Talk:Ted Bundy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Beachwalks?

"Bundy also enjoyed long walks on the beach." That's an awful random statment. Unsourced, is it vandalism? 198.6.46.11 (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It is, and I removed it. Vidor (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Mug Shot

The mug shot photo (Bundy wearing longer hair and a daek polo neck) is not from Utah 1975. The 1975 Utah mug shot is different with Bundy wearing a white t-shirt and short hair. You can find the Utah mug shot in Robert D. Keppel´s book "The Riverman (2005)" (page 5 of unnumbered photo pages between book pages 286 and 287). --Noirceuil (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, this mug shot is from Utah in 1975, in Salt Lake County, at the time of his first arrest on 16 August 1975 (which was for possession of burglary tools). The particular copy of that photo in this article doesn't show the text on the plaque in front of him, which says Sheriff Salt Lake County. 78058 8-16-75. Other copies of this photo, one of which is in Ted Bundy: The Killer Next Door. The short hair and white t-shirt photo was taken two months later, when he was arrested for kidnapping and attempted murder. Between the first arrest and his appearance in a line-up on 2 October 1975, he had cut his hair and changed his look. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bundy jail in Colorado

Minor point, here, but I'm virtually certain that Bundy never was housed, at least on a permanent basis, in the Pitkin County jail (in Aspen) during his time in Colorado. I don't have my records handy, but as one who edited a local newspaper during that period, I think he was always housed in the Garfield County jail (in Glenwood Springs, about 40 miles northwest of Aspen), primarily because the Aspen facility was older, smaller and thought to be less secure as the jail in Glenwood Springs. (The Aspen jail had served well as a place of confinement for Claudine Longet after she shot Spider Sabich -- she painted her cell pink during her stay -- but Ted Bundy was another matter.) Whenever he had a court appearance, he was transferred from Glenwood Springs to Aspen for court hearings, and returned to Glenwood Springs. Thus, the sentence in this article, "Upon arrest, Bundy was placed in the smaller Glenwood Springs jail, rather than being taken back to Aspen," is not correct. The Glenwood jail was much newer and somewhat bigger than Aspen's, and Bundy hadn't ever been permanently housed in the Aspen jail.Theoldgringo (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what "The Only Living Witness" says about this. Vidor (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Okey dokey. "The Stranger Beside Me" says that he was kept the Pitkin County Jail from January until April when he was transferred to Garfield County. so I guess that needs fixing. Vidor (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting...I'd forgotten that he was housed in the Pitkin County jail before being transferred to Glenwood Springs in April, but I'd trust Ann Rule's reporting on that. Now I'm wondering WHY they decided to move him; probably because PitCo was substandard -- Bundy was always complaining about something.--Theoldgringo (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Rule's book says that the Colorado Department of Health or some such ruled, I believe in March of that year, that the Pitkin County Jail was not an adequate facility for housing prisoners beyond 30 days. Vidor (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bundy-jumping

Although I do not active edit these articles, I do have an interest in serial killers and their victims, and I have read up on Bundy. I know that a lot of women (including Debbie Harry) have falsely believed to have escaped from Bundy. Mainly because they were abducted or someone attempted to abduct them in terms similar to Bundy. Giving Harry's story as an example, she was offered a ride by a man in a small white car. She got in, and noticed that the car's (at least passenger door panel) was stripped out when she tried to roll down the window (It was only somewhat cracked). When she noticed this, she reached her arm through the crack and managed to open the door from the exterior door handle and escape. Because of the circumstances and the look of the suspect, she believes that she escaped Ted Bundy. However, she claims that this incident happened in New York - where Bundy was never traced. Still, interesting nonetheless. But I digress.

I found that this article does not have any mention that many women have erroneously believed to have escaped from Bundy. It should be noted that according to the book The Stranger Beside Me, hundreds of women have claimed to have escaped Bundy, with this not necessarily being true. I believe that this should have some kind of mention in the article. I can't put it in, because I don't believe that I have enough ready references to justify inclusion in the article, but that somebody who is more familiar with the Bundy case should write something about it.

BTW, just to show that the story of Debbie Harry mentioning to have escaped Bundy is not total bullshit, Snopes has a page on it. Of course, it states that the rumor is false as of her escaping Bundy, it still holds a chance that she did indeed escape abduction by somebody else. Karrmann (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to have a section about women who did NOT encounter Ted Bundy. Vidor (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that we include a section that talks about how many women mistakenly believe that they were victims/survivors of Bundy. Karrmann (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That is something that has to be sourced and I can't see that it would be notable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree. Not notable. Vidor (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting phenomena though. From a pop culture and sociological viewpoint. Maybe not as it's own section, but would it be alright to mention it in just a sentence somewhere?214.13.149.10 (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Really, no. This sort of thing happens with every high profile serial killer. It's mostly unsourceable and trivial and there really isn't a place for it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What do we need to do

To make this a Good Article? Vidor (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps to start, a peer review might be opened. That may generate comment and suggestions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Rockefeller Campaign

Odd: what qualifications did Bundy have for a position as responsible as Rockefeller's campaign office manager for Seattle? Dynzmoar (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

He was a politically active, attractive and well-spoken young Republican supporter who had some college education and the charisma to disarm the doubts of people around him. It wasn't until later that people began to doubt him. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Years active

In the introductory paragraph, it says that Bundy was active from 1974-1978. However, in the known victims section near the end, he is said to have had his first victim in 1973. Also, Rule's The Stranger Beside Me mentions that Kathy Devine and Brenda Baker were murdered by Bundy in 1973. Should this be fixed? GSMR (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are a couple things to consider. The 1974-1978 time frame is there because the spree he went on is confirmed for that time period. He claimed to have killed someone in 1973 as a part of a final attempt to stave off the death sentence, but that was not confirmed. The same is true for Ann Rule's claim, she also claims he may have killed up to 100, but no other biographers or authorities have supported her claim. I think one must remember that Rule was tangentially involved in this and may not have a neutral perspective. That's why everything that is included in the article from Rule is also supported by other writers. That grain of salt sort of thing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes they were legitimate edits!

User:II MusLiM HyBRiD II's word for word removal is unexplained, and the edit summary indicates that vandalism was being reverting, while is not! User:Wildhartlivie fixed it, thanks. Bluptr (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think in good faith, he honestly didn't realize they were legitimate. He patrols recent changes and I suspect that when he saw a large addition to a serial killer article that was about pornography, he didn't realize Bundy did talk about it. It's all good now. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk)

Yes, I later realized ( after talking here ) that it was a good faith revert, what you say is true. :) thanks. Bluptr (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a the ref where this information is taken esp. the quote if you would. Yes, this is a legimate part but I would like to see a better reference. As a matter of fact, a lot of the refs are 'note' type, would someone explain to me why the refs just point back to the article or am I missing something because I am tired? --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The refs are to published books, which are cited fully below in the Bibliography section. Most of what you'll find online about Bundy is a regurgitation what is found in these books. You can find the quotes you're asking about here, just scroll down to page 160. Hope that helps. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting way Judge Ed Cowart put it

"It is ordered that you be put to death by a current of electricity, that current be passed through your body until you are dead. Take care of yourself, young man. I say that to you sincerely; take care of yourself, please. It is an utter tragedy for this court to see such a total waste of humanity as I've experienced in this courtroom. You're a bright young man. You'd have made a good lawyer, and I would have loved to have you practice in front of me, but you went another way, partner. Take care of yourself. I don't feel any animosity toward you. I want you to know that. Once again, take care of yourself," as the article says. In essence: "I sentence you to die, so take care of yourself, and I'm not your enemy." LOL and no further comment. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Two photos

There are two more pictures I'd like to put in this article. I'd like to have that picture of the murder tools that they took from his car in 1975, and I'd like to have a picture of his Volkswagen. What do we think? Is there a fair use rational we can use to load one of those pictures to Wikipedia, or are we out of luck? Vidor (talk)

It's probably touchy and it depends on the source of the images. We did manage to keep the images of weapons used by Charles Whitman. If the article discusses the Volkswagen, and I admit I didn't look before I say this, then I think fair-use can be made. On another point, I noted that someone had nominated the article as a good article, but I left my comment on the nomination page that I don't think the article is quite ready for GA review. There are still unsourced facts and some uncited quotes. I think it could reach that with a little work, but not yet. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions the Volkswagen multiple times. I pose the question now because I get tired of dealing with image fascists and I don't want to create an image unless we know we can keep it. The photo of the murder kit presumably was taken by the police department. Is there any kind of rationale for using a police evidence photo? Vidor (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I'm aware of is that a government entity other than federal needs to have fair use rationale and isn't public domain in most cases. As long as both of these are provided, I'm not thinking that a challenge would stand. We recently had issues over similar images in Charles Whitman, as I said, but they survived. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the two photos would be useful to the article and would say so if anyone would fight to have them removed. As long as they fall under the fair use rules here to be used, which I have to be honest, I don't understand all of them and what qualifies as not allowed in some of the reasonings. But if fair use is followed, I would support the additions. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the Whitman article and almost all of those images are nominated for deletion. Bummer. Vidor (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

They had been nominated for deletion but survived the deletion discussion. The only ones deleted were copies of published material (newspaper and a magazine cover). Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Vidor, to use the photos, why dont you try writing to the concerned guys? At least for me a news agency responded when I wanted to use a pic related to a terrorist, but I was out of luck because they asked to contact reuters again... try getting their permission and tell them that its for wikipedia, they will mostly allow. Then you can fwd the mail to the OTRS department and use it. All the best. Bluptr (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Salt Lake City police department? I guess that's possible. Vidor (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be great, but in the meanwhile, you can certainly craft a workable fair use rationale. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of GAN

This article is being removed from WP:GAN because one of the main contributors (User:Wildhartlivie) to the article disagrees with the nomination. Please discuss what needs to be changed and fixed in the article before renomination. Thanks. Nikki♥311 19:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I feel that its better to withdraw the nomination, the lead needs to be expanded, and several refs needs to be added. Bluptr (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The article was submitted for GAN by a well-meaning, newer editor who hadn't broached it here. It simply isn't ready for that sort of review. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

James Thurston?

None of the books or documentaries or biographies I have read about Bundy mention that he ever used the alias James Thurston. I challenge its appearance in "Aliases" on the infobox. Find a reference, please. GSMR (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Lynette Culver

I've been wondering about this for a while, and I finally deleted it. Where did the details regarding the Culver murder--took her to a Holiday Inn, drowned her in a bathtub--come from? It seems like a departure from Bundy's M.O., to take one of his victims to a hotel where he would have been seen with her. (Unless he knocked her unconscious beforehand? And if he did that, did he just pull her out of the car and carry her into the room?) I have read all the books listed in the "Further reading" section at the end of this article and the only thing I've ever read about the Culver murder is that Bundy was not a suspect until his 1989 confessions. Nothing about the details of the crime. Anybody know anything about this? Vidor (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to pull out my books and have a look-see. It's not a name that is familiar to me either. I'll do this tomorrow. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the name I know. The story as recounted in the books was that Idaho detectives were called to debrief Bundy, and he told them that he kidnapped a little girl from a junior high school on May 6, 1975, and the cops were able to match that with the disappearance of Lynette Culver. So the name I know. What I wonder about is the bit which I just deleted from the article about taking her to a Holiday Inn and drowning her in the bathtub. Don't remember reading that anywhere. Vidor (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I found out the answer. I got hold of a paperback copy of "The Only Living Witness" from the early 90s, printed by Signet, and it includes in the 1989 afterword the bit about Bundy taking Culver to a Holiday Inn and drowning her. The 1999 Authorlink paperback was edited for length and that bit got cut out. Vidor (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Images

I see the Bundy mug shot photo was removed. The Wikipedia entry for the Florida Photographic Collection specifically states that the Florida Archives have given permission for use of the images on the project. I am going to load all of the photos from the Florida Memory Project onto Wikimedia Commons in accordance with this, and in addition to the items that are already there. Vidor (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Utah/UPS law school

Aside from the basic etiquette suggested on the talk page, I'm not totally sure about how to go about making a criticism, so bear with me please. I'm a little confused about the dates assigned to Bundy's education. It's clear that the "Lenz"/Healy attacks/murders occurred in early 74, but the article states that Bundy dropped out of Utah law school in spring of 1974. In fact, Bundy had enrolled again in the University of Puget Sound law school in fall of '73, where he had been an undergraduate half a decade earlier. Before he dropped out in '74, he had applied for, and gained admission to the University of Utah school of law. By the fall he had left Washington for Utah. This seems like an oversight, as it would have been unlikely for Bundy to carry out the murders while at law school in Utah. I can find a source for this if people need one.

As a further point of interest, I'm not sure how he did at Utah law, but it seems likely that he did well enough to continue towards the degree.

This is a really nice article. Very helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.173.195 (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• This appears to be a simple mistake; probably somebody mistakenly changed that at some point but I don't feel like hunting for it. I have changed the article to indicate that it was UPS, not Utah, that Bundy was attending 1973-74. However it should be noted that in fact he DID continue killing while attending Utah law 1974-75. As for how he did, the sources are vague, but all state that he did pretty poorly. I remember reading somewhere that he nearly got expelled at Utah and had to talk a professor into letting him continue to attend, but I can't remember where I read that. AFAIK he did complete the first year there and was set to start the second year when he was arrested. I don't think he attended any classes after his August '75 arrest but again I can't confirm that. Vidor (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Parentage/Father

The article says "...Bundy's mother would later tell of being seduced by a war veteran named "Jack Worthington". Bundy's family did not believe this story, however, and expressed suspicion about Louise's violent, abusive father, Samuel Cowell. To avoid social stigma, Bundy's maternal grandparents, Samuel and Eleanor Cowell, claimed him as their son. "

This seems to be suggesting, on the one hand that Bundy's grandfather was also in reality his father, and that this same grandfather pretended ("claimed") that Ted Bundy was his son. I think that if credance is to be given to the former "suspicion," then the "To avoid social stigma" should be prefixed by something, like "Whatever the truth of Bundy's parentage," because otherwise the "claim" (i.e. a falsity) and the "suspicion" (i.e. according to some it was actually true) are mutually contradictory. I am going to add this to the article.--Timtak (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Psychopathy

Why is there no mention in the article of Ted Bundy as a psychopath? There is mention of manic depression, but not psychopathy or antisocial personality disorder.

As far as I'm aware, the consensus amongst psychologists today is that Bundy was a psychopath - he exhibited many of the characteristics contained in the PCL-R - even if he wasn't explicitly diagnosed as such during his life. Perhaps it's worth adding a comment from a contemporary expert on the matter? I've only found media interviews with psychologists and criminologists about Bundy and psychopathy, but someone else might have access to more authoritative information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tczuel (talk • contribs) 05:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Primarily because he wasn't diagnosed as such then, and we don't generally diagnose in articles. It certainly would be acceptable for a well-sourced comment by a recognized authority, but really, isn't it quite apparent as it is? He was a serial killer who played the legal system for years. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of any contemporary source that officially diagnosed Ted Bundy as a "psychopath" or deemed him to be an antisocial personality. I agree that it should be pretty self-evident, what with him killing thirty women and all, but I don't know if anyone who talked to him in his lifetime actually made that diagnosis. Dr. Tanay interviewed him around the time of the Chi Omega trials and talked about his delusion of grandeur; Dr. Lewis interviewed him on death row and made the diagnoses mentioned in the "Pathology" section. We probably shouldn't fill up the article with second-hand diagnoses from people who never talked to Bundy. Everybody and his uncle could make a diagnosis, and who's to say what should go in and not go in if we decide to start doing that? Vidor (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Bundy can be fairly said to be a psychopath. Several evaluators concluded that he was a psychopath while he was alive, including an expert for the defense, Dr. Emanuel Tanay, who testified that his psychopathy and antisocial personality were such that it caused him to interfere with his own defense and rendered him incompetent. Dr. Tanay's deposition can be found at http://www.skcentral.com/articles.php?article_id=24 . Dr. Hervey Cleckly, author of the seminal work on psychopathy "The Mask of Sanity," gave similar testimony but concluded that he was competent to stand trial (see http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1873&dat=19790612&id=MFEfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9dEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2564,4921909 ). Also, Dr. Robert Hare, arguably the world's leading current authority on psychopathy, lists him as an example of a prototypical psychopath in "Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of The Psychopaths Among Us." (p. 4). Pravnik (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ice Cream?

The last line of the first paragraph of University Years seems to be a joke? "Invented the ice cream cone and raped ice creams" Not funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.233.106 (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, someone stuck that in a few minutes before you removed it. Thanks for doing that. However, it isn't necessary to post a note on the talk page when someone vandalizes the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

co-ed

This may be petty, but I dislike the repeated use of "co-ed" to refer to Bundy's victims. It's a dated and rather silly word that makes the article sound like a letter to Playboy from the 1960s. We don't have a special word for male college students. Why not just call Bundy's victims "young women" or "female college students"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.10.56 (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I have made the change in two instances, replacing the word with "student". 84.203.42.163 (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Lousy sentance

He described the Issaquah crime scene (where Janice Ott, Denise Naslund, and Georgeann Hawkins had been left) and it was almost like he was just there. Like he was seeing everything. He was infatuated with the idea because he spent so much time there. He is just totally consumed with murder all the time.[90] 150.203.110.137 (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, it's a quote. We don't fix syntax and grammar in quotes. Whatever lousy "sentance" the person spoke is what is written. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Bundy's Media Influence

Although The Silence of the Lambs chartacter Buffalo Bill is mainly based off Ed Gein some pieces were also taken from Bundy's killing style such as using fake handicaps to lure in his victims. 70.190.169.178 (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)KMKRUSE

And? We don't have this sort of listing in the article, only direct film depictions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Joni Lenz"

I totally agree that the real-life name of the pseudonym-victim, Joni Lenz, need not be "outed" here. Anyone have any other thoughts? -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We have a responsibility on Wikipedia to protect the privacy of persons whose identity has not been made public, especially when that person has already been the victim of a crime but for whom, his or her identity has not been released. In this case, the person known as "Joni Lenz" is presumably a living person who would otherwise be a low profile person. The tale of Ted Bundy is not enhanced in any way by giving this woman's real name. WP:BLPNAME is clear on this: Consider carefully whether significant value is added to an article by including the names of private, living individuals such as family members of the subject of a biographical article. There is a presumption against using the names of such individuals, even if the names have already appeared in the media. "Joni Lenz" would fall under this guideline, and we have an editorial presumption to protect her privacy. It is a gross invasion of her privacy to start including what someone believes is her name 30 years later. And for the record, I would fight tooth and nail to keep her name out of the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In film

Should it not be mentioned that the handsome, smart and arrogant Volkswagen driving serial killer in Charles Bronson film "10 to midnight" is based on Ted Bundy? (Wikipedia incorrectly states that the killer is based on ugly stupid mass murderer Richard Speck) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. The film section is reserved only for films directly about Bundy and not tangential trivia that has nothing to add to the actual biography. But thanks for your assessment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what it says in wikipedia article about killer Ed Gein:

"Impact on popular culture

Gein influenced the nature of book and film characters, such as fictional serial killers Norman Bates (Psycho), Leatherface (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre), and Buffalo Bill (The Silence of the Lambs).[27] The book American Psycho contains several references to Ed Gein, as does the film based on that book.

Gein's influence is seen in musical groups drawing inspiration from his crimes. A number of band names have been derived from Gein, including one named Ed Gein. Gidget Gein, a former bassist for the band Marilyn Manson, derived his stage name from Ed Gein (and Franzie "Gidget" Hofer)." Perhaps we should change "in film" to "in popular culture" ? What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And if you notice, there is no long listing of "mentions" in otherwise non-relevant media, except to list (and cite) the notable fictional characters related to Gein, and how his name was cobbed off by a member of Marilyn Manson's band. It still isn't a list of every time he gets mentioned, for instance, on The Simpsons. A lot of effort has gone into avoiding the sorts of listings you'd like to start and is in no way supported by WP:CRIME. Your suggestion still does not relate. It doesn't even clearly say that the car in a small Charles Bronson film was inspired by Bundy anywhere notable and it simply is ... trivia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole "in film" section is trivia! So i dont see anything wrong with adding many many more links to it. Ted Bundy is without a doubt the most popular serial killer in popular culture but i would like to hear what you others have to say before i add the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:CRIME determined a long time ago that articles under its provenance would limit the mention in films, etc., to only those that are specifically about the article subject or which relate specifically to them in some meaningful way. Consensus is squarely against your "adding many many more links" to this section. Historically accurate and relevant film projects are already included. Is there some reason why this article would allow an IP editor to make additions against the project consensus? I don't personally think so, but we certainly can trot them all in here to comment against the addition of specious instances where something "might" be inspired by something else or South Park or The Simpsons finally got around to mentioning Bundy. To avoid that each time, that's why the project main page mentions removing all extraneous mentions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"which relate specifically to them in some meaningful way"

Ok, in that case documentary THE KILLING OF AMERICA (1982) (Which doesnt even have a Wikipedia article) but you can find it on www.imdb.com/search (then enter title) fills all criteria s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It is trivial and definitely not needed to add links to other subjects that may have snagged the name or possibly incorporated some of the Bundy's behaviors. This was discussed many times, see the crime project as stated above or the archives. This article is long enough that it doesn't need fillers to extend the length. So no to the "many many more links to it." Trivia like you are suggesting has been decided long ago not to be added to articles. That some still may have only means no ones gotten around to removing them yet. Please do not add any trivia to the article. Also, the documentary you talk about, I haven't gone to it yet but if it's notable and has references and it is directly commenting about Ted Bundy then show us what you have so that we can discuss it. I would prefer a link myself as typing right now is a bit hard for me, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"I haven't gone to it yet but if it's notable and has references and it is directly commenting about Ted Bundy then show us what you have so that we can discuss it." Documentary THE KILLING OF AMERICA definitely directly comments on Ted Bundy as an entire chapter in it is about Ted Bundy up up to the media circus in Florida and conviction. You can see it on youtube. 91.150.21.45 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)JustcallmeChris

See the comments below from Moonriddengirl at Judges comments about why youtube is not an acceptable reliable sourec. The other link you were talking about would you mind putting the whole link to where it is stated? I must have missed what you are talking about. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that the entire thing is about so called "Copyright violation" but the Judges comments are there word for word in the youtube video but youtube cant be used as a reliable source because it may be "copyright violation"?! WTF? I see it completely opposite, a youtube video is much more reliable than most things written here on WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that the film in the YouTube video is copyrighted and improperly posted on YouTube. That is the copyright violation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And what you dont seem to understand are the words "fair use" which documentary film maker Kirby Dick used in his documentary "This film has not yet been rated"!

The truth is, no one here really knows for certain whether or not the presence of the documentary on YouTube is a copyright violation - saying it is definitely a violation is pure speculation. It was decided by consensus, however, that it would be better to err on the side of caution and reference the existence of the video instead. If you feel strongly that the video should be linked from the article, however, you are free to properly investigate whether or not the inclusion of the video at YouTube is or isn't a copyright violation. If it isn't a coypright violation, you can certainly bring the proof here and reinclude the video link as a reference. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Its "fair use" the copyright act of 1976 section 107 clearly says that films/clips can be used! Here it is word for word: Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use." 91.150.21.45 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)JustcallmeChris

Regardless, and I do understand fair use, I have an email response from the person whose channel this YouTube clip comes from, who states he does not own the documentary or was not connected in any way with the documentary from which the judge's speech is taken. That is a copyright violation. Period. It was further determined to be a copyright violation by the person who is most knowledgable about violations on Wikipedia, it wasn't by consensus, it was by opinion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose you would be willing to provide that email as irrefutable evidence, would you? Since there are several of us in on this discussion, I think it would be appropriate to share the email so all of those concerned about this issue can see it. It would also settle the matter for once and for all. And, actually, one person's opinion without hard facts (like the email you have in your possession) is still just an opinion - no matter how knowledgeable someone is in a particular area. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not inclined to share my e-mail address with you or anyone else here. As far as I'm concerned, the matter was settled when Moonriddengirl gave her considered opinion regarding this YouTube posting, I object to the use of it as a source, CrohnieGal accepted Moonriddengirl's opinion on it and as far as I'm concerned, it's a closed matter. Feel free to take this to WP:RS/N and ask about the suitability of use for the YouTube posting, however. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking you to share your email address (I would never ask such a thing in a public, online forum), I was asking you to reproduce the email here for us to view. But I'm curious, if, as you state above, you feel the matter was settled with Moodriddengirl's opinion (and it was just an opinion and not a fact based on actual investigation), then why did you bring up the email you say you received "from the person whose channel this YouTube clip comes from"? Nevertheless, if you're still not comforable with releasing the email (and I really don't understand why you wouldn't be, considering you were the one who brought its existence as evidence in this matter to our attention), I will go ahead and contact the YouTube individual myself and then post whatever email response I get, here. Thanks, anyway. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you asked me to share the e-mail, which you would have challenged so that I would be obligated to post the header and all identifying information. I'm not inclined to satisfy your curiosity, however. Contact the YouTube channel owner, he's been warned. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did ask you to share the email - and that's all I asked you to share - and no, I wouldn't have challenged anything if you had shared the email without the headers. Producing the email would have been enough, as I stated above, to settle the matter of copyright certainty. I'm not sure why you're so suspicious of my motives, but I would certainly rather see a move toward working in good faith, here. I'm not going away from the article (it's been on my watchlist for quite some time and will remain there) and I don't imagine you will be leaving this article either, so it would be a good idea for us to start working together and exercising good faith, don't you think? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid we can't post any e-mail here unless the correspondent explicitly agrees to that, as e-mail is also copyrighted (cf. arbitration decision 12/2007). It doesn't seem to be necessary, however. Under the circumstances, there is good reason to suppose that the youtube video is unauthorized, and even a letter saying that it was would only be considered usable by the Wikimedia Foundation if it could be clearly connected to the copyright holder. (The Wikimedia Foundation is fairly firm on that, as I know in my working with permission letters sent to OTRS.) All evidence is that this is a WP:LINKVIO, and the link is furthermore unnecessary. If the documentary meets WP:RS, then reference to it is sufficient. If the documentary doesn't, then the link to it is immaterial. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) Thank you again for helping us all out with this. I really appreciate the help. Does anyone have a link to the documentary that doesn't go to the youtube site? I did a search this morning for it but I couldn't find any. The IMDb I looked at but I could find the judges words in it which is what we are trying to get right and document. Help finding it would really be appreciated. Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The judge's words are the judge's words no matter if you find it on IMDB, YouTube, or the moon. Forget YouTube. Cowart's words are documented as a matter of public record because it was a court proceeding. His words also happen to be documented in the documentary, the documentary was not done illegally, so the documentary *is* a valid source for reference. I don't mean to sound rude here, but I seriously don't understand why no one is getting this... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Judge's comments

I reverted that because it is sourced to a copyrighted production hosted on YouTube. It didn't have anything to do with whether it was right or wrong and in fact, I didn't look at the clip. We shouldn't be linking to copyright violations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If the YouTube video is a copyright violation, I can understand why Wikipedia shouldn't link to it. You admit you didn't look at the video, however, so how can you know for certain whether or not it's a copyright violation? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The link is to a user page on YouTube that has broken up the entire broadcast into a number of postings. One does not have to listen to a video clip from a copyrighted work to know the posting is a copyright violation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...and if the posting of the videos has been done by the documentarian himself...? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If the posting is done on an official YouTube channel, it is likely all right, but in this case, the channel isn't official and the documentary wasn't done by "Channelbelongs2Scott". The directors are Sheldon Renan and Leonard Schrader and the writers are Chieko Schrader and Leonard Schrader. For example, the David Letterman show has an official channel. However, there is almost 100% likelihood that a generally accepted reliable source will be available to source anything that might be in a YouTube posting. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad you finally did some investigation this time, rather than just reverting without looking first. Which brings up something else, what do we do about the incorrect quoted text from Judge Cowell (the video refutes what is currently there, doesn't it)? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the video says, It takes far too much time to wait for a 1/2 hour video to download on dial-up. I left the quote change but it still needs sourced and will be marked thusly. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That quote that is now added is from one of the movies about Ted Bundy. I'm not sure which one off the top of my head but I am possitive it was a movie comment. I have a few books about Bundy by crime writers. I'll see if I can find what the judge said in them. I don't think a youtube link is a [[WP:RS|reliable source to use for this type of article. Thoughts, anyone else remember the Ted Bundy movies. I know of three of them. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There has been no comments to mine which I think is important. There is no citation from where this quote is supposed to have come from. I would appreciate it if the editor or someone put up a citation for it because I searched yesterday for about an hour and I couldn't find the judges comments. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked in my book and found the passage in Ann Rules, A stranger beside me, page 394. The quote from this book goes;

• “It is ordered that you be put to death by a current of electricity, that that current be passed through your body until you are dead. Take care of yourself, young man. I say that to you sincerely; take care of yourself. It’s a tragedy for this court to see such a total waste of humanity that I’ve experienced in this courtroom. You’re a bright young man. You’d have made a good lawyer, and I’d have loved to have you practice in front of me—but you went another way, partner. Take care of yourself. I don’t have any animosity to you. I want you to know that. “ If this is wanted in the article,then this is the exact wording I found. I would also like to note that Bundy says thank you a couple of times during this. Hope this helps, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If this, indeed, is the exact quote from the judge, then it needs to replace what's already there. I just did a side-by-side check one against the other, and there are some differences. So, here's what I propose - if you're up to it - watch the youtube video of the judge addressing Bundy and compare the Ann Rule version against the video. Make the changes (if necessary) as you listen/watch the video, then cut and paste the video version transcript where the current version is. I'd do it myself, but I have to go to work. Thanks! --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The comments that the judge delivered should get an entire chapter for itself. Watch video on youtube! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Watching the video isn't feasible for all editors on Wikipedia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't go to You Tube sites. My computer has sites like this blocked plus You tube sites aren't for the most part considered reliable sources for this type of article. That being said, what I put up there about what the judge said I typed directly from the book for about thirty minute. Typing is difficult for me at this time. That is why I put the page number and the name of the book etc. so it can be verified by anyone in doubt of the wording. I take the book by Ann Rule more seriously than others because of her personal connection to Bundy. She was most definitely involved emotionally and started out with disbelief. I will put the text in the article, or others can, through cut/paste when it is agreed that this is the correct text and if it should be in the article in full like this. I personally have no problems with it going in as is but I may be missing something in policy about this so I will defer further until I hear from others who are knowledgable with policy and the crime project's handling of this sort of material. Sorry, my focus is seriously off right now do to RL medical needs. But I again will say that I typed that in verbatim minus twice when Bundy softly said thank you sir. I can add this to the above if you would all like to see the full context of what was said. It's not long at all. Oh and to the IP, it would be too much undo weight to give this a whole section imho. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Went to the YouTube video, copied the text verbatim, added references (both the youtube video and Ann Rule). Done. -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And again, the link to the YouTube video is a copyright violation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't know that - you're making a guess that it's a copyright violation. Even if it is (and there is nothing solid indicating it is), it's not Wikipedia's problem, it's YouTube's problem, isn't it? YouTube goes through their downloads all the time, eliminating videos that are copyright violations. I'd like to hear from some other editors on this. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is a problem for Wikipedia. You've made it abundantly clear you don't trust my judgment on this. I've given you my considered opinion on the link and gave the reasons why I believe it is a copyright violation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say I've made it "abundantly clear", but you're right, I don't completely trust your judgement on this. Once again, it's not a clear copyright violation because you have no proof it is a copyright violation (and since you are the one who is insisting it is, the onus is on you to *prove* it is). I think, however, that I do have a solution to this, and will provide a link to another reference that should satisfy all. -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a copyright violation to me, and it violates WP:ELNEVER as well. LaVidaLoca (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELNEVER says "Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If you know that an external website is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright." I'd be wary of WP:3RR too if I were you, you've reverted edits 4 times on this article today. LaVidaLoca (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS/N has 33 separate discussions about IMDB. It is not considered a reliable source for content, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Is IMDb a reliable source?. The Ann Rule book is sufficient sourcing for this. LaVidaLoca (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because it's being discussed doesn't make it an unreliable source. As one poster stated, it's good for credits - and that's all we need. The fact is, the documentary was made, Cowart's statement was included (you can't deny he said what he said, because it's there in the documentary) and that's all it's being used for as a reference. The problem here is that the verbiage in the statement Cowart made was written incorrectly here until I changed it today after watching the video. Since you insist the YouTube video of the documentary is a copyright violation, it has to be referenced somehow. The verbiage in the Rule book isn't exactly correct, either - what is on the video *is*, but is missing some of the elements included in the Rule version - exactly why I included the Rule reference. There's nothing wrong with IMDB being a reference in this instance - there's nothing supposed here that's being referenced, nothing added by a reader/editor, just the fact that Cowart's words are included in the documentary. And if 3RR works against me, it will also work against you in this case, ergo, I'd recommend you don't revert it back again. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, now Moonriddengirl is considered an expert in the copyright areas. I have asked her opinion on this matter so please lets not revert anymore until we hear something. Here is the link where I asked just now. As to using the two different refs I see that the quote is not exactly like I wrote above. Did you mix the two references to make that quote? We can't do that kind of thing which is why I ask. Also, I couldn't find in that other ref the judges comments can you point me in the right direction? I hit links on the site twice I believe but I couldn't come to that passage which if the ref is going to be used it should be on the ref when it is clicked, not having the reader try to hunt it down like this. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The only copyright issue I see her is the link to the youtube video. I agree that this link is a WP:LINKVIO issue and so unusable. I'm not sure how the reliability of IMDb enters here. The documentary is the source. Wikipedia doesn't care where editors saw the documentary; if it meets WP:V, it serves all by itself. But the IMDb link is unnecessary. What's needed here is {{Cite video}}. (ETA: I agree that you can't mix quotes. The thing to do is to footnote the Rule differences, but indicate that the documentary includes primary footage.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone taken care of what Moonriddengirl says above that needs to be done with the quote? Was the words a mixture of Ann Rule and also what part of the youtube showing? Since the youtube isn't allowed under reliable sources and copyright, it can't be used for the judges words. I looked at the citation given and I couldn't find the quote, or any quote for that matter about what the judge had said. We really need to get this part resolve due to BLP issues it can cause. Thanks again Moonriddengirl for coming here to help. Thanks everybody for co-operating. If it is from the youtube and not the citation given, or this isn't addressed in a reasonable amount of time due to WP:BLP issues, than I will copy/paste what I put above and use Ann Rule's quote of what the judge said. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the quoted words are a combination of the Rule "quote" and the actual (but slightly edited) words of the judge on the video. The Rule wording (as you edited it a couple of days ago) is not completely accurate when you read it in comparison with the judges actual statement as recorded on the video. I don't believe, however, that the combination of the two is in actuality a "synthesis" as defined by Wikipedia. The Rule version is not completely accurate, the video version obviously is - because of a voice over and editing out of the first few words in the video, however, not all of the words are heard. I still believe it is wrong to include - in total - a quote that is not accurate (the Rule version) because it is not honest to do so. Any thoughts? Suggestions as to how this can be remedied? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is synthesis according to policy. Ann Rule had the transcripts, she went to court, she was very active in this one because of her personal knowledge of Bundy. From what you description there's voice over, and editing out of the first few words. So how do we know, as you say, that the video is reliable. This is also a reason youtube isn't reliable other than just copyright problems. The only way to use that video is to find actual Cite video. That is stated above by Moonriddengirl. If not we can put Ann Rule's up or just get rid of the complete quote of the judge, which is what I personally lean towards. Hope that helps some,--CrohnieGal^Talk 19:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's not synthesis according to what the policy states. The policy states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The Rule version is explicit (except for a few errors) and the actual words of Cowart are explicit. Regardless, how can the video *not* be accurate? You see Judge Cowart speaking and you hear the exact words he is speaking. The voice-over is momentary, stating that Bundy's mother was in the courtroom at the time the sentence was pronounced. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The primary issue with the quote is Wikipedia:Non-free content, which indicates that non-free content must be reproduced verbatim, with any alterations clearly indicated. If the quote favored is the transcript of the judge's actual words, then those words and those words only should be included in the quote per policy. It is perfectly appropriate to note, as in footnote, that Rule reports differences. Alternatively, if the Rule quote is favored, it can be appropriate to indicate how the transcript differs. It isn't appropriate to blend the two because our policies on use of copyrighted material forbid it. Depending on how important the differences, it's also possible to divide the material and introduce it appropriately within the body of the article, for instance, "In documentary footage, the trial judge said blah blah. Ann Rule reports he also said blah." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The link to the video isn't being used any longer, so that's essentially a non-issue as far as the link itself. It is good to know, however, what the real reason for not using the two blended together in Wikipedia is (as you have described above), rather than seeing other editors pull reasons out of a hat and trying to make them fit so the blended version won't be used. While I am a big Ann Rule fan (and have even met and spoke to her on several occasions), I don't think it's right to have her version of Cowart's words there alone. It's inaccurate and dishonest. Thanks for your input, Mooriddengirl. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Again thanks, so if we are going to quote the judge we need the real documentary or transcripts of the documentary or the court case, not the youtube words. So how about we try a straw poll to see what version is preferred? We could also do an RFC but I've never done one before so... :) Does this sound fair and a good way to proceed? --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm clear, the words a user has transcribed from viewing the youtube snippet should be usable. It simply must be sourced to the documentary itself if used. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My take on what Moonriddengirl has said is that if we are going to use the documentary for what the judge said then we need the sources from the original documentary or a transcript of what the judge said. Not the parsing of words heard on the youtube video which has been established, in my humble opinion, as violations. So to answer your question, no, transcribing the words from youtube is wrong. We need another source other than youtube. I would prefer to see the dif here with it having the judges quote in the ref. As I said before, the ref there now I couldn't locate the judges closing comments. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

How is transcribing the exact words from what someone said that is on a profesionally produced video of what occurred in a courtroom "wrong"? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying further, the purpose of WP:LINKVIO is to avoid contributory infringement for the Wikimedia Foundation. Even if the user transcribing the text sees it illegally on Youtube, it doesn't create contributory infringement issues for Wikimedia. Transcribing words from illegally hosted material on Youtube may be morally wrong, but it is not wrong in the sense that it is forbidden by WP:C, which makes it a matter of consensus. :) From a copyright standpoint, the citation (and the compliance with WP:NFC, in brevity and accuracy) is all that matters here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What??? How is writing down/typing out what is said on a video one is viewing "morally wrong"? How in the world does morality play into this? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

First, I said "may" be. I didn't say that I think it is; my personal opinion is immaterial on that. :) I'm a bit surprised, though, that you seem so unfamiliar with the very idea. While some people compare illegal access to copyrighted material to a form of theft, others find that analogy flawed. Nevertheless, such illicit use is often described as "piracy", both in and out of the courtroom. Many people focus on the deprivation of income caused by copyright infringement--whether that be income to the copyright holders, who may deprived of sales, or income to rental outlets, who legitimately purchased the content and offer it for a usage fee (which may in turn cause deprivation of income to copyright holders, as rental outlets may not purchase content which is illegally viewable for free). When we access material made available to us illegally, we are profiting from a crime, and this is true whether individuals regard it as a victimless crime or not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And what about Fair Use? That doesn't apply here? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if you are confusing the question of transcribing a quote from the documentary and the moral question of viewing the illegally hosted documentary in the first place. Fair use is a matter of law, and it isn't at all concerned with morality. For example, many people regard plagiarism as immoral, even if the material plagiarized is public domain. Copyright law doesn't care what you do with public domain material; it's entirely a legal concept. So is fair use.

As I've indicated above, WP:LINKVIO exists to protect Wikipedia from the legal issue of contributory infringement. Wikipedia does not, so far as I know, have any policy on the morality of accessing illegally hosted material elsewhere. It isn't Wikipedia's responsibility to make sure that users access the sources they cite legally.

Morality, of course, is a highly individualized concept. Person A may not feel viewing pirated video is immoral at all, while Person B may think it always is. Meanwhile, Person C might think it's perfectly fine to view it for a good reason--maybe an individualized notion of "fair use" divorced from copyright law and applied to personal motivations. So far as I know, the Wikimedia Foundation stays away from morality based questions unless it has to take a stance. We routinely get letters complaining about the depiction of Muhammad, for instance, but this has been left to community consensus. Community consensus can shape moral-based guidelines and policies, such as Wikipedia:Plagiarism and (to an extent) Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons (which goes beyond the legal necessities to avoid libel into compassionate reasons such as protecting privacy of minors), but I'm inclined to think that those would generally have practical purposes as well. With plagiarism, for instance, it helps protect the project's reputation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent reverts

I have no clue why one editor has chosen to revert every edit I have made on this article, but it appears to stem from the copyright violation issue, wherein she stated above that she didn't trust my word on this. I have posted to that talk page, asking the editor to stop reverting every edit I make on this article, which brought the response of removing my request and no answer. Today, she has reverted changes of wording of "Currently no evidence indicates when or where Bundy began killing people." in support of an IP edit of "No one knows exactly where or when Bundy began killing people." I objected because she cannot say that with any authority, so she changed it to "No one in law enforcement knows exactly where or when Bundy began killing." without providing supporting evidence to that effect. I changed it to "No evidence currently suggests when or where Bundy began killing people." If she changes it again, I will take this to WP:3O and further up the dispute mediation chain. I have worked on this article for a long time and do not expect to be dismissed and challenged at every step I take concerning the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My reverts of your reverts have nothing to do with anything other than you seem to revert practically everything anyone tries to edit in this article. I think you are being too heavy-handed and are not allowing others to edit this article - I don't know if it's because you feel some kind of ownership over the article or what, but one should never be afraid to let other edits happen - especially if they are decent edits. I have also worked on this article at length (I believe I started editing this article before you ever did, in fact), but I am not opposed to others editing and bettering it. What's more, your edits frequently have no explanation with them. It's very off-putting to someone who is new either to Wikipedia or the article itself to have their edits immediately reverted, especially if there's not explanation as to why. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The previous statment, "there is no evidence" is not accurate - as Wilhartlivie pointed out, Bundy could have told his lawyer, his wife or someone else who isn't talking about when he actually started killing. If law enforcement knew exactly when he started killing, they would have made it public - as it is, they have an approximate date of when he started killing. Changing the statement to "no one in law enforcement knows" makes more sense and is actually more accurate. It should stay that way, IMO. As far as the syntax of the sentence, a flow is always preferable over choppy stops and starts. Also, Rule and Keppel *are* Bundy experts, the quotes around "Bundy experts" should be removed. I'm not interested in an edit war, I'm interested in the accuracy of the article. Above are my reasons behind the revert and I believe them to be reasonable and in the best interest of the article and Wikipedia. I edit for no other reason. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed on the reverts of anonymous edits with no explanation. That was a bad call. Disagreed, though, that the best way to handle that is to revert again. It's better to talk to the user who made the revert instead. I've made some changes that I think are better than either of the two warred-over versions. If anyone has any issue with it, please describe them here, rather than reverting yet again. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 03:57, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, read this after I changed what you edited. Problem is, Rule and Keppell are really the only Bundy experts who have publically stated that they believe he killed Burr when he was 14 years old. Evidence points the other direction, and it is really improbable that Bundy killed her (he lived clear across town on the other side of the freeway from her and he was only 14 without transportation to get him there in the middle of the night). Sentence has been changed accordingly. Thanks for your input, Equazcion. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Removing the dubious and weaselly "some say this" while leaving the facts is a good call. Our opinions on where the evidence points is pretty irrelevant here though. We just report on what other people think. I'm not sure why you removed "(who investigated the 1974 Washington disappearances)" though. Equazcion (talk) 04:10, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because Keppell is well quoted and noted in the entire article, it seemed to me that mentioning what his role was in the Bundy investigation was redundant and unneccessary. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This mention, though, is the first time his name is mentioned in the article. It might be prudent to explain his significance. Equazcion (talk) 04:27, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

That is something only you can know, SkagitRiverQueen, but I note you charged right in to change something other editors did, as well. I would comment that the ownership charge is something that gets trotted out far too often around here, especially for someone who is pointedly reverting everything that one editor in particular has done. I note you didn't succeed on the copyright battle, and I would tend to support the position that all of your battling has been since that point and you have pointedly misstated where sources originated (re: the Rule book and what the judge allegedly said according to her). What's more, you've violated WP:3RR after receiving a warning and have been reported for that. LaVidaLoca (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks, unfounded accusations, and lack of good faith noted, Loca. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Skag, you did violate 3RR here, and you need to be careful about that in the future. Equazcion (talk) 04:13, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...kinda don't think so (at least in my understanding) since my reverts also included edits to try and compromise and improve - they weren't just across the board reverts, IOW. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I made no personal attacks here, I commented on what I've observed. However, I did report you for WP:3RR violations with the diffs that support it. In fact, you reverted 4 times, 5 if you are counting the changes to Equazcion's edit. LaVidaLoca (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The reverted versions not being exactly the same doesn't mean 3RR wasn't violated. It's better to start a discussion following one or two reverts, rather than continuing to revert. Equazcion (talk) 04:22, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

And I note that the other editor started a discussion thread here as soon as this started. LaVidaLoca (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I should have known better than to edit the article prior to checking the talk page. I put a template at the new wording since it is a statement of fact and so it needs a citation showing what is stated. I did not change anything at all and I only added the template. In my humble opinion, I personally think the way it was worded originally was generic and a good lead into the list of victims. I will not under any circumstances edit war over it. I really do think though that it should be returned to the original wording. I also would like to request that the accusations like ownership issues needs difs supplied or a redactions should be made so it follows good faith and no personal attacks. Please everyone, I think the editors on this talk page are here to make good faith edits to improve the article. We can't do that if battles like this continue. Let's improve the article together and I guess maybe any major changes should be brought to this talk page first to see what others think of the change(s). I think this way would help prevent bad faith assumptions and the edit warring. Thanks for listening. Thanks for joining here Equazcion, the more the merrier, with helping this article's editing get back to productive. Happy editing everyone, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The way it was worded previously to the current version was a use of weasel words. The way it is now is clearer and is just a good lead-in, if not better.

I made no accusations, I gave a supposition as to why Wildhartlivie seems to revert everything anyone who is new to editing the article changes. An accusation would have read, "you think you have ownership of the article". And as far as personal attacks and lack of good faith goes, you might want to address those concerns correctly to Wildhartlivie and LaVidaLoca, not me. That being said, it is my opinion that Wildhartlivie is being way too heavy-handed with this article. Good edits are almost invariably reverted - and he/she even stated frustration with, "I have worked on this article for a long time and do not expect to be dismissed and challenged at every step I take concerning the article." My first reaction to that kind of sentiment in Wikipedia is, "So what?" It doesn't matter how long someone has worked on an article (and I believe *my* first edits on it were either in 2006 or 2007), what matters is that everyone who makes good faith edits is allowed to make contributions and changes - that's one of the things Wikipedia is about (look at the Five Pillars). But reverting without even so much as an explanation (and Wildhartlivie has done this innumerable times) is not only frowned upon, it's just plain rude and off-putting to those who might want to edit here. I don't edit or revert for any reason other than the good of the article and the good of Wikipedia - and I certainly don't revert or edit because I've worked on this (or any) article for a long time and can't stand to be challenged on my edits. That kind of attitude just goes against the spirit of Wikipedia editing. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. All of that might ring true if you hadn't just tried to get me in 3RR trouble here, Skag. While you're at it, perhaps you could address the page number requested on the synthesis you came up with for the judge's statement, which I have tagged as synthesis as you admitted above. Talk about bad faith and making unfounded accusations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look back and see who it really was who "tried to get [you] in 3RR trouble", because it wasn't me, it was another editor - will you be heading off to violate Wikipedia's personal attacks and civility standards with him, too? You obviously want a fight, Wildhartlivie - but guess what? I'm not interested. It's unproductive, immature behavior and just not worth it. Why not just try to get along, stop taking everything so personally, and let it all go? Isn't that a healthier alternative?

--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No one has made personal attacks against you, Skag, although I admit it is tempting. No one has been incivil to you. You began a fight when you challenged my comments on copyright violations, which, by the way, were upheld. I don't want a fight, however, I won't stand by and allow you to try and drag me into your bad faith edit warring and commentary. I'm not fighting here, your comments on the other hand, take that tone. I wasn't requested to stop editing here as you were. Is that a personal attack? Is that incivil? By your standards it is. Please come up with the page number for your synthesis mess on the main page here and stop trying to pick a fight. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I see this talk page has been eventful in my absence. Anyway--the remark from Judge Cowart is quite famous and attested to in a number of sources. I have sourced it to the version of Ann Rule's book that I used when originally documenting this article some time ago. I don't see any value in citing TV videos as sources. Vidor (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, Vidor (and hello, BTW - we have crossed paths before a couple of years ago on this talk page ;-), that what's in Rule's book isn't word-for-word what Cowart actually said. I've viewed the video and heard/saw what he said. While the book's version is close, it's not 100% correct. That's why the references currently are for both sources. Any thoughts, suggestions? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get too involved in this. The last time I contested something on this page, I ended up having my entire Christmas holiday ruined by a specious, unfounded sock puppet accusation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My thought/suggestion is to never use a video as a source, and to leave the quote as it's sourced in "the Stranger Beside Me" (or possibly "The Only Living Witness"), unless one can find an actual court transcript. Vidor (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would you want to have the only reference be an incorrect reference? The documentary video of Cowart's sentencing of Bundy is actual - other than in a few places where what he says is slightly unintelligible and where there is a momentary voice-over, the video is spot on and the fact is - it differs slightly from Rule's wording. It's not a homemade video, it's actual courtroom video that was included in the documentary. I still don't get why this is such an issue for some of you. To me, it's a no-brainer: you use what's correct rather than what's not. You don't quote something that's not the actual quote (ala the "quote" from Rule's book). This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are supposed to provide factual information, are they not? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Vidor, in that any printed quote holds far greater weight than a video source, and must be used by rule. However, if someone could get the clip of Cowart reading his verdict (which we've all seen) into the article (like an audio clip), that would be amazingly cool, wouldn't it? Wishful thinking, for now... Doc9871 (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

See above. As far as the video being linked to, it was already tried and that's where the feathers started getting majorly ruffled. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I notice, in reviewing this section and the one above, that only one very, very determined user seems to believe that citing a video as a reference is a sound practice, and that every other person who's weighed in here agrees that citing a video is not desirable. Vidor (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's not mischaracterize here - it's not a "video" that's being referenced, it's a documentary that included actual footage of the court proceedings and Cowart's words to Bundy being said directly to him in the courtroom. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Judge's words

How about we see what everyone thinks about the Ann Rule book verses the video. Welcome back Vidor. I think the best we can do right now is see if there is a consensus for a preferred version here. I definitely do not like mixing the two references as that is considered synthesis. Vidor, if it gets decided to use the book would you recheck your page number please. I have a different page number so I am curious if we have different publications dates that changed the page number, thanks. I thought this would be a good idea to do since I too am seeing everyone going for the printed version vs. the video. I think it's time to see if there is a consensus for one or the other instead of the reverting that's been happening. Time to get closure one way or the other on this. I already said why I don't think it's a good idea to use both. Thanks everyone, and Happy New Year, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am clarifying in the interest of fair disclosure that we are not talking about a "video" but an actual documentary that includes archive footage from the Bundy sentencing hearing with Cowart speaking directly to Bundy. There's no doubt as to what was said when you view the video and the actual words Cowart spoke are *not* the same as the Rule version. The Rule version is not an exact quote but a slight paraphrase. IMDB has the documentary listed as a documentary[1] - we are not talking about a homemade YouTube video anymore. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If for Ann Rules book, list your name here;

• Support the books version. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Don't like citing videos as sources. Books are freely available; videos are not. As for the page number, I am going with the paperback copy of "The Stranger Beside Me" that I used to footnote this article way, way back when, when I first came to it and found it in pretty poor shape. Follow the ISBN to Google Books and do a word search for "partner". I'll check my paperback later. Vidor (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If for appropriate transcript source, list your name here:

• I believe that a transcript must exist somewhere that covers the judge's actual words without relying on Ann Rule OR the documentary and should thusly be used when found. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think it would be great to locate the actual transcripts to use for the sources of the judge's words. I have thought about this for a while now and a question, do we really need to pull out the judges words on this? Does it enhance the article? I'm not sure it does. The article is long enough so we don't need to add undue items here. I am really starting to lean on the facts that this really isn't all that important for the article. Thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be fine with 1) finding an actual court transcript on the Internet or 2) cutting out the quote, as you suggest. Hate, hate, hate the idea of using obscure videos as references. Vidor (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• An official transcript or recording is the best source. Perhaps WikiProject Resource Exchange can help. momoricks 01:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The video from the movie documentary here;

• Support both versions (if possible) if not, then Support the documentary version. My reason is because of verifiability. The docmentary verifies that the Rule version of the "quote" is an erroneous quote. Moreover, electronic media is an acceptible source according to WP:V..."The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria." --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support at the very least the audio clip of Cowart reading his verdict; the video clip would be best if it could be introduced. I support both these versions over the Rule quotes, as they are factually recorded and verifiable historic court documents. Rule's transcripts are second best to these, but they back things up in general. Keep the Ann Rule quotes; and get the better sources in to better support them, I say... Doc9871 (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to keep asking but would one of you please give a direct link to the documentary? When I asked on my talk page for this I was told to look at the youtube video for the judge's words. Since we all know the youtube is not acceptable as a ref. and you want the documentary used please put the link here so that others may see this documentary. Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh...there never has been a direct link to the documentary other than the YouTube video (as I already explained a few days ago). Are you asking to look at the YouTube video of the documentary now? Or...? --SkagitRiverQueen 16:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be hard headed here, really I'm sorry. But you put a ref into the article saying it was a documentary and not the youtube video. Great, I wanted to see the video of this documentary so I could give an honest opinion on it and/or change my ideas about the documentary or the Ann Rule book. Now times passes and I'm told that it is after all the same youtube video that was said not to be allowed because of copyright problems. What am I missing in all of this? Is there a different dif for a documentary or not? I finally got to see the youtube video and it doesn't cut it since it is choppy in the beginning plus it's not a reliable source. At least the book can have a real ref with the real words to it. I think maybe instead of all this back and forth why don't we just drop the judge's words completely from the article since it really doesn't add anything to what Ted Bundy did as a serial killer. Maybe it's just too much undue weight for this. Thanks,--CrohnieGal^Talk 17:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're intentionally being obtuse or what... Anyway, unless you purchase the DVD or VHS tape of the documentary, you can't see the documentary outside of YouTube. If you want the link to the YouTube video of the documentary, I will be happy to provide it - included the exact spot on the YouTube video where Cowart addresses Bundy at his sentencing. Other than you wanting to see the video to make a decision (which is interesting, because a couple of weeks ago you couldn't be bothered to see it and smugly stated that you don't watch things on YouTube), I don't see how being able to see the video matters. There are references on Wikipedia for publications and books and other media (including electronic media) which are valid references and aren't available on the internet. Just because something's not available on the web, that doesn't make it a non-reliable source. But, at the risk of repeating myself ad-nauseum, why anyone would want to include a "quote" that isn't the exact quote is dishonest and irresponsible. IMO, this thing has become more about some people being right and proving me wrong than responsible editing (and I already know that those of you who have been working against me on this issue will deny that's the case, but...whatever). As far as the video being "choppy in the beginning"...I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, exactly...<shrug> --SkagitRiverQueen 18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Skag, please contain your protestations and spoutings of delusions of persecution for somewhere else. No one has worked against you. On the other hand, you did manage to file specious sock puppet accusations against me and work diligently to undermine comments by others. I suppose you have never alienated people and been in disputes before (although the reason you filed the sock case - the posts to your talk page and the page that was deleted speak against that) but contrary to your rather paranoid statements, people just don't care that much about you to try and "bring you down". Stop talking down to people and assuming bad faith at every turn you make and these feelings will go away. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion for several weeks but haven't had the time to jump in until now with the holidays and such. The Killing of America is legitimately available for viewing in its entirety via this link on Veoh.com. It requires that you download the Veoh web video player, which may be a hinderance if you don't have high-speed internet. I watched 57 minutes of it yesterday (it runs 90 minutes) but haven't reached the Bundy portion because all the death talk got a bit overwhelming; however, I did watch the YouTube clip.

I suggest that interested editors watch the Veoh version because the audio of the YouTube version is extremely poor. If you don't want to watch the entire thing (although I suggest you do if you have the time and interest; it's pretty compelling), the Bundy clip will be somewhere in the last half hour or so. I'll try to finish watching it today and post the exact location (in minutes) of the clip.

Perhaps several editors can watch the clip and agree upon a transcribed quote. This seems like the next best option in lieu of the official court transcript, which I couldn't find online. I hope this helps. momoricks 01:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a tough call. I've seen the clip of Cowart at least on an A&E documentary, well before I'd ever heard of YouTube (which we all know we can't use). Obviously, there is an official court video that exists, as well as an official court transcript; but I don't know how to get to it, either. Until an acceptable (i.e. not YouTube) video or audio clip can be found, Rule's quote will have to do, as it's certainly an informative part of the article. Where there's a will, there's a way... Doc9871 (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain to me why the Rule version is preferable over the documentary. The documentary exists, it gives Cowart's words as Cowart said them (minus a few small portions) - it's not as if there is a question to the documentary's existence, after all. As I have stated previously, not every reference cited in Wikipedia has to be viewable and found on the web, does it? -SkagitRiverQueen 07:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Rule's version is certainly not preferable to the documentary; but we can't find the documentary as of yet. I really think it's not a "documentary" per se, but official court footage used in documentaries. Another printed source besides Rule (esp. a court transcript) wouldn't have to be displayable on the web, just properly cited. I know they used to offer (for a fee) transcripts from the A&E program "Biography", which is where I'm pretty sure I saw the clip for the first time (over 10 years ago). Another source like this, maybe? Doc9871 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: I also thought (but not sure) I read the quote in Time-Life Books (1992). Serial killers. Time-Life Books. ISBN 0783500009, but it's been years and the book is nowhere near me atm. Anyone have a copy? Doc9871 (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have the Time Life books and there isn't a quote from the judge in the section on Bundy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Liv. I realized after I suggested it that the quote (if it existed) in Time Life would have been probably been based on Rule's book anyway (D'oh!) :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain to me why the Rule version is preferable over the documentary This has been explained to you many, many times, in small words. YouTube is not a reliable source, and the documentary is not readily available elsewhere. Anyway, I've decided to take the quote out. As noted above, it doesn't add a tremendous amount to the article, ambiguity as to the precise verbiage has been raised, and it appears impossible at this time to resolve the ambiguity with a reliable, easily accessible source. So it's gone. Vidor (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

<sigh> YouTube isn't the issue any longer and hasn't been for a while now. Why you all keep referring back to YouTube is beyond me. Since when do references need to be "readily available" on the internet in order for them to be valid references? --SkagitRiverQueen 08:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about reverting this right now, but I think removing it entirely may be a bit too "hasty". It's certainly notable (I mean, knowing what kind of man Bundy was, the judge who upheld his death sentence actually praises him? Calls him, 'Partner'?), and at least Rule is citable (if not "100% accurate" - I'd rather see it in from Rule than out entirely). It is not something that is warranted for deletion from the article. Anyone else? Doc9871 (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Scrapping it altogether is too hasty. Video of the documentary *is* available and since when does a source need to be "readily available" on the internet in order for it to be a valid reference? --SkagitRiverQueen 08:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the quote should be included in the article. The problem with the courtroom clip in the documentary is that Cowart's statement is incomplete. The narrator talks over portions of it, making an accurate transcription impossible. Unless someone can get their hands on a copy of the official courtroom transcript or an unedited audio/video recording of Cowart's statement, the quote from Rule's book should be used. momoricks 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I suggested long ago that both are used as references. If you include the Rule "quote" (actually a paraphrase of the actual quote), then you are including a quote that is incorrect. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that contains facts - well...why would we include something we already know isn't factual? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This would all be very convincing if Skagit could produce a reliable, verifiable source. Since she has completely failed to do so, I think we can ignore the protestations above. Vidor (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Reliable, verifiable source" for what? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For the "documentary". We cannot use YouTube, and there's no argument there. As momo pointed out, the other documentary's audio is inadequate for citation. I seriously disagree that a "paraphrase" of a quote makes a quotation "incorrect", as there are long-established reasons for paraphrasing, and while "spin-doctoring" can occur, I don't think it is in this case. We don't have the written court transcript. Ann Rule's book is the only "reliable, verifiable" source we have, and it is not "displayable on the web" on a page-by-page basis. I really don't understand why there is still an issue here, or why the quote is still absent from the article... Doc9871 (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay...no one has yet answered this question I have asked nearly a half-dozen times (are you game to try, Doc?) Where is it stated anywhere within Wikipedia that "reliable" and "verifiable" equates "found on the web"? The documentary clearly exists, it's even still available at Amazon.com (albeit as a DVD that will only play in Australian DVD players and on used copied of VHS video tape). It's available for viewing (which is what I did a couple of weeks ago and compare the Rule version side-by-side with the documentary's inclusion of Cowart's statement. Information for the documentary is found both on Amazon.com and IMDB - I tried using IMDB as a source for the documentary, and it was reverted with the claim that IMDB is not considered a valid source in Wikipedia (first I'd ever heard of that). Yes - the perfect answer would be the court transcript. But...I really don't see how that will be "verifiable" (from what seems to be the general view here because it's not available on the web it's not valid - isn't that the reason why the documentary is being ruled out by practically everyone?) In that sense, the documentary and the transcript are no different as unseen, inaccessible sources. So...after reading all of this - can someone...anyone...give me an answer to the above question? Please...I'm getting tired of repeating myself and getting no answers whatsoever. Look folks - I'm not going away - I've contributed considerably over the years to this article (probably longer than the majority of you who are currently editing it) and feel I deserve an answer. But, more importantly, editing the encyclopedia correctly and responsibly is what really matters her. That's all I really want to do. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It does not have to be "available on the web" to be "valid"!!! A quote from a printed book is not "available on the web", correct? Second part of WP:RS introduction states: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." So... it actually is conceivable to properly source it your documentary, and sources do not have to be accessible via the internet. Doc9871 (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing with both of the above: Sources do not have to be online for us to use them. Many of the best sources are not on the Internet. If a diligent researcher can track in down and verify it, then it counts. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! Finally, an answer! Hallelujah (and thank you, Doc)! -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Most edit conflicts among dedicated editors are usually based on a simple misunderstanding, and it's good to look at things neutrally when this happens in order to solve it (at least for now hehee). Happy editing! Doc9871 (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone in this conversation know how to track down an actual court transcript? Aren't these things public record? Just contact the courts in the appropriate state, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Heck, every image in the articles' got tags about Florida's archives! I might have to make a phone call tomorrow... Doc9871 (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you run into static, let me know. Maybe I can help track it down. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, GTBacchus! I know the only way to do it is over the phone, connecting to a "supervisor"; then explaining the purpose of the transcript request, and paying the (probably not terribly substantial) fees for them. If there's money to be had, I'll bet the State of Florida will happily provide the documents... Doc9871 (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks to both of you. I hope you don't get tangled in any red tape, Doc. ;) momoricks 08:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Red tape dealing with the bureaucracy? Pish-posh ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a long, tiresome, pointless discussion. The problems with using a non-verifiable, non-authoritative source such as a video that apparently only Skagit has ever seen are obvious. Use the Rule quote, find an official transcript, or leave the quote out of the article. Vidor (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The documentary is verifiable and, so far, the most authoritative. I'm not the only one who has seen it. The Rule quote is not verbatim, ergo, it is an innaccurate source. If the quote stays, then taking the easy way out is certainly more convenient, but it is not preferable. I, for one, am glad that Doc is taking the extra mile here (as I did when I took the time to compare the Rule version against Cowart's actual words as shown in the documentary side-by-side). Good for Doc - he's doing what Wikipedians should do. -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The problem with the documentary, as stated by User:Momoricks is that parts of what the judge says is not at all clear due to the narrator talking over Judge Cowell's words. Momorick's makes it clear above that what the judge says can't be heard. As for this documentary not being online but still usable, this is a part of policy that I admit I have a problem understanding. We are supposed to be able verify references but if most here can't and/or haven't seen the video, then how can anyone else confirm what is being said? As I said, I am terribly confused about not being able to see something. I know assume good faith should be followed but there is also verifying so how does someone verify something that cannot be seen? I would also like to say that just because Ann Rule paraphrased what the judge said doesn't make that useless or untrue to the article. The difference from the book and what was written from the video, there were only a few words that were different if I recall correctly. The main things that are said to be of interest was how the judge liked Bundy's abilities and calling him partner were still seen in Rule's words. If someone does manage to get the transcripts, would they be able to put that on the talk page? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the Rule version of Cowart's words being different from what the judge actually said is that they are wrong. Plain and simple. A quote can't be called a quote if it's wrong. So...either the transcript needs to be obtained or footage of Cowart addressing Bundy found from another source so that the everything he said to Bundy at his sentencing can be reproduced here as an actual, and correct, quote from Cowart. If neither is possible, then the quote needs to be scrapped. It's not appropriate to have a "quote" that isn't an exact quote in an encyclopedia - no matter *what* Rule's book states. Even with small portions of the documentary's sentencing statement unintelligible, I was still able to ascertain that the Rule version varied enough from the real version that it should not be the only thing used, nor the only reference.

Look, it's things like the Cowart quote being referenced while incorrect that is the impetus for Wikipedia not being taken seriously as a real source for information itself. College professors don't accept Wikipedia as a reliable source because of stuff lke this. It's time to get it right - and this is a good place to start. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Crohnie. The "documentary" is a poor source, it seems, as well as inaccessible. As for why Wikipedia is not taken seriously as a real source--it isn't taken seriously as a real source because there is no peer review from people with credentials in the relevant field. Any idiot can edit. I love Wikipedia, and I care about Wikipedia, but if I were a teacher and someone used Wikipedia as a source their paper would get an automatic F. Pretty sure "doesn't allow cites from YouTube" is not why Wikipedia lacks real credibility. Vidor (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody should ever take Wikipedia - or any encyclopedia - seriously as a "real source". Any professor allowing it should be fired for failing to teach proper research methods. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources that are great starting points for research, but are not stand-alone sources. We don't want students citing us. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. That is why I believe that if we are going to use the judge's words than using Ann Rule's book is perfectly fine to show how the judge seemed to actually like the good in Bundy but not the bad behavior in him. I think if I remember correctly, the judge shocked a lot of people with his final words to Bundy. So I have mixed feeling as to whether his words should be shown or not. It adds a little in the fact that an evil person like Bundy could actually get a response like what happened from the judge was not normal for a judge to do at all. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Murder kit photo

An individual is trying to delete the picture of Bundy's murder kit on the grounds that it is possible to substitute a free equivalent. This strikes me as plainly ridiculous. It isn't as if the contents of Bundy's bag are on display in a museum. Any help those active on this talk page can provide in keeping the photo would be appreciated. Vidor (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I must have missed this. I will try to also keep an eye out so that the photo stays as it's helpful in my opinion for the article. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

USER: ROCKWING IS STILL TRYING TO DELETE THIS PHOTO. I urge all readers who care about this article, even those I've disagreed with, to pitch in on the photo's talk page and make their voice heard. Sorry for the CAPS but I'm trying to draw attention to this. Vidor (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please supply a dif to the discussion. The photo talk page is empty so I don't see where the discussion is located at. I might have missed it though, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nwever mind found it and commentted. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Survivor's section?

After removing Lentz as from the victim section and being reverted, Doc good revert thanks, I blew it. :) Now we don't have a surviviors section but maybe we should since Doc is correct that four survivers are known. The way the Lentz one reads now, it sounds like she is a death victim so I fear that more good faith errors like mine will occur again. So, I thought if maybe a surviver's section would be warrented since there are more than one who survived. Thoughts please, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There are five known survivors--"Lenz", Carol DaRonch, and the three young women who survived the night of Chi Omega (Chandler, Kleiner, and Thomas). That said, I'm not sure we need a survivor section, since in the list they are all marked as survivors. Vidor (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Keep" on murder kit photo

Verdict on murder kit photo was to keep. Thanks to all the users who commented on the photo's talk page in support of keeping it. Vidor (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And then some admin "twinkles" their way into deleting it after all. After all that discussion: the photo is gone. Nice... Doc9871 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Burgular tools image restored

The administrator that deleted it has restored it. Vidor he said some sourcing problems were needed to be fixed at the image so I'm going to let you do it because I don't know what is needed and you do. The image is now restored to the article too. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Per the note on the page for the original photo, I resized it to something pretty close to half the original size. Here is the new, smaller photo, at full size. Thoughts? Shall I make the switch? Vidor (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Image:Ted Bundy murder kit.JPG

Good work, thanks Vidor. Instead of the huge picture taking up space, how about just a link? After looking at the images on the article, I think all of them should be resized smaller, thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the sizes are fine. Most of them are licensed from the Florida State Archives. Shouldn't resize an image if you don't have to. Vidor (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

New, smaller image now in article. Vidor (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone believe the site would benefit from having the current picture (May 2005) of Bundy's murder kit? It is the same one taken in my home and appears in my book, is displayed at Executed Today, and I know it has been "pirated" by other sites as well. I don't care either way if it is used, but if it is of interest to those who do the bulk of the work here, then I would grant the use of it.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)