Talk:Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story

Rita Isbell Insider "as-told-to" Interview
A few days ago, I removed the paragraph about the Insider article for the following reason: "per WP:PRIMARY, Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. "as-told-to" = interpretation. Insider is not a reliable secondary source. See WP:BI." Early this morning, User:Crlz lco undid my edit giving this reason: Insider(Culture) was verified as a Reliable Source by the Project page you linked. It was the sub-categories by insider like Business Insider and Tech Insider that are not reliable. The reference used for the edit was from the main Insider website and not any of the sub-categories. Fair enough, I thought at the time. I had missed the "excluding culture" part of WP:BI. It seems notable enough. But then, this afternoon, I discovered that the article in question is not in the Culture section of Insider. The only story in that section dated September 25 is something else. Therefore, according to my understanding of WP:BI, there is no consensus about the reliability of this article. An as told to interview is really just taking the author's word for it. WP:INTERVIEW calls this an "uncritical parroting of what someone else said". It's not verifiable and even if it was, Isbell is hardly WP:INDEPENDENT of the story, therefore not reliable. With respect, the substance of Isbell's statement is both outright WP:ADVOCACY and an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. As such, I am here seeking consensus to remove it. Regards, Kire1975 (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe this article counts as a reliable secondary source for Isbell's criticism. 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷)  - (✉) 11:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I believe the relevant policy here is WP:SWYRT. That article merely cites the Insider source to fill content for the article. I wouldn't go as far to say it's blogspam, but it doesn't address the validity questions raised by WP:BI, WP:INTERVIEW, WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW as cited above. Kire1975 (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Mass Communication
— Assignment last updated by Kjw08 (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Construction on synopsis

 * I will continue editing and writing content either Saturday night or Sunday, along with adding sources. ATC . Talk 04:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * BTW I was thinking the episode list might need to have its own separate Wikipedia article. Does anyone know WP TV show guidelines on that for one-season shows? ATC . Talk 04:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Editing Process
— Assignment last updated by BLsxu (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Do lawsuits belong to this article?
Hi, I mean, like this Metro.co.uk article where it states that Lionel Herbert Dahmer considers a lawsuit. Jeffrey Dahmer’s dad considering suing Netflix for ‘glamorising’ son’s murders as he fears being targeted at his home 190.246.97.81 (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Metro.co.uk is not even a reliable source, please see WP:METRO. — Young Forever (talk)   22:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by BartonRei (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Expand the 'Controversy' section
There's clearly more controversy about the series besides the LGBT angle. For example the concerns around victims' families and the Dahmer family. FireInMe (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

20th Television was involved with this?!
I just checked the production companies section of this article and I was surprised to see that. Is there any proof that they were invovled with them though? Mattgelo (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)