Talk:Ted Bundy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Psychopathology

Uhh. So... is he a psychopath? I've read the articles on Psychopathy, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Hare Psychopathy Checklist, etc. And even though colloquially, his name is a synonym for "psychopath", I'm not entirely sure, at least from reading this article, that he meets the criteria. Obviously he was a sociopath, for he was a violent serial killer. And he was manipulative and superficially charming, which is characteristic of psychopathy.

But sections of this article seem to suggest that he because a serial killer because of his break up. Like, he loved someone so much that losing her made him evil. I would object to such a stance, of course, but is there any evidence to support that hypothesis? It would rely on the assumption that he could love, or at least be affected by the loss or departure of a "loved" one. And if he were a psychopath, wouldn't he simply calculate whether he needed Stephanie Brooks, and if he concluded that he did, manipulate her to stay? The "Pathology" section cites one source who says Bundy was a manic depressive whose crimes usually occurred during his depressive episodes. How much merit is there to this assessment? And would that diagnosis rule out psychopathy or is there co-morbidity? Additionally, nowhere in the article is there a claim of sadism, does that mean that he was sanguinary not because he derived pleasure from women's pain but for a different reason?

I know Wikipedia is about quotation, not original research, so I'm not asking for breaking news or new info; I'm simply curious as to whether more information can be found regarding the subject: Is there a consensus on his motivations and psychopathology?

Also, how has public perception of his life and his crimes changed over time? This article would benefit from answering those questions, I think. In the "Conviction and Execution" section, it's stated that "writing in 1992, Ressler said of Bundy that 'This guy was an animal, and it amazed me that the media seemed unable to understand that'" Does this mean that at the time there was sympathy for Bundy in the media? Is there sympathy today?

Well, I hope someone reads my rant. I guess in a nutshell I'm just saying, "WTF, I'm even more confused now." --Plavalagunanbanshee (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Criminal Justice Today; an Introductory Text for the 21st Century, by Frank Schmallger, published by Pearson, a sociopath is simply a different name for a psychopath. They are defined as a person whose defining characteristic is the inability to accurately imagine how others think and feel. So, sure he may have gotten hurt from the break up or damaged from his addiction to porn. However, the fact that he didn't care nor feel for his victims proves him to be a psychopath/sociopath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.16.41 (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I know this thread is a bit old, but since an editor (and then his sockpuppet) recently tried to restore the "psychopath" reference, I feel obliged to comment -- "psychopath" is a once-legitimate medical term that is no longer used by professionals because it became an epithet in the lay world. (Other examples are "moron", "imbecile", and "idiot.") "Sociopath" is rapidly evolving in the same direction -- the current preferred term is "antisocial personality disorder." The psychopathology of serial killers remains as difficult to pin down as ever, although most agree that the vast majority are not psychotics -- who by definition cannot tell right from wrong. Most have one or more personality disorders -- which means (among other things) that they do know right from wrong, but don't care -- and they are far more dangerous than psychotics for many reasons, not least of which is there is no effective treatment for their mental illness. Bundy's most common diagnosis, in the literature I've read so far, is a potpourri of personality disorders -- the usual mix is narcissistic, antisocial, and borderline. My own strong opinion is that narcissistic PD, all by itself, fits him to a "T" -- but until I can find a reference to that effect in a reliable source, I obviously can't put it in the article. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Hi all, just a quick question. In the lead in the third paragraph is this sentence; The victim, once near or inside his rusty, light-bronze Volkswagen Beetle, would be overpowered, bludgeoned, sexually assaulted, and strangled, then transported to a secondary site (often a significant distance away) and dumped. I have a problem with this sentence because it sounds as if he did these things to all of his victims which he didn't. My problem is I can think of anything to correct it the way I want it to be. ;) The only thing I can think of is an and/or at the last and which of course won't do. It could be that I'm just not awake enough yet so I'll try to come back here and see if I can look at this again. But I'd be open to ideas too. Be well all, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC) just want to say the work done of late has been great though less reliance on Rule for sources should be attempted though I too love her work, I have to get her rewrite.

If memory serves, that paragraph starts with "typically", which is intended to communicate that the described behavior was typical, not invariable. But if you see a better way to word it once you've had some coffee, feel free to suggest changes. As for sources, if the article looks a bit Rule top-heavy at the moment, it may be because Rule's book was the first one I read in its entirety. By the time we get done I'm sure the half-dozen or so principal references will be equally represented -- but the article is still very much a work in progress. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reworked the lead a bit -- let me know what you think. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the long delay but it looks good now. The sentence I questioned is gone but that's ok and better I think. I just broke down a sentence that was too long in the second paragraph of the lead, let me know what you think too, of course this is to anyone.  :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not happy about the last sentence of the lead. The quote about "the media seemed unable to understand" does not relate to any of the material in the body of the article so it should probably not be in the lead. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Various edits

Hi there. It's been a while since I've been to this article and I saw that it's gotten a bit messy, so I cleaned it up. I removed a fair amount of pointless natter, including various opinions by Ann Rule, irrelevant details of the relationship between Bundy and Kloepfer, and nattering about the psychology of serial killers in general. I also took out at least three factual errors: the assertion that the plea bargain in Florida came during the trial (it was before), the assertion that Levy and Bowman were roommates (they weren't), and the assertion that Boone only left Florida and Bundy when he started confessing at the end (she left in 1986). Vidor (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what working as a team is all about. Glad to see you're back in the fray: I feel that DoctorJoeE has done an excellent job at expanding the article; and you've been editing it for a very long time. I will caution you on this: you have removed a lot of legitimately referenced material, and just because you don't like some of the changes is not going to advance this article to the next level, which is the goal. Consensus is what's important. Try to drop in more often, will you? I assure you there will be some more discussion here. Cheers... Doc talk 03:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, just because something is strongly referenced doesn't mean it is useful for the article. Ann Rule's comment about how her dog didn't like Bundy is solidly referenced to The Stranger Beside Me, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to the article, so I deleted it. Ditto the bit from Rule's book about the psychic, which really isn't useful at all. And not all of it was reliably sourced--namely, the bit about the daughter and the link to the Serial Killers gallery and the Polaroid of Ted, Carole, and the little girl. I've seen that picture and it certainly LOOKS like Ted and Carole, and I for one believe that it's genuine, but AFAIK it's never been reliably sourced. I have never seen that picture in any of the Bundy biographies or any website that one might regard as a reliable source (like the Crime Library). And in any case, even if the picture was reliably sourced, the degree to which a toddler resembled Ted Bundy isn't of relevance to the article. Carole said the girl was Ted's baby, Ted believed it was his baby, and that's all we need to know. (It does make one wonder where that little girl is now, almost 29 years old, and whether or not she even knows who her father was.) I'd support adding the picture itself to the article if we could reliably source it and figure out some kind of appropriate license (fair use?). And speaking of pictures, I'm not sure how useful the sentencing document is. It's interesting, but does it clutter up the article? Ditto the picture of the Pitkin County Courthouse--I took that picture myself and added it to the article but now that I look at it I wonder if it should go. Vidor (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

We need to get the article past "B" class. And we might need more than the three of us to do it. We all need to discuss major changes here, as this article has a number of references that far exceeds your average "GA" or "FA" joke of an article. Doc talk 04:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Several points -- A majority of sources say Boone left Florida shortly before the execution, not in 1986. I will see if I can resolve this. Yes, Levy & Bowman were not roommates, my bad. Most other edits appear to be reversions to previous (usually wrong) info, and involved substantial removal of sourced content, so those have been reverted. Please get consensus before removing sourced content. The astrology thing was true, but I have to concede it's largely irrelevant, so out it goes. As for GA or FA status, I've frankly given up on that; what's the point? Most articles with those designations, frankly, suck. I recently spent a good deal of time restoring D.B. Cooper to FA standards, and already it's starting to deteriorate again. I say, make the article as good as possible, and leave it alone -- because many reviewers have their heads up their keesters, and most GA/FA reviews result in articles being made worse, not better. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This article should be the epitome of a FA. It's a highly notable subject, it's got a gazillion references and daily hits, and it's got at least three editors working hard to improve/preserve it. All other articles should be judged against this one by the time it's through. We need to work together, and there's no reason we can't compromise to make this continue to get better. I agree with your assessment of the article reviewing process, but screw them. I am very pleased with both DoctorJoeE's recent improvements and with Vidor's long-standing commitment and valuable additions to the article, and we can build this to one of the best articles on this damned site. Let's keep moving forward. Vidor, it's your turn to discuss the recent changes. Doc talk 12:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've figured out the Boone problem -- in essence, we were both right. DoctorJoeE (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need for "get consensus before removing sourced content", to be honest. If something is boring it is boring, and if something is pointless it is pointless, and that's true whether it's sourced or not. I can find a good source giving the names and the birthdates of all of Ted's siblings. That wouldn't make the article better. And if it's going to be FA status, it needs to focus on the relevant details of Ted Bundy's life and crimes. So Elizabeth Kloepfer visited him in the Utah jail. True. Verifiable. Sourced. Who cares? The article needs to focus on Bundy and his crimes. We don't need to say that Liz thought they were both alcoholics, general theorizing about the nature of sociopaths should be in the article on sociopaths rather than here, "enrolled" is a better word than "matriculated", etc.

Regarding Carole Ann Boone, the sources appear to disagree. My 2000 Signet paperback edition of "The Stranger Beside Me" specifically says that Boone "never came back" after leaving Florida in 1986. (page 494) On page 532, she further states that "Carole Ann Boone did not visit." Polly Nelson, in her book, says on page 114 that Boone's move back to Washington was "permanent" (page 114). On page 306 she recounts her last conversation with Ted, in which he says he doesn't even think Carole will call. On page 271 she notes that "Neither Carole nor Louise came to Florida for the execution." Nelson, of course, was actually there at the scene. For that matter, I have two editions of "The Only Living Witness", the 1999 version that I originally used when editing and a 1989 paperback that I obtained later. The 1989 paperback honestly is a much better book; it's longer and contains more material, has some pictures, and does not suffer from the printing errors of the ultra-cheapo 1999 edition. The 1989 paperback does not contain the bit about Boone leaving the prison in tears. I think the preponderance of the evidence is that Boone was not there. Can we find any contemporary evidence, like 1989 newspaper articles? Vidor (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I fully understand that there will be differences of opinion, but rules are rules -- you need consensus to remove sourced material. I happen to think it's important, for example, to document that Bundy and Koepfler were alcoholics, because alcohol was an important factor -- Bundy said repeatedly he couldn't have done what he did without it. As for Boone, I have all the books now, but I haven't had time to read everything yet. Here's the quote from Only Living Witness: "Notably absent from the final hours is Bundy's wife and long-time champion, Carole. She left quietly in tears several days earlier, after learning for the first time the extent of her husband's activities." But I think I've demonstrated that when I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong -- so if, upon finishing all the source material, the preponderance of evidence goes the other way, I will make the necessary changes. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any rule that says I can't edit whatever I want. As for alcohol being an important factor, that was already in the article. It already included Ted saying that he drank alcohol to pump himself up, and Carol DaRonch's testimony that she smelled alcohol on Ted's breath. Ted being an alcoholic is of questionable relevance to the article, and Liz being an alcoholic is certainly of no relevance to the article. Not to mention that Liz Kloepfer was a secretary and not qualified to make a diagnosis of alcoholism.

I noted several places in the article where bits from Liz's book had been added in. I got ahold of a library copy of "The Phantom Prince" and read it, and my impression at the time was that there wasn't much in it of use. Most of the more interesting stories Liz tells--Ted throwing her off a dock, Ted threatening to break her neck, Ted having plaster of paris in his room--was covered in other books. The rest of it was tales of a dysfunctional relationship. Other than her account of the letter Ted sent her from jail in Colorado, the one where he talks about people who radiate vulnerability, there wasn't much in that book that was relevant to the article.

We should probably ask ourselves how long this article needs to be. It has grown by 30,000 bytes in 2011, nearly a 50% increase, and I'm not sure how much of that is useful. Vidor (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Vidor. The article is 10,262 words right now and will have to be trimmed to under 10,000. Routine copy edits will get you part of the way there as this process always makes an article smaller. I recommend a GA nomination in the near future. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Liz didn't make the diagnosis, her doctor and counselor did -- guess you didn't read the book very carefully. Plus, you don't need to be a doctor (which I am, by the way) to know that anybody who needs alcohol to do something (for any reason) is an alcoholic. I've already said multiple times that once we get everything in the article that needs to be there, we can then start cutting out the chaff. That's how writing is done. As for a GA nomination, do it if you wish -- I want no part of that nonsense. The little gold star or green plus sign tells me, usually, that the article used to be pretty good. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, and by the way, for what it's worth, nobody suggested nominating this article for anything until I started working on it. I'm just sayin'. DoctorJoeE (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Doctor Joe. I found this sentence to be a bit long, and to contain several unrelated ideas, and to not actually have good "flow":

Eventually he discovered the truth, but how and when is not clear: he told biographers Stephen Michaud and Hugh Aynesworth that one day a cousin called him a "bastard", and then to prove it, showed him a copy of his birth certificate that he had found; but biographer and true crime writer Ann Rule, who knew Bundy personally, believes he did not find unequivocal proof until he tracked down his original birth record in Vermont in 1969, after a traumatic breakup with his college girlfriend.

I realise you are an expert in your field, but I too am a bit of an expert in my field—copy editing. I am stopping now. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, from one standpoint, it's a single though/concept that's best summarized in a single sentence. But I can see your point from an editing standpoint. DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

guess you didn't read the book very carefully It wasn't a very good book. And like I said above, I wasn't reading for details of Ted and Liz's relationship that had no bearing on the crimes. As for Diannaa's quote above, I think it's typical of the wordiness and poor flow that have crept into the article. Vidor (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You're entirely correct, it wasn't a very good book -- which is, obviously, entirely irrelevant from the standpoint of its function in this context, as a first-hand reference. DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it's relevant, because the information it contained was, on the whole, not very interesting. Vidor (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks to Diannaa for seeing what I'm trying to do here--make the article shorter, more relevant, and more readable by excising extraneous material. I think we have everything we need well-sources in at least one of the books in the Bundy canon. Now all the article needs is editing. Vidor (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't have a summary of his women, their influence on him, and his inexplicable influence on them. I think that's important, and could be distilled to a succinct summary. Let me know if you disagree. Also, do you think the victim summary should be a table, rather than a list, as it is now? I could convert it with minimal time/effort. DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me know if you disagree. I do. I don't think the article mentions more than what it had before, re: Liz, "Stephanie" (t/n Diane Edwards), and Carole--Liz called the cops on him, Edwards may have been a motivating factor in his murder spree, and Carole bore him a daughter. That's enough. As for a table--eh, whichever you think looks better. Vidor (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the point I wanted to make in the article is that even after it became obvious that the guy was a total monster, he always had one woman (and one in reserve) completely devoted to him. That's more than a curiosity, it's pathological, and it contributed to the death toll -- Carole Boone funneled him most of the money he needed for his second escape -- had she not done that, Kim Leach and the Chi Omega girls would still be alive. Why was she never charged as an accessory? Nobody has addressed that in the literature, to my knowledge. Tell you what, I'll work up something (I'll keep it brief), and if a consensus feels it doesn't improve the article, out it goes. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

But that's pathological for the women, not for Ted. Carole Boone obviously had some serious issues, but this isn't an article about Carole Boone. Nor is it a thread about sociopathy as a disorder or how sociopaths manipulate people--which is why all the text currently in the article about the nature of sociopathy needs to go, and why I deleted it earlier. And the reason she wasn't charged as an accessory is that it isn't illegal to give a prisoner money. People do it all the time, to spend in the prison canteen and such. Ann Rule gave Ted some pocket money. What would have caused her to be charged as an accessory would be any evidence that she either gave Ted the hacksaw or helped him at any point after his escape from the jail. AFAIK no one ever produced any evidence that Boone was aware that Ted wanted to make a break or helped him to do so, although where he got the hacksaw from remains a mystery. Probably from her, but there's no evidence to that effect. Vidor (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, no. I agree this isn't an article about Carole Boone -- but a hallmark of sociopaths is their manipulativeness (if that's a word), and that IS part of Bundy's story -- why he did what he did is essential to any article about him. I do agree -- and I said it in my last edit summary -- that the "Pathology" section, as it stands, isn't very good (although way better than it used to be), and it will be more accurate & concise in the near future. But we can't leave out the pathology entirely; that would be a major omission, and the first thing any decent reviewer would note. We might (maybe should) leave out further discussion of the women.

BTW, Carole wasn't stupid, she knew damn well what he was going to do with the money -- you don't need $500 to buy cigarettes in the prison canteen. But her proven aiding/abetting took place in Colorado, not Florida (although they found hacksaw blades in Florida too) -- had he somehow beaten the Florida rap and gone back to Colorado to stand trial on the Campbell charges, I'm pretty sure Carole would have faced an accessory indictment.

As an aside, I just read a report by a criminalist who says Bundy's stupidest move was escaping -- the Campbell case against him was weak at best; had he stayed, he probably would have been acquitted in Colorado. No other state had enough evidence to indict, let alone convict, so after doing his time in Utah, he'd have been out. DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes we can leave out the "Pathology" section entirely. And we probably should. I'd like to cut this article by at least 30%. I can't see how Bundy's manipulation of women is relevant to the article. Ted Bundy isn't notable because he manipulated women. He's notable because he killed thirty of them (at least).

You are quite correct about the irrationality of Bundy's escape attempts. In the Campbell murder, really all they had was a hair from the VW that matched Campbell (this b/f the DNA era; at the time hair analysis was not determinative in the way that fingerprint analysis was), gas receipts that placed him in the area, and Bundy's lie about never having been to Colorado to impeach him with. They had a witness who apparently saw Bundy at the Wildwood but she identified the wrong person in court. He stood a pretty good chance of beating the rap. Now this is a part of the article where material about sociopathy might actually be relevant. Among the signs of sociopathy are impulsivity and poor behavorial controls and an inability to understand the consequences of one's actions. That would seem to imply why Ted foolishly escaped twice from prison in Colorado. It also probably explains his suicidally reckless behavior in Florida when he probably could have stayed free indefinitely if he'd found some kind of job and laid low long enough to get a fake ID.

I can't agree that there were any grounds for indicting Boone as an accessory. They simply didn't have any proof that she knew of his escape. We still don't know how much of that $500 she actually gave him. Vidor (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with cutting out the Pathology section or removing the relevance of Bundy's manipulation of women. Completely. He is one of the most notorious serial killers in history, and the fact that he was able to appear "normal" to friends and colleagues and able to manipulate so many women (while savaging complete strangers) is not lost in any of the Bundy biographies. This wasn't David Berkowitz with no friends or girlfriends. We don't need to expand this into a new casefile, but cutting the article by 30% is just not needed. We weren't here a year ago with this article, and I see no need to go so far backwards. The other details can be ironed out, but I would be strongly against the first paragraph of your above post (with much respect). Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 07:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I base the 30% figure on the fact that in just one month, since late March of this year, this article has metastasized from 70,000 bytes to 100,000 bytes. I really don't see how much of this was useful. We don't need to write that Liz visited Ted in prison. Liz thinking Ted was an alcoholic is not relevant and does not make the article better. Information on the general nature of psychopathology belongs in the article on psychopathology, not the article on Ted Bundy. As for his manipulation of women, back before the article grew by 30,000 bytes for no particular reason, it already noted that he dated Liz throughtout his murder spree in Washington and that he got Carole to marry him and bear his child while he was on Death Row. How much more do we need? Vidor (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that "metastasized" is being fair to DoctorJoeE at all. He put a lot of work into it, and it shouldn't be summarily dismissed. He's obviously been willing to work with others on his changes, but to say they should be cut out like a cancer is completely unfair, IMHO. We're going to have to work on this together, and that's the bottom line. Let's move forward, not backward. Nothing that's Most of what's been added has been fully referenced, and nothing has truly detracted from the scope of the article. It needs improvement. So be it. Doc talk 07:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I know he put a lot of work into it, and I know he is editing in good faith, as are we all. Having said that, in all honesty my opinion is that the article as it was at the end of March, 30,000 bytes ago, was better. Again, just because something is referenced doesn't make it useful. There are four general Bundy bios out there (Rule, Michaud/Aynesworth, Larsen, Sullivan) and other books that can be used as sources (Nelson, Keppel, Kendall). We could make this article hugely long if we wanted, unreadably long, and every word of it could be sourced. That said, when I revisited this article a few days ago I only excised about 10,000 bytes of information. Vidor (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't honestly argue with either of you as you've both been too valuable to it. I don't think it was finished before DoctorJoeE arrived here, and I don't think it's finished now. We have to cull what we don't all agree is relevant, and now we've got additional experienced editors involved as a result. Let's just keep adding useful and informative, referenced stuff (or removing it if it's irrelevant) and all try to agree what should stay and what should go. Think of me as Switzerland in this one ;> Doc talk 08:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's my latest edit. 3,000 bytes removed as opposed to 10,000 bytes removed when I visited the article a few days ago. I changed the detail about Carole Ann Boone's departure again. As noted above, while the sources do not agree, at least two out of the three state specifically that she never returned after leaving Florida. One of those two sources is Polly Nelson who was actually there in Bundy's last days. I removed the bit about the photo of Ted, Carole, and the little girl--again, that photo has never been definitively sourced, and even if it were, opinions on how much the little girl resembled Ted are pure speculation. We still don't need to know who was visiting Bundy in the Utah jail. The bit about Rodney Alcala has to go. And I think that both the Robertson and Cooley entries should go under "possible additional victims" because Ted did not confess by name to either of those crimes. Vidor (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You left broken sloppy references & I told you so on your talk page. WTF? Come on, now... Doc talk 08:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The broken reference to the serial killer photo is removed. Any others? Vidor (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it's all good. Let's let DoctorJoeE chime in tomorrow... Doc talk 09:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok if I chime in? :) I think that the article can use some more information. The article isn't that long if you take out the bullet list of the victims and possible victims the article itself is quite short. I'm not sure how I feel about the alcohol or for that matter his claims that porno caused his behavior. A lot of those claims came from him when he was trying to stay out of the death chamber. I think more about this section, him wanting to come clean about more victims etc. when his time finally came for death and he was trying to stay out of there. If memory serves me correctly, he tried to convince everybody and anybody who would listen that he could bring 'peace' to the loved ones of lost people. Of course he didn't give them as much as they wanted but he did give some info to them. I don't know if more about this is in the updated books though. My books are all originals, well original meaning when they first went to paperback. I personally think we should add things in and then later discuss and cut out what is unnecessary or expand on what is good. I think everyone is getting ahead of themselves on this. This is the first time I've seen a lot of editors actually trying to work this article. Oh and for the record, I'd like to see this go GA or better yet FA. The system may have flaws but there are some really good editors who work to help get articles raised that are serious about what they do. So in closing for right now, let's try to fill in some of the holes, and there are holes like Boone who was important to him for a long time. Wasn't she the one who was initially on his legal team which is how they got to know each other to begin with? I haven't read my books for quite some time but I have a few including The Phantom Prince, which I agree was a lousy boring book but if someone needs or wants to check something from it let me know and I'll try to find it. Let's all work together on this and I think we will get a really great article no matter it's rating. Good to see all of you here, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Crohnie. The word-counting tool shows us at about 9800 right now, and so we have room for a little more material, but not much. Clint Eastwood was 13,000 words when the GA review started and it was just under 10,000 when it passed. Cutting out bulleted lists does not matter as they are not included in the word count, but the lists might have to go or be converted to prose (GA criterion). Overall article size affects accessibility. Not everyone is viewing at home or on a high-speed connection; the larger the article, the longer the load times. The Bundy article has great potential to go to GA and FA. The prose is great, criterion 1A is a HUGE stumbling block for most FA hopefuls, but we already got that. What we need to focus on right now is tidying up what we already have and passing GA as a first step. We have two of the books in our collection (I work at the library) so I can help some with sourcing. One is here in town and the other will be sent to me from a neighbouring branch. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I don't agree with this cutting frenzy -- some of the cuts are justified, but you threw out a chunk of the baby with the bathwater, and for what? To get the green plus sign? I fully understand it's not my article, but it's not anybody else's article either. It gets lots of hits, it's in the top 1000 consistently, and I think we have an obligation to make it authoritative, if we're going to bother. And the first question everyone asks is why he did it, so cutting out the pathology section (which was there before I started, I'm just trying to make it accurate) would be a huge mistake. And it has to be accurate. Example: the speculum thing is in Only Living Witness, but is it anywhere else? The only other two sources that mention it at all (that I know of) say he used the same metal bar that he beat her with. Another example: the killing began after Brooks's rejection, which everyone agrees devastated him. So why is the concept of rejection irrelevant to the article? Makes no sense. End of rant, but my own opinion is that the article imparts less information to a reader today than it did yesterday.

I agree with Crohnie that we need to fill in the gaps and THEN start cutting -- which is something I said myself here, less than a week ago. That's how writing is done -- good writing, anyway. And to answer your question, Crohnie, Boone was a co-worker at Washington DES, that's how they met. It's in the article, unless somebody cut that out too, and if so, I'll re-add it right now because it's a crucial point that I will NOT allow to be cut. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

An article of over 100K means long upload times for anyone on dial-up or a hand-held device. The Wikipedia guideline calls for an article size of between 6,000 and 10,000 words of "readable prose". This is not just a GA requirement but a site-wide guideline. Right now we are at around 9300. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Another example: the killing began after Brooks's rejection, which everyone agrees devastated him. So why is the concept of rejection irrelevant to the article? Makes no sense. Well, I'd say the chronology is shaky there. "Brooks"/Edwards dumped him in--what, 1968? I forget. And he did not start killing in earnest until 1974. And for that matter I don't recall anywhere that Ted said Stephanie dumping him led him on a path to murder. I agree that we should have info about Stephanie dumping him. What else do we need? As for the article length, if we want to cut further and we are worried about IMDb as a source, we could simply delete the section about Ted Bundy movies. Vidor (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So I went ahead and deleted it. No "citation needed" and the article is 1400 bytes shorter. Personally I think IMDb should suffice simply to confirm that a movie exists, but I'd rather get rid of the section than have a bunch of "citation needed". Thoughts? Vidor (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

To last point -- I agree completely. I almost deleted it myself a couple of times but thought I might offend somebody, so I'm glad you did it. To the other one, if we're talking about reliable references, I think you'd agree that the least reliable reference was Ted himself. He did deny Brooks's influence, but at that time he was still denying that he had killed anybody. Several experts have written at length about the problems serial killers have with rejection, but since it boils down to opinions, I'll go along with leaving it out. DoctorJoeE (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Claim

Recently the following claim was re-added: "Bundy was superficially handsome, charming, and charismatic, and used these qualities to full advantage." Can this claim be substantiated? Please provide sufficient evidence or an authoritative source that can confirm Bundy (i) possessed these qualities and (ii) used said qualities to full advantage. Otherwise, it just sounds like some random editor's unsubstantiated opinion, in which case it should be deleted from this article. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It's curious that you picked that particular statement to challenge since it's the self-evident lead in virtually every Bundy article ever written. Do others think this observation needs justification? If so I'll add it. 166.137.136.150 (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't skimmed the entire article yet, but just looking through the lead, that particular statement immediately jumped out to me as being very subjective and lacking evidence. Whether someone possesses characteristics such as handsomeness, charm or charisma is largely subjective, and a claim like this doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia article unless it's representing what an authoritative source believes (in which case it should be made clear that this is the opinion of said source) and/or is substantiated to a sufficient degree. Also questionable is the claim that he used such qualities to "full advantage". This is a very ambiguous phrase, and even if someone did possess such qualities and used said qualities to some degree of advantage, it is not necessary (and seemingly unlikely) that it would be a "full" degree. Given these points, this claim doesn't seem very self-evident. It doesn't matter whether it has been written in "virtually every Bundy article ever written" (by the way, why do you believe this? have you read through an exhaustive archive of this material?). A claim like this may work fine in an opinionated news article, but on encyclopedia articles such claims should not be included unless it is noted that they reflect the opinion of an authoritative source or are sufficiently substantiated. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have read through an exhaustive archive of this material. I've read every Ted Bundy book ever written. And they all agree on, and include testimony about, the fact that he was superficially handsome, charming, and charismatic. Ann Rule, who knew him personally before he was a murder suspect, described him as "courtly". And it does belong in the article, because it's highly relevant. Bundy's charm and sophistication was how he manipulated people, and specifically how he got intelligent young women to follow him to his car. Vidor (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how encyclopedia articles work? As I said, it doesn't matter whether you've read through every Ted Bundy article ever written. Claims in an encyclopedia article should be included on the basis of verifiability, not just popular opinion. It is NOT a FACT that Ted Bundy is superficially handsome, charming, and charismatic, because this is SUBJECTIVE - influenced by individual perception. In other words, it is possible that there are people who do not find him handsome, or charming, or charismatic. It's the same as someone saying a piece of art is beautiful - one person's opinion does not make it a fact. If it's opinionated rather than factual, it should not be stated as if it were a fact. Instead, at least one authoritative source that has this opinion should be referenced. Please see any of the featured articles on Wikipedia for a better idea of how encyclopedia articles should be written. In the meantime I will rephrase the claim to make it clear that this is based on popular opinion, and will re-add "citation needed" to note that sources containing this opinion still need to be referenced. I haven't read through the entire article yet, but it is possible that there are other opinionated claims that need citations. If some editors of this article understand the principles surrounding inclusion of claims in encyclopedia articles, there may be a greater likelihood that the quality of this encyclopedia article will increase to standard. It is advisable that any discussion surrounding such changes be discussed or explained before implementation. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There, I added one citation. It doesn't fully substantiate the claim, so other citations may be needed, but at least key parts of the claim are now properly backed up. See, that wasn't too hard, was it? --82.31.164.172 (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Officious, aren't we ;) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No ... I'm just trying to improve the article by ensuring it adheres to encyclopedic standard. Then again, this is Wikipedia, a site run largely by vandals and amateurs, so maybe I should give up and let it rot, like allowing 125.162.150.88 revert trivial improvements I made to articles. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Déjà vu all over again. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If you took a look at my recent edits that you reverted, most were improvements to the organization, diction and/or clarity of various areas in the article. Sure, there was no point in changing "colouration" to "coloration" or whatever, but that doesn't justify reverting the entire edit. But apparently you think you are an expert, and have a ton of free time to stalk anonymous editors and revert their good faith edits, so I'll let you go about your business. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how encyclopedia articles work? I sure do! I also know that you don't appear to know very much about Ted Bundy. And you definitely don't know how to not be a jackass. Sure, there was no point in changing "colouration" to "coloration" or whatever Actually, this isn't true. Ted Bundy was an American and the article should be written in American English with appropriate American spellings. I'll have to go through and check that. Vidor (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

the 'colouration' comment was regarding some other article than this one; one written in British English. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit question

I have added a link to Multiple Personality Disorder but that directs the reader to our article on Dissociative identity disorder. Did Bundy have Dissociative identity disorder, or when you say he had multiple personality disorders are you saying he had more than one personality disorder (borderline, sociopathic, etc as quoted from Rule below)? This section may have to be re-worded as if you say he had Multiple Personality Disorder the reader will assume you meant Dissociative identity disorder. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Good question, and the sentence is unreferenced as it is. It should be noted that Rule is not a psychiatrist, and I personally find it implausible that she was correct in her diagnosis (as a writer). I'm not a psychiatrist either, of course. Psychiatric terms often "evolve", and sources differ as to what he could be considered, even among the psychiatric community. There are sources that are certainly reliable that consider him a psychopath: hopefully it can be straightened out with references. I'll work on it, as will DoctorJoeE and Vidor, I trust. Bundy was a sadistic sociopath, and this much is certain. Thanks for your interest in improving the article: now when the heck can we consider it a GA? I'm so tired of seeing articles that are rated as such that don't even come close. Others may disagree, but I want to see a better rating for this article. Yesterday. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I found the article a great read (in spite of the ghastly subject matter); there are no problems with the prose. A GA bid right now would likely succeed. Any unsourced statements will have to be sourced or removed. The word count has been trimmed to 9800 so we are now within an acceptable length. I have tried to neutralise the language but there might still be some loaded words. I will check the images right now for licensing and compliance. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The orginal source on Flickr for one pic showed "all rights reserved" so I swapped it out for a different photo. The User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet says we should have all the references in the same format. We could put any web sources into the appropriate template, and all the book sources need to be formatted in the same way. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Count me on board :> Thanks again for your help on it! Doc talk 05:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any convincing evidence that Bundy had multiple personality disorder. Not sure that such a disorder actually exists, frankly. Vidor (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at DSM-4, Vidor -- MPD is a well-established dx, and it exists in spades. I actually think, personally (I wrote about this in another section) that Bundy was a pure NPD (narcissistic personality disorder) -- a lot has been written about that recently, and he's practically the poster boy -- but unfortunately I haven't found any published references that make the connection to him specifically; and if I write it up myself, I can't use it in the article due to WP:COI. In terms of existing references, wherever you read "psychopath", that's the old term for MPD, as I've pointed out multiple times now.

RE: a GA nomination, that's my objection to it, as I've said -- in order to get a little green cross, you have to make the article worse, not better, by "neutralizing" the language. Most reviewers are not writers, and don't seem to get that. Yet you say a GA nomination would "likely succeed" with the article as is, so why change it?

Also, what do we do with the CNs added by the bot last night? Anybody want to try to cite those movies & TV shows? Or should we simply take them out, since they're only marginally contributory? Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We would just have to remove a few emotionally charged words and more informal expressions. Most of it has already been done. Please trust me, Dr Joe, and don't re-add words that I change. The prose would not become too dry if we are careful. The bulleted lists will have to be removed or converted to prose to pass GA, so a decision could be made to excise that list if it is inadequately sourced, or just keep the items with sources and convert to prose. NPD (narcissistic personality disorder) would be my diagnosis too but we can only include stuff we can source. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Same goes for commas as for language edits: I have a copy here of the Chicago Manual of Style and that is where I get the punctuation choices. Please do not re-add any commas or semi-colons that I remove; they are being removed because they are being used incorrectly per Chicago. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok last comment for me today. :) The citation needed templates were done because of me. Imdb.com is not a reliable source and that is what was used for all of the movies listed. I didn't have the energy to find the proper sources for them but there are good sources for all of them so we can probably keep them. The bullet list are allowed for articles. I saw two articles that got FA status with bullet lists. I'll have to be reminded to look for the articles now but I know they are out there. As for a diagnosis on Bundy, unless it's been really a big deal in one of the references I'd just leave it out. It's not that important as far as I can see since the main diagnosis for him was serial killer. He had no conscience about what he did which is in the sources. He didn't do it for sexual gratification, he did it to take power away from his victims, kind of like he had a right to do what he wanted to them. They were just objects not people. I read that in one of the books but right now I don't remember which one but it has to be either Ann Rule or Michaud. I have both of their paperbacks on Bundy. I am hoping to soon get any updated ones. When ready to present to GAR for checking how about someone pinging me on my talk page and I'll see what I can do to get editors who are knowledgable in writing and the policies too. I think I may be able to get some nice folks to give us a hand. Well I've got to go to bed now. You all stay well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We can always deal with the bulleted lists (remove or convert to prose) if the GA reviewer insists. I think IMdB is considered reliable enough if all one wants to do is confirm the existence of a movie. But if a better source can be found, all the better. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

To Diannaa, according to WP:ELN and WP:RS IMdB.com is never considered a reliable source for an article. There was a big discussion, actually multiple from what was said, that this site along with Find a Grave failed as RS's. They can be used as external links if they add something to the article though. This was put together from the discussions that were held. You can find a lot of discussions in the history of this page, or external link noticeboard and also reliable source noticeboard. I hope this helps, I'm done for today have a good evening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is almost ready for GA. If we nominate now, it will be ready by the time a reviewer arrives. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding bulleted lists, I think it's essential to the article to include the list of known, identified victims. I'll defer to others on what form that should take. Vidor (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As for Multiple Personality Disorder, yes it's in the DSM-IV, but there is still debate as to whether it's real, as the Wikipedia article notes. For the purposes of this article, I'd say that we don't need to know that Ann Rule thought he was a split personality, b/c Ann Rule is no more qualified to make that diagnosis than I am, but it's valid to say in the article that Dr. Lewis made that diagnosis. Vidor (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Multiple Personality Disorder is the old term for what they now call Dissociative Identities -- they stopped using that term for exactly that reason -- people were confusing it with the completely different situation where a patient has a combination of several personality disorders (narcissistic, antisocial, borderline, etc.), which many shrinks believe Bundy had (although I don't). Interestingly, the last of many diagnoses Dorothy Lewis gave Bundy was Dissociative Identities, but I don't know of anybody who agreed with her. As to whether it exists, everybody I know agrees that SOME of the patients with that diagnosis really do have multiple personalities -- but it's a fairly easy diagnosis to fake, and usual debate is whether any one patient really has it or is faking. DoctorJoeE (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Kimberly Leach's Murder

She was his last victim, the youngest, and the one he was executed for. He deserved it ten times over. The article currently has one sentence about her murder, and it needs two more good ones that can encapsulate the event better. I'm not going to squibble about whether its a "hog" or a "pig farrowing" shed (three out of four sources I've seen call it a "hog shed" with only Rule describing it otherwise), but there are serious conflicting facts between reliable sources. Foreman and Michaud/Aynesworth say her body was found "under/beneath" a hog shed, while Rule and Sullivan state she was in the the shed; Foreman and Sullivan state that she was killed in the shed, but M/A and Rule state she was killed and then dumped there. Etc. There needs to be a brief sentence describing how she was abducted and the fact that he almost had a head-on collision after abducting her. Any input on this issue would be appreciated :> Doc talk 06:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

My input is that beyond her own family, and possibly the teacher who made her come back to her homeroom to retrieve her purse, there is no particular significance to the fact that Leach's murder was the last, or the one for which he was executed -- and both of those facts are already noted in the article. I don't know what else can be said about it, apart from just saying it, and we've already done that. I'll add a sentence about the teacher, if you think that might enhance the description -- although our well-meaning but slightly overzealous copy editor will probably yank it.

The head-on collision thing is irrelevant, and disputed anyway -- it's not known for certain that the van involved in the near-miss was Bundy's. Defense noted at trial that 12 white vans of varying descriptions were reported near the school that morning, and no witness ever said with certainty that Bundy was driving any of them. He was identified (tentatively) as the man seen driving a weaving, lurching white van back toward Tallahassee, but that was 4 hours later.

As for the shed, there's not a lot in dispute -- Michaud/Aynesworth SAY the body was found under it, but immediately after (p. 261 of Only Living Witness), they quote, verbatim, the coroner's report, which says the body was found inside it -- the patrolmen had to remove the roof and a wall the was resting on the body in order to expose the corpse. I got a little compulsive about the "hog shed" thing because it doesn't tell you anything -- is it a shed shaped like a hog? This particular shed was the kind that farmers build to shelter their hogs while they're in labor and birthing (farrowing). So with one extra word, we could describe it accurately. In any case, I'll add a bit more detail, tell me what you think. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Three other things - (1) I overreacted a bit on the "last words" thing the other day, and I apologize for that, but I continue to feel last words are noncontributory unless they are a confession or equally significant in some other way -- also, I just reread Rule's new chapter in the 2009 update, and she quotes one of the execution witnesses as saying there were no last words at all, so apparently that's just another piece of the Legend of Ted. (2) I agree with Crohnie's suggestion to archive the "problem editor" section, since there has been no further comment from the user who started it, and it contributes nothing to the discussion. So I did it. (3) Whoever said the article was better a month ago -- compare that version with the current one directly, please. Compare the organization and the content. Not even close. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I said it was better a month ago, and it was. We should have gone with the content at the end of March, fixed up and tweaked as necessary for a GA review. But that ship has sailed and I'm not going to whack 30,000 bytes from this article like I'd like to. Regarding the pig shed, there isn't much difference between "under" and "in". The hog shed wasn't actually resting on her body. What happened is that someone looked under the wall of the shed, where there was some kind of clearance between the bottom of the wall and the ground, and saw a sneaker with leg bones sticking out of it. Regarding the witness who saw Ted on the highway--pretty sure her testimony was ruled inadmissible. Regarding whether she was killed in the pigshed or just dumped there, I can't remember. It seems that I keep coming back to this article at work when I don't have my Bundy books at hand. As for the initial point, that not enough attention to the Leach murder is paid in the article, I can't agree. About as much attention is paid to the Leach murder as is to all other murders, namely, not a lot. Incidentally, George Dekle, the Leach prosecutor, has a book coming out this summer specifically dedicated to the Leach murder and investigation. We'll have to list it in the Bibliography section after it's published. Vidor (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Vidor, Would be grateful if you could keep me informed of George Dekle's book, as we are unlikely to hear about publication in the UK. Best regardsDavid J Johnson (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• • "The Last Murder", publication date June 30, 2011. I will be busy traveling at that time but after I get home a few days later I will definitely be ordering it. I rather doubt that it will prove much use for the article, except maybe to resolve a couple discrepancies regarding the Leach murder as noted above, but I'll certainly add it to the bibliography section. I imagine you could order it directly off of Amazon, no idea if it will be offered via Amazon UK. Vidor (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• • • I'm only talking about a sentence, something that would include, e.g., "...last seen being led into a white van by a scowling man...". As far as the murder, the sources I've seen that say she was killed in the shed are quite graphic in describing what happened, whereas the ones that say it was outside the shed are speculative. I don't think padding a sentence and adding another concise one would put more attention on it that the other murders as far as excessive content. What say you? Doc talk 05:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If memory serves -- and I'll look it up to be sure when I get home -- the testimony of the paramedic who said he saw a man "strongly resembling" Bundy putting Kim Leach into a white van was thoroughly undermined by defense counsel. For one thing, the witness didn't come forward for several months, and only after he saw Bundy on TV. Also, for his testimony to be accurate, Bundy would have had to have left the van parked in a main traffic lane during rush hour while he went onto the school grounds to troll for a victim, which is hard to believe. So anything we say about it, beyond what is already in the article, would be pure speculation and thus unencyclopedic. As for how she was killed, EVERYTHING is speculative, since the body was decomposed and ravaged by animals, and nobody (including the coroner) knows for sure how she was killed. Michaud/Aynesworth very clearly say that their guess -- that Bundy forced her into the shed head first, then reached around and slit her throat with the Buck knife -- is just that, a guess. This is an encyclopedia, we have to go with what facts we have, not guesses -- and the facts are that the only reasonably solid evidence in the case was the fiber evidence -- and even then, the fiber expert could only say it was "very probable" that Leach and Bundy were in the same place at the same time. Everything else was circumstantial at best. My own opinion is there was substantial reasonable doubt in that case, and had Bundy not already been sentenced to death twice in a nationally televised trial, he might very well have been acquitted of Leach's murder. That may be why Dekle feels the need (beyond the cha-ching) to write a whole book about the case. I've pre-ordered the book (despite its extortionate pricetag), and if there is any new, incontrovertible information in it, I'll be happy to add it to the article. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Dekle feels any need for anything other than to make money. It's not like there is any doubt 31 years later that the correct verdict was reached in the Leach trial. As for what was "undermined" by defense counsel, that too is speculative. Here's what was presented as evidence in the Leach trial: 1) Bundy approaching another little girl of similar age, Leslie Parmenter, the day before 2) Leslie and her brother's testimony regarding the license plate # on the van 3) fibers found from a van with that license plate # being matched to Ted's clothing and Kimberly Leach's clothing 4) Andy Anderson's testimony regarding seeing Ted lead Kimberly Leach away from the school to the van. The article, as it stands, mentions the Parmenter incident, mentions the fiber analysis, and mentions the eyewitness (Anderson) who testified seeing Bundy with Leach. It seems like enough to me; I don't think we need to mention the eyewitness testimony twice like Doc9871 suggests above. Additionally I think that the Dekle book, when it comes out, should be the primary source we use for accounts of the Leach murder and should resolve any discrepancies between sources such as have been pointed out here. It is, after all, written by someone involved in events. (Similarly I think Polly Nelson's book and its unequivocal statement that Carole Boone did not return to Florida after 1986 should be used to resolve that dispute, since Nelson was at the scene in Bundy's final days.) Vidor (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is no doubt Bundy killed Leach, he eventually confessed. But at the time of trial the case was weak at best. Undermining testimony isn't speculative, it's in the trial transcript - Andersen (I believe that's the correct spelling) waited 6 months to come forward with his testimony, and had to be hypnotized before he remembered everything. He never picked Bundy out of a lineup, but identified him in court, which triggered one of Bundy's several tantrums. But to the point, we agree, there's enough about Leach in the article already. And yes, Nelson was there in the final days, but so was Hugh Aynesworth, who said Boone "left in tears" a few days before Sparky Day. That question may never get resolved, and we should probably just leave it as is, that she left at some point and lives somewhere else now. It's not that important, really. DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Without creating a separate section, there's another thing that needs to be addressed. The entire first paragraph under the "Modus operandi and victim profiles" section is completely unsourced, and you what we we're supposed to do in those cases. As it reads now, it could be inferred, e.g., that he always used a British accent, and the "All the victim's clothing was removed and later burned." sentence absolutely needs some kind of reference for that claim. As it is currently, it looks like a paragraph of original research. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well-spotted -- I'm on it! The clothing thing is easy to source, there's a verbatim quote in Conversations with a Killer -- which, of course, I don't have with me in the office, so it'll have to be tonight. Either Kevin Sullivan or Keppel (probably the latter) spelled the rest out -- I'll add refs as I find them. DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about comment in the lead

Hi, since I've been inactive on this article since most of the new writings, I am now doing a reread of the article to see what has been done and if improvements could be needed. In the lead is this sentence "On a few occasions, largely at the beginning and end of his homicidal career, he abandoned all pretense of deception and simply broke into dwellings in the dead of night, assaulting his victims as they slept in their own beds." I think this needs sourcing but I'm not sure to be honest. My main issue is the largely at the beginning and end since I do not remember this except for the rampage he went on just prior to his arrest in FL but not the beginning of his killings. I couldn't find anything like this in the main part of the article so I am bringing it here for opinions and/or sourcing. I don't have any of the new books being used so I'm not sure where this was taken from. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC) I hope my comment is clear to understand, can't seem to get my concerns properly with this writing.

The "beginning" was Joni Lenz in Seattle, which was a home invasion and bludgeoning, followed immediately by Lynda Healy, which was another home invasion -- he beat her senseless, then dressed her and carried her off. The "end" was Chi Omega. Both episodes are spelled out in the body of the article, and the pattern is summarized in the "Modus operandi" section, and it's sourced there, but I suppose I could resource it in the lead if you think that's necessary. Now that I think about it, "largely" should probably come out, as it was ONLY at the beginning and end that he did home invasions, as far as we know.

As an aside I think too much has been trimmed from the lead, which is supposed to summarize the entire article, but let's see what the reviewers say. DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not enough has been trimmed from the lead. We could lose all of the second paragraph after "...parted in the middle." Vidor (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I forgot about that in the beginning with his home invasions. I did remember the Florida ones, I am in Florida. :) But that being said, maybe a dif there would be helpful since I forgot that it was in the body maybe others will too who know even less about Bundy than I do. Is this already at FA? If so, could someone leave me the dif? Thanks again, CrohnieGal^Talk 13:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC) for some reason I'm not getting the editing toolbar, weird, though popup hasn't been working too well either so maybe they are working on the software?

Vidor, let me quote from the peer review (which you requested): "The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - expand this to three or four paragraphs. Please see WP:LEAD." We have three short paragraphs now -- my guess is reviewers will want more, if anything -- but let's wait and see. DoctorJoeE (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way Yeah, that's a bad rule of thumb. Vidor (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

More Referencing Needed: "Reports of the six missing women and Lenz's brutal beating appeared prominently in newspapers and on television throughout Washington and Oregon. Fear spread among the population; hitchhiking by young women dropped sharply. Pressure mounted on law enforcement agencies but the complete lack of physical evidence hampered them severely." These three unreferenced sentences are next to the picture of the VW Bug. Thoughts? Doc talk 05:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This all came from Rule; I am reading it now. I will add the cites. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't spot the bit where they say "complete lack of physical evidence" but will look again tomorrow. Tired now. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool - thanks :> Doc talk 06:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Note - While it's probably not worth mentioning in the article (and may be original research), it should interest those involved with/watching the article that many of Bundy's victims were women of short stature. While Healy, Parks and Aime were described as tall girls, Manson and Ott were a mere 5 feet tall, Rancourt and Hawkins were 5'2", Ball and Smith were 5'3", and Naslund and Campbell were 5'4". At 5'11", Bundy had a distinct advantage when selecting victims much shorter than himself. Doc talk 01:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "this guy was an animal..." quote from lead

OK sure, lets try for some consensus: I propose to remove this sentence at the end of the lead:

FBI profiler Robert K. Ressler agreed. "This guy was an animal," he wrote, "and it amazed me that the media seemed unable to understand that."[13]

My rationale is that:

1. It doesn't add to anything about Bundy that the reader wouldn't already surmise from reading up to it. There are two quotes just before it. The lead should be concise.
2. It hints about the media reaction, but the article doesn't follow up. Perhaps there should be a new section.
3. The "this guy was an animal" idiom is unhelpful. It's even delusory in making animals look bad, due to the actions of a human.

eug (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts are these:

1. The lead should be, according to WP Guidelines, "an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article." This quote is a great, concise summary - because for a long time the media bought into Bundy's manipulations. Many citizens read the sympathetic coverage, and thought it inconceivable that a well-spoken, white (racism was a whole other issue), articulate law student could have raped & killed dozens of women and had sex with their corpses. Until, of course, he confessed.
2. I agree completely that the media treatment should be addressed, but the section I added was removed because "it's an article about Bundy, not the media coverage of Bundy." If others agree that something should be included, I'll try again.
3. First of all, humans *are* animals -- but I know what you meant. In general, non-human animals have only one basic concern: survival, by any means necessary. The only life of value to an individual animal is his or her own. If survival entails killing all the babies in your herd that were fathered by a previous patriarch, or killing competitors or rivals or mates within your own species (all of which are much more common than generally realized), they do it. There is no ethics, or sense of right & wrong, guilt, remorse -- just survival. In that sense, Bundy was an animal; the only life he valued was his own. And that's why the quote is such an apt and descriptive summary, and a perfect summing of the summary, in my opinion, and I think it should stay. DoctorJoeE (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. Material should not appear in the lead that does not appear elsewhere in the article per WP:LEAD. If at some point in the future a "media reaction" section is re-added, this would make a nice precise summary. But right now it doesn't fit the manual of style guideline for the lead. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with that.. Firstly, many non-human animals value the lives of their children. Consider birds, for example, defending eggs and feeding their chicks. Also, there is now evidence that empathy, for example, exists in chimpanzees. Searching for "chimpanzees empathy" in Google Scholar will give several articles - unfortunately most are behind a pay-wall (so much for some of the values of Science..) but I've just found a free one from PLoS. Secondly, Bundy wasn't motivated by survival. -- eug (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting theory, but irrelevant here -- Bundy doted on his daughter (if indeed he fathered her), but that's a point for my argument, not yours; another thing he had in common with animals. Protect your own offspring, kill "rival" offspring. But the characterization of "animal" was not meant to disparage animals, it was meant to describe the savage, primal "entity" hidden behind that charming superficial persona that the press saw and doted on. And he was indeed motivated by survival; as Rule said, that's pretty much *all* he cared about. DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's only the quoted source's view on what he meant by "animal" that seems to be what you're talking about, as we are simply repeating the quote and not endorsing his view on what he actually meant. I'm sure he probably should have said "monster" instead of "animal", but the question of whether it should be in the lead (not whether it should be here at all because of some NPOV concern) is what is important. I would tend to include it somewhere near the end, not in the intro, but it should remain somewhere, IMHO. Doc talk 11:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So where would you like to move it to, if it is moved instead of taken out? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely not married to the idea of the quote being here: I'd rather have the "Sometimes I feel like a vampire" quote worked in if we're talking quotes. But, if I had to say, I'd put it at the very end of the article, as is seems an appropriate quote to "sum up" things. Doc talk 04:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If Bundy was motivated by survival then committing those crimes was quite counter-productive as it directly led to him being executed.. The article even suggests that he was motivated by "desire to control, possess, etc...". Getting executed didn't help him take care of his young daughter either. -- eug (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So you agree a short "media reaction" section would be appropriate? If we can get some consensus on that, I'll add it. Wouldn't have to be very long, and there are tons of sources. DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is already at 9630 words and your GA reviewer may deem it too long as it stands. You would have to make room for a media section by trimming elsewhere. Would it be better to wait until after the GA review? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, although there is still some meat on the bone, as it were -- e.g. I'm not sure the escape chronicles need to be as detailed as they are (although someone just tried to lengthen them). But yes, let's wait and see what the reviewer says. DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think relevant information should be excluded due to concerns the article is too long. In fact "comprehensiveness" is on the criteria for an FA. It's sections that may already be longer than appropriate that should get the trim, but even then there's no strict length limit. -- eug (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A good point. On trimming, I think we can kill two birds with one stone by ferreting out unreferenced content. I'm the type that likes a reference at the end of every sentence, sometimes two or three for facts that are unusual/extraordinary. No more than two consecutive sentences should ever be allowed to remain unreferenced. I'll look through it when I have time, and both DoctorJoeE and Diannaa were very helpful with this concern when I brought it up recently. Vidor I know wants to trim too ;> Doc talk 05:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the original suggestion. Remove it, and don't put it back anywhere else. And goodness, no "media reaction" section. Shorter, shorter, shorter. Vidor (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, then we'll have to agree to disagree. None of the reasons given so far are relevant -- it IS sourced, it IS concise, etc. So let's see if there's any objection from reviewers, shall we?

As for unreferenced content, please remember that there are such things as reference overkill (see WP:CITECLUTTER) and common sense (see WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue). I don't know of any rule, or even rule of thumb, requiring a "reference at the end of every sentence", and I personally find over-referenced articles unreadable. Also, "shorter, shorter, shorter" is not necessarily better. As Eug pointed out, there is no strict length limit, and shortening for the sake of shortening, i.e. excluding relevant information, will make the article worse, not better. DoctorJoeE (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

CITECLUTTER is an interesting essay - thanks for pointing it out to me! If I see two or more unreferenced back-to-back sentences, don't get mad if I remove them or add a "citation needed" tag. It is our responsibility to remove unverified content from articles, or to verify that content with citations; and cite clutter is the least of my concerns. If we get beyond four references for a single fact, then that essay truly applies. Cheers :> Doc talk 06:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Ressler quote--first, as noted above, it does not address anything in the rest of the article. Second, it is a classic "show, don't tell" error--we do not need to include citations telling us that Ted Bundy was an animal. He caved women's skulls in, raped and strangled them, had sex with their corpses, and kept their severed heads in his room. So the quote saying that "he was an animal" is unnecessary. Third, it is unencyclopedic. This article is a reference describing the life and crimes of Ted Bundy, not a forum for determining if he's an animal or not. Fourth, what place does a non-scientific judgment by Robert Ressler have in this article? Fifth, it violates NPOV. Sixth, yes, the article does need to be shorter. I will list my suggested edits in a new section below. Vidor (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The danger with citation obsession is losing sight of the forest because of all the trees. The emphasis should be on improving the quality of the article, not citing every single detail. If two or more consecutive sentences are related, and come from the same source, you don't have to cite them both. Sometimes an entire paragraph can be sourced with a single citation. And once again, WP: You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Don't get OCD on us!

And once again let's see what the reviewer(s) say before anyone starts chopping out stuff. The emphasis should be on better, not shorter or longer. I understand, Vidor, that you thought the article was fine as it was in March, but the rest of us agree it's better now. I would also point out that the Ressler quote was in the article back in March, and I believe you added it, although I could be wrong about that. The point is that we all get annoyed when others make changes to articles we've worked hard on -- but that's the nature of WP. DoctorJoeE (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Things I Would Cut

Getting back to what I wrote above, here is what I'd cut.

"He traveled alone...extensively"--unnecessary verbiage

Last paragraph of intro, except for Bundy's quote, which can be placed elsewhere--opinions of Rule and Ressler are non-encyclopedic and don't contribute to article, as noted above

"University years" section--"on the theory that...have to reckon with"--Bundy's reason for taking Chinese does not add any value to article

details about ripping off Lisa Levy's nipple and assaulting her with a hairspray bottle--too lurid

Carole Ann Boone filing for divorce--do we have confirmation this actually happened? I don't remember reading this

Death Row, confessions and executions--entire first paragraph. Why he decided to quasi-confess isn't important.

picture of bench docket--well, maybe not delete it now, but if we ever come up with another Bundy photo that we can post, like a picture of him in his youth or the alley behind Georgann Hawkins' sorority or something, that would be the first to go.

Possible additional victims section--not sure how much of this we need to keep. The fact is that 1. Bundy never confessed to these murders and 2. there is pretty much zero evidence to tie him to any of them. Some of it should be there, I suppose--he specifically denied the murder of Ann Marie Burr--but I don't know about Wick and Trumbull, or Curran, or Shelley Robertson.

Actually, now that I have made that list, it isn't as long as I thought it would be. I still wish the article weren't over 100K and that number could still be reduced by simple copyediting, like going through the article and seeing how much of it can be phrased in fewer words, but I'd definitely say there is quite a bit less extraneous material in here than there used to be. I'll check tomorrow to see if any of the sources indicate that Boone actually filed for divorce. I was under the impression that she simply cut ties and went back to Washington without taking any formal action to end the marriage. Vidor (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I found a Boone divorce reference, and it seems to be from Ann Rule's official newsletter page. "His wife, Carole Ann Boone, divorced him three years earlier."[1] Doc talk 16:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

DoctorJoeE deleted this entire section a few minutes ago--not sure why that happened. Here it is, again. Vidor (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If I did, it was accidental - apologies.

Let me comment on a few of those proposed cuts:

• "Traveled alone extensively" is a fact supporting the multi-sourced speculation that his murder total was way higher than he admitted to.
• Opinions of biographers & experts summarizing a person's life have ample WP precedent and are quite appropriate in a summary, which is what the lead is.
• Can't say I disagree with removing the second half of the Chinese sentence. Good point.
• Crime details are facts. Too lurid? WP is not censored.
• The citation you labeled "most reliable" says she divorced him in 1986.
• I suppose that paragraph could be more concise - but it replaced a much less informative series of sentences about Hagmaier being "Ted's best friend" and trivia about the Green River interviews. So it's an improvement, which doesn't mean it can't be improved more.
• I don't disagree about the bench docket photo either - if you know of a better photo in the public domain, by all means, out it goes.
• The additional victims are mentioned over and over in the Bundy literature, I think they deserve to stay.
• You're right, it's not that long a list. But the article is currently under 100,000, and a professional copy editor has already copy-edited the entire article, so those two wishes have already come true.

Sorry again about blanking your entry -- I don't know how I even did it, but I assure you it was unintentional. DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

First the accidental blanking was probably an edit conflict, unfortunately that happens ocassionally. If you want to take a look at another good article for reference the Kate Winslet article is pretty recent, within I think the past year it got upgraded. I don't think concentrating on length is all that important right now to be honest. As for the above, I would like to add that biographers opinions should be allowed, just not with a lot of frequency. I would like to see a short media section returned but keep in mind that the sourcing can't be imdb.com. That source is allowed for EL only and is not considered a reliable source which you can see at WP:ELN and WP:ELPEREN. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely keep the possible additional victims section intact. If you Google any of those names you will see that they inevitably are tied to Bundy, and a good many sources mention them. His denials should not be evidence to exclude them, IMHO. It should be noted that on p.486 of Rule 1989, it actually lists Shelley K. Robertson as one of the murders he confessed to - anyone know what's up with that? Don't much care about the docket picture or the Boone divorce (if proven), cut the Chinese thing if it isn't already. The nipple and hairspray bottle - it is very lurid, but most every source mentions it, and it does provide the reader with an example of his extreme depravity. Just my 2p... Doc talk 04:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Lynette Culver Info

Hello, my name is Kevin M. Sullivan, and I'm the author of The Bundy Murders: A Comprehensive History. I must say, the work that has been put into the Bundy article is very good indeed. I did want to point out that Lynette Culver was not raped prior to her death. Bundy made this clear to the Idaho investigator, and I received this information from him. As such, my book states the sexual assault occurred after she was killed. This isn't surprising, as Bundy was constantly involved with necrophilia. Now, I did not want to personally make the change to the page, as I felt that informing those who regularly edit this site should do so. Kmsullivan12 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

After further thought, I decided to make the minor correction myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmsullivan12 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Happy New Year, Ted"

Has anybody read a self-published book with the above title, by Wilson and Keiss? (Tracking Hound Press, 2009, ISBN-10: 0615291112) Purports to present evidence that Bundy killed some people in Columbus, Georgia en route to Tallahassee. Can't use it as a direct reference, of course, but I'm wondering if it's worth the trouble to track down a copy as deep background. Anybody had a look at it? DoctorJoeE (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I tend to avoid "books" like this from publishers like this. Carlton Gary seems to be the one they figure did it, and to think Ted would deviate that far from his M.O. to killing elderly(!) women is pretty far-fetched. Save your money, I say ;> Doc talk 06:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right, of course -- but I'll probably try to find one anyway, because I'm a sucker for unorthodox postulates, and because I'd love to see what sort of "convincing evidence" they came up with. (Though if it's anything like the crackpot D.B. Cooper-candidate books, it will likely be money down the sewer.) Bundy did say "young" and "attractive" were "essential criteria" -- but he also purposely deviated from patterns more than once in an effort to throw off the detectives. If I do find a copy, and do read it, I'll report back. DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"self-published"=stay away Vidor (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Carlton Gary case was massively screwed up -- he's on death row for three murders; DNA evidence exonerated him of at least one. Meanwhile his remains uncharged in two murders to which DNA conclusively links him.DoctorJoeE (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

For anyone curious about this book:

official site: http://www.bundybook.com/#/home/4533721550
author site: http://www.timwilsonamerica.com/#/the-book/4533995820
amazon US: http://www.amazon.com/Happy-New-Year-Revolutionary-Stranglings/dp/0615291112

VulpineLady (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, a friend found me a copy (thank goodness I didn't have to waste hard-earned $$ on it). In essence, it postulates that Bundy committed the officially unsolved Columbus Stocking Stranglings in Columbus Georgia in 1977-78. (Everybody wants to be Kojak or Columbo.) There are numerous fundamental problems with the theory, not least of which are the dates of the crimes: six of them were committed between September 11 and December 28, 1977, while Bundy was incarcerated in Colorado. The other two happened on February 12, 1978, as gas and hotel records show he was driving across the Florida panhandle, and April 20, 1978, as he sat in jail in Tallahassee awaiting the Chi Omega trial. Had the authors noticed these basic, ineluctable facts, they could have saved themselves a whole lot of time and trouble "writing" their "book" (I use both the noun and verb loosely) -- and me the time I wasted reading it. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

May-Hardy possible victim

I came across this article which came out last week and thought I would share it since I don't see it mentioned. Police say a backhoe operator found a body of a girl, Kerry May-Hardy, missing from Seattle since 1972. She had long dark hair parted in the middle, and apparently was naked since there is no mention of clothing, although a wedding band and "blue material" were found with her skeletal (bone) remains. The article makes mention of Bundy, but there is no proof yet that he killed her, so its only speculation at this point. Police are still looking into the events surrounding her disappearance. Here's the article:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015224554_remains04m.html

Another article, with her photo and sketch as well:

http://www.co.kittitas.wa.us/press/default.asp?prID=47

Just an observation, but Kittitas County (where the bones were found) is the same county where Rancourt (in the city of Ellensburg) was abducted. May-hardy may have nothing to do with Bundy, but it was interesting at any rate. (Anotherdaytripper (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

The Seattle Times article is a good source, with Bill Hagmaier quoted and all. It may be worth a brief mentioning in the Other possible victims section. At least I think so. Any other opinions? Doc talk 22:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

He says Bundy said he didn't kill anyone in Seatle so how can we add her as a possible yet. I think we need to let the detectives do some more research and see if they come to any conclusions. Personally I think there are too many coincidences but still we need to go on facts and Hagmaier says he said he didn't kill anyone in that state so what would you suggest we say? --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Bundy did confess to 3 unidentified murders in Washington -- but I agree with Crohnie that we wait for more information. DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"The Last Murder" by George Dekle

The above book (about the Kim Leach trial, by the prosecutor) is finally out. I received my copy over the weekend and I'm a third of the way through it -- not a quick read, by any means -- it's written like a very long police report, and so far it repeats facts already well known, but in excruciating detail. (e.g. Bundy used Thomas Evans's credit card to pay for gas in Lake City; do we need to know that?) In the forward, Dekle states his goal as demonstrating that Bundy's confession re: how he killed Leach (suffocated her in mud as he sexually assaulted her) was a lie. If that's all the new information he's got -- and it's going to take 225 pages just to make that case -- I'm not optimistic. But I will soldier on. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Ruhrfisch has graciously peer-reviewed the article and his opinions can be seen here. I think it's a good review with plenty of tips on how to improve the article further, personally. I've made the changes #1, #2 & #11 that he suggested as I can't anticipate there being objections to them, and I'm hoping for input from others on the many changes he suggests. I'm working on the fourth suggested change: apparently Eleanor Louise Cowell began calling herself simply "Louise" when she had Ted's name legally changed to Theodore Robert Nelson in October of 1950 in Philadelphia (Rule 1989, p.8). Anyhoo, hopefully editors will read the peer review and put forth their opinions on it. Cheers :> Doc talk 20:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Linking question

In the lead, we link to the article Psychopathy via a piped link [[Psychopathy|sociopath]]. However, the terminology used today is Antisocial personality disorder. Do we want this link to direct the reader to the article Psychopathy, or the article Antisocial personality disorder? --Diannaa (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I vote for changing the link to APD, since, as you said, that's the correct current terminology.

BTW, I noticed that one reviewer feels the article is "above GA standards, almost FA" -- which is pretty cool. Good work, everybody! Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, APD is better. And DoctorJoeE, you should throw a {{User Good Article|Ted Bundy}} on your page somewhere. Doc talk 20:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- as should you, Crohnie, Diannaa, and others who helped make it happen. DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I also agree, feel free to make the change anyone. :) Good work people! Sorry not to have helped more in these final days/months. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent Photo of Bundy's Murder Kit

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 itKmsullivan12 (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. We certainly don't need two pictures of the same murder kit, but the one in the article is there under a FU rationale only. We know that the picture there currently was taken by the Utah police and therefore is authentic, but if a free picture of the same items were donated it would be preferable. If it were in fact a picture of the same items: now, I'm not saying you're not you, and I'm not saying you assembled similar items and arranged them on your kitchen table when they were not in fact the "real deal". It could happen, of course, so we should be skeptical about it before accepting it as fact. Should we have a FU image that we know for certain is a photograph of the items, or a free image of the same items that has had the rights licensed into the public domain? With all these watchers I'm feeling a little alone here recently... Doc talk 03:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doc. Well, the current picture was supplied by me anyway. Not directly, of course, but I supplied it to the headsman at the website "Executed Today" for the January 24, 2009 article about Bundy. The 1975 photo that you have, at one time, displayed a hand written caption along the bottom of the photo, and that is my writing. I received this picture from Jim Massie, who received it from Jerry Thompson, the former Utah homicide detective. Anyway, if you go to the site Executed Today, you can see the picture of the items I took of Bundy's murder kit in May of 2005, and the comparison picture taken by the Utah police in 1975 (also, I have been answering questions about Bundy at ET since that time, and we just passed 3,700 Q&A's). If you have access to my book, THE BUNDY MURDERS, both pictures are contained therein. I believe my 2005 photo is the only one available of this kit besides the 1975 photo. Now, you folks are the editors here, and I certainly don't want to intrude into the fine work you all have done on this site. But thinking of other people, and their possible interest in seeing Bundy's murder kit, taken 30 years after the original (and in color) might be of some interest to them. If you all would like to have it, then I believe it should be here. If the answer is yes, then I will contact the headsman at ET and we will work out an electronic transfer, as the PC I used to write the book is long dead, and my files of the case (including photos) are now stored. In any event, it can be worked out. So just let me know. Kmsullivan12 (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, think it would be great to have the photo available for use in the article. Thank you for offering it. DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Great. Now, should there be a consensus among editors? Also, someone (don't ask me, LOL!) will need to post it, arrange where it should be placed, etc. As I said earlier, I can have the headsman of Executed Today transfer it electronically (back to me, or to one of you), and the rest should be easy. Logistically, if you all can figure this out, I will be a happy camper.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been a tad silent here, so I'm just checking in to see where we might go with the photo idea. DoctorJoeE seems to think it's a good idea, but does anyone have an opposing view? If there is a consensus that yes, the site would benefit from having it, then state so here, and I will contact ET and get this moving. Per my above comments, I will be looking to someone else to actually post it. Also,is there a way to leave a personal message for one of the editors willing to do this, as I will need to let them know (without telling the world) how to go about obtaining it? Any thoughts?Kmsullivan12 (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I was waiting for further comment -- since there has been none, I'm assuming there is no strenuous objection. (If there is, now would be the time to speak up!)

So by all means, Mr. Sullivan, go ahead and arrange it; I'll be happy to post the photo, assuming it is indeed cleared for free public use, and it is an improvement over the photo already in the article. You can contact me privately with the particulars at doctorjoee@me.com. DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the official police photo. It has historical interest, and we know for sure it is genuine. --Diannaa (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There is this: The photo in question was published by McFarland in THE BUNDY MURDERS. However, I do in fact own the photo, so does anyone see a problem with posting it here? DoctorJoeE: You said "assuming it is indeed cleared for free public use", so do you see a problem with using the photo? If you do, then I have others that I can send you that did not end up in the book. I will be contacting you, so let me know what you think.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

@Diannaa: There should not be a question of authenticity regarding this photo, as the source of the photo(s) (mine, taken in 2005, and the "official" one I received and is now displayed here) has been authenticated by the signatures of retired detective Jerry Thompson, and these documents are on file with the publisher. Every picture and every quote contained within the book comes with a signed release from those participating. Anyway, I just wanted to put you at ease concerning this.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Please be crystal clear in your mind as to which photo is better quality from a photographic point of view. Is the newer color photo actually superior? Is is clearer? Does it clearly show all the objects? The answer to these questions is important because since the current photo is only on Wikipedia under a fair-use clause, it will be deleted from Wikipedia (speedy deletion criterion F5) as soon as it is removed from the article, as unused non-free photos are not permitted on this wiki. So once you do this, there will be no turning back. The copy we can see on the website is blurry and over-exposed and the objects are just lying in a heap. My opinion: the older B&W photo is superior.

• Link to existing photo: File:Ted Bundy murder kit.JPG
• Link to color photo: http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/01/24/1989-ted-bundy-psycho-killer/

--Diannaa (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Diannaa, I wouldn't call it "lying in a heap", but rather a a collage of items displayed not as evidence (as the 1975 photo required, displaying each item in its entirety), but in a way that might be interesting to viewers. And you know, my goal was not to remove one photo to make room for another,this is why I provided ET with both pictures. The picture is in my book, it's at Executed Today, and as I said earlier, others have made use of it too. It was my intention to show viewers of the Ted Bundy site here at Wikipedia a newer, color version of the same kit. Color is a big deal to people, and it is the only other photo available of the kit; and certainly the most recent picture of Bundy's items. But as to removing one for the other, I would say the 1975 photo should be the official photo. It just makes sense. However, if anyone believes the newer photo should come on board, then just say so here,Kmsullivan12 (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I think the black and white image is much clearer on the items he had in his collection. Unlike the color one which everything is not spread out so it's not easy to see what all he had collected. I have to say I stick to the black and white photo. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Another question is where the image would be placed. Right now I'm having trouble finding a spot. Consensus is there that the B&W photo is preferred, and if the generously offered color photo is released on WP:Commons - where is an appropriate place to put it in the article? I'm all for it if we can make it fit: maybe a composite created from the original and the new one? I don't know... Doc talk 04:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess I will add my two cents. Its tough to decide: the B&W photo has a lot more items which are not seen in the color photo (handcuffs, nylon masks, and the crowbar - one of his main murder weapons). However, the color photo shows a belt (not seen in the B&W) and has finer detail as well as color, which (in my opinion) helps the viewer make a more familiar connection with those items. That is, they don't seem so "spooky" once they are seen in color. If I had to pick only one, I guess I would pick the B&W only because it has more items. (Anotherdaytripper (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

The crowbar, handcuffs, and the pantyhose mask never made it to Louisville. Judge Hanson from Utah (now deceased) had the crowbar and I believe the handcuffs as well. Jerry Thompson transported the pantyhose mask personally to Florida to try to have it admitted as evidence (it was rejected)so I'm not sure where it is now. Within the bag when it came to Louisville, were five of six little tins containing pubic hair of some of the victims, and the head hair of Carol DaRonch. These were recovered from Bundy's car and all had been tested at the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. Kmsullivan12 (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well since they are the same yet different, maybe the color one can be put on the other side of the page. I mean across from the black and white image or even below that image. We would have to be careful though with what we say to give a good reason for both of the images though. Thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see any reason for including both photos -- one is quite sufficient IMHO. DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to vote for the black and white picture. It shows the individual items more clearly, and more importantly it shows the two most important items, the crowbar and the handcuffs, which the color photo lacks. Mr. Sullivan makes a generous offer but the B&W photo is better. Vidor (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, let me say that I believe that the official, 1975 photo is the most important picture between the two. The 1975 photo is actually a part of the case. The question, in my mind, has never been one of replacing the official picture with the one I took of Bundy's items in 2005. If anything, it was meant to complement the original, and provide folks with a modern, color shot of these very important artifacts. But if it's a question of either/or, then yes, the 1975 photo is the most appropriate. Kmsullivan12 (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ted Bundy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

I peer reviewed this and feel it is close to FA standards and more than meets the GA criteria. For suggestions for improvement, please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Ted Bundy/archive2. I also note that the dab link finder finds one disambiguation link that needs to be fixed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Glad to see that a group of editors is working together on improving this article.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Please see the peer review comments on fair use images - I am not sure it would pass FAC with the Utah mug shot and perhaps the fair use photo of one vicitm

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Automated archive

I hope it's ok with the editors here that I added MiszaBot to archive this talk page and added a search feature to it. This talk page is huge and a lot of reader's and editor's cannot download pages if they become too big. If you see a need for adjustments or anything, please go ahead. I've not set one of these up in a long time so having what I done looked at and/or edited will never cause me hard feelings. Hope all is well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Ted Bundy in court.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Ted Bundy in court.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Ted Bundy mug shot.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Ted Bundy mug shot.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

FAC Preparation

Clearly, this article is going to FA, and there's really no reason to wait in sending it to that set of judges. Ruhrfisch's excellent recommendations have all mostly been accomplished except for a scant few. I move that we address the remaining concerns in a timely manner and nominate the article at FAC. Here they are:

• WP:LQ concerns. I'm not the best for this, but I see that "When quoting a sentence fragment that ends in a period, some judgment is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside." This may take care of some of the concerns, but we should look at cases where it may be incorrect.
• The issue about Healy's fate being described within the paragraph can be quickly dealt with, and is probably the easiest thing to address.
• The pseudonym issue. I'm not sure how to address this and would love some outside opinions.
• The "Legacy" section. This will be an eventual necessary evil, and we should discuss how we should approach this.
• The non-free images. This will have to be dealt with along the way, and NFCC interpretation can be brutal. Captions have been improved in a way to show the value of the non-free images, and we'll have to cross the NFCC bridge when we come to it.

So, aside from those concerns being addressed I see no reason why not to push forward. This is an excellent article that has been the product of collaboration between multiple editors with diverse backgrounds. It's taken time to get it to where it is, and it's improved exponentially in recent months. I'm pushing it to FAC and hope you all are ready to go with me. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me; I think all the criticisms are trivial -- e.g. the pseudonym issue is self-explanatory, n'est-ce pas? Explaining it would only cause confusion. Bundy's legacy is pretty self-explanatory too; I don't see a reason to patronize readers by attempting to explain it to them. The sum total of "legacy" mentioned in the most recent TV documentary was, "The term 'serial killer' was coined to describe Ted Bundy." (Which isn't true, BTW.) The only legacy left by serial murderers is the enduring grief of friends and love ones, and that too seems self-explanatory. If others disagree, I suppose I could whip up a paragraph or two to spell it out. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think what he meant by the legacy section was the list of movies (esp.) based on Bundy: like the section that was removed before.[2] I was all in favor of its removal (as was everyone else that spoke up), but if it's insisted upon at FAC we may have to revisit it. There were a couple of other things I was curious about and would like to get opinions on.

• Shelly K. Robertson is listed as one of the murders Bundy confessed to on page 486 of Rule 1989. It says, "Ted Bundy confessed to killing: IN COLORDADO Caryn Cambell, 24. Julie Cunningham, 26. Denise Oliverson, 24. Melanie Cooley, 18. Shelly K. Robertson, 24." So Cooley and Robertson are left off the list, yet we have a source that is used for much of the article claiming that he confessed to their murders. I haven't checked this source but it's listed here as well. I see the cite from the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office for Cooley treats it as an unsolved homicide. Does anyone know whether or not Bundy actually confessed to these murders? What refutes the Rule cite? If he did confess to these, they should moved from one list to the other and mentioned in the article body.
• In the last paragraph before the "Modus operandi and victim profiles" section, there are three sentences describing his execution. I firmly believe that we should add one more sentence after the third one mentioning that fact that over 1,000 people waited outside of the prison to cheer for his death. This is extremely citable and noteworthy IMHO, and I haven't looked into whether it was ever here before. In one concise sentence the description of the circus-like atmosphere outside the prison could and should be mentioned with a reference or two.

Thoughts on any of this would be appreciated! Cheers :> Doc talk 04:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, first the legacy thing -- I agreed with removing it as well -- the easiest solution would be to restore it, or we could wait and see if the reviewers mention it before doing anything.

RE: Cooley, I did include her as a victim (based on the Rule reference), along with a parenthetical note that the local authorities were unconvinced and officially the case was still open. Vidor moved her to "Other Possible Victims" -- I thought the way I did it was better, but since nobody else objected I went along with it. I had not seen anything about a Robertson confession -- Rule made numerous changes in later editions -- I'll check into it.

RE: the tailgate parties outside of Raiford Prison on execution day (and the big cheer that went up as the white hearse containing his body left the prison) -- I remember it well, it was thoroughly televised. I've said before that there should be more in the article about the media coverage in general (he was a huge national story for a long time), but others did not agree. But I'll be happy to add a short description of the execution day stuff as soon as I can assemble some references. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The sections on movies and books used to be sourced to sites like truetv.com and stations like this. Books were done by the normal means. I don't know who changed everything to read to the source of last that was deleted. That should never have been allowed and I really don't know how I missed it unless it was during my many hospital stays this year. This should be in the history of the article but I personally don't have the time or the interest to go searching for it, sorry. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated it for FAC - this could take awhile like the GAN.

@DoctorJoeE & Crohnie - "Legacy" section I agree with; let's wait for the reviewers. I removed the IMDB external link entirely as unreliable linkspam. It needs proper citations or it doesn't need to be here.

@DoctorJoeE - Please do check the later versions of Rule and any other sources you have concerning Cooley and Robertson: Rule 1989 unquestionably claims that he confessed to them. I haven't been able to find anything substantial beyond the Sentinel Times ref (which does not appear to be a "mirror" of Rule's reference). As far as the prison sideshow, I really think it could be done in one sentence. I can help find sources online, and I don't think it needs to be extremely detailed (e.g. the guy in the Reagan mask, "Bundy BBQ", etc.) Not sure if the cheers when the hearse left were any more notable than the cheers when the signal was given that he was executed. Thanks for responding, both of you, and get ready for the FA roller coaster ;> Doc talk 07:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Be prepared also to have a lot of the images under attack, yet again. We've won these battles in the past but I really don't feel like arguing about them again. The tool one alone got an attempted deletion how many times? No thanks, if that's going to happen I'd rather keep this a GA. Just a thought, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that this was probably not a good idea. Oh well, too late. Vidor (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, ugh, ugh. Worst fears coming true. Vidor (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget "the other one" we've both contributed substantially to. What do you think would happen to all those FU images without any state archive to back them up? Shall I start the nom? ;P Doc talk 05:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion (coming here through Chronie's contributions), but are featured articles more important than other articles? I've studied a bit about Ted Bundy and could help out. JacobTrue (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

File:FBI-360-Ted Bundy FBI 10 most wanted photo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:FBI-360-Ted Bundy FBI 10 most wanted photo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Bundy's (Possible) Daughter

A newcomer has "spelled out" the implication that I think was perfectly obvious the way it was. Some of you will recall that I spelled it out way back when, and by consensus we removed all that, since there is no publicly-available proof that Boone's daughter was fathered by Bundy, other than that one photo I referenced, which we decided wasn't verifiable enough to be cited. Ann Rule does spell it out in the latest incarnation of her book -- that she believes Bundy fathered Boone's daughter -- but do we really need to explain that in the article? Isn't that kind of patronizing? Just asking -- I'm willing to abide by whatever the group (by whom I mean those of us who have been doing this rewrite forever) decides. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you DoctorJoeE, I don't think we really need to mention the possible daughter in the article - it's not verifiable. Best regards - as always. David J Johnson (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC) 22 July 2011

I do think we need to mention the daughter, since it's verifiable that Boone gave birth to her; and there is at least one source (Rule) who says flat out that she "believes" Bundy was the father. I was voting for returning it to the way it was -- they got married, and 18 months later she had a baby - and leave it at that, for readers to draw their own conclusions.

We certainly can't leave it as it is ("fathered, some believe, by Bundy"). That's a prototype example of weasel words. DoctorJoeE (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's job to make unfounded speculations. Everyone involved believed the little girl was Ted's daughter. If Boone knew differently she kept it a secret. I say we call the girl Ted's daughter, as we have no source to state otherwise, and different sources state that prisoners could arrange for sex with visitors. Vidor (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will argue that calling the girl Ted's daughter *is* an unfounded speculation; which is why I originally elected to simply state the facts -- Boone and Bundy got married, Boone later bore a daughter, prisoners were known to arrange illegal conjugal visits -- and leave it at that. One could make a case that anything more constitutes WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. But one can also argue that we have one biographer who states that she "believes" the girl is Bundy's daughter, which should be good enough. (There's a photo of the 3 of them together, but it got yanked as an inadequate source, which I can't really argue with.) We need better wording, though, if we're going to do it -- "some believe" is classic weasel wording, IMAO. DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Full DNA and Burr

This article just came out today and I thought I would share it:

http://www.wftv.com/news/28727794/detail.html

a recently developed profile of Bundy's DNA is complete enough that it can (and will) be "uploaded" to the FBI national database. Investigators working on the Burr case are seeking a match. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Good pickup, thanks. Amazing that a vial of his blood has been lying around all those years and nobody realized it -- it would be great for the Burr family to finally get some answers, one way or the other -- Bob Keppel was convinced Bundy killed Ann Marie, despite his repeated denials -- in 1987 Bundy said there were "some murders" he would "never talk about", because they were committed "too close to home", "too close to family", or involved "victims who were very young" -- and Keppel noted in his book that Ann Marie fit into *all 3* categories.

I think the DNA will be more valuable in proving some of the other unsolved murders, actually. And I don't know if others will agree, but I think we should hold off on adding anything to the article about this development unless/until they come up with at least one match or non-match -- right now, the fact that they have developed a DNA profile does not, in and of itself, add any info of substance to the article. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Bundy did link himself to the Burr disappearance in 1987, during an interview with Ron Holmes. That information was published in the May 9, 1987 issue of the Tacoma News Tribune. In turn, I include this info in the preface of my book, THE BUNDY MURDERS. I think it's great the blood was discovered,but I doubt it will lead to any answers in the Burr case. There just wasn't any real evidence left at the crime scene. But I suppose we can hope.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If memory serves, what he inferred to Holmes was that he began killing long before 1974. (Duh.) Whenever he was directly asked about Ann Marie Burr, he denied involvement (which is one reason I believe he killed her).

Holmes did make the fascinating observation that Bundy killed "only the best victims" -- unlike Jack the Ripper and the Green River guy and many others, he didn't kill prostitutes or junkies or drunks. He killed the police chief's daughter. He killed pretty young college girls. "He was killing the best and most attractive of the youth," said Holmes. "He was killing...the future of America. They were very valuable victims." And he strangled them while he looked directly into their eyes. DoctorJoeE (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@DoctorJoeE" Bundy, speaking in the third person, made reference to a person involved with murders in WA near Lake Sammamish (himself) and the murder of a young girl. The conversation was about Ann Marie Burr, so Bundy implicated himself in her murder. He intentionally linked himself to her murder. When I interviewed Holmes in January of 2007, he was very emphatic about Bundy's role in her disappearance, per Bundy's conversation with him. Why Bundy decided to do this I can't say. But it made absolutely no sense to do so unless it were true, and the article contains several statements from Bundy that are quite believable, and sound like legitimate confessions; albeit in the third person.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Very little about any of the things Bundy said make sense, since he told so many different things to so many different people; among his numerous pathologies, he was a pathological liar. As I've already said, I agree with Ann Rule and Bob Keppel (and you, I presume) that Bundy killed Ann Marie Burr. But during the Death Row interviews he was asked repeatedly and directly about Ann Marie Burr, and each time he categorically denied involvement. He even wrote the Burr family a letter reiterating his denials. But all of this is moot speculation -- there will either be a DNA match, or there won't be. If there is, the matter will be settled; if not, we will continue to speculate forever. We will see. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So true, Bundy was as much a liar as he was a killer. I'll be very surprised if they're able to DNA match anything connected to the Burr case, but we will soon have an answer. There may always be a sense of mystery attached to this particular crime, but I do not believe Bundy will ever be taken out of the equation unless substantial evidence emerges pointing in another direction. Then again, a sense of mystery will continue to pervade the case as a whole, as there are still many things we don't know about the murders. Even the number of women he killed is in question. Cheers to you, alsoKmsullivan12 (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

They have his vial of blood and blood from the scene of the crime, in time we should know. Everyone always thought this was his first crime, so lets wait and see. If it is shown he did it, we can add it to the article. If he didn't do it, it then continues to be a mystery. I think it's going to show positive though, like the two of you think. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Blood from the Burr residence? That would be interesting, and new information for me. A miniscule trace from the window, perhaps? Beside the footprint in the muddy grass below the window (and next to the overturned bench) in which the killer entered, and some grass clippings inside the home, I was not aware anything else existed. This is certainly getting interesting.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It was just on the news, which to be honest was the first time I heard about this. It was on TV today. I can't hear this and can't find it in writing unfortunately. My computer is acting up lately.  :( --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That clip doesn't mention blood at the Burr residence -- some stories, e.g. this one, say that they have a "box of evidence" from the crime scene and are optimistic about finding something organic. Let's hope so -- he did it, nothing else makes any sense -- that letter he wrote to the girl's parents was pure BS -- said he was a "normal teenager" -- how many normal teens set animals on fire, prowl neighborhoods, peep through windows...there was one article saying he took little girls into the woods to urinate on them when he was EIGHT.

BUT let's not forget that all the principal biographers were sure he killed Katherine Merry Divine in Olympia, and that turned out to be some other nut job. So we wait and see... DoctorJoeE (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the piece did not mention the Burr home and blood evidence. Indeed, I'm certain it doesn't exist, but we'll see. The strange thing about the Tacoma News Tribune article is how Bundy states that the "person" may have led the girl next door, killed her, and then had sex with her. Well, Bundy and necrophilia go hand-in-hand, and it does have the ring of truth. The Lake Sammamish statement is very damaging too. As I say in my book, if Bundy did kill Burr, then it must have been his first murder, and when he killed little Kim Leach, it was like he was coming full circle.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

How appropriate, then, that a book just came out about the Leach murder, and there's one in the works about the Burr murder. A never-ending source of inspiration, this guy. Eventually every victim will get her own book, I'm sure. DoctorJoeE (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So true! There had been a gap of a number of years between Bundy books, until my book in 2009. Of course, Tim Wilson's book was published the same year. But with Dekle's book, and the one about the Burr case, and one about possible Bundy cases, it looks like things are picking up steam. Of course, I've always said that Ted Bundy will no doubt be studied a hundred years from now, much like Jack the Ripper. The fascination with him appears to be unending.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the notion that Bundy "implicated himself" in the Burr murder is greatly overstated, since he specifically denied on numerous occasions having killed Burr. As far as the article goes, I would not mention the DNA profile in the article unless and until it actually makes a difference, that is, Ted is either implicated in a cold case or cleared of involvement in said cold case. Vidor (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Bulk image deletion

Many of the images here (probably everything of Bundy post-arrest) are now tagged for deletion at Commons. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images from the Florida Photographic Collection Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I commented there. Dude: 1904. How on earth that image is suspect is way beyond me. Doc talk 04:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just the messenger here - user:Calliopejen1 raised the issue that a copyright statement by a public body of the State of Florida isn't to be considered reliable by the consensual amateurs of Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound attacking towards you or Calliopejen1, and I'm sorry if I did - heat of the moment and all. I know and am quite confident that both of you are looking out for the interests of the project first and foremost. But we cannot lump a 1904 clearly PD image in with the Bundy images and say that's it's all the same bathwater to throw out. We are more obligated to get official word on each image than we are to make our own amateur decisions on what can and cannot be used from this archive. Doc talk 08:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Getting official word on each image", is equivalent to saying that the licensing statement of the Florida collection has no value of itself and cannot be trusted. Of course some images might have demonstrable PD status otherwise, but if we have to rely on proving that for each image, we'd also have to delete those for which the only licensing information available is this statement by a body of the State that they're freely licensed.

At a personal level, I have no interest in Ted Bundy or in this 1904 image. However I do wish to preserve some 1920s & 1930s images where our ability to use them depends solely on the fact we've been told that we can do, vs. Calliopejen1 telling us that we can't. Now if we really can't trust the State's librarians to tell us the basics of their job (we trust NASA, we trust the Bundesarchive...) we have to lose these images - fair enough. But I'm unhappy to do so otherwise on the say-so of one Commons editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, one editor does not a Commons make. I'll trust the archive's word before a volunteer editor. It's in the works... Doc talk 08:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant. Who was it above that said pushing this article for FA status might risk getting the images wiped out? Really wonderful. What a terrible idea it was to push this article for FA. Bye bye, images. Vidor (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah - I know already. Sorry for wanting the best for the article. Also, if the images are truly proven not to be usable it wouldn't matter if this were an FA or a crappy stub: someone would look into it eventually. Of course, the FAC shone the spotlight on it, but nothing is as black and white as we all think. So chin up, Vidor! Doc talk 05:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, as far as pictures of Ted are concerned, we are going to be left with nothing but the 1980 mug shot. I suppose we MIGHT be able to hold onto the 1978 press conference closeup under fair use. Vidor (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If any of the pictures are allowable they will remain on the Commons and in this article (FAC or not, it appears from consensus). If they are deleted from the Commons then they will be gone. This is a very complicated issue: e.g., if Florida mug shots are automatically Public Domain, how can UPI take partial credit for Casey Anthony's mug shot? Shouldn't the credit simply be "Orange County Sheriff's Office"? We need word from those in the "know" - experts on this stuff like the agencies themselves. The list of images for deletion at the Commons where these images are lumped in should be examined very carefully on a case-by-case basis. Doc talk 05:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I didn't think this would end in a hatchet being taken to the entire Florida Photographic Collection. That actually was worse than I expected. As for Bundy and Casey Anthony, Bundy was already an inmate of the Florida State Prison system, so it's licensed as a work of a state employee. The Orange County Sheriff's Office is not employed by the State of Florida. Meh. This whole business dims my enthusiasm for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Work this hard and someone comes in and screws it up. Vidor (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Got that right! DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I found the following entry in the Commons area about photos from the Florida Photo Collection:

• A direct request to the Florida Archives, specifically concerning use on Wikipedia / Wikicommons (13 May 2008) elicited the following response: "You may use any of the images posted on the Florida Memory Project website. The State Archives of Florida is not aware of any copyright issues with any of the images."

So what, exactly, is the issue with using these photos? We have specific permission to use them! DoctorJoeE (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not for the State Archives to give permission, as they do not own the rights. The bulk of the pics were taken by a professional photographer and were subsequently sold to Bettmann/Corbis, which is specifically almost never allowed on Wikipedia or on the Commons, even with a fair-use rationale. Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty, Bettmann, Corbis), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use under WP:NFC#UULP, unless the photograph itself is the object under discussion, not the subject of the photograph. This is the reason why file:Ted Bundy 3.jpg was deleted. --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 15:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

They are not taken from the Bettmann/Corbis archives website: they are taken from the Florida Archives website. Corbis and the State of Florida can sort this out between themselves, as we are not experts in this matter. We've also shown how major news agencies can claim rights (and therefore licensing) to images that are considered unquestionably PD for this site.[3] I'd like to point out another strange thing about this image-rights issue. Here it says, "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." Now, what if you found this image from somewhere other than Corbis? I can think of two reasons why this would considered 100% PD: but apparently it's not. At least Corbis says it's not. I just think we should let Florida deal with Corbis - Corbis simply wants money, whereas Florida has offered the images for educational purposes from their own site. Doc talk 16:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly -- I can't believe that Florida "stole" the photos without Corbis's knowledge and permission -- and Florida says they are "not aware of any copyright issues" -- one would think they would be, were there any. And it's not as if we're using them for any sort of personal or commercial gain. I agree with Doc9871: if Corbis has a problem, they need to take it up with Florida, and until they do there is no reason we should not be able to use the photos since we DO have permission. DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Ted Bundy in court.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ted Bundy in court.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:TedBundyincustody.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TedBundyincustody.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Dental evidence ted bundy.jpeg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dental evidence ted bundy.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:LevyBowmanBundyvictims.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:LevyBowmanBundyvictims.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:TedBundyprisonFlorida.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TedBundyprisonFlorida.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Ted Bundy headshot.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ted Bundy headshot.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out on Wikimedia Commons, the Florida Archive has granted unrestricted use by WP of any photo in its archive. Apparently the person who initiated this blanket ND does not accept this, and if so, it seems to me the burden is on him or her to prove his/her case. How do we fight this, beyond what we have already done? And does anyone know why we are being re-notified about this, since it's old news? DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Things seem pretty slow over on the Commons - I've seen things take forever in some cases. I see you've been active on the nomination page: perhaps sending another e-mail to the Florida Archives might not hurt. I'm watching things, and hopefully we can get this resolved soon enough. Doc talk 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I would also venture to add that I've searched around and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, there are no complaints or protests or threats of litigation, from Corbis or anyone else. Furthermore, the Florida photos have been on Commons since at least 2008, and no one has protested in any way. If no one is complaining, and we have explicit permission from our source (Florida Photo Archive) to use them, common sense tells you that no harm/no foul should take precedence over some obscure guideline. As it says in multiple places around WP, there are no rigid rules. No rule or guideline should be so zealously enforced that the net result is to keep editors from improving an article. The net effect of deleting these photos will be to diminish the quality of the Ted Bundy article, with absolutely nothing gained in return. DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, as Andy Dingley is pointing out on the Commons, this would affect thousands of images of all sorts from this source. Most of us are not lawyers, and even fewer of that group are actually well-versed in copyright laws. My good friend is a criminal defense attorney, and we were talking about this today. He knows as much about copyright law as we do, of course. But he has an excellent grasp of law in general and basically said, "The State of Florida-run website knows more about what laws they could be possibly violating with any copyright issues than any unproven assumptions that they really do not." The deletion discussion should be closed on the Commons, IMHO: as stale, not well-thought out, and going absolutely nowhere. Doc talk 21:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This should not even be an issue: The Ted Bundy photographs on this page have been reproduced countless times in both the print and online media. As far as the Florida State Archives, all they require is "courtesy of Florida State Archives", as I used the Levy/Bowman photo in my book, THE BUNDY MURDERS. I find it absolutely amazing the issue of deletion is even being considered. We are not talking about obscure or rarely used photographs, but images widely distributed. Now, if deletion occurs, I would suggest we need to go through the King County Archives in Washington State. They have an immense number of photographs (many digitized)and are extremely inexpensive to obtain. Plus, gaining rights to reproduce is very simple. Stay away from photographs obtained through the Associated Press, however, as they wanted to charge me $225 for the use of one photo.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We can't pay for any images for certain - but your point on the Levy/Bowman photo is very interesting. Nowhere does it say that these images must be free: rather, a much-needed license update (from the 1.0 to the 3.0) on the photos would make it clear that we are attributing the photos, and those images are perfectly legitimate for the Commons and are "Approved for Free Cultural Works". Like WP. Doc talk 18:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Note - I've updated all the photos to 3.0. At the bottom of the 1.0 template page, it informs the reader that there is a new version of that license. Since 3.0 is that license, they needed to be updated and have been. Doc talk 20:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Update

I have contacted the State of Florida archives questioning whether or not they have the ability to license these photos, and have received an answer. Here is the e-mail I sent:

• Hello! I am an editor on the English Wikipedia, and we have been using several files from your archives in our article for Ted Bundy:

Image # N035653

Image # N035654

Image # N035655

Image # MF0013

Image # N035656

Image # N044071

Image # DND0671

There has been question as to your ability to license some of the images (with fair attribution to you) that the State is not the explicit copyright owner of. Others have expressed the belief that by attributing all these photos to you and providing you as the source, we would be in compliance with a Creative Commons (CC-by-SA) license that would allow these images on the educational site. Are there any copyright issues with these specific photos that the State is aware of that would prevent us from using these images on Wikipedia? Any insight on this matter would be greatly appreciated, and please contact me at your earliest convenience. Thank you!

This was the response:

• Dear (real first name withheld),

We are not aware of any copyright issues with these photos. Our only requirement is that you credit the State Archives of Florida with any use or reproduction of the images. For additional information, please see our disclaimer at: http://www.floridamemory.com/photographiccollection/disclaimer.php

Best regards,

N. Adam Watson

Photographic Archivist

State Archives of Florida

500 S. Bronough St.

Tallahassee, FL 32399

Ph. 850-245-6718

Fx. 850-488-4894

So again Florida seems to confirm that there is no issue with us using these images as long as we credit them. Doc talk 20:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So that settles it, right? Will this ridiculous ND now be withdrawn? DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked the nominator several days ago if she would withdraw it and was informed that she would not unless certain conditions were met. I think any conditions for their use here have been more then met, personally. Doc talk 22:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So who has the authority to tell her to go harass somebody else? DoctorJoeE (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here is the deal as I see it: The response you received from SAF is exactly the same one I received when adding a photo for my book. The ONLY request from the State Archives of Florida is that THEY be credited for the photo, which is STANDARD PROCEDURE. I believe (understanding human nature as I do)that the person responsible for suggesting deletion for these commonly used photos does not understand the process at all. Also (and I say this with the utmost respect) there seems to be an issue with control here. As I said in an earlier post, this is something we shouldn't even be dealing with. From the start, it was absurd to even suggest deletion of these rather generic photos. I could "see it" if we wanted to use a particular picture taken by, say, Liz Kendall (Bundy's girlfriend), but this is not the case. So good luck to all participants fighting to "save" these images, as it's a worthy effort.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

What is needed here I think is to find an administrator that will get involved and close this discussion out. I believe you can go to Durova who knows copyright well or Moonriddengirl who is an administrator who also knows copyright laws really well. These are the two I usually go to for any copyright issues. I'm not here enough these days to do it myself but feel free to mention me mentioning them if you would like. I think this would close with the images being left intact though so get to any administrator, but try to pick one good on copyright who is bold enough to read all of the above though I just read this updated section about it and I'm convinced. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone reached out to either of the above copyright experts (or anyone else)? If not, I will do it. DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did a while ago and Moonriddengirl gave a well-considered response.[4] One of those recommendations is to go here next. Doc talk 04:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

An administrator has thankfully closed the deletion nominations on the Commons, I was just very happy to see. FWIW - this whole fiasco has only further soured me on the idea that any images that are not 100% completely free will ultimately survive on WP without challenge, despite proper tagging and the like. Sure, FU and fairly attributed photos can stick around for many years, but eventually someone will make a stink about it and the pressure will be on to remove them. That's why I now try to stick to uploading images like this, and one I just found here. No one can challenge the {{PD-USGov}} and its cousins when there's no dispute who created them. Or is there...? Doc talk 11:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if the US government is creating a derivative work, there can be (see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Korean War Veterans Memorial).--Jorfer (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

File:FBI-360-Ted Bundy FBI 10 most wanted photo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:FBI-360-Ted Bundy FBI 10 most wanted photo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(shrug) Doc talk 12:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Now that the key image questions have been addressed: what other serious obstacles are there to FA? I know the rewrites are worrisome, but that's part of the price of doing business around here, no? Would there still be a backlash if the goal was to push this article to FA? I'd love to hear from my fellow editors who have improved this article well beyond its humble beginnings, and wouldn't dream of nominating it again without better advice beforehand. Obviously ;> Doc talk 12:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Which "rewrites" are "worrisome", and why? DoctorJoeE (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The rewrites that occur when those who watch FAC add their two cents... like the last time. Relax, DoctorJoeE - it wasn't a dig at your rewrites (which have helped the article tremendously, as I've pointed out several times before). Doc talk 10:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry if I sounded paranoid -- I was just curious what you were talking about. But if you're going to reapply for FA, I'll be out of the country from Sept 30 thru Oct 10, with unreliable (if any) internet access, and won't be able to help with corrections during that period. DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No rush at all before Oct 10th - I want all the major contributors on board and ready to fight for FAC (including, of course, Vidor, Diannaa and Crohnie). I will make no nomination before its time - but we all know that this is certainly beyond FA as it is. Do we not? Cheers :> Doc talk 04:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to think so -- I guess we're going to find out if the FAC people agree. DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW -- point of order -- is the photo issue "for sure" settled, or do we risk that nonsense starting all over again with an FA renomination? DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. No, it's probably not "for sure" settled, so the nonsense could easily start all over again. Maybe it's best to wait. Doc talk 16:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! There's no particular hurry; I vote for making sure that's settled once & for all before proceeding. DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

In trying to replace the unfortunately lost ref from the Vermont State Police concerning the Curran murder, I came across several news reports from the time. In one interesting report is the following quote: "Detective Lt. Richard Beaulieu said his men were checking for a connection between the girl's slaying and several assaults on UVM coeds and other women in the Burlington area last winter."[5] Now, of course, this would mean the winter of 1970 and not 1969. Unfortunately, there's more evidence that Bundy could have made a trip out to Vermont in 1969 rather than 1970, and Rule states that Bundy saved the child from drowning in Washington in the Summer of 1970 (and he was enrolled at UW for this semester). So I don't know what to make of it, but I thought it was an interesting tidbit. Any opinions are always appreciated! Doc talk 20:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This sort of question came up frequently for awhile -- police departments all over the country were looking to solve cold cases, and the FBI got so many queries that it compiled a time-line of every bit of Bundy's time, from birth to death, that had been documented. For winter 1970, it places him in Seattle in late October/early November, then in school at UW for the entire 1971 year. November 5th through December 31, 1970 is unaccounted for. A pdf file of the entire time-line is here. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent reference! The fact that his whereabouts in 1971 are so uncertain gives even more credence to the fact that he could have murdered Rita Curran, and it's interesting to speculate on whether he had possibly made a trip to Vermont earlier than that when visiting relatives. But it's only speculation for now, alas. Cheers :> Doc talk 22:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A peek into Ted Bundy's mind

Hi, I have added the following quote, but it was reverted:

When caught, he defended his actions in terms of the fact-value distinction. He scoffed at those, like the professors from whom he learned the fact-value distinction, who still lived their lives as if there were truth-value to value claims. He thought they were fools and that he was one of the few who had the courage and integrity to live a consistent life in light of the truth that value judgments, including the command "Thou shall not kill," are merely subjective assertions.<ref>Zuckert, Catherine H.; Zuckert, Michael P. (2006). "Strauss—Modernity—America". The truth about Leo Strauss: political philosophy and American democracy. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-226-99332-4. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)</ref>

— Zuckert and Zuckert, The truth about Leo Strauss: political philosophy and American democracy

I think it is relevant for the way Ted Bundy saw himself: a man acting with courage and integrity starting from the assumption that all moral claims are subjective, i.e. that "killing is wrong" is a mere preference, just as "I like chocolate ice-cream but not vanilla ice-cream" is. Contrary to what Doc said on my discussion page, the link works in my browser and it shows the page which was quoted. Perhaps Google Books selectively chooses the pages it won't display, depending on the IP/country of the user which accesses Google Books. Anyway, the book can be found at libraries if one wants to verify the quote.

I don't know exactly where it belongs into the article, but I think it is highly relevant to present a reference about how Ted Bundy saw himself and what it motivated him to do what he did. It is not to be misunderstood as an apology, Strauss and the Zuckerts were perfectly clear about condemning Ted Bundy's moral relativism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The broader quote is:

So, every college freshman in America knows how to appeal to the claim "That's only a value judgment" to cut off discussion about issues of the good and the just. Some of the more extreme consequences rise to the surface from time to time. In the 1980s, for example, there was a famous serial killer named Ted Bundy, who was young, good looking, and well educated. He searched out young women on college campuses, impressing them with his knowledge of philosophy, among other things. When caught, he defended his actions in terms of the fact-value distinction. He scoffed at those, like the professors from whom he learned the fact-value distinction, who still lived their lives as if there were truth-value to value claims. He thought they were fools and that he was one of the few who had the courage and integrity to live a consistent life in light of the truth that value judgments, including the command "Thou shall not kill," are merely subjective assertions.

But I am not so sure that such a long quote is allowed by Wikipedia quotations standards, which recommend quoting no more than 500 characters. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The book is also available at [6]. Be quick with verifying the quote, since I think it amounts to a copyright violation and will soon be deleted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops. That does not display p. 73, sorry. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the quote is far too opinionated in its amateurish conclusion, and really just the view of someone who wrote a book about Bundy. I don't see any value in keeping the quote in the article: there are many more quotes that are far more worthy of inclusion out there right now. Doc talk 07:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The Zuckerts are serious scholars: they both are Professors of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. The book was published by the University of Chicago Press. In respect to what Bundy claimed about himself: do you think the Zuckerts made that up? If not, Bundy did think that he acted with courage and integrity as a moral relativist. Their book is a reliable source by my judgment. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It may be a reliable source, but that doesn't necessarily mean the quote should be included because of that. I don't see anything in the quote that indicates Bundy claimed anything about himself in it, especially in the broader section that you provided: it appears to be a conclusion that the authors drew. And a lengthy one at that. Did they "make it up"? Well... kind of. If there's a consensus among the other editors to include it, my objection would be overruled by that. Doc talk 23:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Doc9871. The quote is not really about Bundy; the authors used it as an example in arguing their larger point. And since they do not source Bundy's assertion (or the source was not included), we don't know for a fact that he actually said anything like that. I've seen lots of references to his contempt for law enforcement (and quotes supporting it), but nothing related to contempt for psychology or psychologists, or facts vs. values, or the UW professors who taught him. Further, if it were to be included, it should be in the Pathology section as an example of the massive rationalization he went through as he attempted to justify his actions in his own mind; but there are more concise examples of that in the article already. DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

"When caught, he defended his actions in terms of the fact-value distinction." is a statement of fact, not an opinionated interpretation. At least the Zuckerts said that this is what he (really) did. Besides, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Deciding if the Zuckerts told the truth is original research. Let me be clear: I am not against moral relativism, I could describe myself as a moderate moral relativist. In fact, I think it is unwise to deny that laws and morals depend on time and place. However, this does not amount to "nothing is true, everything is permitted", the maxim which Nietzsche says that the crusaders extracted from the Assassins. As about the Zuckerts being very opinionated, this pertains to their craft: their kind of "being opinionated" is characteristic for political philosophy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the "verifiability, not truth" concept is under discussion, as I'm sure you know; a lot of total BS has been published in "reliable, published sources." This is a basic problem for WP that ultimately may not be solvable under the "original research" rule, which I (and many others) oppose on a variety of grounds. Second, the assertion that Bundy used moral relativism to defend his actions is a "statement of fact" would be a lot more believable if there were a direct quote to that effect, and the Zuckers do not provide one; in an otherwise-extensively footnoted book, we are asked to accept this statement on faith -- probably, as I already pointed out, because they use it as a minor example in arguing a larger point. In our context -- an article about Bundy -- more direct verification is necessary. I'm sure the Zuckers didn't make it up, that they read it somewhere, most likely the Michaud/Aynesworth "Conversations" book, which I don't have in my office, but will check tonight. I would not object to a one-sentence assertion that Bundy used moral relativism as a rationalization, if a convincing reference can be found; however, I still have to agree with Doc9871 that the article already contains sufficient information about the way he saw himself. DoctorJoeE (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a minor point, but Zuckerts got one thing quite wrong in the longer quote. We know for certain that Bundy committed no murders "in the 1980s" because he was incarcerated for the entire decade until his execution. He was also quite infamous in the 1970s, so it's not like he became notable in the 80's. I wasn't saying that the Zuckerts were conducting original research from a WP standard, as that wouldn't be possible in this scenario. But like DoctorJoeE stated, they are merely using Bundy as an example to prove a larger point in a book that isn't even about Bundy or serial murder. We should try to stick to the many sources that are about Bundy, written by experts in his case. Doc talk 22:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Bundy didn't defend his actions after he was caught. He gave an interview to Dobson where he blamed other people. But he never tried to justify his actions or so there was no right and wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.221.226 (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

And your point is . . . ? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 12:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That he probably didn't say that there was a fact value distinctions the quote might be made up...isn't that obvious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.221.226 (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, at least not to me. But the point has already been made above that the authors do not source Bundy's assertion (or the source was not included), so we don't know for a fact that he actually said anything like that. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Subjective notions stated as fact?

Take a look at the sentence "Bundy was handsome and charismatic, traits he exploited in winning the confidence of his young, attractive female victims." Bundy being handsome and charismatic is down to opinion, no? I think he looks rather average-looking (not "handsome") and probably others do as well. The same goes with his female victims being attractive. One person can be considered attractive by one dude and unattractive to another. I'm not sure why this elementary mistake is allowed to persist in a GA-rated article. --81.100.44.233 (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It was there before it passed GA, FWIW. "Handsome" is truly a subjective thing, but it was well-established that a majority of reliable sources included something mentioning his "attractiveness", etc., and at one point it was cited. Since the intro doesn't need cites per convention (long story, really) the references were omitted. As far as the female victims' attractiveness; that's a slightly different story. We know Bundy attacked victims he was attracted to, but regarding the question as to subjectivity... I'm going to let someone else answer this one. Doc talk 08:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if it were to be cited, the way the claim is stated seems to be treating the cited claim as factual. It's not something I would nitpick in daily conversation, but it seems sort of out of place in an encyclopedia, unless it's standard here to accept subjective notions stated as facts as long as they're cited. If that is the case, is someone allowed to update an article on the color red with the sentence "red is an amazing color" given they cite a notable source claiming such? --81.100.44.233 (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

They could update the article with that, but it would undoubtedly get reverted per WP:NPOV. Which is exactly what you're saying about this article, of course. As I recall, the issue was discussed, and the consensus was that it was essential to understanding how this killer operated (and very easily citable). He used these traits to his advantage, different from random killers like Richard Ramirez or David Berkowitz, and not targeting sex-trade workers like so many others. I do not disagree with you that there is a possible POV problem with the statement, but I can live with it since it is so easy to reference by multiple reliable sources. Doc talk 09:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No doubt. It seems that many Wikipedia articles suffer from this issue. I will proceed to mend the sentence immediately. --Coolbb (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The change looks fine to me - I can't see anyone having a serious problem with it. Doc talk 08:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's awkward, quite frankly; and "considered" is a weasel word -- within a week some drive-by-er is going to say, "Considered by whom?" This came up during the GA review, and the consensus was that as long as we could source the statement that he was handsome and charismatic it was not POV. It is more than adequately sourced in the MO/Victim Profiles section (footnotes 265, 266, and 267) -- not in the lead, per WP convention. So if you're going to add "considered" in the lead, we'll need to add it in MO/Victim Profiles too -- and the sources don't say he was "considered" anything. Furthermore, the GA reviewers saw no reason to qualify or obfuscate the statement; so I vote for returning to the way it was. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 17:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point on the "considered by whom" thing: I actually thought that "considered" was there and that only the "to be" was removed. I didn't check the diffs carefully enough, and there were three quick edits, so I simply missed it. Doc talk 06:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"... as long as we could source the statement that he was handsome and charismatic it was not POV." Is it not a point of view attributed to the sources? If, according to the sources, Ted Bundy was handsome and charismatic, would not Ted Bundy be "considered" handsome and charismatic by the sources? Indeed, there are many such instances in the MO/Victim Profiles section. Alas, is it sufficient to phrase opinions in a factual manner on Wikipedia as long as the opinions are sourced? --Coolbb (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. We, as editors cannot render opinions; only sources can. So when you add sourced content, the obvious implication is that the content came from the source. You don't have to add weasel words to drive home that point. In the body of the article it states that Bundy was handsome and charismatic, and then 3 sources are cited which say he was handsome and charismatic. Our job as editors is to improve articles, not to obfuscate them; adding "considered" to every statement that isn't a directly observable fact does not improve articles. The article on the solar system does not say that the Earth is "considered" to orbit the sun, even though you cannot get on a spaceship and directly observe that it does. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 12:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I see what DoctorJoeE is getting at but also understand some of the confusion regarding phrasing certain opinions in a factual manner. Why are some opinions allowed to be phrased factually and some apparently not, regardless of how authoritative and notable the sources are? Why is it okay to say "Ted Bundy was handsome and charismatic", regardless of whether the reader actually believes that, but it's not okay to say "The Pantheon is beautiful and influential"? It's as if there is some unwritten underground Wikipedia ruleset that designates some opinions as okay to say without explicitly referencing it as an opinion, and others as not. --81.100.44.233 (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends on whether such a description serves a purpose in the article, as opposed to simply rendering a subjective opinion. The point of including a physical description of Bundy is to underscore the point that he used his looks and charm to lure his victims to his car, because they couldn't imagine how anyone as wholesome-looking and personable as Ted Bundy could possibly mean them any harm. The point of describing the Pantheon as "beautiful and influential" is -- what? If there is a good reason for including that description as part of a larger point, and you can source it, then it would not violate WP guidelines; but just stating it as a personal opinion, for no particular purpose other than to express your opinion, would not improve the article. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 18:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Since there has been no further argument in favor of keeping the weasel word "considered" in the lead, I'm going to remove it unless there is a strong objection. The "handsome and charismatic" descriptor is fully sourced within the body of the article, as mentioned above. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 12:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

contridiction?

at one point in the pathology section it says something like "he was a psychopath meaning he knew what he was doing was wrong but still did it" and later it says that "he didnt take responsibility for any of his crimes". does that mean he just said that he wasnt responsible? was he just trying to get sympathy maybe? i feel that maybe there should be a small mention of that if that is what it probably means. how do we know that he knew the difference between right and wrong if he wouldnt admit that the murders were his fault? couldnt he have been deluding himself?

"A significant element of delusion permeated his thinking: "Bundy was always surprised when anyone noticed that one of his victims was missing, because he imagined America to be a place where everyone is invisible except to themselves. And he was always astounded when people testified that they had seen him in incriminating places, because Bundy did not believe people noticed each other."[303] But blame shifting and outright denial were his principal defense mechanisms: "I don't know why everyone is out to get me," he complained to Lewis. "He really and truly did not have any sense of the enormity of what he had done," she said.[297] "A long-term serial killer erects powerful barriers to his guilt," Keppel wrote, "walls of denial that can sometimes never be breached.""

isnt this section saying that he was delusional, and not a person who knew the difference between right and wrong? or can you be a psycopath and delusional at the same time (i assume you can)? if so why would he need "barriers to his guilt" if he is a psycopath? wouldnt the only barrier he would need in keeping himself from realizing that others noticed him etc? i guess there is variance in opinions as to whether he was a psychopath? i guess maybe this is part of the bigger argument of nature vs nurture and we're trying to incorporate both arguments? it seems pretty clear he was a psychopath based on the info on this page. maybe there should be some info on the varience of opinion between sources, one side vs the other type of thing. maybe i just dont know what im talking about at all? thats my suspicion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.165.150 (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion (and I am certainly no psychiatrist, so it's just an uninformed opinion) we're dealing with a "gray area". Right and wrong in a legal sense means, "I know what I have done is considered wrong by society." Did Bundy think his sadistic murders were "wrong"? Hell, no: he felt he had the right to do what he wanted, and his victims did not matter except as objects to be used and then discarded by him. But did he know that his crimes were considered "wrong" to 99% of society? Since he went to great lengths to hide proof of his guilt, it's unlikely that he could be considered incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, in a legal sense at least. What specifically do you propose adding? It would have to be well-written and referenced, and if it is the article could be further improved. Doc talk 05:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, delusional people are often able to tell right from wrong. Bundy clearly was able to make the distinction -- as Doc9871 pointed out he would not have eliminated incriminating evidence so painstakingly, nor would he have denied his involvement, if he couldn't -- he just didn't think anybody would notice, which is clearly delusional. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 15:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Death Picture?

I know this has been brought up before, but I'm going to bring it up again. I've seen a different picture of Ted's corpse recently, here. Now, I know part of the reason images like this were deemed unacceptable earlier was because of basic "squeamishness" - but since WP is not censored, and this is a somewhat historical image, I'm wondering if we shouldn't have it here. Since it can only be assumed that the image was taken by an employee of the Florida Medical Examiner's office, the image would have to be considered PD on the Commons per {{PD-FLGov}}. Is it too graphic for the article? Doc talk 05:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I would vote against, for several reasons. First, how do we know for certain that it's Bundy? It does sort of look like him, and there is a mole on his neck -- but without more info about the photo's provenance, I don't think we can trust the word of an anonymous internet poster that it is authentic. Second (assuming for the moment that it is in fact Bundy), we can't assume the photo was taken by someone in the ME's office -- it could have been taken by the undertaker from Gainesville. Polly Nelson wrote that Bundy authorized Diana Weiner to handle all his postmortem issues, and she (Nelson) advised Weiner to use a discrete undertaker from Tallahassee whom she trusted. Instead, Weiner used a Gainesville undertaker who turned out to be an outspoken death penalty proponent, and Nelson was therefore "not surprised" when "unauthorized" postmortem photos surfaced in the tabloids. So it probably would not be prudent (nor encyclopedic) to get caught up in a potential dispute about the photo's origins and/or authenticity. Third, IMHO it is in fact too graphic for the article. My two cents. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

DoctorJoeE, could you please tell me the source for your statements mentioning the conversation between Polly Nelson and Diana Weiner regarding the undertaker? I knew that Bundy authorized Diana Weiner to handle all his postmortem issues (this information has been abundantly published online, and I also read about Bundy's wishes in his Testament, also available online), but I didn't know Nelson advised Weiner to use a discrete undertaker from Tallahassee whom she trusted, yet Weiner used a Gainesville undertaker who turned out to be an outspoken death penalty proponent... Where did you read / hear this? Best regards, Maria Serban

I can't seem to find any other copies of this image through Google except for the Veteran's Today site, and it was uploaded very recently. The uploader appears to be the managing editor of the site - I'll very likely ask him how he obtained it and see what he says. I'm glad you saw the mole on his neck - if the image is not somehow cleverly faked, I would most surprised if this were not him. As far as it being too graphic, the ol' argument could be raised, of course. Have you seen articles like this and this? For gruesome images, things like this and this come to mind. Assuming it's real, just look at what the effects of the electric chair were on his skull! I've never seen anything like this, and it could be educational as far as what that now archaic method of execution produced. Thanks for responding :> Doc talk 05:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense; I agree that it's probably him, but we would need some corroborating evidence beyond the word of one guy. If you/we can find such evidence -- perhaps a coroner's record that could identify the "ME20-89" tag on his neck? -- and then some evidence that the photo is indeed PD, I could see using it if there is no strenuous objection from others. One other reservation I have, that you might ask about: There is an arcuate scar on his scalp, which could be a burn from the metal "cap" from the electric chair -- but it could also be an autopsy scar, since that's where pathologists commonly make their incision to remove the brain. Since Bundy was not autopsied, AFAIK, it would be important to determine what that scar actually is. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 16:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There's some other pictures of Bundy's corpse that I've seen for years where it certainly looks like they've cut open his head and sewed it back up - see [7] especially. Since they know exactly why he died, I'm not sure why they would perform an autopsy. There are also different marks on the front of his forehead that are not in the other picture - strange. I've e-mailed the uploader and have not heard back yet. If the image is not legit this will all be for nothing, but I'm certainly curious as to the origin of the image. Cheers :> Doc talk 22:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted! Those do indeed look like autopsy-style "baseball" stitches to me. I seem to remember reading that Florida routinely autopsied its executed prisoners for a time, after the John Spenkelink fiasco, to prevent any further rumors about "prison brutality". That had ended, I thought, by 1989, but I could be wrong. When several dozen witnesses watch a prisoner die, it seems pretty silly to go through the motions of determining a cause of death, as you pointed out. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 23:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any use in putting such an image in the article. I don't see what purpose it serves. Load the image to Wikimedia Commons, maybe, if it's possible, but how is the article improved by a picture of his corpse? Vidor (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ho-ly crap! Hello, Vidor! Nice to see you again! Since the guy never got back to me concerning the provenance of the image, there's no possibility of it even being included - so no worries! Cheers :> Doc talk 12:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. My enthusiasm for Wikimedia projects in general was greatly dimmed after some dickheads at Wikimedia Commons deleted some photos I took of buildings in Mongolia due to some ridiculous torturing of "freedom of panorama" regulations. Anyway, I see the prose of the article has been rewritten quite a bit since last I visited. There's a chance I might be going to Salt Lake City this summer, in which case I'll try, if time allows, to get a photo of the rooming house Ted lived in. Vidor (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. I'm going to be in Burlington, VT on some as-yet-undetermined future date, and will try to photograph the Elizabeth Lund Home for Unwed Mothers (now known as the Lund Family Center), if I can confirm that the current building on Glen Road is essentially the same structure (albeit expanded & renovated) as the one that was present in 1946. Anyone know? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 05:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Reduntant info not needed

An editor has been reverted many times now for putting reduntant information in about Bundy about his attacking of women. We all worked hard to get this article to good status and the information being forced in it totally unnecessary. Please explain why you feel it is necessary to quote again from Michaud book about Bundy. Thanks. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I must agree with Crohnie -- the added material is redundant and unencyclopedic. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 06:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching what I missed. I'm out of practice here! lol --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree, the added material is totally unnecessary and should be left out. Regard to all, David David J Johnson (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Bundy in 1969: New Jersey and Temple University

Regarding this reference from a reliable source, as well as something I'd read in Rule (I'll look for it, as it was years ago) about a Temple University student being fatally stabbed in the library, I think that there should be something on this in the possible additional victims section. "In rambling confessions and confusing statements made in the third person, Bundy never directly said he had killed the two women, who were roommates at an Illinois junior college, but he implied that his first murders were at the Shore, and he described picking up two women in Ocean City that spring. His psychologist-interviewer notified Atlantic County authorities immediately after Bundy’s execution in Florida in 1989." Bundy spent the first half of 1969 in this area, and it is certainly worth including, in my opinion. Thoughts? Doc talk 04:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of that material is broadly referenced in the "first series of murders" section, to wit: "He told attorney Polly Nelson that he attempted his first kidnapping in 1969 in Ocean City, New Jersey, but did not kill anyone until sometime in 1971 in Seattle. He told a psychiatrist that he killed two women in Atlantic City in 1969 while visiting family in Philadelphia. In an interview with King County Detective Robert D. Keppel he mentioned a homicide in 1972, and another in 1973 involving a hitchhiker near Tumwater, Washington, but refused to elaborate." I would have no objection to adding the Temple student to "possible additional victims" if the student has a name, and if we have an RS confirming that Bundy is an official suspect. But we need to keep reminding ourselves that there's a fine line between being thorough and documenting every rumored link between Bundy and yet another unsolved murder. If we get caught up in the latter, that "possible additional victims" section could end up longer than the rest of the article! DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 17:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The girl in the stacks was named Betsy Aardsma. There is actually more connecting Bundy to the Atlantic City murders, those of Susan Davis and Elizabeth Perry. But I think we need to name them beyond what is in the section. What I was suggesting is a short, referenced blurb between the Safeway murders and the Curran murder, mentioning all three victims and that he was a suspect. Aside from these three, I don't know if there are any truly credible claims out there that could be added to the possible section: I think these would probably be the last. I'll draft something at some point for consideration. Cheers :> Doc talk 21:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what addicts say, you know -- "This is the last one, I swear!" :-) But by all means, do draft something when you get a chance. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 22:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I just read the Aardsma article -- she was a student at Penn State, not Temple -- and the FBI timeline places Bundy back in Seattle well before Thanksgiving 1969, so that would be quite a stretch. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 23:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point, hadn't looked too carefully at it yet - it was the first article I found on it, and I'll have to look at Rule's mention again. I'm still reeling from Levon Helm's death today (I saw him just last year at one of his "Midnight Rambles", and he was amazing), so Bundy will be taking a backseat for a bit. Never a rush anyway. Cheers... Doc talk 23:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

New Book: "I'm Not Guilty" by Al Carlisle

Just a note to those interested: Dr. Al Carlisle, who picked the brain of Ted Bundy after his incarceration in Utah, has written a book about his experiences with the killer. Although it is deemed a novel (perhaps for reasons of the medical Hippa laws here in the United States), it is nevertheless a look into the mind of Bundy and it should be most interesting. Al is sending me a copy, and once I've devoured it, I'll post my observations. I do not know how widely it is or will be available, but I gave Al information pertaining to a marketing strategy, and that I'll be posting info at Executed Today where I've been answering questions about Theodore Bundy for the past several years. Kmsullivan12 (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds interesting! Thanks, Kevin! Doc talk 00:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure, Doc! BTW: I received the book yesterday, and so far, I really like what I see. But I'm holding my judgement until the completion of the book.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me quickly point out something that should be obvious -- a novel would not be considered a reliable source for purposes of the article. And another point -- there must be some other reason that it was classified as a novel, since as a physician (and a writer), I can tell you that revealing confidential information and then classifying it as fiction does not circumvent HIPAA regulations. Another possibility is that the information is not true -- or at least not verifiable. That said, I'd love to read the book; has he found a publisher? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 01:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@DoctorJoeE: Yes, I couldn't agree with you more as to the "novel" aspect of this book. My main reason for mentioning it here is to let everyone know of its existence so that all can judge its veracity. The book is based on a fictional question and answer session between Bundy and Carlisle just prior to Bundy's execution. And it's in this Q & A that the personality of Bundy comes to the surface. These are, of course, observations Carlisle has attained through much contact with Ted, and so far I have found the book to be very interesting. That said, it may never be considered "Canon" within the Bundy library, as it were, yet it seems to be an important work anyway, as it's coming from a person who had a great deal of contact with the killer; and in fact, the two liked each other, and Bundy trusted Carlisle.

As to the publisher: I'm not sure if it's published by a small press, or if he self-published. Personally, either way is fine with me, as I'm interested in the information presented, and because he has an editor, everything looks good thus far.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I asked because I've been unable to find a source to buy it. Neither Amazon nor BN has it, and a Google search turns up only a review or two. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 18:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Google "Al Carlisle", and you will find his website. I believe you can order books directly from his site. I told Al he needs a marketing plan and he needs to have it available on Amazon, etc to really get his book out there, so we'll see. Kmsullivan12 (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You can't order from the site, but I've e-mailed him. Thanks. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 01:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Al Carlisle emailed me and informed me that the current work is "the World Horror edition" (he is a part of the convention) and it is a self-published work. No matter. However, he has obtained a publisher, and I have asked him to send me that info so I can pass along this information to others who are interested in his book. Also (and as I intimated in the above posts), the book itself is an interesting look into the killer's personality. That said, I found two errors pertaining to factors not related to Bundy's personality and Carlisle's dealings with him. First, there is a mistake as to how Bundy was put to death, and the second has to do with a particular author and the type of books she writes. I informed him of these errors and he will correct them. Even so, the real "meat" of the book is found in his astute evaluation of Theodore Bundy, and it is this in-depth look into his psychological make-up that makes the book worthwhile.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Murder in Canada

Recently, an anonymous editor added a reference to the November 1973 murder of Pamela Darlington in Canada. The cited reference was a 25-year-old newspaper article stating that a Canadian investigator suspected that Bundy was involved. However, this far more recent article says that "Bundy ... was once thought to be a suspect in Darlington's death, but that theory was later disproved." I have therefore reverted the content. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 00:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Good find with that ref. Doc talk 06:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Utah house pictures

I have uploaded two of my own photos to the Commons. They are a picture of the rooming house Ted Bundy lived at in Salt Lake City, and a picture of the utility room where he is known to have kept Polaroid snapshots of his victims. I took photos of the fire escapes on the left and right sides of the house--Bundy is known to have snuck in via fire escape--but I do not know which side room #2 was on so I did not upload those. I guess the article probably would not be materially improved by posting either of these photos, but anyone who feels differently can of course add them to the article. Vidor (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Vidor: Facing the house from the sidewalk, I believe it is the fire escape on the left. When I was doing my research in 2006, I not only photographed the house, but I went inside as well. No. 2 apartment is no longer upstairs, but this side would have certainly afforded him more privacy. I tried to ascertain from Jerry Thompson and Ira Beal which one led to his apartment, but they couldn't remember. BTW: as of 2006 the place was still housing college kids.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be still hosting college kids now. There was mail in the mailboxes and a couple of cars in the back. Kind of looked like it hadn't been painted since Ted got arrested. In other news, I downloaded the new book co-written by Bob Keppel and Stephen Michaud. Am kind of surprised that Michaud has written a new Bundy book after having written the definitive Bundy book, The Only Living Witness, but a guy's got to make a living. Vidor (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The house does look much the same as when Bundy was there. Can't swear about the paint job, however. Per the new Michaud/Keppel collaboration,I've been aware of it for sometime. Indeed, a fellow who contacted me over a year ago (Mike McCann) was doing a documentary about other possible victims of Bundy, and wanted to interview me. He had already purchased a copy of my book (then purchased the e-book as well), told me how much he liked it, appreciated all the new information I'd uncovered, and liked the way I approached the story in general. Now, when I learned he was in Seattle, I asked him if he'd talked with Bob Keppel. He said no, so I advised him to make contact, explaining how gracious Bob had been with me. This he did, and as things got moving, he arranged an interview with Michaud. I also advised him to get with the King County Archives for additional case file information. Well, Mike has become very close with both Keppel and Michaud, and from this came the new book. The documentary, Chasing the Darkness, is apparently still under construction, although they did my filmed interview in July of last year. I don't expect any real "bombshells" from the new book, but I'm certain it's very interesting. So let us know, will you?Kmsullivan12 (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not finished, but the book, which is pretty short, has almost no new info. What it DOES have is an amazing set of illustrations--crime scene photos (nothing gory), MISSING posters, photos of victims I'd never seen, etc. Worth it for the photos. And it answers my question--Bundy's fire escape was on the right side from the perspective of someone facing the house. I will upload that photo, of the fire escape, and I think I might add it to the article. Vidor (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we have a definitive answer as to which fire escape Bundy used. When I photographed the shot I have in my book, I remember thinking the fire escape he used had to be on the other side, as this one above the driveway would expose him to a greater risk of being seen. BTW: A friend of Kathy Parks,who'd purchased a copy of my book, sent me one of the missing persons posters of Kathy that she and Loraine Fargo were putting up all over the area. I have additional info concerning Loraine Fargo and I'll post that tomorrow.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Bundy Books

As a biographer of Theodore Bundy, I would like to make the following observations: There is no one definitive book about Theodore Bundy. Every biography has its own flavor, insights, and the author has weaved the story in their own particular way. To say one stands above another, like it is an American Idol for books, does a disservice to the subject matter itself. For example, two books rarely talked about these days, are both excellent works which need to be read by every person desiring "the whole truth", as it were, about Ted Bundy. They are: Bundy: The Deliberate Stranger, by Richard Larsen; and, Ted Bundy: The Killer Next Door by Steve Winn and David Merrill. These books are rich treatments of the case and every bit as good as any other book on the subject. Sadly, they are rarely in the forefront of discussion these days, and to not read them is to lessen ones knowledge about the case. Kmsullivan12 (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, for what it's worth; I've read both, and I've cited both as sources in the article. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 16:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Good for you, DoctorJoeE.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Lorraine Fargo

Several months after my book, THE BUNDY MURDERS, was published, Lorraine Fargo made contact with me through Amazon reviews of my book. I was certainly happy to hear from her as I wrote about her in the book. Lorraine was a good friend of Kathy Parks, and was in fact, the last person to speak with her before she ran into Ted Bundy. From this initial meeting we started to exchange emails on a regular basis. We discussed Bundy, Kathy, and the case in general. In the course of our conversations, I wanted to ask her about a couple of theories I had about the night Kathy disappeared. The first theory was that a letter Kathy mailed which has a May 7th postmark (she disappeared on May 6, 1974), may have been made around the same time she was out for her nocturnal stroll (see page 28 in my book). The second theory I had was that Bundy may have been following Lorraine, and perhaps, switched his attention towards Kathy after the two women stopped to talk. What follows are Lorraine's answers to both questions. I am including them here as they are not contained in my book (my theories could not be presented as facts, although I considered them to be accurate assumptions), and it's important to the overall case that this information be remembered:

"I also didn’t realize, until reading Kevin’s book, that the letter Christy received from Kathy, dated May 7th, 1974, was ever questioned. Kathy, in fact, had that letter in her hand as we spoke, and I watched her mail it in the small mailbox in front of the Commons just after we parted. The place we met and talked was just across the street from The Commons…. her destination after we spoke was no more than 50 feet away." Lorraine posted this particular piece at Executed Today where I chair the discussion on Bundy.

And concerning the possibility that Bundy was following Lorraine (this too was posted at Executed Today):

"Anyway, it was not until I read the excerpt from Kevin’s book that I made the “library” connection. I couldn’t help but notice, in his writing, that in many of Bundy’s 1st abductions and attempted abductions, he and his victims were in or near a university library. Well…… I had been studying at the library the night that Kathy was abducted, and I did have a slightly strange experience while I was there. There was this guy who seemed to be EVERYWHERE I was. I had a lot to do to complete my report, due the following day, and I was in “serious study mode.” When I went to the card catalog, there was a guy standing next to me looking through a different drawer. When I went to find the books on the shelves, he was again, right next to me, searching the shelves. He said something to the effect of “I can never find what I’m looking for here…” I pretty much ignored him, having found what I needed, and went to a table to begin working. A few minutes later he came and sat down at the same table, opposite side, a few chairs over. He asked if I had an extra pen, which I gave him. I proceeded to work, and he started to speak again. I said “Excuse me, but I have a ton of work to do”, and I gathered up my stuff and went to another table. I was annoyed because I had a lot to do, but didn’t think much more than that. It was getting late and they had announced that the library was closing soon. As I prepared to leave, I noticed the same guy, a short distance away. I remember being creeped out enough to take the stairs (in a group of students)rather than the elevator, and making sure I exited the library’s front door with a number of other students. I stayed very close to a group headed in the same direction that was slightly ahead of me. They crossed the street right about the time I spotted Kathy. I was very close to the dorm at that point, and there were still several people walking in the vicinity, so I pretty much forgot about “the guy” and proceeded on to Sackett Hall after talking with Kathy."

It was good getting this information from one who was there. Sadly, Lorraine passed away in April of 2011.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Two pictures

The new book by Bob Keppel and Stephen Michaud, while largely useless as a source of Bundy info (I read it, and while it was published as Terrible Secrets it is basically a condensed version of The Riverman) contains several photos including one of the fire escape Ted used to sneak into his boarding house. I have posted my own photo to the article, now that we have a source indicating which fire escape it was. I also deleted another photo. We had two Ted mugshots in the same section. I deleted the one that was of smaller size and lower quality, keeping the bigger, higher quality photo from the Florida Archives. Vidor (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You must have missed me reinstating it. We don't need to be deleting free images from this article. Doc talk 07:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we want to delete free images if they're pointless, like that one is. Vidor (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You may think it's pointless, but I disagree. We have too many FU images here as it is, and a 100% free photo from the State of Florida showing what appears to be a decidedly angry Bundy is hardly identical to the one where he looks completely defeated. Doc talk 07:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I see two black and white mug shots. One is of lower resolution and shows him looking to the camera with a fairly blank expression. Another is of better resolution and size, and shows him looking depressed. The poses in each are exactly the same. I don't care enough about it to start an edit war or anything, so fine. Vidor (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, we agree that he looks depressed in the second mug at least. I think he looks positively pissed off and defiant in the other one; I would say his expression looks more something like "blank" in the Utah mug, myself. I'm not sure why you would want to remove any free image of him unless it were totally blurry or something. There are far more copyrighted images of him out there than free ones, and having more images never hurt any article that I'm aware of. Cheers... Doc talk 08:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I also found, randomly, a 1979 newspaper article that says Bundy pulled Carol DaRonch over in front of McMillan Elementary School in Murray. Link here. That is only half a mile from the Fashion Place Mall. Is it worth putting in the article as evidence of how quickly Bundy turned on a victim that he lured into his car? Probably not. Vidor (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the attack on Carol DaRonch in front of McMillan Elementary, I have a shot of that location in my book, THE BUNDY MURDERS. It is very close to the Fashion Place Mall, and it does give a good indication of how "worked up" Bundy was to attack her even before he'd cleared civilization, as it were. Once he did the U-turn on the side street which runs between the mall and the cleaners, it was only half a block until he turned left onto Fashion Blvd (this street may have had a different name at that time?), and then only several blocks until he reached the school which was on their right. Of course, being in such a predatory state of mind and failing to capture DaRonch, ensured the destruction of Kent later that evening.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The rapidity of the DaRonch attack was apparently born of necessity, at least in part -- after DaRonch mentioned to Bundy that he was driving away from the police station, not toward it, he knew that his cover was blown, so he immediately pulled to the shoulder and tried to handcuff her. (This is from M&A's interview with DaRonch, as cited in article.) His predatory state could have been a factor as well, of course; and he was drunk, as always; but we can only speculate.

Also, FWIW, another good reason for keeping as many head shots as possible in the article is to illustrate the point (made in the article) that he had that fascinating ability to change his entire appearance with subtle changes of expression, and so he looked different in virtually every photo. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 16:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the attack was "born of necessity" too, as she was becoming very suspicious of him. However, Bundy's usual ploy of articulate lies flowing through the mask wasn't even attempted by him at this time. At the point Carol DaRonch became uncomfortable, I don't believe she was a hundred percent convinced he wasn't a policeman, but she was getting there quickly. As such, it is a bit surprising (at least to me) that he didn't try to calm her fears through the same tactics he'd used dozens of times before, so as to reach a better location for the attack. In my opinion, his departure from this has to do with his predatory state of mind (altered state), along with the alcohol, and as such, he lost control of the situation. I do not believe he was drunk, as she would have noticed intoxication prior to merely smelling alcohol on his breath. Perhaps I'm wrong, but personally, I believe that Bundy's state of mind worked against him at that moment, and perhaps the altered state he reveled in when he truly had his victims safely with him, got the best of him in the midst of the hunt.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll bet those articulate lies were flowing just fine -- otherwise, why would she ever get into his car in the first place? How many cops drive a rusty '68 Volkswagen Beetle? With alcohol on their breath? And why would she need to go to the station to file a complaint? She saw with her own eyes that her car had not been broken into, so what was she supposed to complain about? Ted's powers of persuasion must have been off the charts. And yes, I know, we're supposed to talk about the article here, not Ted himself -- but I can't help it. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 19:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"but I can't help it" Yes, me too! Oh yes, they were flowing, but they flew out the window on the drive away from the mall (I'll stop now, LOL!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmsullivan12 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSISTENCY

We've got an IP editor from Denmark who is editing the article in violation of WP:CONSISTENCY, switching listing kilometers before miles.[8] I have pointed out the error of their ways on their talk page, but they will not listen. Will someone kindly revert their third attempt to introduce this incorrect and useless change? I am well within avoiding 3RR, but I want others to show them that them reverting over and over is not the way to "win" around here. Thanks. Doc talk 23:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Tgeairn (talk · contribs) reverted the user and kindly added to my explanation, but I feel I should note that the IP left a rant on my user page before reverting me that includes the following: "THE WORLD is using the Metric system. It is time for the US to wake up. I AM going to do you a favor and do what you should do roll back your vandalization. And I expect you to stand down!"[9] Doc talk 00:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Bundy's 1989 death warrant

The article states: "In mid-1988 the Eleventh Circuit ruled against Bundy, and in December the Supreme Court denied a motion to review the ruling. Within hours of that final denial a firm execution date—January 24, 1989—was announced."

In December 1988 Bundy's lawyers filed their petition to review the ruling. It was denied on January 17, 1989 at 10:00 AM. Within minutes the execution date was set [Mello 104]. Martinez had signed a one-week warrant rather than the usual one-month warrant. Raduffus (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Speculum or Bed rod?

I know I've brought this up before, but I can't find it: at least I can't find a section for this issue. I'm aware that Michaud & Aynesworth claim that Joni Lenz was assaulted with a speculum, and go into detail about it; and I'm also aware that the majority of sources claim that it was a bed rod from her own bed, and make no mention of a speculum whatsoever. The sources claim that he beat her and sexually assaulted her with a rod from her own bed frame. Whether this is true or not: it is quite reliably sourced. My concern is that we are not representing the consensus of reliable sources by not even mentioning the bed rod scenario, and the speculum scenario is only (to my knowledge) found in one instance. I think this needs to be addressed, and I'd appreciate any input on how it should be best be done before I boldly attempt to do it. Doc talk 08:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

During the major article rewrite -- right before we submitted it for GA status -- I changed the assault instrument to a bed rod, based on exactly your point: Most sources say he assaulted her with the same bed rod he used to beat her senseless. Somebody changed it back, and was very insistent about it, so I let it slide because it was a detail and I had more important points to fight for. If you want to change it, I will back you 100% because I think you're right -- but brace yourself. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 13:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I remember Vidor being very against it, and I anticipate his return over this. We can't just ignore what the majority of sources claim, so we need to reflect what the sources say. Thanks for your voice in discussing this issue, DoctorJoeE - it's for the betterment of the article. Cheers :> Doc talk 13:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If we can document, with citations, that a majority of sources say it was the bed rod, he will have no cogent argument against the change. For the sake of completeness and editor tranquility you might want to add a footnote that "one source" (or "a minority of sources") say he used a speculum. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll collect some quality refs and wait for the reply here before I do it - no huge rush at all. The speculum reference will definitely remain, but the bed rod references will certainly have to be added. Doc talk 14:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite right, no rush. Keep in mind that it may not have been clear, even to investigators, what he used; there were no witnesses and the victim was unconscious. If a bed rod and a speculum were found at the scene, police might have assumed that the former was used for the initial assault and the latter for the sexual assault, but for all they knew it could have been the other way around. (Specula in those days were heavy, and made of metal.) Or he could have assaulted her with both. WIthout details from the investigation, we're just playing "what if". And it's not worth obsessing over -- though I agree we should be as accurate as possible, given our source material (which unfortunately does not include the original police report). DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 18:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You have raised an interesting point. Now, I can't be completely certain, but there may be something in the official record about it being a speculum. I have thousands of pages of documents from the case (all now packed away), and during my research, I believe the speculum is mentioned. I do not believe a bed rod is mentioned, but this isn't conclusive proof it wasn't a bed rod. And, I assumed Bundy received the speculum from his time with Ped Line Medical Supplies where he began working in May of 1970. That said, since the issue of the bed rod has been raised, then perhaps it should be mentioned as possibly being the "weapon" Bundy used that night; if, in fact,there is something in the record pointing to it.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

My main concern is what the consensus of reliable sources say about the incident and that their version is not mentioned here, and that this would be somewhat confusing to readers if they came here. If one is surfing the net they might find, e.g.:

• The Biography Channel - "On 4 January 1974, Joni Lenz became one of the few women to survive Bundy’s brutal attacks, but her vicious rape, with a bedpost, caused her massive permanent damage, that was both physically and psychologically traumatic." [10]
• TruTV - "A bed rod had been torn away from the bed and savagely rammed into her vagina." [11]

If one were reading books from our bibliography of this article they would find:

• Rule (2009), p.485 - "...Joni Lenz was bludgeoned and raped symbolically with the metal bed rod..."
• Foreman, p.16 - "A metal rod was missing from her bed frame... It had been viciously jammed into the young woman's vagina."

Or if reading other books about serial killers:

• Extreme Evil[12] - "Her room-mates found her the next morning brutally beaten and sexually abused with a metal rod from her bed."

None of these souces make any mention of a speculum whatsoever, and all of them specifically say it was the rod from the bed used to assault her. Only M&A and possibly the official record mention the speculum (I have not had a chance to read your book yet and would definitely like to, BTW, so I am unaware of what you wrote); and we are not reflecting what the main body of literature says about the bed rod. I think this is important because there is a discrepancy as to his level of preparation for this crime: the current version has him bringing a speculum with him (more organized) and the other versions have him using a weapon of opportunity from the crime scene (less organized) and don't mention a speculum. Doc talk 06:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doc...Well, very often, documentaries are rife with mistakes about particulars of the case, so these mentions do not move me. However, the mention from Ann Rule I would consider, as the info may have come from someone close to the case. It doesn't "prove" anything, of course, but it may be something that can give validity to the bed rod thing. Not so much the docs, however.

As to my book, THE BUNDY MURDERS: Try to pick up a copy from a library or through some other source, as I think you'll be surprised at how much new information is there (and thankfully, the publisher finally reduced the price of both the trade paper and eBook editions!). When writing it, I was not just on the "hunt" for new info, but I triple checked (or more) all the facts, dates, etc. I was determined to leave nothing to speculation, and where something couldn't be positively presented as fact, it was never presented as suchKmsullivan12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do identify the instrument as a speculum. M&A stated it, and as I say, I seem to remember actually finding a reference to it in the record. There is nothing in the records I have stating anything like a bed rod. Because of this, I had no reason to believe otherwise; and in fact, it's just the type of medical device Bundy could have obtained at Ped Line.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Rule had full and unprecedented access (I believe?) to the records, and the Foreman/Time-Life source is based on Rule, M&A, and many others. The official records are not biblical in nature. And the bed rod doesn't have to be in the official records, or be the correct scenario, for inclusion as it's already out there in enough sources. Doc talk 23:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for what Rule found in the official record, but whatever she was privy to at that time from any actual report, is housed today (and available to all) in the King County Archives. When I made mention above on what Rule may have obtained, I was thinking the info may have come from a source close to the case other than a written report (a conversation with a detective?), and as such, it could very well be valid. I say this as I just don't recall anything in the written record about a rod. And if it isn't in the massive records that I was privy to when doing my research, then perhaps it doesn't exist in any official record. In any event, you're correct that this info, valid or not, is "out there", so it's wise to include it here.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

So should we change it to, "...assaulted her with either the bed rod (citing appropriate sources) or a speculum (citing other sources)..."? That would reflect the conflict in the sources, and the fact that we don't know for certain who is right. I'm a bit torn between the compulsion to be as accurate as possible and the fact that this is a relatively trivial point, not truly worthy of all this angst. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 13:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I would leave it speculum, as I feel this was most likely what Bundy used. That said, it would be permissible --perhaps even wise-- to say: (some sources have cited a bed rod as being the instrument Bundy used during the attack), or something of this nature.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any "angst"; this is a basic and simple factual correction. And I would go the other way around and say "some sources have cited a speculum as being the instrument Bundy used during the attack" because the majority of sources say it was the bed rod. Doc talk 05:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's your angst, right there! :-) We have two strong opinions, one each way. Do you two want to flip a coin, or should we do a compromise, such as the one I proposed above? Keep in mind, in the great scheme of things (the entire article), it's a detail, of little relevance to anyone except the victim. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 16:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It's fine with me if the instrument is identified as a bed rod, with the addition of: "some sources have cited a speculum as being the instrument Bundy used during the attack". We cannot prove which is correct, of course, so mentioning both is a plus for the article.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So how about, "After bludgeoning her with a metal rod from her bed frame he sexually assaulted her with it, causing extensive internal injuries (some sources have cited a speculum as being the instrument Bundy used for the sexual assault)" with the current reference and adding Rule p.485? Does anyone have a copy of M&A on hand - because I don't think they claimed the speculum was used to bludgeon her (but I could be wrong). Doc talk 23:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I just checked The Only Living Witness at Google Books and searched "speculum". It's first listed on page 28: "He took a heavy metal rod to her head, thrashing at her repeatedly. A speculum, or vaginal probe...had been thrust..."Kmsullivan12 (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

So apparently, according to M&A, both a rod and a speculum were used. In my book, I say she was beaten about the head (no mention of the rod), and that he vaginally assaulted her with the speculumKmsullivan12 (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Going over some other references tonight at home -- Winn & Merrill say that she was "...beaten unconscious (no weapon specified) ... and a probe, or speculum, had been shoved in her vagina." I'll keep looking. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 00:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the issue of bed rod verses speculum may not be an issue at all. Perhaps they were both used. I wish I had the time to unpack my Bundy boxes and look for those references to the speculum, etc, but I'm just too busy. Maybe a small point, yes, but it's like we're a part of this Bundy case think-tank and we won't be satisfied until we find out the truth; that is, if the truth is still available.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Bundy's Diagnosis

So I applied a few edits (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Bundy&diff=520379602&oldid=520379122) and explained why, but they were quickly reverted twice. I was invited to justify my edits (elaborating beyond the explanation in the Edit Summary, presumably), so I'll start. One of the most significant edits pertained to Bundy's diagnosis.
The statement that the 'majority of evidence' suggested Ted Bundy was probably not mentally disturbed but had ASPD appears to be based on this passage on p13 in The Only Living Witness: The True Story of Serial Sex Killer Ted Bundy: 'the only doctor who did not assume Ted Bundy was a killer was also the only doctor not to conclude he was mentally disturbed. Once the assumption of guilt was made, nearly all the classic criteria of Antisocial Personality Disorder were identified and duly noted in him; violence, disregard for truth and social norms, thieving, impulsivity, inability to feel guilt or remorse and all the rest.'
It looks as if one doctor's diagnosis has been treated in this article as the 'probable diagnosis', and alternative diagnoses, e.g. of possible bipolar, various psychoses, etc. have been treated as 'much less likely', although the passage suggests that the former view was in the overwhelming minority! It appears that one or two editors have favored the view of one diagnosis and downplayed the diagnoses of other experts in the field, resulting in a non-neutral statement. That the 'the majority of evidence pointed away from bipolar disorder or other psychoses, and toward antisocial personality disorder (ASPD)' looks to be synthesized at best as there doesn't appear to be any confirmation of this in the sources used.
For instance, there doesn't appear to be anything about Bundy on p136 if at all in A Layperson's Guide to Criminal Law, nor in the other sources merely describing attributes of ASPD or related personality disorders. The only source close to the statement that associates Bundy with a possible diagnosis of ASPD is the one mentioned above, which, as explained, doesn't appear to support the statement. --Xagg (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC); updated 14:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a pity that you did not explain your edits on the the Talk Page before starting a edit war. Your views might have carried more weight if you had conducted yourself in the accepted Wikipedia way. I look forward to the the two Doc's reaction to your explanation. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to start an edit war.... I reverted it once because I thought someone might have mistook my edits for spam, as they didn't provide any reason. But anyway, sorry for reverting. --Xagg (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC); updated 14:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for a tardy reply - I've had no power or internet access for 2+ days due to Hurricane Sandy. As it is, I'm borrowing a friend's (very intermittent) access to write this abbreviated reply. If memory serves, there was consensus among regular Bundy editors that the diagnosis paragraph was adequately sourced after I wrote it, and it passed the GA review without any problem. Nevertheless I will recheck the sources, and replace them with better ones if necessary, once I get power and continuous internet access back in my house (which they're saying may take a week or more). I can tell you, however, that there is general agreement in RS material that Bundy exhibited classic personality disorder behavior, and was not psychotic. For future reference, as DJJ said, if you have questions about adequate sourcing of content, you should open a discussion on the talk page rather than simply deleting the material without explanation. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 18:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi DoctorJoeE, Just to say - hope you're OK and look forward to you being back in operation soon. Best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The diagnosis is discussed on at least two paragraphs - it's the second paragraph regarding Bundy and ASPD that contains what I believe to be a problematic≤ statement. I wouldn't doubt in actuality that Bundy was likely to have ASPD without psychosis, but there only seems to be one source in that paragraph that mentions a diagnosis of ASPD for Bundy, and that one source says it was only one doctor's view. Hope Sandy and its effects clear up soon. --Xagg (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

My revert was for the reference removal - the edits were made in such quick succession that I had to use Rollback, though I did not consider the edits to be vandalism per se. I did not revert again because the edits weren't vandalism, but removing references without explanation is rarely a good idea. Like DoctorJoeE, I am suffering from Sandy's wrath and have very limited Internet access - my iPhone is hardly an adequate editing interface. Cheers... :> Doc talk 01:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Any update? --Xagg (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I realize DSM IV does not have a diagnosis of "evil" but the two statements about the episodes of "dissociation" are not correlates of ASPD. The statement from his attorney Browne in an interview needs more attention too. "Bundy knew what he was doing. 'Most sociopaths never admit they’re evil at all,' said Mr Browne. 'Ted really knew he was evil. Evil, evil, evil. And, believe me, really evil.'Dale Matson (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw the above entry -- John Henry Browne's book has not been published yet, as far as I can tell, and we can't really use the news account from May 2012 (which is here) for a variety of reasons. For one, a lot of it appears to have been copied from our WP article! For another, we already have documented the opinions of others that Bundy was "evil". And we've documented that his total victim count claims varied all over the map, from 30 to over 100. I don't recall seeing anywhere else the claim that he killed a man, but since the news report offers no details, we'll have to wait for the book for that. As to improving the sourcing of the ASPD diagnosis, I'm working on it as time permits. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 02:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Another thing I'm confused about is that the paragraph on his ASPD diagnosis also seems to imply ASPD is synonymous with modern notions of sociopathy or psychopathy. The paragraph says ASPD used to be referred to as those (not sure if that's true as there's nothing about it in the citation), but regardless of that, supposedly - nowadays at least - they are not synonymous with ASPD (although occasionally they are used liberally as synonyms), yet a few of the sources in the paragraph are references to modern usage of sociopathy or psychopathy, with nothing about ASPD in them. One example is the sentence using this source:

Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Arkowitz, Hal (2007-11-28). "What "Psychopath" Means: It is not quite what you may think". Scientific American (December). ISSN 0036-8733. Retrieved 2011-04-30.

And the next sentence then refers to sociopaths, in its modern meaning, as having a certain characteristic, when the source used for it is a diagnosis of ASPD, not sociopathy:

Long, Phillip W., M.D. "Antisocial Personality Disorder: World Health Organization ICD-10". www.mentalhealth.com. World Health Organization. Retrieved 2011-04-30.

So it looks like over time a few statements got through that confused ASPD with the modern meanings of sociopathy or psychopathy, or vice versa. Bundy's diagnosis was ASPD, and even if it used to be referred to as sociopathy or psychopathy, they apparently have their own meanings now, which the above sources appear to be referring to, in which case they are probably misplaced in that paragraph.
I'm sure that Bundy would be considered a psychopath or sociopath by today's standards, but currently there isn't any connection established in the article between Bundy's ASPD diagnosis and modern notions of sociopathy or psychopathy, so if the stuff about the modern notions of sociopathy or psychopathy aren't removed from the paragraph then maybe a connection should be established.--Xagg (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'll work on it. For the record he was given multiple diagnoses, as mentioned in the article, but I agree that the consensus was/is ASPD, and Rule mentions that repeatedly in the forward to the latest edition of Stranger Beside Me. According to my psychiatrist friends "psychopath" and "sociopath" are used primarily as epithets nowadays, and as such are avoided as serious medical terminology by mental health people, in the same way that gastroenterologists avoid "indigestion" -- I'll try to find a good RS for that as well. Give me a bit of time - I have an out-of-town meeting this weekend, so I'll hit the books as soon as I return. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 17:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Confusion about ASPD, sociopathy and psychopathy seems to be rampant on Wikipedia lately. The short story is that they all mean the exact same thing. ASPD is a term that was created by the APA to be the new name for sociopath, which earlier was created to be the new name for psychopath. The APA is an American organization, so right away there are lots of people around the world using the original terms. Popular sources also use the terms that are not as long and awkward. The terms are interchangeable because when professional groups refer to old studies talking about psychopathy or sociopathy before ASPD was even created as a term they refer to the old study as a study on ASPD.

It is trivial to find reliable sources calling Ted Bundy a psychopath or a sociopath, whether in their popular or professional contexts.

Part of the problem might be that somebody introduced the incorrect idea into the ASPD WIkipedia article that it was completely different from psychopathy. Maybe people read that and took it at its word despite the poor sourcing and ignoring the previous versions of the article and the article talk page that already discussed the situation in more detail. DreamGuy (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's true they're all simply synonyms or epithets and nothing more, good God, the huge article on psychopathy is incredibly misplaced. Currently it's nearly 100 kb in size and it would be a massive 'pseudo science' article that doesn't belong. The simple fix would be to redirect it to ASPD. There was also a section about psychopathy vs. ASPD in the ASPD article but I can see that DreamGuy has already removed that. Might also want to consider what to do with the disambig page on sociopathy: perhaps another redirection to ASPD. Frankly I'm confuzzled over this subject now given all of the contrary opinions, and hopefully for Wikipedia's integrity this confusion over the terminology will be resolved eventually. --Xagg (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The Scientific American paper (citation 302) says the following: "(DSM-IV-TR), published in 2000 ... describes a condition termed antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), which is characterized by a longstanding history of criminal and often physically aggressive behavior, referring to it as synonymous with psychopathy. Yet research demonstrates that measures of psychopathy and ASPD overlap only moderately." So your blanket statement that "they all mean exactly the same thing" is misinformed. There is also a historic perspective to consider: "Psychopath" and "sociopath" were once perfectly acceptable scientific terms -- as were "moron", "imbecile", and "idiot". But when all of these terms developed social stigmata, they were no longer considered acceptable or useful for professional purposes. (The latter 3, if you're interested, became "mildly retarded", "moderately retarded", and "severely retarded", respectively.) As I mentioned above, I am currently looking (as time permits) for better RS to clarify this point in the article; meanwhile I have temporarily changed the sentence in question to what I hope will be an acceptable compromise. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 17:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry, but you are misinformed, but I can at least see why you'd be confused. The problem is that once the *American* Psychiatric Association changed the name and modified the diagnostic criteria to be more objective, Dr. Hare (a *Canadian*) released his Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL-R) to try to get therapists to use the more original diagnostic criteria instead of the new, more focused one. The Scientific American writer is confused because he ses that they don't match exactly but doesn't understand that he is looking at two different diagnostic criteria for the *same condition*. Unfortunately a lot of popular writing on the topic gets the information wrong, as anyone with experience in any professional field knows is a major problem with all popular reporting. No offense, but it gets tiring seeing people repeat such basic and obvious mistakes. DreamGuy (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Then where is the RS citing this Canadian's assessment, not to mention documentation that it's not WP:FRINGE? I'm not a psychiatrist; perhaps you are, and know more about the terminology than I -- but even so, neither your opinion nor mine matters on WP -- what matters is sources. And if you want this detail to stay in the article, you'll have to source it properly. The one existing source, other than DSM-4, that is not a Bundy biography says they are not synonymous. And the fact that one Canadian expert (if he is one) wants the world to go back to the old terminology doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the world agrees with him. I'm looking for some corroboration, so far haven't found any. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 20:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Randomly calling any source who disagrees with you a WP:FRINGE source is grasping at straws, especially when all it would take is a quick Google to realize trying to make that argument would make you look foolish. I should note that you are the one entering your personal opinion/original research into the article, claiming the terms are not used by professionals, and yet you are edit warring to put your own opinion into the article while demanding those who want to remove your misinformation to get sources to prove you wrong while you don't have any to support yourself other than allegedly having spoken to some people in real life who told you that. Wow.

Bundy is the most famous psychopath of all time, typically the first one any expert on the topic mentions as an example, and we have people here trying to say he wasn't really one. Wonderful. Well, here are full sources backing up everything I said above:

• The Psychopathy of Everyday Life: How Antisocial Personality Disorder Affects All of Us, Martin Kantor M.D., 2006 Greenwood Publishing Group. "One of the biggest problems in understanding psychopathy is the literature's tendency to lump serious but rare psychopaths like John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy with the less serious but common psychopaths, the many in our midst who suffer from a milder and less obtrusive form of what the DSM-IV (The American Psychoiatric Association's Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) officially calls "Antisocial Personality Disorder".
• "This Charming Psychopath", By Robert Hare, Psychology Today, January 1, 1994 "Jeffrey Dahmer. Ted Bundy. Hannibal Lecter. These are the psychopaths whose stunning lack of conscience we see in the movies and in tabloids." (See also Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us Robert Hare, 1999)
• Understanding Abnormal Behavior David Sue, Derald Wing Sue, Stanley Sue, 2003 "And Ted Bundy was a charming, intelligent, and articulate psychopath who left a coast-to-coast trail of brutal and sadistic murders of young women."
• Profile of a Psychopath: The Ted Bundy Case Study: A Combination of Genetics and Environment, William H. Humphries, 1999, Flinn Scientific, Inc. (no quote needed, see title).
• What is Psychology? Essentials, Ellen E. Pastorino, Susann M Doyle-Portillo, 2008 "People who are impulsive and disregard the rights of others without showing any remorse or guilt are diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder (APA, 2000a). A person with this disorder is commonly referred to as a psychopath, or a sociopath. [...] Serial murderers such as Charles Manson, Gary Gilmore, Andrew Cunanan, and Ted Bundy come to mind when thinking about antisocial personality disorder, as they have received much media attention."
• Abnormal Psychology G. Terence Wilson, K. Daniel O'Leary, Peter E. Nathan, 1992 "Consider the behavior of Ted Bundy, a slick, good-looking, psychopathic sex offender and murderer. Bundy was an example of a particular psychopathic subtype [...]"
• Handbook of Mental Health in the Workplace Jay C. Thomas, Michel Hersen, 2002 "Psychopathy, sociopathy, and moral insanity are just some of the terms used to describe what is officially known as Antisocial Personality Disorder." (also explicitly mentions Bundy as fitting the description).

Forensic and Legal Psychology, Mark Costanzo, Daniel Krauss, 2010 & Darwinian Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature, Larry Arnhart, 1998 & The Age of Sex Crime Jane Caputi, 1987 & The Riverman: Ted Bundy and I Hunt for the Green River Killer Robert Keppel, 2010 & many, many, MANY more all call Bundy a psychopath. DreamGuy (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Take it easy on the personal attacks, tiger. (And you might want to review WP:TIGER before you get in any deeper.) I'm not sure what I said to deserve all this vitriol. All I asked was that you supply some RS to back up your assertions, since the burden of proof was on you -- instead of making the same edit over and over (which is what edit warring is). So you've finally come up with some -- bravo! The fact is that modern psychiatrists discourage use of those terms, rather than ASPD, for all the reasons I've listed -- but in the context of this article it's really not important enough to debate any further. Is the present wording in the article acceptable to you? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 06:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No answer; I thought not. Anyhow, does anyone else care to weigh in on this? Since psychiatrists seldom if ever use the term, it's hard to prove a negative with medical sources; but such sources do exist. Stedman's Medical Dictionary, for example, lists "psychopath" only as an outdated term for ASPD. WP's article on psychopathy (which I did not write, and have never edited) says "...no psychiatric or psychological organization has sanctioned a diagnosis of "psychopathy" itself, [though] assessments of psychopathy are widely used in criminal justice settings in some nations and may have important consequences for individuals. The term is also used by the general public, in popular press, and in fictional portrayals. This popular usage does not necessarily conform to the clinical concept." Precisely my point.

As I already said above, I don't really care enough about the distinction, in the context of this article, to perpetuate a childish debate here; but do any of the other principal editors of this article have an opinion, one way or the other? Once all the dick-waving has stopped, do we care whether we are using the term the way the lay press does (as the psychopathy article states), "...to designate any criminal whose offenses are particularly abhorrent and unnatural, [despite the fact that] that is not its original or general psychiatric meaning"? Without pointing out, as I was attempting to do, that many sources do NOT support the statement that "the terms mean exactly the same thing"? I'd like to build a consensus here, one way or the other. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 15:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

As someone who keeps a close watch on this article, I can only totally agree with your comments. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Would others care to contribute? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 17:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that they're definitely used distinctly by lay press or courts in some cases, at least by name (e.g. 'diagnosed with psychopathic personality disorder' at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20171967). But yeah, although there is the occasional diagnosis statement noted by the press, based on further searches I haven't found any diagnostic criteria for 'psychopathy' by psychiatric or psychological organizations, which supposedly should be treated as the authoritative sources on this subject, not the lay press or such. The DSM, which I reviewed just a few minutes ago, doesn't seem to mention 'psychopathy' beyond being a former name for ASPD.

Regarding any notable distinction between the two if any, and whether they're two separate conditions or two names for the same condition, I guess discussion about that should belong in the Talk page of ASPD or psychopathy, not here. Personally I haven't done enough research on the subject to know, but apparently some of you have a better idea, in which case I think your input might be encouraged in the relevant Talk pages. --Xagg (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a some of this is more properly discussed on these terms' talk pages -- but since the original assertion, above, was that the terms were all synonymous, it's important to demonstrate -- here -- that that statement is incorrect. Here is a historical perspective from a Professor of Psychiatry acquaintance -- and before anyone says anything, I get that the following does not constitute RS; and I have already asked him to point me toward some published sources that I can use as citations -- but clearly, the distinction is not as simple as DreamGuy and others would like to believe:

"You are correct, both psychopathy and sociopathy are outdated terms. Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy are often confused, though they are not the same condition; and sociopathy is something else entirely; exactly what, I'm not sure. Furthermore, though one prominent researcher (David Lykken) years ago proposed differentiating between sociopathy and psychopathy based upon causal factors (with psychopathy caused primarily by biological factors, and sociopathy due more to social factors such as improper or ineffective parenting), there has been no research that supports this theoretical speculation. In fact, there is no currently validated measure of sociopathy which would permit researchers to study whether it has different causes or properties than psychopathy. Thus, the current confusion between sociopathy and psychopathy may stem from an unwillingness of mental health professionals to discard antiquated terms."

"In 1952, the first edition of the DSM used the term sociopathic personality disturbance. This was the first official emergence of the term “sociopathy”, although this diagnosis was focused on internal psychological processes and personality traits (as opposed to more easily identified behaviors), which made it difficult for clinicians to diagnose properly. To address this shortfall, in 1980 the DSM-III introduced a more limited, behaviorally-based diagnosis called antisocial personality disorder which was intended to replace both older terms, but arguably lost many of the key personality-based symptoms of psychopathy that were found in earlier versions of the diagnosis."

Well, I guess that's clear as mud. The fact, though, is that the 3 terms are not interchangeable -- and the present wording in the article, which implies that they are, is not correct, despite all of the misinformed stuff, written by people who are not mental health professionals, asserting the opposite. I'm now working on assembling some real RS (as opposed to the lay literature cited above) so we can put this to bed, at least for a while. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 15:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Of the sources I provided, two of them (Robert Hare and Martin Kantor) are *undeniably* amongst the foremost experts on this area of psychology. To claim that they are "misinformed" or "lay literature" is just absurd. The other sources are equally valid per WP:RS rules as secondary sources demonstrating wide agreement in the field. I am not seeing any policy-based reason to ignore these sources. Arguments that are variations of "well, what *I* think is..." or "I'm not seeing..." or "my anonymous friend says..." certainly do not cut it. DreamGuy (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I should also point out that it's bizarre that people were disputing a diagnosis that is widely supported and reported on pretty much in any source ever written about the case as supposedly having insufficient sources while at the same time a section totally pulling a claim of evidence of dissociative identity disorder out of thin air based upon some editor's personal interpretation of some things a couple people said remained in the article untouched the whole time. I removed it as an obvious violation of policy. DreamGuy (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

In case you were referring to me by the first part of your comment, I want to clarify that I wasn't disputing that Bundy had a diagnosis of ASPD, just there being sufficient sourcing in that section of the article supporting it as the most probable diagnosis. --Xagg (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The question is whether the terms are interchangeable -- do you have citations proving that either Hare or Kantor claim that they are? As to the DID content, the material you removed consisted of direct quotes from the cited sources; how does that constitute original research? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As to your statement that "no expert ever proposed that [DID] diagnosis", Dorothy Lewis, the principal psychiatrist for the defense, did. It's documented in detail in the Nelson book. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess I should have said no independent expert ever proposed that. Of course you'd expect a defense witness to come to whatever conclusion might have the best chance to slant things in the defendant's favor. You obviously can put something saying that a (paid? unpaid?) expert witness for the defense made the argument. You can't use Wikipedia's voice to claim outright that evidence exists to support it, as that is a biased stance. Many experts don't even think that DID is a valid diagnosis at all, so they would obviously disagree that evidence exists. You can't have Wikipedia take the side of a source with an obvious agenda. This is pretty basic WP:NPOV stuff here. DreamGuy (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

So, you yanked the paragraph on the grounds that it was "original research" -- that the DID suggestion came "out of thin air based upon some editor's personal interpretation of some things a couple people said." It was pointed out that it did not "come out of thin air", that it came out of a reliable source -- one of several direct quotes: "Dr. Lewis identified a bipolar mood disorder and a suggestion of multiple personalities" -- pp. 229-234 in Polly Nelson's book, if you care to look it up. So now you are saying that since Dr. Lewis testified for the defense, that the source can't be used? Where is that rule? You, as an editor, are not entitled to decide which reliable sources can or can't be used, as long as the content is presented in a neutral manner. WP:NPOV specifically states, "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." That paragraph says only that an alternate diagnosis was proposed, based on behaviors described in court testimony, and cites the source. Does anyone else think that this violates WP:NPOV? If so, how? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 16:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with DoctorJoeE in this case, for the reasons suggested. If anything, it seems non-NPOV to exclude that information. --Xagg (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all the reasons stated above by User:DoctorJoeE and Xagg. There seems no reason to exclude this information. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Guess I will have to post here as I was also reverted - Did not want to post as i have had conflict in the past with DreamGuy over his interpretation of our policies and dont want to get back to that. Never the less I also agree (with the majority) the info was informative and the refs fine.Moxy (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I will get back to this in a bit, but DreamGuy appears to be operating against consensus. This could be a problem. Doc talk 03:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thats what I see and why despite my misgivings about getting involved I edited the page. Hopefully this can be resolved we just need DreamGuy to come back and see (respect) what others (everyone else) has said about his interpretation of what is NPOV. Need to move on from this one-sided "I dont like it" debate that is way old.Moxy (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Frankly, this is getting a little silly and I agree that Dreamguy is operating against consensus. I see no reason for the latest deletion - which was sourced. If this is allowed to carry-on, then we could find that any statement made in court or elsewhere which is properly sourced could be deleted. I agree we need to move and consensus should be respected. David J Johnson (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have modified the entry to clarify that it was proposed by an expert witness, based on documented behaviors, and I hope that ends it. Documenting a minority opinion is the *opposite* of "POV-pushing".

I'm also working on adding a sentence or two about his foot paraphilia, as some of us have been discussing on and off. It is covered in most (if not all) biographies, and deserves at least a mention. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 16:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Doc, I owe YOU a Coke!

Well, Doc, your instinct was right on; so much for assuming good faith. Might even have been the same troll. I'll be a little less naive next time. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem! This edit indicates it was the same troll. I didn't expect him to flame out the way he did, but maybe it was because trolls get frustrated with me once I see their real intentions. Cheers! Doc talk 21:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The D.B. Cooper edit wasn't particularly subtle. The admins were onto him pretty quickly after that. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 03:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot to be said for the "hive mentality" that is derided on anti-WP sites. I like the hive. Hive mentality has been successful for millions of years in nsect evolution. Only good insects need to be here. Workers. The rest will be dealt with. Doc talk 03:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Trolls on parade, LOL!Kmsullivan12 (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)