![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Skoch3 ( talk) 05:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC): Why was all of the content on this page deleted and not included after redirect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_May_Day_Mystery notice smiley is part of the mystery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.181.23 ( talk • contribs)
The article doesn't mention it, but by my count, many thousands of young men have drowned in the years in which this case is being looked at. Is it really so beyond chance that a smiley, one of the most common pieces of graffiti anywhere, would be found somewhere near 22 or the suspected sites? The article also doesn't mention that the smilies don't look much alike: there's no distinctive signature shape to their design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.197.62 ( talk) 19:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem I have is that everyone acts like there were only smiley faces.The fact that Pat Brown only points out the smiley faces and ignores everything else should have raised a red flag.She should be dismissed as being a reputable source.I am not even allowed to point out there was other graffiti even though I give my source.The fact there was more than smiley faces does not convince me there was a killer but the way information is provided is reasonable proof of bias by both Pat Brown and Wikepedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
As police and other reliable sources have argued that the smiley faces could both be accidental and were not found in connection with the murder scenes anyway, I have included those sources. DreamGuy ( talk) 22:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that Smiley face murders was just changed to redirect here. Shouldn't it be vice versa? I understand the desire to keep a WP:NPOV but we can't make up neologisms either. Take a look at the Google results, the sources call them the "smiley face murders": [1] [2]. Also whatever the title is should follow WP:MOSTITLE ("Killings" or "Murders" shouldn't be capitalized in the name, and I'm not sure about "Face" either) Oren0 ( talk) 23:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed there was only ONE external link to this wiki page. I know of many other sites to be added. On top of that, there are high traffic forum discussion threads that could be added, like the posts at God Like Productions (GLP) and Above Top Secret (ATS). I've been editing a lot of pages (adding links) and I got a warning so I might have to add them tomorrow. Momochan86 ( talk) 23:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)momochan86
User:DreamGuy has deleted two sections (and references) as 'original research' with his own stated POV belief these were not "drunk drown people (who) were murdered". These are current topics in the news in a developing story. To avoid a revert war, I'm looking for consensus one way or the other.
Twenty two college-age men have disappeared in British Columbia, which have similarities to the US victimology. Investigators have been reluctant to link the disappearances to the US deaths or even each other. The public is calling for an investigation.. [1] [2] [3]
Families and news staff on both sides of the US-Canadian border question the lack of official concern for young missing men as opposed to missing women. [4] [5]
The question is: Should these topics be included or not included?
Thank you for your opinion. -- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 13:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
SHAME ON WIKEPEDIA I provided accurate information and provided sources as proof.The bias is ridiculous.If you guys had your way you would rename the article Smiley Face killer theory is BS.The article is garbage.
EVERY THING I ADDED WAS IN THE ARTICLES.EVERY SINGLE THING. PADILLAH MADE CHANGES WITH NO EXPLANATION.I do not believe this site to be reputable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It makes me ill that you allow someone to make a reputable detective that has done more work than the FBI or Pat Brown look like a fool.Shame on you.Thanks to people like yourself that don't like this article to be less one sided it will be easier to dismiss a drowning as a drunken accident every time a young man goes into a bar and has a drink or two.Thanks to you, people can ignore certain facts like the statement made by a law enforcement official "it was unusual for 3 young men around the same age to drown in such a short period of time".They can also ignore that that two of those were volunteers for an ambulance corps.They can also ignore that 2 out of 3 victims in the northeast in less then a 45 day period were disc jockeys.It is way too easy to dismiss one small part while those of us that know more are faced with a hard sell and are censored by people who keep the discussion one sided. No one has provided info that the FBI has done that much work and yet we are supposed to believe their opinion means something.The only evidence that is offered is that the FBI interviewed an individual that provided information to the detectives.Pat Brown only talks about the smiley faces and ignores the other graffiti.Dream Guy is trying to keep this article biased and one sided.The police as a whole have not rejected the theory.I am well informed about many cases and my additions to the article are removed. factual info that was removed complete with sources.
Other similarities Deputy Inspector Robert Martin made the following comment according to a Daily News reporter."it is "a little unusual to have three males in the river, of that age bracket, within 15 months,". He was referring to the drownings of Joshua Bender,Larry Andrews and Patrick McNeil in New York.Joshua Bender and Patrick McNeil were both volunteers for an Ambulance Corps.
Also underneath where pat Brown dismisses the smiley faces
More than just smiley faces During an interview with Milwaukee Magazine Gannon said “The smiley faces are one-thirteenth of the evidence we have" Gannon also said. “We found 13 distinct signs, symbols and markings.” He said the FBI is “not actively looking” at this evidence [10] ( Ethan46 ( talk) 12:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).
There are several people who have clear bias that have been abusing Wiki. They force thier rejection theories while rejecting and deleting clear patterns that have been documented in the media, both print newspapers and Internet.
One of these people (boyinthemachine) has been spreading his rejection theories all over the Internet and deleting data that doesn't fit his unusual views.
I deleted the rejection theory post because it is full of errors and lacks critical sources. It falsely claims that the Minneapolis Police have rejected the Smiley Face theory. They give no source. Actually the opposite is true. The police discused the theory with the national media and have not ruled out or rejected the smiley face theory in the Chris Jenkins case.
Boyinthemachine and DreamGuy both have stated or implied that a certain named person is the one doing the editing. There is no evidence for this and is libal, for which Wikipedia is responsible for.
Boyinthemachine even stated that this person was unprofessional because he was doing this editing. Again, there is no evidence for this. Wiki should remove such comments before it faces a lawsuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.27.175 ( talk) 23:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It was Kondracki in Wisconsin that rejected the serial killer theory despite one young man being chased into the water and another drowning victim being described as terrified of water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Police: Evidence doesn't support TV report on Jenkins' death
"Minneapolis homicide investigators have been investigating Jenkins' disappearance and death since 2002, the police statement noted. "Although we have collaborated with investigators from the FBI and communicated with other jurisdictions in which similar drownings have occurred, we can neither confirm nor endorse the 'Smiley Face Murders' theory currently being publicized." http://www.startribune.com/local/18375754.html
The problem here is that the one article you site states that the PD "neither confirm nor endorse the Smiley Face Murders theory". This is different from what is claimed on Wiki. The Wiki page says the PD rejected the theory. Not confirming the theory and rejecting the theory are two different things. But your lack of brain activity cannot compute this. You have been preaching your rejection theory all over the Internet for so long now, that you want all real evidence to be deleted so it doesn't make you look like the mindless jerk that you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.27.175 ( talk) 10:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
FBI Statement Regarding Midwest River Deaths
"Over the past several years, law enforcement and the FBI have received information about young, college-aged men who were found deceased in rivers in the Midwest. The FBI has reviewed the information about the victims provided by two retired police detectives, who have dubbed these incidents the “Smiley Face Murders,” and interviewed an individual who provided information to the detectives. To date, we have not developed any evidence to support links between these tragic deaths or any evidence substantiating the theory that these deaths are the work of a serial killer or killers. The vast majority of these instances appear to be alcohol-related drownings. The FBI will continue to work with the local police in the affected areas to provide support as requested,” said Supervisory Special Agent Richard J. Kolko, Washington, D.C." http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel08/statement042908.htm
This individual is attempting to delete all criticism and the discrediting of the theory in order to promote a biased account in favor of the theory.
This individual is also presenting individual fringe theories as being important to the case. This is not the place for every person's individual theories or specualtion. This is in fact, classic soapbox behavior. BoyintheMachine ( talk) 06:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
To the anonymous IP who keeps trying to edit this page: Please read WP:NPOV, which is the policy on Neutral Point of View. This guideline dictates that we as editors display information in a balanced way. This article is not perfect, but since the FBI and major law enforcement agencies have not endorsed the theory of serial killer(s) on the loose, we must present it as only a theory. We are not supposed to convince the world that a theory is correct, only show what evidence exists and also show the evidence against. Also, please read WP:EQ to see what is appropriate to say in Wikipedia. Avoid threats and insults. One important quote in Wikiquette is, "Assume good faith." There are alot of guidelines to help us as editors come together to reach consensus. I suggest you read through some of them to understand where the other other editors are coming from. Angryapathy ( talk) 12:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This Mike Flaherty person appears to just be some private individual with a bizarre theory (spelling words ). There is no indication that this theory has received any serious press attention. We cannot devote a section of this article to completely unknown people's ideas, especially as the original theory is WP:FRINGE to begin with. We can't cover the fringe's fringe. I've removed it all, giving the reasons why it doesn't belong, but an anon IP account continually adds this section every time it is removed. For all I know it's Mike Flaherty himself. DreamGuy ( talk) 15:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
OK< it's gotten far worse now. The IP address adding the info about the personal theory of someone nobody has heard of also has now removed all information showing that the police departments, FBI and etc. think the main theory is nonsense, and has also stopped even calling this crazy side theory a theory and calls it a "discovery". This article should not be used to promote personal opinions, especially when the overwhelming expert opinion has been removed. DreamGuy ( talk) 15:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The Rejection secion was removed because it contained errors and lacked critical sources. See the Bias and Slander section for a better explaination of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.27.175 ( talk) 00:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
...snip... (this section removed according to WP:OUTING policy.)
None of the sources provided refer to Mike Flaherty except for the smiley face website that is unreliable. This section does not even come close to meeting WP guidelines and needs to be removed, and if the IP editor disagrees, then an administrator needs to be notified. Angryapathy ( talk) 13:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Anon IP (71.13.27.175) and BoyintheMachine: Please stop the
WP:OUTING or you will both be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I'm not entirely sure what's been said already isn't sufficient to get you both indef blocked. If you have any questions about what you've done wrong please see an admin or read
WP:OUT.
Padillah (
talk)
12:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Padillah, Boyinthemachine has been posting libalous and undocumented statements on Wiki and other blogs. Like many people on the Internet, he thinks he can post whatever he wants and nobody will know who he really is because he uses a screen name. I am exposing who he is so people can sue him for libal and let him know in other ways how they feel about his childish rants. I cannot be blocked because I have endless IP's. I would be happy to quit posting, if Boyinthemachine apologizes for his libal and removes his libalous posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.27.175 ( talk) 12:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Wiki is a two way street, deleting a post because of bias is not a good example of a real encyclopedia. I dare you to try to block me. As long as libal is posted here, I have the right and duty to expose the libaler. As it stands now, I am OK with this page, but if someone adds something libalous, I will make things difficult for them and for anyone else who helps them. See, I was just blocked again, and I'm back. There is no need for acting silly here, just stop the libal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.81.168 ( talk) 13:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
(undented) I'm only aware of that account and the anon IP, two accounts that I am aware of so far I'll get difs later as i am tired too much right now and am getting ready to leave the computer, that is if no one else gets to it. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Any removal of material needs to be deleted by an administrator. Any reverts or deletions by regular editors will leave the information in the system, accessible to anyone. If you truly feel this is a case of outing (even though admins scoured this page this week removing outing information), please notify adminstrators, and stop edit warring. Angryapathy ( talk) 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There are a few bad people on this page who insist on using WIki as a platform to spread libal. This is your final warning to stop! I promise that those engaged in this behavior will be very very sorry, very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nommagdor ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do not make threats on Wikipedia. This behavior is not tolerated and leads to bans. Angryapathy ( talk) 16:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It's too bad that certain people have forced this outcome. Believe me when I say this, those who violate the OUT policy will be biting off far more than they can chew. Who wants to be the first one to test this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nommagdor ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Nommagdor, it would really do you much more good to: 1) Calm down. No one can talk to you if you refuse to listen. 2) Don't make threats. Either you can't do anything substantive, in which case they are empty. Or you can, in which case they are evidence. 3) State your issue rationally and clearly. "Stop OUTing" is not as specific as you might think. OUTing is very serious on WP so, since no one else can find the OUTing you are referring to, we don't see things the same as you do. Please, if you try to work with us we will try to accommodate you. If you only work to alienate yourself from the community you will soon find yourself alone. Padillah ( talk) 16:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There was no outing in the removed text. Admins have already removed the text that qualified as outing. The text this new editor (who also can't spell libel, oddly enough) is deleting needs to be restored. DreamGuy ( talk) 17:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, he's been blocked, again, as I assuming we have been dealing with the same sock puppet for the past few days. I wonder how long he is going to keep attempting to vandalize this page. Angryapathy ( talk) 17:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I've semi-protected this talk page for a time owing to IP harassment. Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Csymons70, please understand, when an editor adds information to an article it must be backed by credible citations. This does not mean write your own citations and then post info citing your references. Amazon.com CreateSpace is not regarded as a reliable source, due mainly to the fact that anyone can post a publication there and there are few restrictions on content or reliability. Please stop adding information that is both not reliable and an advertisement for your material. Padillah ( talk) 12:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I can appreciate your comments but also note that reliable media sources have also published my content because they too have confirmed the sources - so I would hope that information can remain. I don't appreciate commenst made by others that I'm a "nobody". I just want to make certain that this site is maintained with integrity and not some bias against me. Hopefully this can be guaranteed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csymons70 ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Ironically everytime I put somthing in from what I learned from the FBI regaring the classifications of serial killers and the reasons WHY they dismiss the theory it keeps getting deleted. My suggestion is either contact the FBI as I did or read the book. It's apparent that the moderators of this site are bias and simply feel that the theory is weight enough to generate traffic and interest and that's sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csymons70 ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is this shouldn't be called Smile Face Murders because according to authorities they're not murders. The title should have theory attached to it. The reason the FBI has dismissed the THEORY is that none of the traits follow classifications on what they define a serial killer. The article lists that the FBI declined the theory but doesn't explain why. When I added that earlier it was deleted. The FBI has found no evidence, which we all know, but have dismissed the theory because they profile doesn't fit within the classification guidelines. I've also notice a number of theories that appear to be popular in the blogs. Train theory, terrorist theory, Mike Flannery and Krist Pehl also have theories that should probably be included. This way viewers can see all that is avilable regarding the topic. Maybe a section could be added titled "Other theories"? Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csymons70 ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's the bottom line: Wikipedia is not a place to publicize yourself. We have info from the FBI, police departments, and a famous profiler all saying there's nothing to the theory. You want to add sections where YOU say there's nothing to theory, so that you can promote a book you self-published through a vanity press. That's never going to fly. You aren't a recognized expert on this topic, and you cannot spam Wikipedia with references to yourself. Period. Anything you add referring to yourself will be removed, so don't bother trying to do it. And if you keep this up you WILL be blocked from editing. We take WP:COI and WP:SPAM very seriously here. DreamGuy ( talk) 18:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Done
In deference to the fact that Csymons70 has a valid point I suggest this article be renamed "Smiley face murder theories" to reflect the fact that they are not serial murders but unsupported theories. I suggest the plural so as to contain the variations on a theme that have cropped up. I am not as sure of the multiple theories, they may not have the level of notability the "Smiley face" theory has, but I do fully support the suggestion to title them as a theory rather than serial murders. Padillah ( talk) 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
With no objections for over a week, I'd like to move this to "Smiley face muder theory" but I know there are redirects. How do I find the pages that link here?
Padillah (
talk)
12:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
That was easy. But would it be best to leave this article and redirect to the "Theory" article or do a move and correct the dozen or so pages that link here? Padillah ( talk) 12:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the article be renamed rejection of the smiley face murder theory,since that part takes up most of the article page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You obviously do not know how this is supposed to work.There was no citation for the statement most law enforcement agencies believe they were accidenatal drownings.I have been nuetral while you and padilah have been promoting pat Brown's theories and removing statements with citations.Padillah has also been caught in his own lies.You and Padillah obviously have the view there are no killers and are using wikipedia for your own means.You are also keeping the article slanted.I am not the one trying to slant the article as the liar padillah has stated.I never put information there was evidence and pahdillah pointed out I should have added another statement about a denial of evidence.I listed similarities that I don't believe is evidence in the first place.I stand by my accurate statement that the article is garbage and pahdillah is a liar.If you all want to take this personal that is up to you but I am telling it like it is.Are you on Pat Brown's payroll?: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You want me to provide proof after you made false accusations and I addressed them? You did everything you accused me of.You even misspelled sentence and period while changing the subject to my grammar btw. I really don't take you or wikipedia that seriously.Any one can edit here and sway the story one way or another. Why don't you prove I was cherry picking and I should have added the statement that there was no real evidence even though I listed similarities and not evidence? Those were similarities I don't even consider evidence. You are doing a dance around the issues you created and then acting like I should address my accusations.Once again you are being one sided. When you state something that is not true than it is a lie. That is not an attack just because I point it out. A lie by definition can be intentional or unintentional. If you want to believe a lie than there is nothing I can do about that. Ban away. If you familiarized yourself better with the rules than you would know a better reason for removing the similarities would be that it was based on my own research. Your motivation is suspect and not mine. I provided more information and did it with citations. Meanwhile information is still in the article with no citations from articles that say what it does in the article. Any reasonable person can see for themselves the rejection of the theory takes up most of the space on the page, and any one more familiar with the case knows there is more to the theory than what is in the article. I am not going to waste a lot of time familiarizing myself with wikipedia after encountering obvious bias and false statements. You attacked me. I did not attack you. I asked to not take this personal but it seems you did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You talk at me and not to me.You start with an opinion before you gather the facts.Then you talk about having a discussion and yet after all this time you still do a dance about what you first said.I see no evidence you want a discussion. I think you want to be preachy.You said the following
"you mentioned that a detective said it was unusual that three teens drowned so close to each other but you neglected to add that he also said there was no real evidence linking the deaths"
I never presented that statement as evidence nor do I consider it evidence,yet you used that as an example of how I was slanting the article by not pointing out there was no real evidence.You sound like a crazy person to me and as long as crazy people are allowed to have so much influence there is no reason for me to learn more.This really is not about me.It is about you.You might want to tone it down it bit .I can make the case elsewhere without wikipedia.I don't need wikipedia to point out more information. I wanted a balanced article that is not one sided.I do not even have a reason to even care any more what is in the article. You act like you are some kind of GOD here .I have every reason to be wary of people like you and this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between similarities and evidence. It would be like saying I should have mentioned something about oranges even though I was talking about apples. Similarities have nothing to do with real evidence.Only by believing that similarities are evidence would you have a reason to make the comment you made. You are the one who accused me of slanting the article ,gave a ridiculous reason why, and then you expect me to believe you want to discuss this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.62.199 ( talk) 18:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh so now it is about how it is a fringe theory? So why It is is the article posted at all? To promote the rejection of the theory? You just keep attacking. You even had to bring up how I don't care about learning more but to be one sided you did not mention that it was because I don't care what you do to the article. I also have no intention of changing it.You got your way but still want to pick a fight. Feel free to leave up the statements in the article with no citations that are relevant also. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ethan46 (
talk •
contribs)
19:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking specifically about this version of the article and edits. I think they should stay. If we look at this from a numbers point of view we can see four paragraphs, small but unambiguous, that deny the theory (MPD, La Crosse PD, Pat Brown, and FBI). Against one larger but supported by only two (Dr. Gilbertson and Dr. Wecht). And even the addition of that paragraph is balanced by the final quote from Delong re-stating the FBIs position. I also find it rather difficult, if not impossible to dismiss interviews from Larry King or people such as Wecht who, right or wrong, are known and notable. I think that particular version is balanced enough to stay. I might work a little harder to get the whole FBI denial quote since it is a bit equivocating, as a means of balancing against the weight of Wecht, but that's about all. Padillah ( talk) 13:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
My update to the article was made in good faith to maintain a neutral point of view. Felt the direct quotes would provide neutrality. However, I don't mind if they are summarized or an alternative sentence is suggested, but the information is very significant and should be included in the article was my point. I don't think wholesale deletion of the update was an appropriate response. I would have accepted someone's accurate restating. A criminologist is the type of background for an expert profiler, but that seems to be nit picking. As to Fringe, the current quote "ludicrous" qualifies to a far greater degree as something that could be classified as on the fringe - All those cited are medical and law enforcement professionals, and they are investigating a potential crime. As to weight its only one paragraph.
How about this as a more concise version:
On March 21, 2009, Dr. Lee Gilbertson, a criminologist and faculty member at St. Cloud University, stated on CNN’s Larry King that he supports the Smiley Face murder theory advanced by Gannon and Duarte and he further stated his belief that it could be a group committing the alleged crimes. [6] He noted his view that the drownings did not match a pattern of accidental drownings. [6] Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, cited what in his view showed evidence of a homicide in regard to the Patrick O’Neil death. [6] Fly larvae discovered in the groin area was that of an indoor fly which indicated that the body was already dead before being placed in the water. [6] Candice Delong, a former FBI profiler conceded, "Yes, regarding that particular case in New York, that certainly does sound like it was a homicide. I, however, fail to see the connection between the New York case and these other Midwestern cases. Perhaps we could learn." [6]
Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 01:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. So with your changes the concise version would say:
On March 21, 2009, Dr. Lee Gilbertson, a criminologist and faculty member at St. Cloud University, stated on CNN that he supports the Smiley Face murder theory advanced by Gannon and Duarte and he further stated his belief that it could be a group committing the alleged crimes. [6] He noted his view that the drownings did not conform to the statistical patterns of accidental drownings. [6] Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, cited what in his view showed evidence of a homicide in regard to the Patrick O’Neil death. [6] Fly larvae discovered in the groin area was that of an indoor fly which indicated that the body was already dead before being placed in the water. [6] Candice Delong, a former FBI profiler conceded, "Yes, regarding that particular case in New York, that certainly does sound like it was a homicide. I, however, fail to see the connection between the New York case and these other Midwestern cases. Perhaps we could learn." [6]
Thanks for the input. Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 17:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Placed the paragraph under Gannon and Duarte's theory to accomodate neutrality. Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 15:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The following edits are being disputed as NPOV. Please weigh in as to there relevance and POV for inclusion in the article.
On March 21, 2009, Dr. Lee Gilbertson, a criminologist and faculty member at St. Cloud University, stated on CNN that he supports the Smiley Face murder theory advanced by Gannon and Duarte and he further stated his belief that it could be a group committing the alleged crimes. [6] He noted his view that the drownings did not conform to the statistical patterns of accidental drownings. [6] Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, cited what in his view showed evidence of a homicide in regard to the Patrick O’Neil death. [6] Fly larvae discovered in the groin area was that of an indoor fly which indicated that the body was already dead before being placed in the water. [6] Candice Delong, a former FBI profiler conceded, "Yes, regarding that particular case in New York, that certainly does sound like it was a homicide. I, however, fail to see the connection between the New York case and these other Midwestern cases. Perhaps we could learn." [6]
Padillah ( talk) 14:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
That is definitely lending undue weight to a minor source. We do not and should not mention every minor source who ever commented on the idea. Gilbertson is of course a reliable source for his own views, but it would be misleading to expound upon those ideas here as though they were reflected in more reliable sources treating the topic at hand. - 2/0 ( cont.) 17:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this section seems to give quite a bit of weight to a minority viewpoint. Maybe some of you should take a lot at Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Richard ( talk) 17:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, you do not seem to understand the undue weight policy and appear to be using it to keep out any additions you do not like. Not sure why. And there is clearly not enough of rational basis, reasoned analysis, or the like, to claim any sort of consensus for your objections. With repect to weight, the policy clearly states, "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space." As to viewpoint, the documented content merely explains the theory, it doesn't exalt it above those who do not accept it as you may suppose, thus the theory is really not given any undue weight at all in the article with the added paragraph in that respect either. After you seemed make a big deal that the theory is a minority view point, you don't seem to get that when an article is about the minority view point more space can be devoted to it legitimatly. But even so, its only ONE paragraph that makes no claims of being better than those who don't accept the theory and in no way makes claims to refute any of those who don't accept it as you may suppose. Thus, you have no case whatsoever. You haven't explained as to content why you have an objection, but then attack the source itself. We cannot count too heavily on a minimun of posted discussion here that offers little substance or reasoning, except that somehow concludes that two sentences constitute undue weight? Also, you seem to have written on Padillah's talk page in parenthesis implying that perhaps its Gilbertson himself citing himself as a source in this article? Where do you come up with that? Padillah who has experience at working with you, appears to agree with me. Further, you make unproven claims as above where you claim that Gilbertson is trying to sell something when no media sources are making this claim. A pattern seems to be that you object without substance.
The proponents of the theory believe the drowning cases do not match the statistical patterns of accidental drownings and the victimological profiles may suggest a group. What's your problem with this? Its a simple fact of the theory in the topic at hand. Its not a claim to make undue weight violation, not any fringe violation. Its a simple statement that explains the notable topic at hand and its documented from valid verifiable source. Yet you are claiming this is undue weight somehow. You have not and apparently cannot explain how you claim this is undue weight, with or without Gilbertsons name in the sentence. We could state that the theory "suggests" that the drowning cases do not match the statistical patterns accidental drownings if this would satisfy you. Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 23:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Support the inclusion of Gilbertson's views as proposed. It's supported by a reliable source. We can allow the reader to decide for themselves how much credibility to give his opinion. Cla68 ( talk) 04:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Cla89.I however do not understand why the part about McNeil should be added. Gannon worked on the McNeil case ,but no information is provided that he linked that with other drownings.The claim was made Chris Jenkin's drowning linked other drownings together.Let people decide for themselves if it is a fringe theory.People involved in law enforcement do not make a point of releasing all the information they have to the public any more than someone would show you their hand in a poker game. Are there rules about making unsupported claims about someone? I also think the detectives should be credited with investigating 89 drownings as that IMHO gives them as much credibility as those that disagree with them,even though they could very well be wrong as far as we know. The detectives went into this with a good reputation and the suggestion that someone is in this for a book deal is in bad taste.-- Yankee2009 ( talk) 15:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Padilla. If this page is to exist, there needs to be proof that more than two detectives believe in the theory. If we can't get any more sources, then we should just delete the article. I have no problem including two sentences showing the more than two people believe in the theory. Larry King may not be a reliable source, but he is mainstream, and including a criminologist who was featured on the program shows that someone else believes in the theory. Angryapathy ( talk) 19:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Do we know if the theory is a minority view by law enforcement? I see no evidence either way.It is an interpretation. In other words POV. The wiki article says it is but the citations do not.The detectives investigated 89 cases in several states. A local authority and an FBI spokesperson making a comment the majority of drownings are alcohol related accidents is not a majority. A citation is not even given where a local authority says the majority of drownings were alcohol related. I see no reason to delete the whole article or compromise. Patrick McNeil has never been named as a suspected victim by the detectives. The articles used as citations say the following.
<The vast majority of these instances appear to be alcohol-related drowning," the bureau said in a statement.>
<The FBI and local authorities don't necessarily agree with the theory that all the drownings are linked and the work of a gang.> It would make more sense for the article to reflect what was said and not an interpretation. -- Yankee2009 ( talk) 16:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The drownings were ruled accidental by police in several jurisdictions. The FBI further weighed in on it. If it were not a majority of experts than they would not have called them accidental drownings in the first place. This is clear and overwhelming, and these are some of the worst attempts at rationalizing up support for a fringe theory I've seen. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Once again you make unsupported comments. I do not support the theory. I support the rules being followed. You also say most were ruled accidental yet don't back up your claim. The comments I have seen lead me to believe that a lot of assumptions are being made. I am being sincere and backed up the claim the case has not been made the majority were accidents. They may be, but that is an opinion . Show me where it says most were ruled accidental. There is nothing in the articles that says most were ruled accidental. If that statement was made I would support it being in the article. --
Yankee2009 (
talk)
18:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Many of the deaths were undetermined. You and the other editors are cherry picking information. There was no poll taken to establish that the majority in LE believe they were accidental deaths. The only basis any editors have for leaving an unsupported comment in the article would be it reflects their own personal belief.. Experienced editors should know better. Don't even bother to try to bait me with any more nonsense. There is a problem with your so called experts. Pat Brown writes books and benefits from publicity . Kondracki would use the drowning death of a young man to make a statement about the evils of alcohol before an investigation was even completed and the FBI decided way back in 2003 that cases of young men drowning in the midwest would not get priority. It took 5 years just to get a DNA test of the hair that was in Chris Jenkin's hand. However none of those FACTS you ignore mean I believe the theory. Please stop being a troublemaker. I notice they go easy on you here so maybe I will just call you Teflonguy. -- Yankee2009 ( talk) 18:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW I know you broke the rules by campaigning etc etc.-- Yankee2009 ( talk) 19:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Going to someone's talk page to get them to take their side is campaigning. If you don't understand something you could ask rather than misrepresenting the facts and trying to make me look bad.I think this is more personal for most of you editors than you would like to admit. You can't keep your biased views from influencing the article or trying to size up the other editors. I did my homework. If you did yours you might know what you are talking about. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Yankee2009 (
talk •
contribs)
00:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You did not assume good faith. Pot meet kettle.-- Yankee2009 ( talk) 00:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Since the sole argument seems to surround Dr. Gilbertson (for reasons yet to be properly explained) let's remove his statement and post the remainder of the content. How do you feel about the following paragraph being added:
On March 21, 2009, on Larry King Live, Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, in support of the theory cited what in his view showed evidence of a homicide in regard to the Patrick O’Neil death [6]. Fly larvae discovered in the groin area was that of an indoor fly which indicated that the body was already dead before being placed in the water. [6] Candice Delong, a former FBI profiler conceded, "Yes, regarding that particular case in New York, that certainly does sound like it was a homicide. I, however, fail to see the connection between the New York case and these other Midwestern cases. Perhaps we could learn." [6]
How about we add that? Padillah ( talk) 12:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is a link to an article where the claim is made McNeil's death is linked to at least 40 others . [5]. I am skeptical that everything written in some of the articles is correct. Another article claims according to KSTP,they are linked to O'Neil's death,but the KSTP article does not say that. One article says 40 may be linked and another says 40 are linked according to the detectives. -- Yankee2009 ( talk) 19:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
While I do agree that the theory is probably bunk, this article spends more time making it seem like the theory is useless and spends more time focused on the rejection of the theory. If the theory is completely non-notable, delete the article. If not, add more information to show that the theory is worthy of inclusion on WP, and that other people do believe in the theory. I see no problem adding the professor to the article. If you find something that specifically says he is promoting his private investigation agency or that he is a worthless professor, then don't add him. Otherwise, you are making assumptions based on research of your own. Angryapathy ( talk) 07:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Lets' keep the information. Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 15:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Bottom line folks is we had an RFC on this above, and since the material is controversial you would need to demonstrate a clear consensus to add it. You don't have that consensus, so it cannot be added. On top of that it's a clear violation of policy. Making the same bad arguments over and over doesn't change anything. DreamGuy ( talk) 19:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't know how you ignore: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space" WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. That means, in very clear terms, you can talk about the minority viewpoint in more depth. Seriously, if you think this article doesn't deserve any attention, nominate for deletion. Otherwise, give more attention to the theory itself and supporters of it. Angryapathy ( talk) 20:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
This is how my suggestion for the section would look like (new part in bold):
While the majority of these cases are believed by local authorities to be the result of accidental drownings, Gannon and Duarte have theorized that the young men were all murdered, either by an individual or by an organized group of killers. [7] [8] The term smiley face became connected to the alleged murders when it was made public that Gannon and Duarte had discovered graffiti depicting a smiley face near locations where they think the killer dumped the bodies in at least a dozen of the cases. In March 2009, Dr. Lee Gilbertson, a forensic pathologist from St. Cloud State University, voiced his support for the theory on an episode of Larry King Live which discussed the alleged murders. [9] We don't need to go into detail, but just show that this theory is worthy of inclusion on WP, with another supporter and the mention of the theory being discussed on a major news outlet. Angryapathy ( talk) 13:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The consensus was regarding the addition of the extra paragraph. I trimmed down the "evidence" presented regarding one case (Patrick O’Neil ) of the supposed 40 murders to a brief mention that there is another supporter of the theory, and it was notable enough to be featured on Larry King. I think this is a valid compromise from the two sides. Angryapathy ( talk) 14:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
According to Dreamguy, Gilbertson isn't notable enough to be included in this page. However, his name is mentioned alongside Gannon and Duarte in two major new outlets (Larry King and MSNBC), and pretty much every other somewhat reputable source for this subject on the internet includes Gilbertson along with Gannon/Duarte. I don't see how Gannon-Duarte are any more notable than Gilbertson. I guess this is the main cause for my confusion. Dreamguy wields WP:FRINGE to say we shouldn't add ANYTHING more to the article to support it, when basically the article solely states that two non-notable detectives (other than for this theory) believe in the theory. I don't feel there is any proof on this page that this is notable, and that is why I feel adding the Gilbertson/Larry King sentance. Even with the sentance added, the majority of the article is still dedicated to debunking the theory. And no, the RfC was about adding the entire paragraph, and not the jist of the source. So there is no consensus about adding Gilbertson. Dreamguy, please make up your mind whether this article meets WP:FRINGE to be included on WP but doesn't meet WP:FRINGE to add more information about it. Angryapathy ( talk) 19:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: there are four paragraphs that denounce the theory, yet only one paragraph that posits the theory, and none supporting it. The 4 paragraphs themselves seem to be a little bit of undue weight, failing to give a balanced POV to this article. Allow some "support" statements, as the "Rejection" section is very non-neutral. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Picture Wikipedia centuries ago: one guy says "I have a theory that the Earth revolves around the sun", so we have an article about it. No other guys are allowed to say "I think so too" in the article, but the Catholic church among others are all allowed to have statements saying they disagree vehemently with the theory. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe this article has a problem stemming from WP:FRINGE: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." This is where this article fails, because it does not show any acceptance at all, but simply rejection. Angryapathy ( talk) 14:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we can agree that CNN is a reliable publisher. I think we can all agree the Larry King show, while sensationalist, is still reliable as a source of quotes (you can watch the guys lips move for yourself). So being from a primary source should not be a problem.Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.
If a noted industry specialist discusses something on TV, gives his point of view, that's not OR. So, if a coroner comments on the evening news, that's the coroner's statement. If it's on something like Larry King (a well-known news program) that can actually have transcripts, it's quotable. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
As we seem to be arguing in circles, I think it would be effective to sum up the main arguments regarding the addition of a mention of Gilbertson in this article.
Consensus was never reached. The RFC started September 1st, and by my count, me, Padillah, Cla86, Simonm223, and Bwilkins support addition of Gilbertson, and Dreamguy, Richard, 2/0, and Croatalus are against. We'll ignore Thomaspaine due to suspected sockpuppetry. Even if I have missed people, consensus is not reached by a simple majority.
No independent sources have called Gilbertson's credibility or motives into question. He is an associate professor at a university, and has a Ph.d in criminology, and has been sourced on the subject on Larry King and in an MSNBC article/The Today Show.
While Larry King may be a news talk program, it is not The Jerry Springer Show. A show that has former presidents on it on a regular basis is enough for the show not to be discounted.
I think out of all the issues involved, this is the most critical and hotly contested, and comes down to two viewpoints: that adding Gilbertson would improve the article, or that it would weigh too heavily in favor of a fringe theory. I believe the article is slanted towards the rejection of the theory, as it should, because it is in fact a fringe theory. However, as has been quoted extensively from WP:UNDUE: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space." And even with the addition of Gilbertson, the article still shows that all involved law enforcement offices find the theory to be bunk. If this topic violates WP:FRINGE by being too unimportant, than the article needs to be deleted. Otherwise, since it seems to be agreed that the topic is notable, we are allowed to expound on the theory as long as it is shown that the theory is not widely held.
My suggested compromise from the beginning of the RfC was to add one sentence: "In March 2009, Dr. Lee Gilbertson, a forensic pathologist from St. Cloud State University, voiced his support for the theory on an episode of Larry King Live which discussed the alleged murders," which is much shorter than the original proposed addition, and seems to be a good middle-ground for compromise. I honestly don't care about the Smiley Face Murder Theory, but I do care about the article, and want to improve it, and I believe this will in fact make it a better article. Angryapathy ( talk) 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You can call that a "summing up" and declare yourself having a consensus all you want, but that doesn't make it so. The RFC brought in a number of outside commentators, and most of them agreed with me that the edits you propose give UNDUE weight to a FRINGE view for the purposes of pushing a POV. They don't feel the need to repeat themselves over and over just because you guys refuse to accept what we all said.
The bottom line is that you do not have consensus, your proposed changes are controversial and need to have clear consensus before you can put them into the article, and if you try to use the article to give undo weight to a fringe view you will be reverted. You already know this, having seen it happen. At this point you're just in denial and refusing to accept defeat and refusing to make any alternate suggestions. Demanding the same thing over and over and over again after multiple people have already explained why it should not happen is not a useful strategy. DreamGuy ( talk) 21:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I have brought this page and it's problems up at AN/I
(outdent) DreamGuy, it is you who continue to make the same arguements, and have failed. The policies you quote state almost exactly the opposite of what you say. The majority of people have now said the same. Your argument is dead. This is why Padillah has said that you must have some issues with WP:OWN - and from what I can see it's either WP:OWN, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and hopefully not WP:DICK. Get over it. This is a minor article, and not worth raising your heart rate over. The theory, as put forward, needs to have at least 1 additional, sourced proponent. There is one. Add it in. Done. Move along to some random article that also needs improvement. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Procedural Note This talk page has been brought up at WP:ANI. You may want to head over there in order to participate in the discussion. Basket of Puppies 12:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed a link to a page on Examiner.com being used as a reference. That site does not meet WP:RS standards, and has been extensively discussed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. People who write for Examiner.com are just people off the street blogging things. Examiner.com has no direct editorial oversight. While a small number of people there might be reliable sources on their own, they'd have to have some outside qualifications to prove it. The article in question is by someone calling themselves an "Education Examiner" so were only approved to write about school topics and so forth, so even if she were a reliable source on that, there's no way she is a reliable source for this particular topic.
And, honestly, I'm surprised anyone looking at it would think it qualified. The person very clearly just aped the content of this Wikipedia article and shows no indication of knowing anything about the topic beyond what she read here. DreamGuy ( talk) 19:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
For those who haven't read the actual policy, here are the parts of it that a couple of editors above tried to claim do not exist:
That was the first sentence. People claiming that undue weight says nothing about how often things are mentioned apparently didn't even read the first sentence of the applicable policy.
And WP:FRINGE is pretty clear on this. Also:
That directly contradicts several arguments above.
An editor above claimed that undue weight had nothing to do with proportions and that anyone who read it would know that. So, did he just not read it and was bluffing, or did he skim it and miss the entire point, or what?
This is all pretty basic stuff. Again, all it takes is for someone to actually read it to know this is in there. But because some editors kept insisting it said the exact opposite of what it really says, I decided I had to quote it here. I would hope the editors in question would stop misrepresenting what policy says, especially now that it's right here and can't be denied. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Dreamguy's quotations would be applicable if we were discussiing adding the Smiley Face Murders to the Serial Killers article. In fact we are writing an article that is about a minority view, and about a fringe theory. The article is in fact titled, "The Smiley face Murder Theory". And he conveniently left out one part of UNDUE: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." Let's dissect this:
This article is about the minority viewpoint. Can't even argue that point. I guess that whole "more attention and space" part is confusing. Wait, it's not.
This article strongly shows that all reputable law enforcement agencies reject the theory. And the article is not written from the perspective of the minority view. All we are doing is showing that someone, besides the two non-notable private investigators, support the theory. The article still implicitly states that the theory is not accepted, even with the addition of Gilbertson. I fail to see how mentioning that the theory has support from an academic slants the article so much that the reader will suddenly think, "Oh my God, there's a serial killer on the loose! Lock the doors!" The issue is that this article shows no support for the theory itself. We have a reputable adherent from a reputable source (I'm still waiting on your sources say that Gilbertson is in fact a hack professor trying to gain money for his private investigative firm, BTW, and that Larry King is not a reliable source) that shows that this theory is worthy of being on WP. Angryapathy ( talk) 18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
According to Dreamguy, we can achieve consensus, even with differing opinions, as long as it suits his views. But no consensus can be reached if he is on the other side of the argument. You know, I'd respect his opinions more if he could at least be consistent (he claimed that Gilbertson could not be added because there was consensus against it. Then, after showing evidence aginst his claim, he said we can't add it because there is "no consensus" to add it.) Or responded to points brought up that defeat his argument (we are still waiting for him to show an independant source to support his claims that Gilbertson isn't a reliable source). How do you work with an editor that refuses to make compromises or acknowledge the other editor's arguments? Angryapathy ( talk) 16:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
DreamGuy, your actions regarding this page are becoming inexcusable. We've been doing this for two months now, we need to get past it. Would you be willing to submit to mediation? I, for my part, have no problem with it. Please let me know so we can proceed. Padillah ( talk) 17:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree that consensus supports inclusion of the information. The information from the CNN program is legitimate, notable, and is presented in the article in a neutral way [6]. Its not offensive in any way. The CNN program is a recent and responsible presentation of the topic and should be included. Gilbertson's view that the drownings do not match the statistical pattern of accidental drownings is a significant element of the theory. Gilbertson is qualified to make the statement and he's been cited as a qualified source by major networks on this topic. Mentioning Gilbertson's view in support of the theory is not undue weight according to wikipedia policy which states, "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space" WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Thanks for the input. Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 15:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I read the argument here on this page and can't understand why it exists. I suggest that the project be discarded and started over.
There is no evidence for the theory of a Smiley Face serial killer or gang of them. I cannot find a way to decide the issue. It does not matter what experts think. Only a fair statement of the news reporting is possible.
In a very few of the sudden drowning deaths of college students there is circumstantial evidence of psychotic paranoia. In one instance the dead student phoned a relative telling them he was being chased. Police followed his running footsteps down the river bank and across the ice to open water where he drowned. His trail in the snow on the river ice show he was alone. This suggests that a mental event is to blame for that death.
--Section editted. Please do not use talk pages for advertising.--
Ask yourself why most of these deaths are college students? Researcher44 ( talk) 04:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
CNN521
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Skoch3 ( talk) 05:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC): Why was all of the content on this page deleted and not included after redirect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_May_Day_Mystery notice smiley is part of the mystery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.181.23 ( talk • contribs)
The article doesn't mention it, but by my count, many thousands of young men have drowned in the years in which this case is being looked at. Is it really so beyond chance that a smiley, one of the most common pieces of graffiti anywhere, would be found somewhere near 22 or the suspected sites? The article also doesn't mention that the smilies don't look much alike: there's no distinctive signature shape to their design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.197.62 ( talk) 19:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem I have is that everyone acts like there were only smiley faces.The fact that Pat Brown only points out the smiley faces and ignores everything else should have raised a red flag.She should be dismissed as being a reputable source.I am not even allowed to point out there was other graffiti even though I give my source.The fact there was more than smiley faces does not convince me there was a killer but the way information is provided is reasonable proof of bias by both Pat Brown and Wikepedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
As police and other reliable sources have argued that the smiley faces could both be accidental and were not found in connection with the murder scenes anyway, I have included those sources. DreamGuy ( talk) 22:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that Smiley face murders was just changed to redirect here. Shouldn't it be vice versa? I understand the desire to keep a WP:NPOV but we can't make up neologisms either. Take a look at the Google results, the sources call them the "smiley face murders": [1] [2]. Also whatever the title is should follow WP:MOSTITLE ("Killings" or "Murders" shouldn't be capitalized in the name, and I'm not sure about "Face" either) Oren0 ( talk) 23:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed there was only ONE external link to this wiki page. I know of many other sites to be added. On top of that, there are high traffic forum discussion threads that could be added, like the posts at God Like Productions (GLP) and Above Top Secret (ATS). I've been editing a lot of pages (adding links) and I got a warning so I might have to add them tomorrow. Momochan86 ( talk) 23:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)momochan86
User:DreamGuy has deleted two sections (and references) as 'original research' with his own stated POV belief these were not "drunk drown people (who) were murdered". These are current topics in the news in a developing story. To avoid a revert war, I'm looking for consensus one way or the other.
Twenty two college-age men have disappeared in British Columbia, which have similarities to the US victimology. Investigators have been reluctant to link the disappearances to the US deaths or even each other. The public is calling for an investigation.. [1] [2] [3]
Families and news staff on both sides of the US-Canadian border question the lack of official concern for young missing men as opposed to missing women. [4] [5]
The question is: Should these topics be included or not included?
Thank you for your opinion. -- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 13:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
SHAME ON WIKEPEDIA I provided accurate information and provided sources as proof.The bias is ridiculous.If you guys had your way you would rename the article Smiley Face killer theory is BS.The article is garbage.
EVERY THING I ADDED WAS IN THE ARTICLES.EVERY SINGLE THING. PADILLAH MADE CHANGES WITH NO EXPLANATION.I do not believe this site to be reputable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It makes me ill that you allow someone to make a reputable detective that has done more work than the FBI or Pat Brown look like a fool.Shame on you.Thanks to people like yourself that don't like this article to be less one sided it will be easier to dismiss a drowning as a drunken accident every time a young man goes into a bar and has a drink or two.Thanks to you, people can ignore certain facts like the statement made by a law enforcement official "it was unusual for 3 young men around the same age to drown in such a short period of time".They can also ignore that that two of those were volunteers for an ambulance corps.They can also ignore that 2 out of 3 victims in the northeast in less then a 45 day period were disc jockeys.It is way too easy to dismiss one small part while those of us that know more are faced with a hard sell and are censored by people who keep the discussion one sided. No one has provided info that the FBI has done that much work and yet we are supposed to believe their opinion means something.The only evidence that is offered is that the FBI interviewed an individual that provided information to the detectives.Pat Brown only talks about the smiley faces and ignores the other graffiti.Dream Guy is trying to keep this article biased and one sided.The police as a whole have not rejected the theory.I am well informed about many cases and my additions to the article are removed. factual info that was removed complete with sources.
Other similarities Deputy Inspector Robert Martin made the following comment according to a Daily News reporter."it is "a little unusual to have three males in the river, of that age bracket, within 15 months,". He was referring to the drownings of Joshua Bender,Larry Andrews and Patrick McNeil in New York.Joshua Bender and Patrick McNeil were both volunteers for an Ambulance Corps.
Also underneath where pat Brown dismisses the smiley faces
More than just smiley faces During an interview with Milwaukee Magazine Gannon said “The smiley faces are one-thirteenth of the evidence we have" Gannon also said. “We found 13 distinct signs, symbols and markings.” He said the FBI is “not actively looking” at this evidence [10] ( Ethan46 ( talk) 12:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).
There are several people who have clear bias that have been abusing Wiki. They force thier rejection theories while rejecting and deleting clear patterns that have been documented in the media, both print newspapers and Internet.
One of these people (boyinthemachine) has been spreading his rejection theories all over the Internet and deleting data that doesn't fit his unusual views.
I deleted the rejection theory post because it is full of errors and lacks critical sources. It falsely claims that the Minneapolis Police have rejected the Smiley Face theory. They give no source. Actually the opposite is true. The police discused the theory with the national media and have not ruled out or rejected the smiley face theory in the Chris Jenkins case.
Boyinthemachine and DreamGuy both have stated or implied that a certain named person is the one doing the editing. There is no evidence for this and is libal, for which Wikipedia is responsible for.
Boyinthemachine even stated that this person was unprofessional because he was doing this editing. Again, there is no evidence for this. Wiki should remove such comments before it faces a lawsuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.27.175 ( talk) 23:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It was Kondracki in Wisconsin that rejected the serial killer theory despite one young man being chased into the water and another drowning victim being described as terrified of water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Police: Evidence doesn't support TV report on Jenkins' death
"Minneapolis homicide investigators have been investigating Jenkins' disappearance and death since 2002, the police statement noted. "Although we have collaborated with investigators from the FBI and communicated with other jurisdictions in which similar drownings have occurred, we can neither confirm nor endorse the 'Smiley Face Murders' theory currently being publicized." http://www.startribune.com/local/18375754.html
The problem here is that the one article you site states that the PD "neither confirm nor endorse the Smiley Face Murders theory". This is different from what is claimed on Wiki. The Wiki page says the PD rejected the theory. Not confirming the theory and rejecting the theory are two different things. But your lack of brain activity cannot compute this. You have been preaching your rejection theory all over the Internet for so long now, that you want all real evidence to be deleted so it doesn't make you look like the mindless jerk that you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.27.175 ( talk) 10:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
FBI Statement Regarding Midwest River Deaths
"Over the past several years, law enforcement and the FBI have received information about young, college-aged men who were found deceased in rivers in the Midwest. The FBI has reviewed the information about the victims provided by two retired police detectives, who have dubbed these incidents the “Smiley Face Murders,” and interviewed an individual who provided information to the detectives. To date, we have not developed any evidence to support links between these tragic deaths or any evidence substantiating the theory that these deaths are the work of a serial killer or killers. The vast majority of these instances appear to be alcohol-related drownings. The FBI will continue to work with the local police in the affected areas to provide support as requested,” said Supervisory Special Agent Richard J. Kolko, Washington, D.C." http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel08/statement042908.htm
This individual is attempting to delete all criticism and the discrediting of the theory in order to promote a biased account in favor of the theory.
This individual is also presenting individual fringe theories as being important to the case. This is not the place for every person's individual theories or specualtion. This is in fact, classic soapbox behavior. BoyintheMachine ( talk) 06:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
To the anonymous IP who keeps trying to edit this page: Please read WP:NPOV, which is the policy on Neutral Point of View. This guideline dictates that we as editors display information in a balanced way. This article is not perfect, but since the FBI and major law enforcement agencies have not endorsed the theory of serial killer(s) on the loose, we must present it as only a theory. We are not supposed to convince the world that a theory is correct, only show what evidence exists and also show the evidence against. Also, please read WP:EQ to see what is appropriate to say in Wikipedia. Avoid threats and insults. One important quote in Wikiquette is, "Assume good faith." There are alot of guidelines to help us as editors come together to reach consensus. I suggest you read through some of them to understand where the other other editors are coming from. Angryapathy ( talk) 12:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This Mike Flaherty person appears to just be some private individual with a bizarre theory (spelling words ). There is no indication that this theory has received any serious press attention. We cannot devote a section of this article to completely unknown people's ideas, especially as the original theory is WP:FRINGE to begin with. We can't cover the fringe's fringe. I've removed it all, giving the reasons why it doesn't belong, but an anon IP account continually adds this section every time it is removed. For all I know it's Mike Flaherty himself. DreamGuy ( talk) 15:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
OK< it's gotten far worse now. The IP address adding the info about the personal theory of someone nobody has heard of also has now removed all information showing that the police departments, FBI and etc. think the main theory is nonsense, and has also stopped even calling this crazy side theory a theory and calls it a "discovery". This article should not be used to promote personal opinions, especially when the overwhelming expert opinion has been removed. DreamGuy ( talk) 15:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The Rejection secion was removed because it contained errors and lacked critical sources. See the Bias and Slander section for a better explaination of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.27.175 ( talk) 00:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
...snip... (this section removed according to WP:OUTING policy.)
None of the sources provided refer to Mike Flaherty except for the smiley face website that is unreliable. This section does not even come close to meeting WP guidelines and needs to be removed, and if the IP editor disagrees, then an administrator needs to be notified. Angryapathy ( talk) 13:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Anon IP (71.13.27.175) and BoyintheMachine: Please stop the
WP:OUTING or you will both be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I'm not entirely sure what's been said already isn't sufficient to get you both indef blocked. If you have any questions about what you've done wrong please see an admin or read
WP:OUT.
Padillah (
talk)
12:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Padillah, Boyinthemachine has been posting libalous and undocumented statements on Wiki and other blogs. Like many people on the Internet, he thinks he can post whatever he wants and nobody will know who he really is because he uses a screen name. I am exposing who he is so people can sue him for libal and let him know in other ways how they feel about his childish rants. I cannot be blocked because I have endless IP's. I would be happy to quit posting, if Boyinthemachine apologizes for his libal and removes his libalous posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.27.175 ( talk) 12:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Wiki is a two way street, deleting a post because of bias is not a good example of a real encyclopedia. I dare you to try to block me. As long as libal is posted here, I have the right and duty to expose the libaler. As it stands now, I am OK with this page, but if someone adds something libalous, I will make things difficult for them and for anyone else who helps them. See, I was just blocked again, and I'm back. There is no need for acting silly here, just stop the libal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.81.168 ( talk) 13:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
(undented) I'm only aware of that account and the anon IP, two accounts that I am aware of so far I'll get difs later as i am tired too much right now and am getting ready to leave the computer, that is if no one else gets to it. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Any removal of material needs to be deleted by an administrator. Any reverts or deletions by regular editors will leave the information in the system, accessible to anyone. If you truly feel this is a case of outing (even though admins scoured this page this week removing outing information), please notify adminstrators, and stop edit warring. Angryapathy ( talk) 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There are a few bad people on this page who insist on using WIki as a platform to spread libal. This is your final warning to stop! I promise that those engaged in this behavior will be very very sorry, very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nommagdor ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do not make threats on Wikipedia. This behavior is not tolerated and leads to bans. Angryapathy ( talk) 16:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It's too bad that certain people have forced this outcome. Believe me when I say this, those who violate the OUT policy will be biting off far more than they can chew. Who wants to be the first one to test this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nommagdor ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Nommagdor, it would really do you much more good to: 1) Calm down. No one can talk to you if you refuse to listen. 2) Don't make threats. Either you can't do anything substantive, in which case they are empty. Or you can, in which case they are evidence. 3) State your issue rationally and clearly. "Stop OUTing" is not as specific as you might think. OUTing is very serious on WP so, since no one else can find the OUTing you are referring to, we don't see things the same as you do. Please, if you try to work with us we will try to accommodate you. If you only work to alienate yourself from the community you will soon find yourself alone. Padillah ( talk) 16:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There was no outing in the removed text. Admins have already removed the text that qualified as outing. The text this new editor (who also can't spell libel, oddly enough) is deleting needs to be restored. DreamGuy ( talk) 17:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, he's been blocked, again, as I assuming we have been dealing with the same sock puppet for the past few days. I wonder how long he is going to keep attempting to vandalize this page. Angryapathy ( talk) 17:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I've semi-protected this talk page for a time owing to IP harassment. Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Csymons70, please understand, when an editor adds information to an article it must be backed by credible citations. This does not mean write your own citations and then post info citing your references. Amazon.com CreateSpace is not regarded as a reliable source, due mainly to the fact that anyone can post a publication there and there are few restrictions on content or reliability. Please stop adding information that is both not reliable and an advertisement for your material. Padillah ( talk) 12:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I can appreciate your comments but also note that reliable media sources have also published my content because they too have confirmed the sources - so I would hope that information can remain. I don't appreciate commenst made by others that I'm a "nobody". I just want to make certain that this site is maintained with integrity and not some bias against me. Hopefully this can be guaranteed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csymons70 ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Ironically everytime I put somthing in from what I learned from the FBI regaring the classifications of serial killers and the reasons WHY they dismiss the theory it keeps getting deleted. My suggestion is either contact the FBI as I did or read the book. It's apparent that the moderators of this site are bias and simply feel that the theory is weight enough to generate traffic and interest and that's sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csymons70 ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is this shouldn't be called Smile Face Murders because according to authorities they're not murders. The title should have theory attached to it. The reason the FBI has dismissed the THEORY is that none of the traits follow classifications on what they define a serial killer. The article lists that the FBI declined the theory but doesn't explain why. When I added that earlier it was deleted. The FBI has found no evidence, which we all know, but have dismissed the theory because they profile doesn't fit within the classification guidelines. I've also notice a number of theories that appear to be popular in the blogs. Train theory, terrorist theory, Mike Flannery and Krist Pehl also have theories that should probably be included. This way viewers can see all that is avilable regarding the topic. Maybe a section could be added titled "Other theories"? Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csymons70 ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's the bottom line: Wikipedia is not a place to publicize yourself. We have info from the FBI, police departments, and a famous profiler all saying there's nothing to the theory. You want to add sections where YOU say there's nothing to theory, so that you can promote a book you self-published through a vanity press. That's never going to fly. You aren't a recognized expert on this topic, and you cannot spam Wikipedia with references to yourself. Period. Anything you add referring to yourself will be removed, so don't bother trying to do it. And if you keep this up you WILL be blocked from editing. We take WP:COI and WP:SPAM very seriously here. DreamGuy ( talk) 18:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Done
In deference to the fact that Csymons70 has a valid point I suggest this article be renamed "Smiley face murder theories" to reflect the fact that they are not serial murders but unsupported theories. I suggest the plural so as to contain the variations on a theme that have cropped up. I am not as sure of the multiple theories, they may not have the level of notability the "Smiley face" theory has, but I do fully support the suggestion to title them as a theory rather than serial murders. Padillah ( talk) 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
With no objections for over a week, I'd like to move this to "Smiley face muder theory" but I know there are redirects. How do I find the pages that link here?
Padillah (
talk)
12:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
That was easy. But would it be best to leave this article and redirect to the "Theory" article or do a move and correct the dozen or so pages that link here? Padillah ( talk) 12:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the article be renamed rejection of the smiley face murder theory,since that part takes up most of the article page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You obviously do not know how this is supposed to work.There was no citation for the statement most law enforcement agencies believe they were accidenatal drownings.I have been nuetral while you and padilah have been promoting pat Brown's theories and removing statements with citations.Padillah has also been caught in his own lies.You and Padillah obviously have the view there are no killers and are using wikipedia for your own means.You are also keeping the article slanted.I am not the one trying to slant the article as the liar padillah has stated.I never put information there was evidence and pahdillah pointed out I should have added another statement about a denial of evidence.I listed similarities that I don't believe is evidence in the first place.I stand by my accurate statement that the article is garbage and pahdillah is a liar.If you all want to take this personal that is up to you but I am telling it like it is.Are you on Pat Brown's payroll?: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You want me to provide proof after you made false accusations and I addressed them? You did everything you accused me of.You even misspelled sentence and period while changing the subject to my grammar btw. I really don't take you or wikipedia that seriously.Any one can edit here and sway the story one way or another. Why don't you prove I was cherry picking and I should have added the statement that there was no real evidence even though I listed similarities and not evidence? Those were similarities I don't even consider evidence. You are doing a dance around the issues you created and then acting like I should address my accusations.Once again you are being one sided. When you state something that is not true than it is a lie. That is not an attack just because I point it out. A lie by definition can be intentional or unintentional. If you want to believe a lie than there is nothing I can do about that. Ban away. If you familiarized yourself better with the rules than you would know a better reason for removing the similarities would be that it was based on my own research. Your motivation is suspect and not mine. I provided more information and did it with citations. Meanwhile information is still in the article with no citations from articles that say what it does in the article. Any reasonable person can see for themselves the rejection of the theory takes up most of the space on the page, and any one more familiar with the case knows there is more to the theory than what is in the article. I am not going to waste a lot of time familiarizing myself with wikipedia after encountering obvious bias and false statements. You attacked me. I did not attack you. I asked to not take this personal but it seems you did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You talk at me and not to me.You start with an opinion before you gather the facts.Then you talk about having a discussion and yet after all this time you still do a dance about what you first said.I see no evidence you want a discussion. I think you want to be preachy.You said the following
"you mentioned that a detective said it was unusual that three teens drowned so close to each other but you neglected to add that he also said there was no real evidence linking the deaths"
I never presented that statement as evidence nor do I consider it evidence,yet you used that as an example of how I was slanting the article by not pointing out there was no real evidence.You sound like a crazy person to me and as long as crazy people are allowed to have so much influence there is no reason for me to learn more.This really is not about me.It is about you.You might want to tone it down it bit .I can make the case elsewhere without wikipedia.I don't need wikipedia to point out more information. I wanted a balanced article that is not one sided.I do not even have a reason to even care any more what is in the article. You act like you are some kind of GOD here .I have every reason to be wary of people like you and this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between similarities and evidence. It would be like saying I should have mentioned something about oranges even though I was talking about apples. Similarities have nothing to do with real evidence.Only by believing that similarities are evidence would you have a reason to make the comment you made. You are the one who accused me of slanting the article ,gave a ridiculous reason why, and then you expect me to believe you want to discuss this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.62.199 ( talk) 18:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh so now it is about how it is a fringe theory? So why It is is the article posted at all? To promote the rejection of the theory? You just keep attacking. You even had to bring up how I don't care about learning more but to be one sided you did not mention that it was because I don't care what you do to the article. I also have no intention of changing it.You got your way but still want to pick a fight. Feel free to leave up the statements in the article with no citations that are relevant also. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ethan46 (
talk •
contribs)
19:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking specifically about this version of the article and edits. I think they should stay. If we look at this from a numbers point of view we can see four paragraphs, small but unambiguous, that deny the theory (MPD, La Crosse PD, Pat Brown, and FBI). Against one larger but supported by only two (Dr. Gilbertson and Dr. Wecht). And even the addition of that paragraph is balanced by the final quote from Delong re-stating the FBIs position. I also find it rather difficult, if not impossible to dismiss interviews from Larry King or people such as Wecht who, right or wrong, are known and notable. I think that particular version is balanced enough to stay. I might work a little harder to get the whole FBI denial quote since it is a bit equivocating, as a means of balancing against the weight of Wecht, but that's about all. Padillah ( talk) 13:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
My update to the article was made in good faith to maintain a neutral point of view. Felt the direct quotes would provide neutrality. However, I don't mind if they are summarized or an alternative sentence is suggested, but the information is very significant and should be included in the article was my point. I don't think wholesale deletion of the update was an appropriate response. I would have accepted someone's accurate restating. A criminologist is the type of background for an expert profiler, but that seems to be nit picking. As to Fringe, the current quote "ludicrous" qualifies to a far greater degree as something that could be classified as on the fringe - All those cited are medical and law enforcement professionals, and they are investigating a potential crime. As to weight its only one paragraph.
How about this as a more concise version:
On March 21, 2009, Dr. Lee Gilbertson, a criminologist and faculty member at St. Cloud University, stated on CNN’s Larry King that he supports the Smiley Face murder theory advanced by Gannon and Duarte and he further stated his belief that it could be a group committing the alleged crimes. [6] He noted his view that the drownings did not match a pattern of accidental drownings. [6] Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, cited what in his view showed evidence of a homicide in regard to the Patrick O’Neil death. [6] Fly larvae discovered in the groin area was that of an indoor fly which indicated that the body was already dead before being placed in the water. [6] Candice Delong, a former FBI profiler conceded, "Yes, regarding that particular case in New York, that certainly does sound like it was a homicide. I, however, fail to see the connection between the New York case and these other Midwestern cases. Perhaps we could learn." [6]
Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 01:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. So with your changes the concise version would say:
On March 21, 2009, Dr. Lee Gilbertson, a criminologist and faculty member at St. Cloud University, stated on CNN that he supports the Smiley Face murder theory advanced by Gannon and Duarte and he further stated his belief that it could be a group committing the alleged crimes. [6] He noted his view that the drownings did not conform to the statistical patterns of accidental drownings. [6] Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, cited what in his view showed evidence of a homicide in regard to the Patrick O’Neil death. [6] Fly larvae discovered in the groin area was that of an indoor fly which indicated that the body was already dead before being placed in the water. [6] Candice Delong, a former FBI profiler conceded, "Yes, regarding that particular case in New York, that certainly does sound like it was a homicide. I, however, fail to see the connection between the New York case and these other Midwestern cases. Perhaps we could learn." [6]
Thanks for the input. Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 17:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Placed the paragraph under Gannon and Duarte's theory to accomodate neutrality. Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 15:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The following edits are being disputed as NPOV. Please weigh in as to there relevance and POV for inclusion in the article.
On March 21, 2009, Dr. Lee Gilbertson, a criminologist and faculty member at St. Cloud University, stated on CNN that he supports the Smiley Face murder theory advanced by Gannon and Duarte and he further stated his belief that it could be a group committing the alleged crimes. [6] He noted his view that the drownings did not conform to the statistical patterns of accidental drownings. [6] Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, cited what in his view showed evidence of a homicide in regard to the Patrick O’Neil death. [6] Fly larvae discovered in the groin area was that of an indoor fly which indicated that the body was already dead before being placed in the water. [6] Candice Delong, a former FBI profiler conceded, "Yes, regarding that particular case in New York, that certainly does sound like it was a homicide. I, however, fail to see the connection between the New York case and these other Midwestern cases. Perhaps we could learn." [6]
Padillah ( talk) 14:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
That is definitely lending undue weight to a minor source. We do not and should not mention every minor source who ever commented on the idea. Gilbertson is of course a reliable source for his own views, but it would be misleading to expound upon those ideas here as though they were reflected in more reliable sources treating the topic at hand. - 2/0 ( cont.) 17:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this section seems to give quite a bit of weight to a minority viewpoint. Maybe some of you should take a lot at Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Richard ( talk) 17:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, you do not seem to understand the undue weight policy and appear to be using it to keep out any additions you do not like. Not sure why. And there is clearly not enough of rational basis, reasoned analysis, or the like, to claim any sort of consensus for your objections. With repect to weight, the policy clearly states, "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space." As to viewpoint, the documented content merely explains the theory, it doesn't exalt it above those who do not accept it as you may suppose, thus the theory is really not given any undue weight at all in the article with the added paragraph in that respect either. After you seemed make a big deal that the theory is a minority view point, you don't seem to get that when an article is about the minority view point more space can be devoted to it legitimatly. But even so, its only ONE paragraph that makes no claims of being better than those who don't accept the theory and in no way makes claims to refute any of those who don't accept it as you may suppose. Thus, you have no case whatsoever. You haven't explained as to content why you have an objection, but then attack the source itself. We cannot count too heavily on a minimun of posted discussion here that offers little substance or reasoning, except that somehow concludes that two sentences constitute undue weight? Also, you seem to have written on Padillah's talk page in parenthesis implying that perhaps its Gilbertson himself citing himself as a source in this article? Where do you come up with that? Padillah who has experience at working with you, appears to agree with me. Further, you make unproven claims as above where you claim that Gilbertson is trying to sell something when no media sources are making this claim. A pattern seems to be that you object without substance.
The proponents of the theory believe the drowning cases do not match the statistical patterns of accidental drownings and the victimological profiles may suggest a group. What's your problem with this? Its a simple fact of the theory in the topic at hand. Its not a claim to make undue weight violation, not any fringe violation. Its a simple statement that explains the notable topic at hand and its documented from valid verifiable source. Yet you are claiming this is undue weight somehow. You have not and apparently cannot explain how you claim this is undue weight, with or without Gilbertsons name in the sentence. We could state that the theory "suggests" that the drowning cases do not match the statistical patterns accidental drownings if this would satisfy you. Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 23:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Support the inclusion of Gilbertson's views as proposed. It's supported by a reliable source. We can allow the reader to decide for themselves how much credibility to give his opinion. Cla68 ( talk) 04:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Cla89.I however do not understand why the part about McNeil should be added. Gannon worked on the McNeil case ,but no information is provided that he linked that with other drownings.The claim was made Chris Jenkin's drowning linked other drownings together.Let people decide for themselves if it is a fringe theory.People involved in law enforcement do not make a point of releasing all the information they have to the public any more than someone would show you their hand in a poker game. Are there rules about making unsupported claims about someone? I also think the detectives should be credited with investigating 89 drownings as that IMHO gives them as much credibility as those that disagree with them,even though they could very well be wrong as far as we know. The detectives went into this with a good reputation and the suggestion that someone is in this for a book deal is in bad taste.-- Yankee2009 ( talk) 15:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Padilla. If this page is to exist, there needs to be proof that more than two detectives believe in the theory. If we can't get any more sources, then we should just delete the article. I have no problem including two sentences showing the more than two people believe in the theory. Larry King may not be a reliable source, but he is mainstream, and including a criminologist who was featured on the program shows that someone else believes in the theory. Angryapathy ( talk) 19:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Do we know if the theory is a minority view by law enforcement? I see no evidence either way.It is an interpretation. In other words POV. The wiki article says it is but the citations do not.The detectives investigated 89 cases in several states. A local authority and an FBI spokesperson making a comment the majority of drownings are alcohol related accidents is not a majority. A citation is not even given where a local authority says the majority of drownings were alcohol related. I see no reason to delete the whole article or compromise. Patrick McNeil has never been named as a suspected victim by the detectives. The articles used as citations say the following.
<The vast majority of these instances appear to be alcohol-related drowning," the bureau said in a statement.>
<The FBI and local authorities don't necessarily agree with the theory that all the drownings are linked and the work of a gang.> It would make more sense for the article to reflect what was said and not an interpretation. -- Yankee2009 ( talk) 16:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The drownings were ruled accidental by police in several jurisdictions. The FBI further weighed in on it. If it were not a majority of experts than they would not have called them accidental drownings in the first place. This is clear and overwhelming, and these are some of the worst attempts at rationalizing up support for a fringe theory I've seen. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Once again you make unsupported comments. I do not support the theory. I support the rules being followed. You also say most were ruled accidental yet don't back up your claim. The comments I have seen lead me to believe that a lot of assumptions are being made. I am being sincere and backed up the claim the case has not been made the majority were accidents. They may be, but that is an opinion . Show me where it says most were ruled accidental. There is nothing in the articles that says most were ruled accidental. If that statement was made I would support it being in the article. --
Yankee2009 (
talk)
18:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Many of the deaths were undetermined. You and the other editors are cherry picking information. There was no poll taken to establish that the majority in LE believe they were accidental deaths. The only basis any editors have for leaving an unsupported comment in the article would be it reflects their own personal belief.. Experienced editors should know better. Don't even bother to try to bait me with any more nonsense. There is a problem with your so called experts. Pat Brown writes books and benefits from publicity . Kondracki would use the drowning death of a young man to make a statement about the evils of alcohol before an investigation was even completed and the FBI decided way back in 2003 that cases of young men drowning in the midwest would not get priority. It took 5 years just to get a DNA test of the hair that was in Chris Jenkin's hand. However none of those FACTS you ignore mean I believe the theory. Please stop being a troublemaker. I notice they go easy on you here so maybe I will just call you Teflonguy. -- Yankee2009 ( talk) 18:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW I know you broke the rules by campaigning etc etc.-- Yankee2009 ( talk) 19:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Going to someone's talk page to get them to take their side is campaigning. If you don't understand something you could ask rather than misrepresenting the facts and trying to make me look bad.I think this is more personal for most of you editors than you would like to admit. You can't keep your biased views from influencing the article or trying to size up the other editors. I did my homework. If you did yours you might know what you are talking about. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Yankee2009 (
talk •
contribs)
00:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You did not assume good faith. Pot meet kettle.-- Yankee2009 ( talk) 00:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Since the sole argument seems to surround Dr. Gilbertson (for reasons yet to be properly explained) let's remove his statement and post the remainder of the content. How do you feel about the following paragraph being added:
On March 21, 2009, on Larry King Live, Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, in support of the theory cited what in his view showed evidence of a homicide in regard to the Patrick O’Neil death [6]. Fly larvae discovered in the groin area was that of an indoor fly which indicated that the body was already dead before being placed in the water. [6] Candice Delong, a former FBI profiler conceded, "Yes, regarding that particular case in New York, that certainly does sound like it was a homicide. I, however, fail to see the connection between the New York case and these other Midwestern cases. Perhaps we could learn." [6]
How about we add that? Padillah ( talk) 12:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is a link to an article where the claim is made McNeil's death is linked to at least 40 others . [5]. I am skeptical that everything written in some of the articles is correct. Another article claims according to KSTP,they are linked to O'Neil's death,but the KSTP article does not say that. One article says 40 may be linked and another says 40 are linked according to the detectives. -- Yankee2009 ( talk) 19:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
While I do agree that the theory is probably bunk, this article spends more time making it seem like the theory is useless and spends more time focused on the rejection of the theory. If the theory is completely non-notable, delete the article. If not, add more information to show that the theory is worthy of inclusion on WP, and that other people do believe in the theory. I see no problem adding the professor to the article. If you find something that specifically says he is promoting his private investigation agency or that he is a worthless professor, then don't add him. Otherwise, you are making assumptions based on research of your own. Angryapathy ( talk) 07:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Lets' keep the information. Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 15:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Bottom line folks is we had an RFC on this above, and since the material is controversial you would need to demonstrate a clear consensus to add it. You don't have that consensus, so it cannot be added. On top of that it's a clear violation of policy. Making the same bad arguments over and over doesn't change anything. DreamGuy ( talk) 19:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't know how you ignore: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space" WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. That means, in very clear terms, you can talk about the minority viewpoint in more depth. Seriously, if you think this article doesn't deserve any attention, nominate for deletion. Otherwise, give more attention to the theory itself and supporters of it. Angryapathy ( talk) 20:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
This is how my suggestion for the section would look like (new part in bold):
While the majority of these cases are believed by local authorities to be the result of accidental drownings, Gannon and Duarte have theorized that the young men were all murdered, either by an individual or by an organized group of killers. [7] [8] The term smiley face became connected to the alleged murders when it was made public that Gannon and Duarte had discovered graffiti depicting a smiley face near locations where they think the killer dumped the bodies in at least a dozen of the cases. In March 2009, Dr. Lee Gilbertson, a forensic pathologist from St. Cloud State University, voiced his support for the theory on an episode of Larry King Live which discussed the alleged murders. [9] We don't need to go into detail, but just show that this theory is worthy of inclusion on WP, with another supporter and the mention of the theory being discussed on a major news outlet. Angryapathy ( talk) 13:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The consensus was regarding the addition of the extra paragraph. I trimmed down the "evidence" presented regarding one case (Patrick O’Neil ) of the supposed 40 murders to a brief mention that there is another supporter of the theory, and it was notable enough to be featured on Larry King. I think this is a valid compromise from the two sides. Angryapathy ( talk) 14:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
According to Dreamguy, Gilbertson isn't notable enough to be included in this page. However, his name is mentioned alongside Gannon and Duarte in two major new outlets (Larry King and MSNBC), and pretty much every other somewhat reputable source for this subject on the internet includes Gilbertson along with Gannon/Duarte. I don't see how Gannon-Duarte are any more notable than Gilbertson. I guess this is the main cause for my confusion. Dreamguy wields WP:FRINGE to say we shouldn't add ANYTHING more to the article to support it, when basically the article solely states that two non-notable detectives (other than for this theory) believe in the theory. I don't feel there is any proof on this page that this is notable, and that is why I feel adding the Gilbertson/Larry King sentance. Even with the sentance added, the majority of the article is still dedicated to debunking the theory. And no, the RfC was about adding the entire paragraph, and not the jist of the source. So there is no consensus about adding Gilbertson. Dreamguy, please make up your mind whether this article meets WP:FRINGE to be included on WP but doesn't meet WP:FRINGE to add more information about it. Angryapathy ( talk) 19:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: there are four paragraphs that denounce the theory, yet only one paragraph that posits the theory, and none supporting it. The 4 paragraphs themselves seem to be a little bit of undue weight, failing to give a balanced POV to this article. Allow some "support" statements, as the "Rejection" section is very non-neutral. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Picture Wikipedia centuries ago: one guy says "I have a theory that the Earth revolves around the sun", so we have an article about it. No other guys are allowed to say "I think so too" in the article, but the Catholic church among others are all allowed to have statements saying they disagree vehemently with the theory. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe this article has a problem stemming from WP:FRINGE: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." This is where this article fails, because it does not show any acceptance at all, but simply rejection. Angryapathy ( talk) 14:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we can agree that CNN is a reliable publisher. I think we can all agree the Larry King show, while sensationalist, is still reliable as a source of quotes (you can watch the guys lips move for yourself). So being from a primary source should not be a problem.Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.
If a noted industry specialist discusses something on TV, gives his point of view, that's not OR. So, if a coroner comments on the evening news, that's the coroner's statement. If it's on something like Larry King (a well-known news program) that can actually have transcripts, it's quotable. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
As we seem to be arguing in circles, I think it would be effective to sum up the main arguments regarding the addition of a mention of Gilbertson in this article.
Consensus was never reached. The RFC started September 1st, and by my count, me, Padillah, Cla86, Simonm223, and Bwilkins support addition of Gilbertson, and Dreamguy, Richard, 2/0, and Croatalus are against. We'll ignore Thomaspaine due to suspected sockpuppetry. Even if I have missed people, consensus is not reached by a simple majority.
No independent sources have called Gilbertson's credibility or motives into question. He is an associate professor at a university, and has a Ph.d in criminology, and has been sourced on the subject on Larry King and in an MSNBC article/The Today Show.
While Larry King may be a news talk program, it is not The Jerry Springer Show. A show that has former presidents on it on a regular basis is enough for the show not to be discounted.
I think out of all the issues involved, this is the most critical and hotly contested, and comes down to two viewpoints: that adding Gilbertson would improve the article, or that it would weigh too heavily in favor of a fringe theory. I believe the article is slanted towards the rejection of the theory, as it should, because it is in fact a fringe theory. However, as has been quoted extensively from WP:UNDUE: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space." And even with the addition of Gilbertson, the article still shows that all involved law enforcement offices find the theory to be bunk. If this topic violates WP:FRINGE by being too unimportant, than the article needs to be deleted. Otherwise, since it seems to be agreed that the topic is notable, we are allowed to expound on the theory as long as it is shown that the theory is not widely held.
My suggested compromise from the beginning of the RfC was to add one sentence: "In March 2009, Dr. Lee Gilbertson, a forensic pathologist from St. Cloud State University, voiced his support for the theory on an episode of Larry King Live which discussed the alleged murders," which is much shorter than the original proposed addition, and seems to be a good middle-ground for compromise. I honestly don't care about the Smiley Face Murder Theory, but I do care about the article, and want to improve it, and I believe this will in fact make it a better article. Angryapathy ( talk) 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You can call that a "summing up" and declare yourself having a consensus all you want, but that doesn't make it so. The RFC brought in a number of outside commentators, and most of them agreed with me that the edits you propose give UNDUE weight to a FRINGE view for the purposes of pushing a POV. They don't feel the need to repeat themselves over and over just because you guys refuse to accept what we all said.
The bottom line is that you do not have consensus, your proposed changes are controversial and need to have clear consensus before you can put them into the article, and if you try to use the article to give undo weight to a fringe view you will be reverted. You already know this, having seen it happen. At this point you're just in denial and refusing to accept defeat and refusing to make any alternate suggestions. Demanding the same thing over and over and over again after multiple people have already explained why it should not happen is not a useful strategy. DreamGuy ( talk) 21:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I have brought this page and it's problems up at AN/I
(outdent) DreamGuy, it is you who continue to make the same arguements, and have failed. The policies you quote state almost exactly the opposite of what you say. The majority of people have now said the same. Your argument is dead. This is why Padillah has said that you must have some issues with WP:OWN - and from what I can see it's either WP:OWN, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and hopefully not WP:DICK. Get over it. This is a minor article, and not worth raising your heart rate over. The theory, as put forward, needs to have at least 1 additional, sourced proponent. There is one. Add it in. Done. Move along to some random article that also needs improvement. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Procedural Note This talk page has been brought up at WP:ANI. You may want to head over there in order to participate in the discussion. Basket of Puppies 12:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed a link to a page on Examiner.com being used as a reference. That site does not meet WP:RS standards, and has been extensively discussed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. People who write for Examiner.com are just people off the street blogging things. Examiner.com has no direct editorial oversight. While a small number of people there might be reliable sources on their own, they'd have to have some outside qualifications to prove it. The article in question is by someone calling themselves an "Education Examiner" so were only approved to write about school topics and so forth, so even if she were a reliable source on that, there's no way she is a reliable source for this particular topic.
And, honestly, I'm surprised anyone looking at it would think it qualified. The person very clearly just aped the content of this Wikipedia article and shows no indication of knowing anything about the topic beyond what she read here. DreamGuy ( talk) 19:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
For those who haven't read the actual policy, here are the parts of it that a couple of editors above tried to claim do not exist:
That was the first sentence. People claiming that undue weight says nothing about how often things are mentioned apparently didn't even read the first sentence of the applicable policy.
And WP:FRINGE is pretty clear on this. Also:
That directly contradicts several arguments above.
An editor above claimed that undue weight had nothing to do with proportions and that anyone who read it would know that. So, did he just not read it and was bluffing, or did he skim it and miss the entire point, or what?
This is all pretty basic stuff. Again, all it takes is for someone to actually read it to know this is in there. But because some editors kept insisting it said the exact opposite of what it really says, I decided I had to quote it here. I would hope the editors in question would stop misrepresenting what policy says, especially now that it's right here and can't be denied. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Dreamguy's quotations would be applicable if we were discussiing adding the Smiley Face Murders to the Serial Killers article. In fact we are writing an article that is about a minority view, and about a fringe theory. The article is in fact titled, "The Smiley face Murder Theory". And he conveniently left out one part of UNDUE: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." Let's dissect this:
This article is about the minority viewpoint. Can't even argue that point. I guess that whole "more attention and space" part is confusing. Wait, it's not.
This article strongly shows that all reputable law enforcement agencies reject the theory. And the article is not written from the perspective of the minority view. All we are doing is showing that someone, besides the two non-notable private investigators, support the theory. The article still implicitly states that the theory is not accepted, even with the addition of Gilbertson. I fail to see how mentioning that the theory has support from an academic slants the article so much that the reader will suddenly think, "Oh my God, there's a serial killer on the loose! Lock the doors!" The issue is that this article shows no support for the theory itself. We have a reputable adherent from a reputable source (I'm still waiting on your sources say that Gilbertson is in fact a hack professor trying to gain money for his private investigative firm, BTW, and that Larry King is not a reliable source) that shows that this theory is worthy of being on WP. Angryapathy ( talk) 18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
According to Dreamguy, we can achieve consensus, even with differing opinions, as long as it suits his views. But no consensus can be reached if he is on the other side of the argument. You know, I'd respect his opinions more if he could at least be consistent (he claimed that Gilbertson could not be added because there was consensus against it. Then, after showing evidence aginst his claim, he said we can't add it because there is "no consensus" to add it.) Or responded to points brought up that defeat his argument (we are still waiting for him to show an independant source to support his claims that Gilbertson isn't a reliable source). How do you work with an editor that refuses to make compromises or acknowledge the other editor's arguments? Angryapathy ( talk) 16:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
DreamGuy, your actions regarding this page are becoming inexcusable. We've been doing this for two months now, we need to get past it. Would you be willing to submit to mediation? I, for my part, have no problem with it. Please let me know so we can proceed. Padillah ( talk) 17:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree that consensus supports inclusion of the information. The information from the CNN program is legitimate, notable, and is presented in the article in a neutral way [6]. Its not offensive in any way. The CNN program is a recent and responsible presentation of the topic and should be included. Gilbertson's view that the drownings do not match the statistical pattern of accidental drownings is a significant element of the theory. Gilbertson is qualified to make the statement and he's been cited as a qualified source by major networks on this topic. Mentioning Gilbertson's view in support of the theory is not undue weight according to wikipedia policy which states, "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space" WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Thanks for the input. Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 15:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I read the argument here on this page and can't understand why it exists. I suggest that the project be discarded and started over.
There is no evidence for the theory of a Smiley Face serial killer or gang of them. I cannot find a way to decide the issue. It does not matter what experts think. Only a fair statement of the news reporting is possible.
In a very few of the sudden drowning deaths of college students there is circumstantial evidence of psychotic paranoia. In one instance the dead student phoned a relative telling them he was being chased. Police followed his running footsteps down the river bank and across the ice to open water where he drowned. His trail in the snow on the river ice show he was alone. This suggests that a mental event is to blame for that death.
--Section editted. Please do not use talk pages for advertising.--
Ask yourself why most of these deaths are college students? Researcher44 ( talk) 04:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
CNN521
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).