (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC) WQ59B

Vandalism

Somebody appears to have vandalised sections of this entry. Could an administrator please take a look and revert? Thanks.

It's been fixed. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations?

The text of this article is very close to that found at TruTV.com. I noticed that childhood and family deaths section of WP's article is very similar to the second page of the TruTV article [4].

Seems to me a pretty clear case of copyright violation. Perhaps someone can rewrite the offending material? Phiwum (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, it isn't a clear case of copyright violation. I know because I rewrote the sections myself and they don't copy word for word anything, except one small sentence which is clearly sourced to the book from where it came: Deviant: The Shocking True Story of Ed Gein, the Original Psycho by Harold Schechter, both in the trutv article and in this article. It follows the same basic layout but the wording is nothing like trutv. That is what is required by our policy governing copyrighted material and that is what was done quite some time ago when someone mentioned the possibility of copyright problems. Is it going to be similar to various other sources? Sure it is. The story is basically the same, but there's no case for copyright violation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The house's address?

Where did the Gein house stand? The address must be out there somewhere. Considering all the things that went on there, it would be bizarre if it weren't mentioned somewhere. --RyanTee82 (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Upgrading article

Does anyone have any objection to upgrading this article from its present C level to a B level? At C level, the article has a sensational tone and a VERY unencyclopedic style. I tried valiantly to upgrade the entire article only to be completely reverted by a know it all who makes claims he is thee assessor of crime articles. No wonder so many professionals scorn this site. Tre=poi (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone object to changing the "Penalty" in the Infobox to something like "confinement to insane asylums" rather than "Guilty, but insane" which is not a "Penalty" but a "Verdict". The best might be something like: "Found guilty but insane and sentenced to confinement in a mental hospital". Tre=poi (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the entire issue is that you need to learn some basic etiquette lessons before you start posting here. You are mistaken, according to class structure, this article is not C class, except in your opinion. Learn to assume good faith and do not make overt attacks like you did above, or I suspect you'll soon find yourself blocked, and perhaps that would be again, since you are so knowledgable about WP editing. You introduced many citation errors, cut content you deem "sensationalistic", although the only reason this was moved from good article status had nothing to do with how it is written and just recently was supported as acceptable content. You added names where victim count is included, you cut content that is widely used regarding him being called a serial killer although the victim count doesn't usually support that otherwise and you duplicated citations and removed other. This article has stood the test of time and consensus and your edits disregard that. The penality might instead need to be put on a different line, but your overall wholesale change is not helpful. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have read countless articles at Wikipedia, and have observed the editorial, GA, FA, and other processes in order to make myself familiar with the site before "jumping in". I think you might reread and reassess this article. In many places, it has the sensationalistic tone and style typical of paperback crime books that make much of grisly crime details for the titillation of their readers. The list of body parts found in Gein's home is one such example and Bernice Worden's mutilation is another. It's enough to tell readers she was decapitated and multilated without listing the gory unencyclopedic and sensationalistic details such as ankle crossbars and deer dressing. I laughed through this passage; it is so gross and unencyclopedic. (By the way, simple everyday words such as 'deer' don't need to be linked.) The "deaths of family members" section especially has an unencyclopedic tone. One of the greatest faults here is its attempt to "sway" the reader in violation of neutrality. The story of Henry Gein's death is clouded with lack of neutrality in its attempt to "convict" Ed Gein of his brother's death with careful phrases that are meant to raise the reader's suspicions. Was Gein tried and convicted for the death of his brother? If he wasn't there is no reason to raise the reader's suspicions. It is unencyclopedic. Mary Hogan? If he wasn't tried and convicted for her death then you shouldn't be telling us he killed two people. His confession counts for nothing. Plenty of innocent (or crazy) people confess to crimes just to gain attention. You need to explain some things about Mary Hogan. While the grisly style of writing can be traced to questionable sources for this article, copying such style of writing is not encyclopedic and not neutral. I think you need to reread, rewrite, and reassess this article. And it is way out of line for you to threaten good faith editors with disciplinary action to gain possession of articles for yourself. Good faith editing is not a crime! Tre=poi (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and a highly detailed photograph of the body of Bernice Worden is available online, and was once in this article. Description of the state in which the body was found does not require censorship and it is much less than it could be. Since Gein is a highly notable killer, upon whose crimes multiple depictions are based, it is not unreasonable, nor is it simply sensationalistic, to include a list of some things that were found. If this were not covered in some detail, we would then be accused of whitewashing the article. The death of George Gein was questionable, and the article clearly states that fact. It does not attempt to sensationalize or sway anyone, it clearly states the events as were determined, describes the location in which the body was found and states that many believed Ed Gein was involved in some way. It also clearly says he was not charged. It is sourced content and in no way invalid. The only source in the article that might be described as questionable is to a private website and will be replaced. Multiple killers have confessed to other crimes for which they weren't tried, mostly because other convictions were already in place and there is no rationale for not including that fact. There is no evidence that the confession was doubted. My issue with you was that you were clearly told that consensus was determined long ago about issues regarding this article and you simply disregarded that and reverted the article. I did not threaten you with disciplinary action, I stated I would take it to WP:AN/I because you were editing against consensus. That's qualitatively different. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not an issue about censorship but an issue about "good taste". Noting Worden's body was found decapitated and mutilated is restrained, encyclopedic good taste while listing the grisly details crosses the line into unencyclopedic titillation. I hope you will reassess this passage. If necessary, an external link to the grisly details and the photo of Worden's carcass can be provided for readers who need this sort of thing. This phrase: "Upon entering a shed on his property, they made the first discovery of the night:" is reminiscent of sensationalistic crime writing. The phrase is a coy "warning" that "prepares" readers for the grue about to be revealed. This is not encyclopedic writing. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a library for those needing gruesome titillation. I've rewritten the passage: "On November 16, 1957, police suspected Gein in connection with the disappearance of Plainfield hardware store owner Bernice Worden. A search of Gein's property discovered her decapitated and mutilated body in a shed. She had been shot at close-range with a .22-caliber rifle and the mutilations performed postmortem. Further search of the property uncovered severed body parts that included noses, skulls, and genitalia." This is restrained, encyclopedic writing, and, IMHO, preferable to a catalog of grue listing such things as "salted genitalia in a box". Do we need to know the genitalia was "salted"? Why? Because some source tells us it is so? The job of an encyclopedia editor is to take such gruesome source material and transform it into scholarly, tasteful material for an encyclopedia. I'm reading this article and laughing at its focus on the Halloween grue. Is this the reaction you intend? In an encyclopedia, the reader's focus should be upon the police and Gein -- not upon the grue. Save that for the paperback crime books and sensationalistic television shows which depend upon the ghoulish for sales. This passage is completely unencyclopedic: "Plainfield police officer Art Schley allegedly physically assaulted Gein during questioning, by banging Gein's head and face into a brick wall, reportedly causing Gein's initial confession to be ruled inadmissible. Schley died of a heart attack in December 1968, at age 43, only a month after testifying at Gein's trial. Many who knew him said he was traumatized by the horror of Gein's crime and that this, along with the fear of having to testify (especially about assaulting Gein), led to his early death. One of his friends said "He was a victim of Ed Gein as surely as if he had butchered him."" The passage about Schley's heart attack is not releveant to this article. It is another example of the material in sensationalistic paperback crime books. It's inclusion here is unscholarly and unwarranted. An encyclopedia shouldn't be reporting such "allegations". If this material must be included then I suggest: "Gein's initial confession was ruled inadmissible based upon alleged police misconduct involving an assault upon Gein during interrogation." Let it go at that. Enough for now. Tre=poi (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Does anyone object to making two sentences out of this: "Gein became interested in reading death-cult magazines and adventure stories, and between 1947 and 1954 made as many as 40 night time visits to three local graveyards in order to exhume a number of recently buried bodies." I suggest: "Alone in the house, Gein passed his time reading adventure stories and death-cult magazines. Between 1947 and 1954, he made as many as 40 nocturnal expeditions to three local cemeteries to harvest body parts from the recently interred, fashioning these parts into trinkets, trophies, and keepsakes at home." Please respond within the week. Thank you. Tre=poi (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to making two sentences, but it is adding content that isn't sourced to say his expeditions to the graveyard was solely to harvest body parts or make trinkets, trophies and keepsakes. It was far more gradual a process than a shopping trip. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the source for the passage in the article doesn't give the dates or the number of visits to the graveyard either. The dates and number of visits should be accurately sourced or the informations shouldn't be a part of the passage. I suggest: "Alone in the now-empty house, Gein filled his hours reading adventure stories and death-cult magazines. At times, he pursued his unusual interests with nocturnal expeditions to cemeteries." Tre=poi (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the deaths of the family section and submit it now for your consideration. Please reply within the week.

"Following George Gein's death at age sixty-six on April 1, 1940, Ed took handyman jobs and babysat for neighbors while Henry worked for a road-building contractor, a utility company, and a neighbor who hired him to supervise farm laborers.

On May 16, 1944, the Gein brothers were separated while fighting a brush fire near their home. Ed reported his brother missing and a search party discovered the body of Henry in the fire area. Police dismissed foul play and the county coroner listed asphyxiation as the cause of death.

Shortly after Henry's death, Augusta Gein suffered a stroke, recovered, but died on December 29, 1945 at age sixty-seven after another stroke.[ref]Schector 1989, p.24-31[/ref] Gein remained on the farm after his mother's death, and regarded the rooms principally used by his mother when alive as something almost holy and boarded them up. Living in a small room off the kitchen, he spent his hours reading adventure stories and death-cult magazines. At times, he made nocturnal expeditions to nearby cemeteries in pursuit of his unusual interests.[ref name="henry"/] Tre=poi (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I note that this is twice you have set a deadline for someone to respond to your posts. On Wikipedia, there is no deadline, thus setting one is contrary to practice. Personally, I see that you are posting to make changes contrary to consensus, which is a huge problem. LaVidaLoca (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't know. Tre=poi (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work. There are a lot of sentences that are awkwardly written, the flow is poor, and overall it appears very amateurish. The tone is also very sensationalistic, with references from poor quality sources. Recent edits by Tre=poi were a step in the right direction, but they were reverted by someone acting as an owner of the article. This article could be greatly improved if some editors would allow it. --Sift&Winnow 06:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly agree with that assessment either. The version by Tre=poi started out the lead by making a non-expert analysis of why Gein committed the crimes he did. I also agree with retaining the portion in the lead that clears up that he is considered a serial killer despite the number of murders committed. That is completely relevant to this article and removing it negates that clarification. It incorrectly describes the parts about Gein's mannerisms, collapsing it and omits that part of the description was by teachers and adds, unsupported, content that says he was bullied.

In looking at the changes, both of you removed the reference to "odd jobs" and replaced it handyman, and diminished the emphasis on Gein babysitting. It removed sourced content and failed to support the removal. Both of you added the statement "Police had reason to suspect Gein", although that is not supported. One version, not sure if it was Tre=Poi or you, changed "recently buried bodies" to "the recently deceased". I'm not sure where that phrase came from, but the first thought I had was the Handbook for the Recently Deceased used in Beetlejuice. There certainly is a lot of similarities between the two versions by you and Tre=Poi, but I don't see that any of it, except the last two additions by you, were any better supported or clear. His version ameliorated the cited discussion of the beating of Gein, and I note he says that this is libellous, despite the fact that it was solidly cited to a published book. As such, it renders the "libel" claim moot. All in all, it seems the resulting version written partly by you and partly by Wildhartlivie was an improvement. The version by Tre=Poi was not. LaVidaLoca (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who considers him a serial killer besides you and Wildhartlivie. If the two of you and all your buddies get together and decide he's a serial killer, does that make it "official"? The whole concept is anachronistic; it didn't even exist at the time Gein committed his crimes. And what, pray tell, is the difference between "Police suspected Gein's involvement in the disappearance." and "Police had reason to suspect Gein."? Except for the fact that the latter is more polished writing, there is no difference in meaning. If the former is not supported, then neither is the latter. As to using the word "deceased," that's again a more formal, polished way of saying "buried bodies." Encyclopedias, newspapers, and other media routinely use the word "deceased" to refer to the dead. If it immediately makes you conjure up a reference from Beetlejuice, that's your problem. WP can't account for idiosyncratic word associations. As to "solidly cited to a published book," just because a book is published doesn't mean that it's soundly researched or accurate. I've been reading the details of the police investigation in contemporaneous newspapers. Unlike today, the police and prosecution were very forthcoming with information, and provided it in a timely manner. I've yet to come across anything that says Gein's confession was ruled inadmissable. What were Schechter's sources? Were they reliable? That's what's important, not whether a book is published. Any crackpot can get a book published if it's likely to sell enough copies, and sensationalism sells, whether it's true or not. Your "logic" escapes me entirely, but if you want to keep the tone of this article in the gutter, that's fine. Your wishes are on the record. --Sift&Winnow 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say that I am one of the editors who has been part of the consensus building on this article for about a year or so I guess. I've notice the "reply in a week" comments which is something I can't do since I am in rehab from surgery plus there are no deadlines as stated above. If you want to make changes to an established article may I suggest taking it slower? Doing large reverts to an established article usually doesn't work. Another suggestion is to talk about content and not editors as above. Please refactor your comment above to remove comments about editors, thank you. Gein is considered by WP:RS to be a serial killer. Those sources also show that he went to cemetaries. We write the article by the sources and what is verifiable. Things in this article sound sensational because, well they are. What this man did was unusual to put it mildly. Should it be in the article, definitely it should. It explains a lot about how Gein's moral senses were warped which also shows in the sources. Really this is all about the sources and what the consensus say to use with the sources. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ed Gein is repeatedly called a serial killer, multiple sources do use that terminology. When the article didn't use that term, it was repeatedly added. Once it did, it became important to cite that he is considered so, despite the number of victims. The terminology also didn't exist at the time Jack the Ripper was active but that does not stop us from calling him such today. That is a non-argument. The difference between "Police suspected Gein's involvement in the disappearance." and "Police had reason to suspect Gein." is quite clear. One is a frank statement. The second is insinuating that there is more to tell, but doesn't tell what that is. They "had reason"? Then what was it? The former is sufficient to convey the meaning without stumbling around. I find the "recently deceased" phrase as amusing too, I also thought of Beetlejuice. It is one of those colloquial terms that attempt to deflect the bottom line. Finally, you aren't in the position to attack a source because you don't like what it says. You have no grounds on which to dismiss Schecter's book, it was first published by Simon & Schuster, it isn't a "crackpot" self-published source. Your argument against it are specious and baseless. I'd take contemporaneous news stories with a grain of salt. You're mistaken if you are assuming they are accurate and reflect only the truth. In fact, they are often corrected later, or don't correct mistaken copy. They are fine for some details, but they are no more valid and reliable than sources written, vetted and published later. I'm not convinced by your comments, nor by your denigration of the sources, and I'm completely unimpressed by your personal aspersions on people who do not agree with you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is in response to both CrohnieGal and Wildhartlivie.

"Really this is all about the sources and what the consensus say to use with the sources."
No, this is about style, not sources.

"Things in this article sound sensational because, well they are."
No, things in this article sound sensationalistic because they were written in a sensationalistic style. For example, "The torso was empty, the ribcage split and the body 'dressed out' like that of a deer" is unnecessarily graphic (as well as redundant). "The torso was "dressed out" like that of a deer" would be totally sufficient because when a carcass is dressed out like a deer its rib cage is split and the torso emptied of its contents. "Dressed out like a deer" sufficiently describes the body; "The torso was empty, the ribcage split" is extraneous graphic, sensationalistic wording.

"Gein is considered by WP:RS to be a serial killer."
That's absurd. "entry into the pantheon of folk mythology" is hardly reliable sourcing. The fact that a bunch of true crime buffs consider him a serial killer doesn't meet the test of reliable, credible, or verifiable sources. Moreover, the article on serial killer cites no authoritative source for the "3 or more murders" rule, citing only a couple of random crime writers. This type of ad hoc rule making is what makes WP an object of derision.

"Gein's moral senses were warped"
This demonstrates perfectly the bias injected into this article, which is reflected in its moralistic, sensationalistic tone.

"Police suspected Gein's involvement in the disappearance" begs the question "Why?" They must have had a reason. In that respect, it is no different than "Police had reason to suspect Gein," and to argue differently is mere sophistry.

I am constantly amazed at the amount of functional illiteracy that exists in WP. I never demanded a "reply in a week." I never made any comments about any editors. (Just because the writing in this article is pedestrian and sophomoric, doesn't mean that the editors are.) I didn't attack Schechter. I didn't call him a crackpot. I didn't argue against a single thing in his book. I simply asked the question as to what his sources were, pointing out that some published books are not reliable, or contain some unreliable information. Further, I didn't say I trusted the contemporaneous newspaper articles. However, every trained historian knows that accounts of events that were created contemporaneously with an event are much more reliable than sixth-hand sources or those created many years later.

Lastly, except for the well-deserved first sentence of the previous paragraph, I never cast any aspersions on anyone. I would really appreciate it if people read what I write, not what they want to believe I'm saying. --Sift&Winnow 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "I am constantly amazed at the amount of functional illiteracy that exists in WP" is indeed a personal attack and you clearly state you're making personal attacks. There have been what appears to be two different registered accounts posting, either suggesting parroting or something more troublesome. In either case, CrohnieGal was responding to both and in fact, the post signed by Tre=poi here as well as here both set a week deadline for response. Just because you smooth it over does not take away the fact that you are denigrating someone with the comment. Questioning where an author gets his sources is a non-starter and following that with "Any crackpot can get a book published if it's likely to sell enough copies" is certainly implying the author is one. With that, this discussion is closed until you learn to make nice and be civil. No one is required to respond to your increasingly insulting posts, nor are we required to try discussion with someone who posts them. It constantly amazes me when what appears to be a rationale person soon sinks into incivility and just bad manners. You've lost any credibility you might have held. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater! --Sift&Winnow 17:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to refuse to remove your personal attacks and incivility as was requested by CrohnieGal and the comments you admitted were attacking in nature and I am now requesting you remove, this will be going to WP:AN/I. Your multiple fact tags in the middle of paragraphs that are citing whole paragraphs are pointy in nature and take the tone of tagging in retribution because you were called for your poor etiquette. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I was just coming here to check for a response and boy is there. I'm sorry it came down to this kind of behavior. Wildhartlivie and I have tried to explain what has happened here with consensus and also to point out that we are to talk about content not editors. I go to the history of the article and instead of taking it slow and possibly discussing big changes you just went ahead and did it. I really don't like the templating throughout, what is that all about other than to make your point? The citations are at the end like they are supposed to be, not in the middle and not every three words. The citation templates are going to be reverted as they are mostly not needed. Please revert them yourself. I am saddened by the hidden remarks also. Did you think we wouldn't notice? Please try to be civil and remember that we are all supposed to work together. I have to agree with Wildhartlivie, my assume good faith is disappearing.--CrohnieGal^Talk 19:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not fact tag each sentence in paragraphs. I have no objection to your removing the word "grisly", since you were the one who inserted it. Finally, stop editing on top of the other editors who are trying to address the myriad pointy tags you have added. You've lost your perspective here, Sift&Winnow. I would suggest you take a step back and allow editors to clean up the mess you've made. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock notice

NOTE: Creating sockpuppet accounts, or posting from your IP address without logging in, in order to create the illusion of a conversation between the two, is absolutely forbidden. This is more obvious when an IP account posts support on an article that is generally non-controversial after a newly registered account attempts to force changes. It is a practice which essentially falsely creates the appearance of support when none is present otherwise. If an WP:SSP case is made because of this, both the IP account and the registered name account will be blocked from editing. Do not engage in this practice in order to bolster your appearance. LaVidaLoca (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me?! You seem to think that because two people have the same opinion they must be sock puppets. Well, it just ain't so, smartie. Stay away from my User and Talk pages or I'll report you for minding everybody else's business. You're not scaring me away from this article by slapping sock puppet warnings around. Accept the fact that sometimes two people have the same opinion. Tre=poi (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No, not two random people, but it is decidedly enough evidence when an IP that has never edited here before shows up for the first time to edit this talk page to support you, who only registered 4 days ago, and have only edited 14 different articles, mostly only this article and the four you created and then turns around to post a specific comment to your talk page attacking the editor who is opposing your changes. In fact, it's enough to file an WP:SSP report, which is in process. LaVidaLoca (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Birthplace

The article has Ed Gein being born in La Crosse County, Wisconsin with a citation but the infobox has him being born in Vernon County, Wisconsin. This is confusing-Thank you-RFD (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be fixed. Unfortunately this article get hit with vandals and that is one of the favorites to change. It some how got missed again. I guess it will be done when the article is no longer protected. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This was the subject of edit warring some months back. The source cited for La Crosse County is an index to Wisconsin state vital records. Short of the actual birth record, that's the most reliable source available. --Sift&Winnow 00:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The La Crosse Public Library has some information:[5] I hope this helps-Thanks-RFD (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently this page shows Madison, WI right under his birth in the infobox. I will change that to La Crosse County per the citation. In verifying on ancestry.com, I found George & Auguste located in La Crosse by the 1905 Wisconsin State Census. However someone has their marriage in 1900 listed as occurring in Vernon County, so maybe this is where the confusion on the pro Vernon County side arises.NeilCoughlin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

Went back to correct and it was merely the wrong coding that made it look as if Madison was listed as his birthplace. So now his birthplace and deathplace show properly in the infobox.NeilCoughlin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

Removing fabrications

Support for much of the paragraph referring to Sheriff Schley simply cannot be found in the cited source, and if it cannot be verified, amounts to libel. This is the original paragraph:

Waushara County sheriff Art Schley allegedly physically assaulted Gein during questioning, by banging Gein's head and face into a brick wall, causing Gein's initial confession to be ruled inadmissible. Schley died of a heart attack in December 1968, at age 43, only a month after testifying at Gein's trial. Many who knew him said he was traumatized by the horror of Gein's crime and that this, along with the fear of having to testify (especially about assaulting Gein), led to his early death. One of his friends said "He was a victim of Ed Gein as surely as if he had butchered him."

The only mention of the assault is on p. 83 of the cited source (Schechter), where it states:

He grabbed the fifty-one-year-old bachelor by the shoulders and started slamming him up against the wall of the jail

Nowhere does it state that he slammed Gein's head and face into the wall. Nowhere does it state that it was a brick wall. Nowhere does it say that it was during questioning (it wasn't). I have gone through the book page by page, and nowhere does it state that Gein's admission was ruled inadmissible. In fact, Gein didn't confess at the time of the incident, but a day and a half later to the DA (not Schley) and both a few days and a couple weeks later to State Crime Lab investigators.

The information on Schley's death is also not to be found in the source cited. Schechter states:

In March 1968, just months before the trial was to begin, Schley-by then one of Waushara's most prominent citizens, the owner of numerous lakefront properties in the area and the head of the county highway commission-suffered a fatal heart attack, following a Friday-night fish fry with his wife and some friends.

Not only is his time of death in error in the article, but the statement, "He was a victim of Ed Gein as surely as if he had butchered him." is nowhere to be found in Schechter.

Verifiability is one of the cornerstones of WP. Therefore, I am removing the material from the paragraph in question that is transparently inaccurate or that cannot be verified, leaving the following:

Waushara County sheriff Art Schley allegedly physically assaulted Gein by slamming him into a wall. Schley died of a heart attack in December 1968, at age 43, several months before Gein's trial. Many who knew him said he was traumatized by the horror of Gein's crime and that this, along with the fear of having to testify, led to his early death.

If the fact that Gein's confession was ruled inadmissible as a result of Schley's acts can be supported by a credible, reliable source, then it can be put back in the article. --Sift&Winnow 21:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not interested in discussing anything further with you, and anything you remove will be returned so that the multiple inappropriate tags you've added and other citations that might be needed can be added. You have made it impossible to address anything you tagged earlier because you swoop in immediately and change things, return things, "correct" sources, such as the publisher of the book I am citing. That renders the efforts moot and at this point, all of your actions and edits are completely pointy. Take a break and allow people to address issues that may or may not be valid. At present, it is impossible to do anything because you are disrupting the efforts to address what might be a problem. STOP slamming into the article as soon as someone tries to add citations only to be met with edit conflicts because you are busy changing something again. Your edits have become disruptive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to retire for the evening so I'm not going to get into details here. If memory serves me though, these details were in a citation at the end of the comments. But I will have to look again with fresh eyes and brain. I suggest everyone just calm down. I had suggested earlier on that instead of massive editing that major changes or questions should be taken slowly and discussed. For some reason this was ignored and I came back to an article with all kinds of citation templates. I also tried to address the templates but gave up after edit conflicts became too frustrating. It seemed like as soon as I did something it was reverted immediately back to a template. Please let talk about changes politely which was also requested. I am going to see if I can get the page unprotected since that doesn't do anyone any good. I will check on the comments in the paragraph above hopefully tomorrow. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The judge who handled the 1968 trial of Ed Gein, Robert H. Gollmar, published a book "Edward Gein" about the case in 1981. "Section 2 Gein's Confession" testimony by deputies Chase, Spees and Murty described sheriff Schley's interrogation of Gein 2:00am 17 Nov 1957. In 1968, Chase testified Schley "grabbed him, whirled him around, and shoved him up against the wall." Chase stated "I believe it's a concrete wall." Spees testified he saw Schley "take him by the shoulders like that and cram him up against the side of the building." Murty described Schley "shoved him against the wall--brick wall." The deputies were alarmed enough to pull Schley away from Gein. The testimony describes Schley grabbing Gein, shoving him against the wall once, and the deputies seperating them. Judge Gollmar wrote: "In spite of the third degree treatment, Gein did not confess that night. Later, because of this occurence in the jail and the testimony of psychiatrists, I suppressed the confession Gein made to Joe Wilimovsky of the Wisconsin crime lab. That Sherrif Schley's conduct was greatly regretted by Schley himself was established by many of his acquaintances. Shortly before Gein's trial in 1968, Schley died of a heart attack. There were those in Waushara County who believed that worry over his being subpoenaed to testify hastened his death." (Gollmar page 34.) Naaman Brown (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that contribution. Some of those details were not in the Schechter book, which is the cited source. It also confirms that Schley died before the trial, not after. That's a major difference. Still, it does not say that Schley shoved Gein's "head and face" into the wall. It also says that Schley's treatment was not the only reason for suppressing his confession, which is confirmed by newspaper accounts that say it was one of four reasons the confession was suppressed.

According to The Capital Times the judge's ruling was based on four grounds:

"(l) Gein had not been properly advised of his legal rights;

(2) he was "brutally" attacked by Waushara County Sheriff Arthur Schley during the interrogation;

(3) Gein was interrogated for an unreasonable length of time; and

(4) Gein was mentally ill at the tlme."

These new sources certainly cast a different light on things. --Sift&Winnow 15:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Judge Gollmar described Gein's confession as several hundred pages of transcript of taped questioning by Joe Wilimovsky with Dr. Ganser present during part of the questioning. Gein was questioned at Waushara County jail, at Wautoma County jail with Wilimovsky of the state crime lab, at the crime lab at Madison (where Gein requested a polygraph: "It will show my mental unbalance") and at Dane County jail. On a lot of things he appeared to exhibit suggestibility, but his answers were weasel-worded and led the questioner around the subject often without a clear answer. Gein readily admitted to things for which there was overwelming physical evidence and went into detail about his grave robberies. On the murders, however, he was evasive. Gein claimed the shooting of Worden was an accident (which begs the question of why he took her body home and butchered it). In between all this, Gein had been taken to see Mrs. Worden's body and had been taken to Mary Hogan's tavern, scene of the 1954 slaying.

There were several problems with the confession. Schley losing his temper and slamming Gein against the wall was probably the least (that appears to have been after arrest but pre-questioning).

The prolonged questioning may have violated even 1957 standards of legal protection of suspect's rights. While Gein may have prolonged the questioning giving either many evasive answers or other answers that appear to be designed to please the questioner (who recognized those for what they were and re-questioned him on those points), it was done in overly long stretches. And Gein was either crazy or wanted to be thought of as crazy: Judge Gollmar was undecided whether Gein was insane or clever at faking unsanity.

The confession was overly long at hundreds of pages, short of solid content, and tainted. Gollmar was probably right in suppressing it. Gein was convicted without it. There was plenty of untainted evidence. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking back at the article (and the history of edits), there is a distinction that apparently gets lost: Gein's confession was not made the night Schley lost his temper and shoved Gein against the wall (apparently once, with the startled deputies seperating them fairly quickly). Sheriff Schley's questioning did not produce the confession that was suppressed. The confession that was suppressed by Judge Gollmar was made to Joe Wilimovsky of the state crime lab much later, not to Sheriff Schley the night of the incident. (The "true crime" pulp fiction accounts of Gein remind me of the movie that had both Pretty Boy Floyd and Baby Face Nelson killed before John Dillinger because it was more dramatic that way.) Naaman Brown (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Serial killer or not

There was an argument about this, I believe. FWIW, if a person hasn't been convicted of 3 or more murders? he/she's not a serial killer. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue. The issue is that multiple sources refer to him as a serial killer and he is considered such despite the number of known victims. On the other hand, Sift&Winnow states that the number of persons killed to determine a serial killer isn't valid either. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Again you misquote me. I said no one has produced an authoritative source that uses "3 or more" as the definition of a serial killer. Does the Department of Justice use this definition? Does the American Psychiatric Association? The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law? The FBI? If so, cite them. They're reliable sources. Some random crime writer is not. --Sift&Winnow 22:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to say this once. If you cannot post on this page without attacking or disparaging myself or Crohnie, then I will proceed to open a WP:WQA case against you the next time. It's regretful that administrators who are asked to assist because of attacks and disparagement choose to slough off any involvement, but that does not alleviate you from responsibility for being tenditious and assaultive. I refuse to believe this is the first time you've ever been disruptive. Either be civil and post productively or simply cease posting. And while you're at it, be adult enough to figure out if you are responding to a he or a she. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then, ya'll better get a reliable source that defines a serial killer, if ya'll want a solution. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I also posted this on a related WP:ANI discussion:

Goto http://www.fbi.gov/publications/serial_murder.htm#two - last paragraph: "In combining the various ideas put forth at the Symposium, the following definition was crafted: Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events." 67.183.232.99 (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Judge Gollmar, Gein confessed only to the two murders for which he was confronted with physical evidence. He was later tried and convicted only for the murder with the best evidence. He was suspected of killing his brother Henry. He was a suspect in the disappearance of two men from Chicago according to deputy Dan Chase (Ben Belter said Gein said he knew where the body of "Travis" was). Gein was a suspect in the disappearances of Evelyn Hartley of La Crosse WI and Mary Jane Weckler of Jefferson WI. Gein's body part trophies did not always match the age of his known grave robbery "victims" either. By legal definition, the confessed murders of Bernice Worden and Mary Hogan (with only one conviction) may not class Gein as a "serial killer" but in the popular imagination he is the first and most bizarre serial killer most people ever heard about, which is what makes Gein notable. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, law enforcement officials from throughout the Midwest came out of the woodwork to try to pin their unsolved cases on Gein. Extensive and detailed questioning and lie detector tests absolved him of the other crimes, according to the State Crime Lab. The psychiatrists who examined Gein reported that he was highly suggestible and submissive, and that therefore the harsh questioning of him was likely to produce a lot of acquiescence responses. That's one of the reasons Gollmar threw out the confession. One must be careful of reporting suspicions and allegations that haven't been proven, and to place them in the proper context. In this case, the State Crime Lab said he didn't commit the other murders. That, of course, doesn't mean that he didn't capture the popular imagination, both for what he did and for what he was imagined to have done. --Sift&Winnow 16:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you can't embrace the source to support what you want, but discard other comments by dismissing them as trying to pin every unsolved case on Gein. Where do you source "extensive and detailed questioning and lie detector tests" that absolve him? How do lie detector tests absolve anyone? Lie detector tests are notoriously unreliable which is why they are not admitted into a court of law. Just how did the state crime lab absolve of a murder for which the body was never found? Highly suggestible and submissive does not equate to innocence. Let's not forget he was adept at grave robbery and did a bang up job killing and dressing out someone. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Following Gein's interrogation, a statement was released by the State Crime Laboratory, and signed by the Crime Lab Superintendent, Charles M. Wilson. It read as follows:

"The lie detector tests of Edward Gein have now been completed, and after consultation with the several interested district attorneys, we are able at this time to state that the results of the tests referred to eliminate the subject, Edward Gein, 51 years of age, as the person responsible for and/or involved in the disappearance of Evelyn Hartley in La Crosse County on Oct. 24, 1953; the disappearance of Georgia Jean Weckler in Jefferson County May 1, 1947, and Victor Tavis in Adams County Nov. 1, 1952.

"Mr. Gein has now admitted that he is responsible for the death of Mary Hogan in Portage County on Dec. 8, 1954 and Bernice Worden in Waushara County Nov. 16, 1957.

"The release, jointly concurred in by the interested local officials is being made to eliminate Mr. Gein from unnecessary suspicion and conjecture.

Source: "Gein Also Admits He Killed Mary Hogan; Results of Lie Tests Announced," Stevens Point Daily Journal, November 20, 1957, p. 1, cols. 7-8.

If you take issue with the statement of the State Crime Lab, you'll have to take it up with them, and with all the local officials who concurred in the statement. --Sift&Winnow 18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's be straight. I am stating that in 1957, it was believed that lie detector results were conclusive proof. 50 years later, that is no longer true. I am stating that if that were added to the article, the fact that conclusive proof from lie detectors is no longer legally acceptable should be covered. In an case, it is not imprudent to state that he was at one time suspected in those cases and state that lie detector tests at the time eliminated him. But still, and beyond the lie detector test results, you cannot accept a source for some things and reject the same source for other things. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The lie detector tests were only one piece of the pie. The 1982 La Crosse newspaper article that RFD referred to stated:

Lichtie, who was a member of the La Crosse Police Department at the time of the Hartley abduction, recalls that two detectives were sent to Plainfield, where they were able to substantiate that Gein was not in La Crosse on the night the teen-ager disappeared, although they learned that Gein did have a relative here.

What is your source for the assertion that lie detectors were considered conclusive proof 50 years ago? --Sift&Winnow 19:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ed Gein was a proven serial grave robber who confessed to two murders and was tried and convicted on the one with best evidence, guilty but insane. We had a guy tried for three murders recently, but that did not make him a serial killer (he killed for drugs or money to buy drugs). What makes a serial killer is the motivation of the killer--a psychosexual quirk or power tripping ego; that was the motivation of Gein's grave robberies so in that sense he had a lot in common with what we call today serial killers. Perhaps he had graduated from serial grave robbery to serial killing but was stopped early in his new career. Also we have had over 50 years of folklore, urban myth and sensationalism to cloud the record. Naaman Brown (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that part of the problem is that different sources define "serial killer" in different ways. I've already brought up the following at Talk:Serial killer#Definition, number of killings.

The only documentation I can find on a standardized definition is from a multi-disciplinary Symposium in San Antonio, Texas, on August 29, 2005 through September 2, 2005 which was organized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in order to have a group of respected experts on serial murder from a variety of fields and specialties, to provide input and to identify the commonalities of knowledge regarding serial murder. A summary of the Symposium is available on the FBI website in both html format as well as pdf format.

Two key quotes exist in chapter II "Definition of Serial Murder" ... first, a "traditional" definition that was derived from legislation is mentioned, but also mentions that this version was not intended to be a generic definition for serial murder:

There has been at least one attempt to formalize a definition of serial murder through legislation. In 1998, a federal law was passed by the United States Congress, titled: Protection of Children from Sexual Predator Act of 1998 (Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 51, and Section 1111). This law includes a definition of serial killings:

The term ‘serial killings’ means a series of three or more killings, not less than one of which was committed within the United States, having common characteristics such as to suggest the reasonable possibility that the crimes were committed by the same actor or actors.

Although the federal law provides a definition of serial murder, it is limited in its application. The purpose of this definition was to set forth criteria establishing when the FBI could assist local law enforcement agencies with their investigation of serial murder cases. It was not intended to be a generic definition for serial murder.

But further along, the document states that a slightly different definition was reached by participants of the Symposium:

The different discussion groups at the Symposium agreed on a number of similar factors to be included in a definition. These included:

• one or more offenders
• two or more murdered victims
• incidents should be occurring in separate events, at different times
• the time period between murders separates serial murder from mass murder

In combining the various ideas put forth at the Symposium, the following definition was crafted:

Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events.

This definition is further supported by the second edition of the Crime Classification Manual, published in 2006, which also mentions the change resulting from the Symposium - but is again unclear on if it's officially used within the FBI. The manual states on page 96 that:

... At a 2005 FBI conference on serial murder, discussion focused on the number of events needed for classification as serial. There was considerable support for reducing the number to two or more events to qualify as serial in nature. ...

Various editors and sources may have their own definitions for various reasons - but the above is the only documentation that I can locate which supports anything resembling an official definition. 67.183.232.99 (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"Serial Killer" in the popular mind seems to be reserved for multiple killers with a psycho motivation. The Mafia hitman Sammy the Bull is not popularly thought of as a serial killer: Ted Bundy is thought of as a serial killer. The definition of serial killer is almost in the state of that famous SCOTUS definition of pornography--I can't define it but I know it when I see it. Naaman Brown (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The judge in the Gein case has written: "Due to prohibitive costs, Gein was tried for only one murder--that of Mrs. Worden."--Robert H. Gollmar, Edward Gein, Pinnacle Books, 1981, page 81. They found Mary Hogan's head in his house, but only tried him for the murder of Worden. I would like to mention that in my hometown we had a guy convicted of murder who was also a suspect in two other murders. A life sentence on the one with best evidence was sufficient. Some jurisdictions just don't have unlimited resources, which may have been the case with Ed Gein in rural Wisconsin. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Classing serial killers by number of convictions is faulty. British serial killer Dennis Nilsen gave details of fifteen murders and several attempted murders. At trial he was convicted in six of those murders; trying him for all fifteen would have been redundant and a waste of prosecutorial resources. Again, most of the body parts at Ed Gein's house were obtained by grave robbery, and only two sets of parts were traced to persons who were alive when they met Gein. Conviction of Gein on one murder was sufficient to take him out of circulation, and that appears to be the case in a number of both multiple murderers and serial killers. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Good Source or Not?

Judge Robert H. Gollmar, Edward Gein , Pinnacle Books, (c)1981 Cas. Hallberg and Co., Inc. Introduction by George W Arndt, MD, Fellow APA. Gollmar handled the 1968 murder trial of Ed Gein and wrote this book about the case. Naaman Brown (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been so long since I read it that I can't remember the book well. But it was written by an eyewitness to the trial, who had access to all the legal materials, and who had no motive for dissembling. So for the aspects of this case that were revealed at the trial, I would assume it would be an excellent source. I'm surprised no one has yet used it. Thanks for bringing it up. --Sift&Winnow 00:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image caption

"Circa" should not be spelled out. It's abbreviated according to MOS. Tre=poi (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Location of gravemarker image

Does anyone have a problem with the gravemarker image going in the "Death" section as opposed to the "Aftermath" section. It seems like a more logical place to me.--Rockfang (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Gein's reading materials

Citing Court TV Crime Library, the article refers to Gein's reading material as "death cult" and adventure magazines. I recall the story (dimly) in the late 1950s and the sources I saw in 1984 (the year Gein died) referred to lurid detective magazines (true crime stories) and anatomy books. There are useful things in "Court TV Crime Library" but one must remember they are often colored for entertainment value. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC) signed 14:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Allan Wilimovsky (state crime lab) who searched the house described a "textbook on medicology" with the book relatively clean except the pages on the head and female genitals. Gollmar, p.24.

Colwell, Central State Hospital, interviewed Gein: "He stated that prior to the first grave robbing incident, he had been reading adventure stories of headhunters and cannibals. He related in detail one story of a man who had murderered a man, acquired his yacht, and was later captured and killed by headhunters. He learned about shrunken heads, death masks, etc., from other similiar stories." Gollmar, p.64.

--Naaman Brown (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Found items

The source provides numerous items which were found in his home:

What they found was a house of horror. Inside, they discovered numerous body parts: four noses, several bone fragments, nine death masks, a heart in a pan on the stove, a bowl made from a skull, ten female heads with the tops sawn off, human skin covering several chair seats, pieces of salted genitalia in a box, skulls on his bedposts, organs in the refrigerator, a pair of lips on a string, and much more. It was estimated that he had mutilated some fifteen women and kept their remains around him.

I'm not sure how many of these items should be listed in the article. Jwesley₇₈ 15:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

recent vandalism

There has been vandalism by unnamed IP accounts (see History: recently most edits by a named account is reverting silly vandalism by IP accounts); is it too early to propose protecting the page from IP editors? Naaman Brown (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably. This sort of article gets routine vandalism. It doesn't appear to be that excessive. Just keep an eye on it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

References to Ed Gein in Music

Slayer's song, "Dead Skin Mask" is loosely based on the events of Ed Gein, very obviously when a young girl in the song is screaming "Mr. Gein, I don't want to play any more, LET ME OUT!". I've never done any real Wikipedia editing, so I don't know if this is very relevant or worth putting on the page, but being a Slayer fan, I must add this to your discussion page :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.105.151 (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, adding content such as that qualifies as trivia and Wikipedia discourages adding trivia. Gein's impact on popular culture is covered in the article already and starting a listing of songs that mention him is simply trivia. Thanks for asking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of pop culture references to Ed Gein. That fact should be noted, but only the notable references are encyclopedic. Since Gein never imprisoned a live girl, the Slayer song only uses the name as a convenient hook, and is not a reference to any incident in the actual history. Naaman Brown (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

removed 2020 dec 21

• The heavy metal band Mudvayne wrote a song titled "Nothing to Gein" released on their L.D. 50 album. The lyrics to the song obviously allude to the story of Gein's murders. They also released a music video which shows many images of an old man who looks much like Ed Gein himself.

There are well over a hundred shock rock references to Gein to the point of trivia; they are not all notable or encyclopedic to warrant inclusion in an article about Gein; start a seperate article if you must, and include citation to reliable published sources. Naaman Brown (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm only mentioning this as a point of interest, I've noted the much contention on the subject of a "in pop culture" section. But the band Combichrist, a Norwegian aggrotech band, have a song "God Bless" on their album Everybody Hates You which is literally made up of just the listing of various well known killers and the words "God bless". "Edward Gein" is one of the names, naturally. I'm somewhat annoyed at their very American list, as surely Fred and Rose West deserve a mention, being a very odd pair of serial killers (I know that is somewhat of a given, is there such thing as a "normal" serial killer?). Like I said, only saying this here for the hell of it, not suggesting this or any other pop culture reference be added to the actual article. I'm not against such a section on principle though, other articles have such sections, but perhaps in the case of someone like Gein it would just be way too big a list to be worth anything. We've got the important note about him inspiring many well known fictional characters like Norman Bates. I was interested to find that he inspired American Horror Story: Asylum's "Bloody Face" too as somehow I didn't realize that. -Lyco499 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you call what Gein did, when conventional terms are inadequate?

Gein has been described in the article lead paragraph as grave robber or body snatcher but the article on grave robbery refers to robbing graves to steal valuables interred with the dead while the article on body snatching refers to stealing intact corpses for sale as medical cadavers. He was not a conventional grave robber or body snatcher. What Gein did was to steal parts of bodies, skulls and bones to make household artifacts, and skins and scalps to make corsets and wigs as a part of some tranvestic fantasy (the trigger appears to have been the loss of the company of his dead mother and an attempt to replace her absence in the home with bits and pieces of women who reminded him of his mother and ultimate with himself transformed into her image). Even necrophilia appears appears to not cover what Gein did (unless you replace the usual interpretation of -philia as a desire for sexual relations with a desire for asexual companionship). Naaman Brown (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this is an excellent question so I've been looking around to see if I can find anything to show that grave robber/grave robbing would fit in with what he did. At the article Grave robbery I found this in the first paragraph of the North American section, Therefore, their property and burial grounds were not respected and the bodies and artifacts in these locations were often sold or looted.. Also under the section Arrest of this article, the reference says In most cases, the bodies or parts of the bodies were missing. If you read this reference you will see the word used is robbed for the most part. Thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Grave robbery appears most commonly in ref to the robbery of valuables buried with the dead, and not to robbery of the dead themselves, except in cases of body snatching of cadavers for sale to medical schools. Both cases involve theft for monetary gain. Less commonly there is stealing artifacts for paraphilic fetish or dead bodies for necrophilia. Gein's motivation was more obscure than any of those. Naaman Brown (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We can't forget what our references call it which is, if memory serves me correctly, grave robber. I can't think of anything else to call it so if you can't find another word/term then how about we stick to what is already used? --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is why I support the addition to the English language of a phrase myself and a friend coined: "Necro Mugging" which I feel is a much more descriptive term for grave robbing in regard to stealing valuables. But seriously, though neither "grave robbery" or "body snatching" really fits the bill, they're the only terms we have beyond a very general "desecration" which doesn't really fit either. Thankfully the act of disturbing graves to steal body parts for personal use or gratification is rare enough for us not to require a specific term. Though when we have words like "petrichor" it's surprising what is deemed necessary to define with it's own words, but that's a whole different matter. -Lyco499 (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone ready for a new tidbit??

What would the Wiki consensus be of a set of previously-unpresented facts that would point directly to possible motivation of Augusta Gein's behavior?? Pertinent here? WQ59B (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What have you got? ;O) --bodnotbod (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Augusta Wilhelmine Lehrke and George Philip Gein were married 12-11-1900 (another source says 12-6-1900 : this is likely when the marriage license was dated). We know how she particularly railed against women as evil, sinners & whores. Henry George Gein, firstborn son, was born 01-08-1901. In that day & age, esp for a devoutly-religious woman... one has to wonder to what degree this colored her views toward both George her husband and the teachings she gave to her sons. WQ59B (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. Interesting. I guess the problem here is that if you add it to the article it will fall into the category of Wikipedia:Original research which is not allowable under Wikipedia's policies. Seems a shame not to be able to add it. I'll leave it to you to decide what to do. I won't interfere with you but don't be surprised if someone else objects if you add it. I guess one route you could take would be to contact a respectable website that might cover it as a story (though heaven knows where you'd start) and then if they ran it you would then be able to use that as citation for the article. --bodnotbod (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The OR issue may be a sticking point; documentation is state records; not published, but 'expert' enough I believe. Will ponder this further- thanks. WQ59B (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the WP:OR problem will rule out any inclusion of this in the article, especially if you try to speculate that this influenced her mental attitude in any way. If it came from you as a person and not some reliable, published source it cannot be used. And as a general caution from someone who has gone through countless historical records, you risk major embarrassment if you rely too much on transcriptions of birth records. Most of these were handwritten quite sloppily, and the people who entered them into computers varied widely in their ability to both read the records and type the numbers correctly. If you are serious about pursuing this information for use elsewhere I would encourage it, as historic research is always a good thing. DreamGuy (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Since my initial question, I would not attempt to include claims about mental influence. But it's a major flaw that WP demands only published sources; those are certainly not infallible. I understand it being used as a 'filter', and on the surface it's legitimate, but there needs to be a system of checks to verify/ dispute/ correct published sources when incorrect. One such published source sited for this entry says Ed's parents married 12-4-1899 (not mentioned in the entry). Not only to state records claim the date was 12-11-1900, but the U.S. Census from 06/1900 still lists Ed's father as being single & living with his aunt/uncle. I've seen plenty of poorly handwritten entries... but this is 2 unrelated official records vs. 1 book. This is a problem... WQ59B (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Archives?

Given the proliferation of errors in so many materials dealing with Gein (even Schechter and Woods), I wonder if anyone has ever been given access to records from Central State, Mendota, or the UW examination of all the physical evidence shipped down from Planfield. Any other Geineologists know? Domyo (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Domyo

Military service?

Was there ever any reason given for why Henry and Ed didn't serve in World War II? It was unusual for men of their age not to enlist unless they were involved in some valuable war-time service or had considerable family responsibilities. Since there is no place in the article where it mentions that this farm was actually successful (no mention of anyone hired to work at the farm), it's unlikely this was the cause and neither man was married or had children.

I'm just curious if they never tried to enlist (which was considered rather shameful) or if they tried and were turned down. It's just quite a coincidence that Ed had a Nazi-fixation when he didn't even serve in the European front. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Not every eligible US male enlisted in WWII. And there were those who felt going to war was shameful on religious grounds. There was no reason to expect Ed or Henry to enlist. As far as the draft:

• Ed Gein was born 1906, he would have been 34 at the outbreak of WWII.
• The draft sought young fit conscripts first.
• II-C draft deferrence if you worked in support of agriculture.
• III-A for men with dependent parents, spouse, or children.
• III-C because of dependents plus employment in agriculture.
• III-D because of extreme hardship and privation to dependents.
• Any of the above draft deferrences would have fit Ed or Henry.
• By the time of Gein's mom's death 29 Dec 1945, draft age deferrence was unfit if 26 or over and he was 39.

The answer actually depends on someone remembering Ed or Henry discussing military service, or if they wrote a letter about it, or their draft board records.--Naaman Brown (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between being registering to be drafted, being drafted and enlisting. I have multiple relatives who registered in their 50s and even at 63 yrs of age. My GrandF enlisted at age 30 in 1943. Ed was rejected for eligible service due to the growth over his one eye, deemed to slightly impair his vision. I've not found any evidence of either Henry or Ed having registered; Ed's physical rejection likely disallowed it and perhaps Henry never attempted to. WQ59B (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC) WQ59B

Not Guilty

"The court does find that on November 16, 1957, the defendant, Edward Gein, was suffering from a mental disease. The court does further find that as a result of this mental disease he lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. The court does, therefore, find the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity. The defendant is, therefore, committed to Central State Hospital for the Insane." -- verdict 14 Nov 1968 rendered by Judge Robert H. Gollmar in the case of State of Wisconsin v Edward Gein. (Judge Robert H. Gollmar, Edward Gein, Pinnacle Books, Windsor Publishing, 3rd ed 1989, p.172.) --Naaman Brown (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits undone

"it says the creator of the franchise that started in 1974 was inspired by a 1988 book)" No, it says the 1988 book and the 1974 TCM were both based in part on the career of Ed Gein and his 1950s crime.

1988 Book: Harris says he based Jame Gumb on Ed Gein (and elements of several other serial killers).

1974 Movie: Tobe Hooper based the character Leatherface and the idea of an isolated rural killer on news reports about Ed Gein especially the home decor from human remains; only the choice of chainsaw as weapon of choice was based on the the hardware store incident.

--Naaman Brown (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"contemplated sex-change surgery"??

"Soon after his mother's death, Gein contemplated sex-change surgery" - This is nonsense. His mother died in 1945; the first male to female sex change surgery in the US didn't happen until 1966. He may have strongly wished he could be a woman, but that's another matter entirely. Sex-change surgery just wasn't on the radar in the late-1940s, so this statement is an anachronism.32.218.34.133 (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a direct quote from the cited source. Verifiability, not truth, and all that. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The Christine Jorgensen sex change was widely publicized (first publicized sex-change operation on an American 24 Sep 1951). It was hard to escape hearing or reading about it. But the subject was hardly new to 1951 as the Wikipedia article on Jorgenesen points out: "....this type of surgery had previously been performed by pioneering German doctors in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Danish artist Lili Elbe and "Dorchen", both patients of Magnus Hirschfeld at the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (Institute for Sexual Research) in Berlin, were known recipients of such operations in 1930-31." Gein owned and read medical textbooks on anatomy and it is not hard to believe he knew about sex-change surgery long before an operation was performed in the United States. As I recall one source, Gein contemplated doing it himself. --Naaman Brown (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Both are absurd responses. Perhaps experiments were conducted in other countries in the 1930s, but the Christine Jorgensen case would have been the first one a small-town US resident would have been exposed to. It occurred in 1951, six years after his mother's death, not "[s]oon after his mother's death". It makes no sense to spout the "Verifiability, not truth" dictum when common sense is called for. 32.218.34.133 (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)