Talk:Gary M. Heidnik

Duplication?
Please delete this article as it is a duplication.
 * Are you sure this is a duplication, I don't find anything on this guy when i do a google search of the site.-- ZeWrestler 19:04 17 March, 2005

Pit or Bathtub
My now-reverted clarification that the elctrocution occured in the punsihment pit rather than a bathtub was based on the linked-to Crime Library article, which to me suggests the electrocution occured in the existing plywood-covered punishment pit. See here: Crime Library MinorEdit June 29, 2005 01:23 (UTC)

This article says pit: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/justice-story/philly-sicko-death-dungeon-inspired-famous-movie-scene-article-1.1348191?pgno=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustynyfeathers (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Deep
Twice the four foot pit is described as "deep". That doesn't seem very deep to me. --Dystopos 23:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Everything I've read suggests that the pit was actually very shallow, allowing just enough room for a woman to fit into the hole, contorted uncomfortably. 68.51.188.174 (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning?
I think that the warning is inherently non-NPOV and should be removed. We do not have one on many other articles which could be considered by some to be "disturbing". See the discussion/consensus at Talk: Ted Bundy. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think some kind of warning would be appropriate. "Spoiler warnings" are routinely put before plot synopses on any narrative work out of courtesy to the reader and It seems the desire to show courtesy would pertain all the more to content widely considered unpleasant to read. If POV is the only issue, I think one could be worded so that it avoided POV. What about:
 * Warning: This section contains graphic descriptions of violent acts.

--Dystopos 06:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC) I disagree. Spoiler warnings are nowhere near POV. If you wanted a warning for an image, you would have a case. However, the world is a scary place. It's very unwiki to put a warning just for telling the facts in a NPOV way. Note that this is an article, not text porn or a novel. The descirptions here aren't that graphic. savidan(talk) (e@) 16:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC) You should of warned me, I looked to long at his mugshot. I think it stole my soul. :) Hempeater 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there something POV about my suggestion? It seems as neutral and factual as the spoiler warning. Perhaps the same suggestion without the word "warning" in it? how about replacing it with Note: ? I wouldn't want to limit the reader's interests, but I would like to show some courtesy. --Dystopos 16:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm sure this is very well-intentioned, but simply untennable. If you dull down to warning to not even containing the word warning it will be repetitive and therefore be removed. If the warning contains text which achieves what I presume is your desired effect (informing the reader that the text is in some way offensive, startling, etc.) then it would be at worst POV and at best unencyclopedic. May I instead suggest that you point out which portions of the current text you consider in need of such a warning. A well-written encyclopedic article should never require such a warning, no matter the subject. I find nothing in this text which requires such. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If one is reading an article about a notorious murderer, one should know to assume that there is going to be graphic, unpleasant, disturbing content. 68.51.188.174 (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Words are just words, anyone can get offended by any string of letters, we cannot start a trend of deciding what is or isn't too shocking to read.--82.19.19.125 (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

wrong city of death
This man, if executed as the wiki says, cannot have died in Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania's death chamber is in Rockview, Centre County, which is several hours east of Pittsburgh, near State College. --&#123;&#123;User:Coryma}} 00:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"They were already there."
"At his arraignment, Heidnik claimed that the women were already in the house when he moved in.[5]" Did he? I can't find anything like that in the source provided. Anyone got a reliable source for this statement (one that doesn't just copy what Wikipedia says)? &#91;arthal&#93; (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That was my question. I also kind of doubt that he had a housemate. Dirtysocks (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor change about his wife
The cited source, http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/heidnik/spiral_8.html, says that Heidnik forced his wife to watch him having sex with other women, not to do so herself. Matuszek (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * good catch - Shadowsill (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ground up Victims Fed to Other Victims
Seems that his lawyer helped to spread rumors about the cannibalism in order to make his client look more insane. http://www.phillymag.com/articles/inside_the_house_of_heidnik/page14 I think perhaps those points should be removed from the article as they are, and it mentioned that there were unsubstantiated rumors of cannibalism, instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaylaraOwl (talk • contribs) 13:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As the sections on cannibalism were removed, should his name also be removed from Category:American_cannibals? Quebec99 (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I say 'yes, yes it should", and moreover, I have done so. Resolved. -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gary M. Heidnik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?id=1880
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613093436/http://www.salon.com/books/feature/1999/07/08/profiler/print.html to http://www.salon.com/books/feature/1999/07/08/profiler/print.html
 * Added tag to http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/cover-story/return_to_the_house_of_horrors-38347699.html?page=2&comments=1&showAll=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Arresting officers
I added my father and his parter, John Cannon, as the arresting officers. This can be confirmed in Ken Englade’s Cellar of Horror. JoanneSavidge (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your pride in your father's work, but articles don't normally give the names of minor participants in events such as this. EEng 23:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The response to Rivera’s call, arrest of Heidnik, and my father’s testimony in the trial is hardly minor. JoanneSavidge (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In every crime there are officers who respond, arrest people, and testify. Unless there's something special about what they do that is called out in an article and discussed at various points, telling the reader the names of such officers doesn't help him understand whatever it is that the article is really about, so we don't include them. I'm sorry. EEng 02:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Cannibalism
I am reading Josefina Rivera's book about what happened and She had wrote down that Gary had baked Lindsay's ribs in the oven and burnt them til there was very little flesh on the bones, he let the neighborhood dogs eat her bones, and he boiled her head, and he also cut her up into little pieces and put her in the freezer. He showed what was left of Lindsay to Deborah Dudley, and it scared her into submitting to him.

"Sandra Lindsay" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sandra Lindsay. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

"148" IQ?
I can't find any priamry sources verifying that this man's IQ was actually 148, and quite frankly, I just don't see anything even remotely intelligent about him. JointCompound (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

"Opulent"?
Most be a typo, as that would suggest the church was costly. I don't remember hearing anything about Heidnik selling it, so how does the source know that? 82.40.43.68 (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Agnes Adams discrepancy
The list of victims and capture dates said that Adams was freed the same day she was kidnapped. The prose earlier says "On March 23, 1987, Heidnik and Rivera abducted Agnes Adams. The next day, Rivera convinced Heidnik to let her go." Neither assertion has a clearly cited source. I removed the parenthetical from the bulleted list. But I want to flag the issue here in case the prose is wrong, and that it wasn't "the next day" but the same day. --EEMIV (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

No mention of the fact that they were all black women?
I'm not the wokest person out there, but it seems pertinent that this detail be included. It must have been a motivating factor, after all. HIPSTERxNERD (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)