Talk:William Heirens
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Another point of contention: "Weasel Words"
This article is accused of containing weasel words and phrases ("Some believe..." "Some have said...") I have reread the article and there are very few items that can be construed weasel words and phrases and most of those are backed up by a cite to a link. I don't see how this article can be interpreted as being rife with weasel words. Anyone please point them out. Hunter2005 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why I included the Black Daliah references
It has been proposed by a TV documentary of a possible link between the Black Dahlia case and the Lipstick Murders. the most notable link is the similarities of the dissection of Suzanne Degnan in Chicago and Elizabeth Short in Los Angeles both were dismembered in a way that was quite rare and which would take great skill as purported by the TV documentary "Most Evil" I wonder, did anyone actually read it or did they reflexively just remove it? Can anyone say specifically why this mention should not be included beyond the blanket statement that they are not related? Hunter2005 01:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC) The Dahlia body was also dumped on a street adjacent to Degnan street. I thought that was pretty substantial. -Matio
[edit] In need of lots of work
I've started working on this article today, making loads of spelling, heading and grammar edits. There was a lengthy essay on the Black Dahlia killings and someone's thoughts on possible connections, but it was in a hidden text within the article. The whole thing read as if it were someone's term paper pasted into the article, or perhaps part of the article's original form. I removed a lot of hidden notes that were just responses to statements in the article, for example, in the section titled "An alternative suspect." There is at least one citation problem and I suspect the rest need checking. The article remains full of weasel words and reads as fairly biased to me and is on my "work to do list." Hopefully, others will jump in. Wildhartlivie 23:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- What is this citation problem? Most of the citations that are used are links to legit websites including crime library and a link to the Northwestern University Law April 2002 Clemency Petition which cites court records. I included links to the Time Magazine achieves like this for example. I also included an pro presecution link namely The Monster That Terrorized Chicago". What is the problem? Did anyone actually check the links in the article and read what was there? As for bias, most of the material out in the media questions the verdict. Do you have links that stand by the verdict reached? Please include them. Anything that counters the evidence of innocence, for example is there anything out there that says that it is Heiren's handwriting on the ransom note and the wall? I would like to include them. I have no interest of Heirens being guilty or not but most of the material seems to put the verdict in doubt. When you have that an article is going to appear biased. I or anyone else will gladly include other pro prosecution facts if they are available.Hunter2005 01:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- The citation problem is at #39: Warden, Rob, Center on Wrongful Convictions, William Heirens: Background from Northwestern University which is a dead link. Also, the way they are stacked could stand some work, some of the urls cited should probably be archived at webcite or internet archive so they don't all end up getting lost. It would be nice if there were alternate references besides the crime library, mostly because they aren't in the least bit immune to error. I've found glaring errors on articles there in the past. Not that I'm saying this one does, but it wouldn't be out of the ordinary. It needs more research done than I have time for right now, but it's on my list of things to look into.
- I do wonder why that extensive work-up about the Black Dahlia was hidden inside the body of the article. Does anyone have a clue on that? Wildhartlivie 02:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the dead link and replaced it with an active one. As regarding the crime library site and me thinking it was immune to error I don't. Any website we cite can have flaws in it. How can we really know without doing independent research which of course is banned? You do it by having more than one source and most of the claims made by the Crime Library article cite heavily Dolores Kennedy's book. That in turn has been independently verified by the Northwestern University Law Petition:
As for the Black Dahlia section being hidden it's because I hadn't quite finished it. The same with other hidden sections. I had intended to have a subsection on alleged defense attorney misconduct as part or the "Claims of Innocence" section. The Black Dahlia section is justified by an assertion that the same killer responsible for the murder of Elizabeth Short in Los Angeles maybe responsible for the death of Suzanne Degnan in Chicago by way of how similar the two bodies were bisected at a certain exact point trough the spinal column that required a surgeon's skill. The police in the cities that the murders took place in both the Short and Degnan cases independently determined that whoever had bisected their respective victims had to have a surgeon's skill (in the Chicago case at least that of a butcher) in separating the body sections at that same exact point in the spinal cord. Heirens was not known to have such skill while a suspect in the Short case at least went to medical school. It is part of the alternative suspect theory and the source was an A&E documentary series Most Evil. That is the relevance, the similarities of the Dahlia murder in Los Angeles in at least one case in the Chicago Lipstick Murders. I am not purporting it as fact that the two are indeed related but as a reported theory. One clarification: In my previous reply I asked if there was anything out there that says it is Heiren's handwriting on the note and on the wall as an example that could support the case against Heirens. I meant anything that determined forensically countering the findings that says that it isn't Heirens's writing countering the recent findings and not merely saying that it is. Hunter2005 09:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)"The facts in this section of this Petition have been independently verified, but originally disclosed by Dolores Kennedy in her Book William Heirens. His Day in Court (Bonus Books, 1991)."[1]
- I removed the dead link and replaced it with an active one. As regarding the crime library site and me thinking it was immune to error I don't. Any website we cite can have flaws in it. How can we really know without doing independent research which of course is banned? You do it by having more than one source and most of the claims made by the Crime Library article cite heavily Dolores Kennedy's book. That in turn has been independently verified by the Northwestern University Law Petition:
- Okay. I'd suggest that you might want to add a sandbox page to your userpage and move the Dahlia stuff there to work on it, rather than hiding it inside the article. It would make it a lot easier to work on and less confusing and disruptive to other editors who may want to work on the page. Wildhartlivie 23:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:William Heirens.jpg
Image:William Heirens.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
