Talk:Zodiac Killer/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Article structure

I have a problem with the structure of the article. Some time back it was structured in a way I found (and continue to find) more logical:

• Introduction (prior to ToC)
• Victims
• Timeline
• Suspects
• Pop culture
• References
• and everyone's favorite, External Links

Today the structure has broken out events after the last canonical crime into top-level sections. It doesn't make sense to me that the sections on Riverside and Lake Tahoe are on the same level as Pop Culture and Further Reading.

I propose changing "Timeline of murders" to a more general "Timeline" that includes the current entries and "Kathleen Johns" (which should be renamed "Modesto" in keeping with the new location-based sections), "Further communications", "Riverside", "Lake Tahoe", "Santa Barbara", "The final letters", and "Current status". (Alternately, "Current status" could remain outside of "Timeline".)

Does anyone object? Jimbonator 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it. My only suggestion would be to break up the victims into two categories: Known victims and suspected victims. Tom Voigt 11:42 p.m., March 29, 2007 (UTC)

I agree; can we restore the introduction? The new one isn't so good. James.Spudeman 18:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current one? Jimbonator 17:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's. Very. Segmented. And has. very simple. language. James.Spudeman 18:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The only problem is see with your proposal is the adding of a "Suspects" section. I fear that doing so may once again serve as an open invitation for others to resume adding in some of the same living suspects that were recently removed, particularly those that resulted in the major revision to the article that we saw recently. To refresh everyone’s memory, several of those suspects were very close (if not way over the line) to the sort of thing prohibited in WP:BLP. Which suspects would you propose adding to that section? Labyrinth13 16:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding a "suspects" section may open the door to a problem that plagues some other Zodiac Killer sites -- people advocating for their pet suspect(s). "Victims" aren't hampered with this problem because no one becomes a hero -- or sells a new Z book -- by advocating for a certain victim. The other problem lies with the questionable speculations that surround most of these supposed suspects. Allen was virtually cleared using various means, though he remains under suspicion; Mr. X will sue his accuser if his name is ever revealed; Kane, Marshall and most of the others are so highly speculative that common sense barely supports their suspect status; and strangest of all may be Michael O'Hare, a living, breathing, well-regarded UC Berkeley professor whose entry into this case at the end of Gareth Penn's pen was nothing short of inexplicable. (Both of those men are still alive). Trial via jury of speculators -- or wannabe Graysmiths -- doesn't seem a good Wikipedia mandate. Zdefector 15:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I goofed; I was in a bit of a rush when I wrote my proposal and did not mean to include Suspects in the new article. I only included it in the list to show what the structure used to be like, and how I'd like to return to that general concept with the current material. For now, I would want to keep the section on Arthur Leigh Allen on the top-level, with Timeline and Pop Culture. In general, I'm proposing merely restructuring the article, not adding or deleting current material. Jimbonator 17:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree: The restructering you suggest sounds like a good idea to me. Let me know if you need any help. Labyrinth13 23:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thread removed per finding of WikiAdmin isotope23....please see Comment section below

67.76.105.96 17:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC) April 25, 2007

Comment

OK, from what I see going through several editor's logs, nothing pops out at me as far as personal attacks are concerned. I do see a pretty decent amount of pettiness and incivility happening though. I'm not on a witch-hunt; I'm not looking to admonish or persecute anyone here, but I'm going to remind everyone that this is an encyclopedia and a collaborative project. If certain editors cannot work together then there is a whole host of dispute resolution solutions available to you. This brings me to my second point: this is the talkpage for the Zodiac Killer article. It's a place to discuss the article; not air grievances against each other. The external links RfC belongs here, but the "Continued counterproductive badmouthing" thread really does not. If there is an editor (or editors) who are negatively impacting the ability of the rest of the community to create a good article, then it is time to star a User WP:RFC or WP:RFM. If someone is being particularly disruptive, then report them to WP:ANI along with a diff of the disruptive behavior. Mostly though I'd suggest that everyone step back and cool it a bit. I think a WP:3O or other injection of outside opinions would be enormously helpful here. If anyone has further questions, comments, or diffs they want me to look at, please hit my talkpage.--Isotope23 17:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

It is my intention to back off from this entry for a few days or weeks and only monitor it for obvious vandalism from unregistered users (still an ongoing, minor nuisance as always).

I also pledge to ignore any future provocations/comments from editors that I have issues with here and hope that all involved will pledge to do the same.

-- Labyrinth13 17:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23, I appreciate your comments and thank you for getting involved with the incivility surrounding this entry. I'm in full agreement with your conclusions -- I'd like to see the energy used here on the Talk page directed toward improving the actual entry. I need to point out, however, that this is the third time an outside observer has stepped in to negotiate and review the particulars in this dispute, and one more example of the five or six times (maybe more?) of "flame-ups" in the Talk page disrupting work here. Frankly, I don't believe the incivility is going to stop any time soon.

It seems to me that one of the recurring themes in these flame-ups is finger-pointing about who is violating which guidelines. Jeffpw has done great work setting down some guidelines, but I believe he is being viewed by some as biased or in alliance with certain parties, and so he's no longer seen as impartial (which is too bad). A prior RFC was left unresolved (in my view) after a great deal of discussion, and your advice, while sound, is probably not going to do much the next time a flame war erupts.

I don't know if I'm asking from anything from you, but as someone who's been here a while and has a personal interest in the success of this entry, I felt I needed to express my view. Jimbonator 22:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's accurate that I am now viewed as biased on this page, my only bias is towards people who are editing without an agenda. I have no real interest in the subject itself, and indeed, have only edited it to conform to Wikipedia standards and policies. I do think it's a shame that those whorae so fascinated by the case cannot work together to create an article that exemplifies the best of Wikipedia. With so much knowledge that should be possible. Jeffpw 07:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

New documentary section

A new section has been added to the main entry titled, "Documentary," and contains the following entry: "Hunting the Zodiac": 2007 documentary about the subculture of amateur detectives who are obsessed with solving the Zodiac case.

The new entry includes a weblink to the website that features the movie.

I was wondering if anyone else on here feels that this entry does not require a seperate section of its own in the main body of the article, but rather, would be more appropriate for the "External links" section? Your comments are appreciated. Labyrinth13 15:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, if it can be made visually easy to spot (this was why I originally gave it a section by itself): I feel a documentary is a substantially different kind of reference. And surely what is important about this film is NOT the link, but the documentary itself.

However it may be that there are TV news reports etc which could be referenced all together in a bigger "non fiction film & tv" section (not that I'm suggesting it be called that). By the way, I have absolutely nothing to do with the documentary, haven't even seen it, just read about it in a newspaper.

Testbed 15:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Testbed

I agree that as a non-fiction, documentary film, it differs significantly from those films already listed in the “Movies” section, which in my mind, tends to negate putting the entry in with the others in that section.

I suggested that it might be more appropriate for the External links section because a link to the film’s website is included and going by the way that all of the other "Zodiac in pop culture" reference entries have been formatted here, i.e., without links to external websites, the entry may be challenged here on that basis alone.

An alternative might be to add it instead to the References section, but I'm not sure if that complies with WP:MOS or not?

Anyone else have an opinion? Labyrinth13 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel the link belongs in the Pop Culture section, as that category should be (in my mind) for ways the Zodiac has entered into the general culture as an icon of sorts. A documentary about amateur Zodiac sleuths seems a little different in my mind.

I think it best goes into the External Links section for now. I also vote for moving the Radio Shows links into External Links as well.

Another possibility would be some kind of top-level section that deals with (for lack of a better word) non-fiction media. Documentaries, the radio discussions, and the America's Most Wanted-type television could be moved into this section, to keep them separate from such things as Nash Bridges.

-- Jimbonator 21:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[sic]

what exactly does sic mean? Sam729 00:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)sam729

Sic.

-- Jimbonator 00:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It means "exactly as written." It is used when quoting another source and there are archaic or misspelled words in the source material. In other words, the person doing the quoting is saying, "The mistake or idiosyncracy is not mine, it is the other author's." Jsternsp 12:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Section on Jack Terrance

This section of the article is extemely poorly written. It uses very un-encyclopedia language, and it's formatting doesn't feel correct for the page. However, the rather heated discussion on this talk page makes me rather hesitant to edit it myself, so I simply wish to bring it to the attention of the regular editors of the page.

-- Cmay632 11:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Jack Tarrance section. The inclusion of those types of suspect entries has been discussed thoroughly here and was deemed by everyone involved - including various admins -- to be in violation of several Wiki-rules. See talk page entry regarding Suspects for details. Labyrinth13 14:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Zodiac in pop culture section

The Zodiac in pop culture section is starting to get very long again as more and more entries are being added since the general "clean up" of that section a few months back.

Does anyone else think that it might be a good idea to move this entire section into a completely seperate Wiki entry of its own? Labyrinth13 21:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the section is starting to get unwieldy, but I don't think it's so large to justify its own entry. I think the section could be reduced some, especially in the Music section. For example: "Slayer did the song 'Gemini'". So? I *think* it's supposed to a connection to the Gemini killer of Exorcist III, but that's two steps removed from the proper subject of this entry, and that's too far (in my opinion). Other bands did songs called Zodiac, but were the songs properly about the Zodiac Killer?

Maybe some judicious edits of the section could reduce it in size and make the entry more concise. Jimbonator 03:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a workable plan. The only problem that I would have with the idea of reducing the size of the pop culture entries by selective editing would be in determining which ones are more important than others. But I'll have a look in the next few days and will see if I can note anything that is several steps removed, as you note above. Thanks for your response. Labyrinth13 15:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

After a long time thinking about it, I concur with Labyrinth13 that the pop culture section needs to be broken out. It lengthens an already long article; it deals with matter indirectly concerned with the topic; and it doesn't add much in the way of usable information for the reader. It's also become a bit of a link farm and shout-outs to people's favorite heavy metal bands. I don't think that means it's not meant for Wikipedia (for example, see Jack the Ripper fiction.)

I went ahead and did this w/o discussion because it was discussed here before, and no one other than me seemed against it back then, so it looks unanimous now. Jimbonator 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You won't get an argument from me, Jimbonator, but you will get a suggestion: The section in this article now looks skeletal. Do you think you could add a few more lines? I'd do it myself, but I am pressed for time at the moment. Jeffpw 07:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I'll try to beef it up in the near future. As with all things Wikipedia, it starts with a start. Jimbonator 09:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

She was killed for fingering him?!

Okay, Under the Time Line Section, where it talks about Darlene Ferrin, and Michael Mangeau, it states:

"The book claimed that she knew he was responsible for the Lake Herman Road (and perhaps other) murders, and that he killed her either to prevent her from fingering him or because she was blackmailing him in exchange for her silence."

Can we use a different word, rather than FINGERING? It sounds bad...Bryse 18:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to "...her from reporting him to the police or because...". Bsroiaadn^Talk 00:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

3-part cipher is 408 characters

I changed the character count for the solved 3-part cipher from 360 to 408 characters. That's the count I've seen elsewhere, including later in this wikipedia entry. Visual inspection of images of the cipher reveals they are 8 by 17 characters on 3 sheets (408 total). I also cite this page as reference: http://www.zodiackiller.com/mba/zc/20.html

'Crosshair-like symbol'

At the risk of stating the obvious, 'the crosshair-like symbol used by the Zodiac Killer in signing his correspondence' is clearly a crude rendering of the skeleton of a horoscope. Altho this may be apparent to those familiar with the rudiments of astrology, it isn't to everybody, perhaps.

The only thing clear about the symbol is that it's the shape of a cross circle. Nobody but Zodiac knows if it was intended to be the "crude rendering of a horoscope," a rifle site, a watch logo, etc. You're confusing an assumption with a fact. -- Tom_Voigt 11:46 am, 13 August 2007

'Contradiction?'

In the article under "Current Status", the sentence beginning;

"DNA testing seems to have conclusively ruled out their lead suspect, Arthur Leigh Allen,[56]..."

sounds contradictory to the last sentence under the next section;

"However, neither Vallejo nor SFPD ruled Allen out after the test results.[65]"

I would suggest that the first sentence is wrong --no conclusions were yielded except that it wasn't a match..that does not lead to the result of that sentence. A substitution of the word "inconclusively" would be more correct but would still be in conflict with the other sentence. What do you think? By the way, I believe that if there is a flaw to this article that would be it. The article is very well-written. 69.68.64.166

'Citations to Sources and Followups'

1. Are there any sources for what type(s) of 9mm handgun(s) were used? 2007 movie suggests Luger, any real sources?

2. Allen supposedly got a speeding ticket on the day of the Lake Berryessa killing. Has anyone found & copied that ticket? From that, proximity to the scene might can be established. How far was it from the crime scene? Are there any further sources on this other than Graysmith?

3. Has anyone found the other trailer(s) that ALA owned or their locations? Sources?

69.68.64.166

Here's the best source you can get regarding the weapons: http://www.zodiackiller.com/SR1.html

The story about Allen receiving a speeding ticket was debunked almost 10 years ago. There is no truth to it.

As far as Allen's alleged trailers, that info came from the same guy who made up the detail about the speeding ticket. 'nuff said there. -- Tom_Voigt 11:46 am, 30 August 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Voigt (talk • contribs) 18:59, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the info and reference. I recently read Graysmith's newer "Zodiac Unmasked" and came away from that believing he had gotten a speeding ticket and had the trailers. I had been wanting to see the Wing Walkers. That report is a good source. Originator of preceding under 69.68.64.166 71.1.25.36 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.25.36 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Decoded message

Thank you, Anastrophe. Jimbonator 00:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

you're welcome. it was actually easier than i expected. i mean, trivially easy! here's all i did: open up the zodiac killer page here. narrow my browser so that the text wrapped at about 40chars (38 in fact). hit "ALT PrtScn" to capture the screen. paste it into the 'paint.net' graphics program. crop the image. upload to wikimedia. drop a link in the article. poof, done! i only wish i'd thought of it about 250 vandals ago. ;^) Anastrophe 00:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you guys talking about? I'm lost. Tom_Voigt 12:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

the decoded cypher. it was originally just normal text in the article. since it had numerous misspellings, 'helpful' editors would regularly "fix" the typos, even though there were warnings embedded in the text when opened in the editor. i turned it into an image of the decoded cypher, so the typos can't be "corrected". sorry for the confusion. Anastrophe 22:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

But shouldn't the message be 408 characters long? I only count 405 characters. Ruper222 01:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Zodiac Killer In Popular Culture: Movies

Someone keeps removing the entry for the film Hunting The Zodiac. I'm assuming it's vandalism, but if anyone has a problem with the entry, I'm all ears. Here's what it says: "Hunting The Zodiac, a documentary by by John Mikulenka, debuted at the 4 Star Theater in San Francisco on March 3, 2007. It will be available via streaming download and DVD soon." Tom_Voigt 6:05 p.m. Pacific Time, October 24, 2007 (UTC)

You should take this to the discussion page for that entry, not here. Jimbonator 03:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to tell discussion has been posted there without actually checking? The page was empty. Tom_Voigt 10:55 p.m. Pacific Time, October 24, 2007 (UTC)

Your message was posted there. You probably just need to do a complete refresh of your browser cache. Jimbonator 06:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is, since there has never been discussion at that page before, how will anyone know of the issue? That is, if this discussion is removed from here. I'll check this page occasionally because I know there's activity. But the Popular Culture page is a ghost town. Tom_Voigt 12:05 p.m. Pacific Time, October 25, 2007 (UTC)

Now my entry on that discussion page is being removed as well. Tom_Voigt 1:22 p.m. Pacific Time, October 28, 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me how to properly deal with vandals? I thought creating an entry here would prompt those with such knowledge to take action, but so far nothing has been done. Tom_Voigt 10:28 p.m. Pacific Time, October 29, 2007 (UTC)

the easiest way is to use WP:TW. however, if the text is as you presented at the top of this section, perhaps someone objects to it on style or policy grounds. it reads like a promotion for the movie, rather than an encyclopedic entry. 'nobody' cares where a movie debuted, unless we're talking about a major, highly anticipated film. and since wikipedia doesn't speculate or look into the future ( WP:CRYSTAL ), it shouldn't discuss things that will be available "soon". but i'm simply guessing. have the additions been reverted without edit summaries? are they by IP's or accounts? Anastrophe 06:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen no edit summaries. Maybe someone with more experience can check to make sure. If the wording is the issue, well, I would think the person who objects should reword it instead of deleting the entire entry. Regardless, IMHO, the fact remains that "Hunting The Zodiac" is a Zodiac film that people have seen, it exists, has received media attention, and therefore it belongs on the list.

having spent the time now to review your user contributions and past conflicts, i would conclude that your additions are being reverted based on self-promotion (spam) and conflict of interest. it's generally a bad idea for a person to post links to their own works, or to assist in the promotion of works that they contributed to. on that basis, i would probably join in on the reverting. if someone else who doesn't have a conflict of interest were to post the information - properly sourced for relevance, of course - then i'd have no problem with it. it's nothing personal, for that matter i've found the zodiackiller.com site informative and interesting, but it is a for-profit venture that you're associated with, and you are noted on the 'hunting the zodiac' website as an investigator, so all that i've cite above seems to apply. Anastrophe 07:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My low popularity aside, isn't this article supposed to be as accurate as possible? If so, the entry should be there, regardless of what someone thinks of me personally. Tom_Voigt 01:02 a.m. Pacific Time, October 30, 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent)Tom, this has noting to do with your "low popularity" or standing in the Wikipedia community. It has everything to do with wiki po9licies. That said, I will be A) checking the article history to see how the text was removed and dealing with that appropriately, and B) doing a search to see if I can find sources to back your assertion. That way your contribution will conform to all wiki policies. Jeffpw 08:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What assertion are you in need of sources for? Perhaps I can help. Tom_Voigt 12:53 a.m. Pacific Time, October 31, 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Congratulations; this article has passed the GA Article nomination process! It's very well written, has a ton of references to verify the article's content, and is broad in its coverage.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

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.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I do have some suggestions that might improve the article. They are:

• for reference #11 (the Napa Valley Register), please include the writer (Pat Stanley) and the original date of publication (Feb. 18 2007) in the reference to the article. The article may have been retrieved on the same day it was published, but it’s still important to list the publication date.
• change references 12, 13, 15, 19, 63, and 65 so that the author’s last name, then first name appear at the start of the reference.
• The cite web template would be useful to add more information about references like #22 & #29
• In general, try to break up the text a little more; maybe you could use more direct quotes from people involved with the case, post the three codes that haven’t been solved yet, etc.

My recommendations really only amount to nitpicking the references, because the article is already outstanding. You might want to consider a peer review in the near future as the article works it way up to FA status. Overall, it’s great work, and interesting to read. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia, and good luck with the article in the future! Monowi (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Monowi. A lot of editors have put countless hours into this article. It's gratifying to have that work acknowledged. Jeffpw (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Three victims were transsexuals? Really?

Just reading through this page and that jumped out at me. A quick Google search on zodiac killer victim transexual yields no obvious agreement with that "information."

Elvenruler (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)elvenruler

The holidays bring out the vandal in lots of people, apparently. Jimbonator (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that the article has Good Article status, it also has a higher profile here, and will attract even more vandals than before. Jeffpw (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

408 -18 cipher

At the moment the article states "Donald and Bettye Harden of Salinas, California, cracked the 408-symbol cryptogram, which did not contain Zodiac's name". Strictly speaking that's incorrect. They cracked all but the last 18 characters. These 18 characters could contain anything, including another cipher that has the Zodiac's name. We don't know. I'm changing the line to "...cracked the 408-symbol cryptogram, except the last 18 characters." Rien Post (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You are replacing one assumption with another. However, since there is no reason to believe Zodiac placed a code within a code, in my opinion the entry should be reverted. Tom_Voigt 8:59 a.m. Pacific Time, February 14, 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the edits should be reverted, but we should make clear that no one knows if the last 18 characters have meaning or not. In the image caption, we might say "... the meaning, if any, ..."--agr (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia does not speculate. period. WP:CRYSTAL for starters. no implication that it may or may not mean anything more is valid. Anastrophe (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Voigt: I don't think I'm replacing one assumption with another. The statement that they've "...cracked the 408-symbol cryptogram, except the last 18 characters." is, as far as I can see, completely true. I'm not putting any assumption about the meaning of those last 18 characters in the article. I mean, if I'd be a reader and read that they "cracked the 408-symbol cryptogram" I'd be very interested to know what the (according to Wikipedia decrypted) EBEORIETEMETHHPITI means. Rien Post (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, there may be nothing to crack if the final 18 letters are padding (as some have speculated). No amount of work can prove they're padding, however. There's always someone who'll say they are an anagram, or an acronym, or a code-within-a-code, or whatever. The current phrasing of "except for the last 18 characters" suggests there's more work to be done, that they can be cracked, but there is ample precedent in the cryptography field to support the claim they're nothing more than padding. As a Wikipedia entry, we could explain the more reliable theories advanced (padding; "Robert Emmett the Hippie"; etc.) but they're just that, theories. I've considered going into them in the past, but they detracted from the thrust of the article. The current phrasing suggests something more than theory: it reads that the Hardens definitely did not solve all of the cipher. There are plenty of Zodiac researchers who'd bet the bank that they have. I say the article should state that the meaning of the final 18 letters is unknown, and nothing more. Jimbonator (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the text to try to clarify the uncertainty.--agr (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbonator: In that case I think your suggestion of stating that their meaning is unknown is a good solution. I think something should be said about them, just leaving them without any explanation is a little confusing, I think. Rien Post (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I still don't like the way it's worded. The question about the last 18 letters is explained to my satisfaction in the picture caption. I think what's important here is that the cipher was cracked and that Zodiac's promise to reveal his name was false. Allow the reader to draw their own judgements by reading the decoded message. Jimbonator (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Radetich

It's been proposed via edits that Officer Radetich should be added to the suspected victims list. I personally don't agree with this, but would like to hear what others believe before making a reversion. Jimbonator (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Zodiac made a very vague reference that might not have even been about Radetich. I vote to keep the unfounded speculation off the entry. Tom_Voigt 11:32 a.m. Pacific Time, February 20, 2008 (UTC)

In what way is the Radetich case more unfounded than the other suspected victims, like Domingos and Edwards? Or Bates? As far as I can see they're lacking convincing evidence too, so in that light I'd say add Radetich. At least he was (more or less) mentioned by the Zodiac. Making him a suspected victim doesn't seem that far fetched to me, his case is just as unclear/unconnected as the others on the 'suspected' list. Rien Post (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, I'm not aware of any law enforcement agency that was ever of the belief that Zodiac killed Radetich. The same can't be said of Domingos/Edwards and Bates.Tom_Voigt 1:08 p.m. Pacific Time, February 21, 2008 (UTC)

I see. Shouldn't the article mention that then? This distinction isn't mentioned in the 'suspected victims' entry or anywhere else. Rien Post (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO there definitely needs to be a criteria by which specific suspects are named here, otherwise anyone can be added to the list. Tom_Voigt 1:18 p.m. Pacific Time, February 22, 2008 (UTC)

The key here is Wikipedia's policy of no original research. The entry shouldn't make judgments of who is a viable victim, but rather reporting what other reliable sources think. The other suspected victims are controversial, but each is supported by a number of Zodiac researchers and/or law enforcement. Radetich doesn't fit this criteria. RienPost, if you look down the article, you'll notice that SFPD denies to this day that Radetich is a Zodiac victim. If something changes in the future, maybe he'll make the list, but for now he doesn't qualify. Check the footnotes on the other suspected victims (found later in the article) to see how they're viewed by Zodiac researchers and law enforcement. Jimbonator (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Mageau Identified Arthur Leigh Allen

I've found numerous sources that state in 1991 Michael Mageau identified Arthur Leigh Allen from a police line-up as his attacker but I don't see it mentioned here. http://www.zodiackiller.com/FerrinMageau.html Being that this article has GA status I will leave the editing to someone who knows more about the case. Discostu24000 (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That info is listed at "The Arthur Leigh Allen File" section of my website (Zodiackiller.com). Adding it to the Ferrin/Mageau page is something I haven't got around to doing yet. I guess the bottom line is the Vallejo Police Dept. doesn't consider Mageau's statements to be a positive identification. Tom_Voigt 12:55 p.m. Pacific Time, April 15, 2008 (UTC)