Talk:Zodiac Killer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zodiac Killer article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Talk Archive 1

Contents 1 Discrepancies between first cypher translation 2 Arthur Lee Allen Redirect and the New Look 3 Citing sources 4 Robert Hunter entry 5 americas most wanted 6 New rewrite 7 Suspects 8 Archive 9 The Zodiac in pop culture 10 New York Zodiac 11 zodiackiller.com 12 The "My Name is ..." cipher question 13 External Link to the Z Files 14 RfC on External Link to Z Files 15 New external link to Spyderware 16 Mr. X 17 Refresh 18 Article structure 19 Continued counterproductive badmouthing

[edit] Discrepancies between first cypher translation

After pouring over every aspect of the articlesyou are the one , discussions, and the link at the end for Wikisource, I've noticed that the cypher translation listed on the Wikipedia article (under the heading "The Zodiac Letters Begin"), while including several misspellings, is significantly different than what is found in Wikisource under the heading "July 31st 1969". The one in the article is not sourced, so I was wondering if anyone knows where that came from. It seems significant that the translation found on Wikisource seems to show that there were more untranslatable sections than the last eighteen letters. Tiaera 03:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Lee Allen Redirect and the New Look

Wow, things have certainly gotten dirty around here. I was struck by the edit conflict under the new rewrtie heading. All I wanted to say is that I think that Jeffpw did a great job in cleaning up the article and making it more articulate and cohesive. that being said, i do think there needs to be a section on credible suspects. for one, most of the encyclopedia entries i've read on serial killers will at least mention viable suspects of record. second, if you don't want them on the page, then we at least need to make a page specifically for them. what i'm getting at is that when i typed arthur lee allen into the wikipedia search, i was redirected to the zodiac page where he is only mentioned once, where he is only identified by name and not described at all. who was this guy? i wanna know! --71.198.147.17 09:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just did the same thing, and I think it's EXTREMELY POV to have a re-direct from "Arthur Leigh Allen" to the Zodiac Killer. People who go see 'Zodiac' and don't realize that Graysmith's reputation for honesty is HORRIBLE are going to believe that Allen probably is the Zodiac, and then come to wikipedia, and wikipedia's re-direct will confirm it. If the reason for the re-direct is that Allen is not famous on his own, there should be a prominent section of this article dealing with the fact that police, despite suspecting Allen for two decades, were never able to find any proof, and that much of the "evidence" Graysmith offers is false (most of the rest is, at best, circumstancial). There should be a new Allen page. ThatGuamGuy 15:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)sean

There was a page here which had a temporary entry on Allen, with the idea that it would be the foundation of a separate page about the many Zodiac suspects. That hasn'tr happned yet, and many have said Allen is essential to the article, so I have added itnow. If anyone does not agree, please feel free to revert me. I was ambivalent about doing it, myself. Jeffpw 15:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: I think placing the ALA section back into the article was a sound decision. Allen's connection to the Zodiac case is well documented and most people surfing to the entry will want to read something about his past. With that said, it may be important to monitor the entry from this point forward as others who see that Allen has been added now and who are not aware of the discussion that has been taking place, may start to try and place other suspects there again. Just a thought. Labyrinth13 16:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that back in (or maybe I just missed it before); I think that there should, as soon as possible, be a seperate page listing all the suspects, and Arthur Leigh Allen could re-direct to that instead. It just seems to me like it's creating the impression that Graysmith is reputable and actually "solved" the case by having "Arthur Leigh Allen" direct you to "Zodiac Killer". However, I think what we have now is a good temporary solution, with two exceptions.

I'd feel more comfortable if there was a citation for "only one person has been seriously considered or investigated". I find it hard to believe they didn't investigate other people once they conclusively ruled out Allen (in their own minds, if not yours). It might be true (I confess, I don't know), but that sounds like it comes from Graysmith or a Graysmith follower, which is why I say I'd like a source. And the inclusion of the thing about the three search warrants ... that seems a little specious; the latter-day search warrants were a direct result of growing public pressure following Graysmith's book, they were not (as I understand it) based on any new evidence (unless you count false evidence presented by Graysmith as true). The text is a little sloppy, I can't tell if they're saying he was the only person they ever executed one search warrant against or the only person they ever executed three. I don't think the former is true, though, is it?

By the way, I think, from reading through this talkpage, you two have been doing a great job. I came here because I was curious what the entry on Allen looked like, based on things I've read about various inaccuracies in the film / Graysmith's book, and, while that one small thing still needs some resolution, I notice that you guys have been dealing with much bigger stuff quite well. ThatGuamGuy 17:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)sean

ThatGuamGuy makes some good points, particularly about needing a citation for the "only one seriously investigated" statement. Like many here, I take serious issue with Graysmith's history of disinformation and ever-evolving spin on the Zodiac case, especially where ALA is concerned. If I get a chance this weekend, I will see what I can come up with as far as a cite. Labyrinth13 17:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

Now that the page has been unprotected, I think it's time that agreement was made about citing sources. It is not enough to have a reference table at the bottom of the article. According to WP:V and WP:CITE, there need to be inline cites. As things now stand, we could better call the reference area "further reading", since there is no way to match statements in the article to the books called references. If these works have indeed been used as references, then there should be footnotes by the sentences in the article, and the footnote should contain the book title, author, page number, publisher and date published, and ISBN. I notice that somebody added a new suspect today without adding any sort of additional reference. Until citations are added, I am placing a {{Unreferenced}} tag on the article. And if there aren't some citations added soon, the suspects which are still alive will be deleted, per WP:BLP. This shouldn't be hard to do. If the people who have added material or who wish to add material don't know how, they can look up the instructions on the policy pages I provided here, or ask me and I will help. This could be an excellent article, but for whatever the reason, it is totally unverifiable in its current condition, which makes it dreck as an encyclopedia article. Jeffpw 13:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw: Nice suggestions and thanks for the proper links to the Wikipedia rules.

I have taken the liberty of removing the one link to my own website from within the body of the article where it was being used as a cite. I have replaced it with an inline citation to the relevant part of my own book that was the source for the information that I relied on when I originally edited that part of the O'Hare entry. (I will leave it up to the community here to decide whether or not my citing of my own work is appropriate or not per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines#Citing_oneself and Wikipedia:No_original_research#Citing_oneself FYI: My book's section on the Zodiac case is fully referenced and contains citations and footnotes gleaned from both primary and secondary sources that are generally recognized and accepted as authoratative).

Note that I have also setup the References section to accommodate inline citations, but as you can see, I did not remove any of the other books or website sources listed there, but I did remove the entry for the Labyrinth13 book to avoid redundancy since it is now cited in the first part of the Notes section. The other book entries still there are not ones that I have personally used to cite any sources in the article, so as you have pointed out, it will be up those editors who have entered them to modify those entries themselves or, if deemed necessary and proper, to remove them alltogether until a proper inline citation to those entries can be made. (About the only other option that might make sense would be your suggestion to create a “Further reading” section or something to accommodate the existing book and website Reference entries, but I will leave the format of that for others to decide). Please have a look at what I have done and make any suggestions or corrections as you see fit. Thanks. Labyrinth13 18:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Labyrinth13. That's a big step in the right direction. It's unfortunate, but though I have read both Graysmith's and Penn's books, I don't have copies anhymore, so can't use them to cite sources. For what it's worth, I am familiar with Zodiac, and I know from memory that most of the article is accurate. It's just that we can't count on every reader to either know that, too, or to trust us implicitly. When I have some time (probably after tuesday) I will find some web references to support assertions. The rule of thumb is one inline cite per paragraph, plus additional ones for any assertion which could likely be challenged. Also, per WP:MOS, external links are frowned upon in the body of an article. Probably the ones used in this article could be paraphrased and used as footnotes. But we don't have to worry about that yet--the footnotes for assertions--particularly the living people--are the most crucial. Jeffpw 23:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree and for the record, I really think we are headed in the right direction now.

I have both of Penn's books and I will be happy to search through them and provide the relevant page numbers for source citing for anyone who might need them in the future. (While working on the Zodiac chapter for my own book, I actually spent close to a month creating a detailed index of the sections of Penn's Times 17 and The Second Power that I relied on. As such, I can usually locate relevant material from both of those works quickly. Thanks. Labyrinth13 23:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I spent several hours rewriting, editing, adding to and revising (such as formatting all of the dates in a consistent manner) this page last night, and citing sources was the last thing on my mind. I've not forgotten to do it, however, I hope everyone understands that it is time consuming to run down links and insert them for each and every statement and/or section. I also hope that the powers-that-be do not expect this to be done by tomorrow either; this is a work in progress, it will be slow (and thanks to anyone/everyone helping out!), and there are numerous relevant matters at hand that I must deal with also (the new movie coming out, interviews, the Taskforce Meeting, moderating the zodiackiller.com message board, etc... and that's not even including the fact that I work on weekends!). I would hope that no one decides that certain things should be removed simply because there are no cited sources; I would not have included them (such as the suspect entries on Jack Tarrance and the "Team Zodiac" theory) if I did not know them to have documentation of some sort to back them up. They do, and they will be added (along with other sources) bit by bit. Ed_Neil 17:30 23 February 2007

Ed Neil: Not to worry, I think that everyone here can appreciate the fact that we all have other things going on. And I'm pretty sure that no one expects the entry to be cleaned up in a matter of days.

If I can make the suggestion, I think that instead of instantly removing un-cited or questionable sources, it would be best to just insert a ^{[citation needed]} tag by anything that some other editor thinks might need a source. That way, the original editor can have plenty of time to track down a source and others will be aware that finding a source is being worked on. (I have already begun to insert ^{[citation needed]} tags in several areas that I worked on today). What are your thoughts? Labyrinth13 01:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I have already added several links to the suspects section; however, instead of editing sections, I edit the entire page all at once (and have it saved as a text file; I started doing that early on just in case something happens to wipe out the entry. Probably not the best, but it works for me). I'll add the ^{[citation needed]} tags so I don't wipe them out when I reedit. Ed_Neil 19:10 23 February 2007

I will repeat that information about living people is expected to comply with WP:BLP. To be frank, any unsourced information is supposed to be excised immediately. Allegations that a person is a suspected serial killer should have something to back them up. Quite honestly, I don;t care if there is a movie coming up--or rather, if there is a movie about to be released, that is more reason to have this article be verifiable. There will be a lot of traffic, and people will want to know that what they read here is accurate. Please insert reliable sources for for your suspects ASAP, or run the risk that the information you add will be removed. Please read this statement from WP:BLP:

“

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details). 'Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[2] He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity: "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

”

IN light of those comments, I feel I am withing policy when I say source all living suspects today or the material will be removed without further discussion.Jeffpw 05:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that perfectly. There are sources, I have links (other than for Beeman, because the source for all information on him is found in the two volumes written by his brother and which are referenced at the end of the entry; he died 23 years ago anyway). Ed_Neil 22:40 23 February 2007

OK, I've added references for all the suspects, I don't think I missed anyone. Regarding the named suspects, there are a few points to consider: Allen, Beeman, Chandler and Tarrance are all dead. Almost nothing is known of Peter O, and he may not even be alive. Marshall is in extremely poor health and may have died, and in one old interview seemed to be amused at being accused of being the Zodiac. "Walker" is almost 87 years old and may have died, but we're using his pseudonym anyway. Davis and Kaczynski are both in jail for life for murder. Hunter and O'Hare have been accused of being the Zodiac for 34 and 20 years respectively and neither has made any effort to sue anyone; O'Hare just ignores it. Kane is a known criminal and has made no effort to sue anyone. Mr X's identity has never been published, and so it's pretty safe to talk about what Rodelli has already posted on his site. I understand the need for citing sources since this an encyclopedic entry after all, however, it's not like any of these names are unknown (other than Mr X, and even "Walker's" name has been published as far back as 1991). Of what I've written about the suspects, there is no rumor, exaggeration, or speculation, I'm just reporting what others have published, so I hope everything is OK. BTW, the information on Hunter comes from the same source as the "Team Zodiac" theory, but he was a suspect on his own for 18 years until Harry Martin decided he was just one of many in the "Z Team," which is why I just referred readers to the other links; I just took the info on Hunter to give him a separate entry. I can post all the same links for the Hunter entry, if that's the proper thing to do. Ed_Neil 00:10 24 February 2007

JH: Pardon me. This sentence in the Zodiac killer entry currently refers to nothing "Zodiac researcher Gareth Penn discovered in 1981 that a radian angle, when placed over the map, points to the locations of two Zodiac attacks. Penn's discovery is discussed further below." There is no further discussion to be found. I was particularly interested in this development. COuls someone investigate?

[edit] Robert Hunter entry

In the past few days, the same IP address has been making extensive, unsourced and uncited changes to the Robert Hunter entry, often after other editors have spent considerable time working on it. As far as I can tell, this person's edits seem to be based primarily on original research and there are zero citations or sources supplied for the information being added. And on at least one occaison, this same person left a personal attack within the main body of the entry against another editor who frequents this entry. (See page history for details).

As things stand right now, it looks very much like another serious editing conflict is on the horizon, just when things seem to be coming together here, no less. I have left a message at User talk:68.127.102.144, asking this person to please visit this discussion page, but see that as of the time of this entry, he/she has continued to edit despite the request.

I am posting this thread here so that we can start documenting efforts to get 68.127.102.144 involved in the discussion. Your thoughts on this and any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

-- Labyrinth13 22:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If they do it again without discussing, there are warning templates, then the blocking option. I have the page watched (though I am very busy until Monday, 16:00 CET) and will revert if I see it. Jeffpw 22:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The person doing this is Carl Rosaia, the son of Ed Rosaia, the "investigator" who originally discovered Hunter in 1973. He has absolutely no documentation to back anything up, and all of his edits should be undone. Ed_Neil 23:55 24 February 2007

Fortunately, I save my work, so I simply reedited it back in, and it reads precisely as it did before Carl began to post his undocumented claims. Also, I noticed the Jack Tarrance entry was removed, I didn't see who or why (I guess I missed it), so I just put it back in. I hope that's OK, gentlemen. Ed_Neil 00:02 25 February 2007

Ed Neil: Thanks for the update and for restoring both the Hunter and Jack Tarrance sections. I haven't had a look at the page history to see who might have deleted Tarrance, but as far as I am concerned, I think that entry should stay. What do the other editors here have to say?

If I may make a suggestion to you, it would help out a lot if you would start to leave an edit summary that describes the changes you have made. This is done by typing in a brief description of the work you performed on an edit into the little dialog box that is provided at the bottom of every editing screen. It makes it so much easier for editors that come by later to be able to just check out the page history and read a quick summary of what another editor has worked on. Thanks. Labyrinth13 18:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My name is Carl Rosaia . Ed Neil has done a tremendous job on Zodiac suspec Robert Hunter. I suggest you read his efforts to clear Hunter on Tom Voights site zodiackiller.com look at the thread at archieved message board / other suspects/ the house on Zodiac corner . You will find a thread in which when read carefully is full of misconceptions involving Robert Hunter . First Ed Neil knew about a lease that was mentioned in Harry Martins story involving Hunter back in 1991. Harry Martins work was based on my fathers research so I know all the information first hand. I know that Har4ry Martin misunderstood dome details of the research and was hurried to print the story. Ed Neils primary concern to the Hunter theory was that Hunter could not have owned the property at 3799 Washington Street prior to some time in early 1970 and therefore could not have had any was possible to have been at that location on 10-11-69 He cites some documents which show some reevant transfer information in regards to the property in question. But he is not conclusive if Hunter had a lease. In fact he chooses the word impossible to describe Hunters ability to have had a lease, I repeat it the word impossible. We go into a lengthy discussion on Zodiac killer.com in regards to this lease. Ed Neil contends that it is my responsiblity to provide a lease . I contend that While Harry Martin published the information and Named Hunter as the suspect this goes towards creitable material. First off Hunter exercised his right to remain silent and did not refute any of the comments . So based upon legal issues alon the information for legal purposes is considered true , if it is true or not . Secondlty becaus Mr. Neil chose the word impossible to describe Hunters ability to have a lease it is my understanding that it was possible, because for one I personally seen the Rental Agreement and have other information which was not known to Ed Neil when he made his wreckless attempts to discredit my fathers work . First off Ed Neilclaimed " impossible " secondly while there were at least four people who were living and health he close not to contact any of them . Ed Neil did not know about the possibility of a lease and this has become a huge problem with his clearing of Hunter . He then claims that it would be impossible for Hunter to have had the lease on 10-11-69 because the Academy did not transfer the property until after that date. I PROVIDES INFORMATION WHICH IS CONSISTANT WITH hUNTER HAVING A LEASE. I told Ed that the Academy never actually needed to own the property because they were the Administrator of the lats Mignon Augbury estate and in the capacity of Adminastor they were impowered to do basically whatever they wanted with the properety based upon thir own guidelines . Robert Hunter was the advisor for the Academy and he advised them to rent the house . Hunter had sold his home a mere 100 days after Mignon Augsburys passing . This is nort evidence that he leased the house but it shows a definate possibility that he had intentions of relocating . Wittness spoted Zodiac , ( Hunter ) at the Washington and Cherry killing and it would have been safe for Hunter to prolong a transaction and move into the property . I provided the Bylaws of The Academy of Sciences as factuall information in as they state that inherited properties can be leased . It also gives information about how this leasing of properties comes about through a cunsulting process. sO Ed Neil thought there was no lease to the point that he stated that Ed Rosaia made the information up. Not only did he make it up but Ed Rosaia had to know the bylaws of the Academy in order to do so and since he first turned his information over to SFPD back in 1973 d Rosaia would need to know all this information back then.

So here is Ed Neils argument from start to finish Hunter could not have been there because he did not own the house . He could not have had a lease because the Academy did not own the house He could not, Have had a lease because I am Ed Neil and I say so . Not only that Ed Neil claims that the Bank of California had possesion of the property and was diposing of it and was the executor for the estate of Mignon Augsbury. He contends that the Bank of California could not have leased the property to Hunter, which is correct. But what he fails to mention is the relationship between the Academy of Science and its directors and the Bank of California and its directors. According to the Academy of Science website, the Academy of Sciences is partnered with the Bank of California. So according to Ed Neis story , the causual observer would conclude that a lease was indeed impossible for Hunter at that point. But once one realizes the relationship and the people involved it is quite possible for such a lease to have existed. Hunter was Sr. Vice President of Crocker Bank and was also the "Banker for the Academy of Sciences. His wife Sylvia worked with the Academy of Sciences . So there shows a relationship between theHunters and the Academy of Science. The only thing that appears obvious is that Hunter knew he was going to buy the house the day Mignon Augsbury passed away. Hunter listed his current home and sold it within 100 days of her passing and the next residence he shows up at is 3799 Washington Street. What else is obvious is that while it seems to be a major crime to Ed Neil , the Academy of Science rented the property to Hunter even before it was transferred to them. But what crime would it be when every party to the transaction is represented by the Academy of Sciences.This is to say that the Bank of California actually works as a partner with the Academy to deal with these sorts of transactions and help their customers plan their estates. Its quite possible that their may even be a fraudulent type of activity here also. Zodiac was a killer and fraud is quite a less crime . Without knowing who, when and where this transaction went down it would be IMPOSSIBLE to merly speculate that the lease did not exist. Not only that but why on earth would Ed Rosaia state this information when the Handwriting matched and the composite was dead on. He did not need to put Hunter in the house on that day.Because even if he had a lease and it was a recorded lease it still does not prove anything. Ed Rosaia speculated ( correctly ) that the clues he followed lead him to a suspect, and the time of the lease is not even relevant. Ed followed clues that represented the killers identidy. The killer also left clues to his location at the Stine killing . After following the clues he found Hunter.If the clues did not lead that direction then ( what is obvious ) there would be no investigation into Hunter and there would be no handwriting that matched , and no composite that fit so perfectly.

So all this gets back to Ed Neils real intentions , while Ed has argues extensively for 5 years about this he has never once put up the $ 9.95  to call  a witness that was there to get the facts straight, why is this.

Ed Neil cannot substanciate his claims that there was not a lease . If Ed Rosaia made the claims that he did without the supported material surely SFPD would have charged him and Harry Martins story would have never seen the light . if you wish to discuss this futher email me rosaia@sbcglobal.net otherwise when I post something leave it alone . I beleive that I currently own all rights to my fathers story and anything which is considered factual and legal through the eyes of Wikipedia shall remain. Ed Neil is not an Authority in regards to Robert Hunter and should not under any circumstances be considered as such. Keep in mind the use of the word impossible when thinks about his authority, basically Ed Neil is wreckless and not in control of what he is talking about .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.102.144 (talk • contribs).

68.127.102.144/Carl Rosaia: Thanks for coming to the discussion area. I can't address any of your concerns about Ed Neil and will leave that for you and him to hash out. However, I can tell you that since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that deals with factual information, you must cite sources for any of the information that you post on here. What that means is that unless the information you are posting about Hunter can be shown to be drawn from reliable published sources, then the information is not allowed on Wikipedia. It is up to the person who is making a claim to back it up with authoritative information, and not the other way around. If you have any questions, then by all means, please ask them here. Thanks. Labyrinth13 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm really tired of dealing with Carl. The fact remains that he has absolutely no documentation to back up any of his claims (he has admitted as much to me), and I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt over at the zodiackiller.com message board that Hunter did not live at 3799 Washington Street on 10-11-1969. Ed you proved nothing and I proved that your ownership documents are meaningless. The documents I provided is the Bylaws of the Academy of Science in which it clearly states that the Academy administers estates and has the authorithy to care for the properties as they deem in best interest to the Academy. Vased on that information you continue to lead on that because Hunter did not transfer the property into his name at a point in time in 1970 that he could not have had a lease. Your reasoning behind this is so ignorant I do not understand what part of this do you not understand,the part about the Academy having been the administrator of the estate or is it the part that they are empowered to care for the property in the best interest of the Academy. Please explain what part you are not understanding here pal.

You sure lead on that he would have had to own the property in order to live there , now put up or shut up. My father supplied information to SFPD In 1973 which made Hunter a zodiac suspec , IT TOOK THEM SOME 6 YEARS TO CLEAR HIM, CERTAINLY IF THIS WERE A TRUE STATEMENT THERE IS A WHOLE HELL OF A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT EITHER YOU ARE WITHHOLDING OR JUST TOTALLY OUT TO LUNCH ABOUT , WHICH ONE IS IT . You said you personally investigated Hunter . Please tell us which law enforcement office you were able to talk to in regards to evidence on Hunter . If Ken Natrlow had him as a prime suspect then what evidenc did he have on him. Certainlty SFPD did not have him as a suspect for six years based on the crap your posting.Another thig that Ed Neil states is that Law enforcement cleared Hunter, basically there is no official documentation that this is true , and in fact Hunter has never been cleared. SFPD stated that they cleared Hunter ( not using his name ) based on the prints, in an attempt to calm a growing rumor , and this statement did not mention that his handwriting was a match .Basicall it was a publis relation statement and nothing more.

Carl keeps telling me I cannot prove there was not a lease... excuse me, the burden of proof is on him to prove there was a lease to explain how Hunter was in that house in October 1969 (which he was not until 1970). I have the documentation to prove it, and Carl has nothing.

Basically that crap works fine on your website Ed, but actually I only need to cite reliable printed , uncontested material in which I did . Any argument further than that will require you to provide documentation showing Hunter lived elsewhere on that date . I provide the cite and its true and accurate, if it were no Bob Hunter had plenty of resorces to handle the situation himself , would you agree.

I shall provide links to the actual documents that back up my claim, and once they are posted, everyone can see that I am telling the truth and that Carl is in no position to criticize anything. Post your crap Ed Neil those documents prove absolutely diddly squat . Once again the Academy was willed the property and they also administered the estate and because of the legallalitis involved Hunter leased the property in accordance to the Bylaws of the Academy of Science ., coincidently this is where the clue Robert Emmett the Hippi came from because right in front of the Academy is a statue of Robert Emmett , in the days of the Hippi rallies Robert Emmett was no doubedly seen as Robert Emmett the Hippi , al least he was hang with them 24-7

I will continue to remove his undocumented claims until such time as he can prove with documentation that Hunter lived at 3799 Washington Street on 10-11-1969 (this is the foundation for his entire theory,Ed Neil , let me be clear on this point I cite The Napa Sentinel and original research.

The work published on behalf of my father is indeed published , reliable and uncontested , You may need someone to explain this to you it seems.

and we have been going around and around with this for years. Carl has consistently refused to produce a single shred of evidence that his claim about Hunter is true, and I have enough to prove that it is not). Ed_Neil 21:50 25 February 2007

This is becoming troubling. Not only do I see a lot of conflict of interest here, but also a lot of original research. I strongly advise everybody here who regularly edits this article to read all of the policies I have linked to on this page. This would include, but not be limited to WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:MOS, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:RS. I am seeing manifold violations of most of these policies and guidelines. I don't have time at the moment, but I will be going through this article carefully in the next few days, rewriting it, and deleting all information I see that is in violation of policies here. I will also remind all parties here that nobody owns this article. At least three of you editing here seem to think that this is an extension of your own websites and message boards. That is simply not the case. Let me give you a friendly reminder: while you are here you need to edit according to the policies and guidelines of this site. Failure to do so will result in your contributions being reverted and your editing privileges being potentially suspended. And one last thing: please learn how to edit before you save your contributions. The preview button will show you how your edit will look. I had to spend 15 minutes reformatting contributions to this page, since they were improperly submitted. Please also sign your comments using the 4 tildes (~~~~). It helps the rest of us to know who said what. Jeffpw 10:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed Neil continues to change the post on Robert Hunter. Ed Neil has absolutely no authority in regards to Robert Hunter. Basically what Ed Neil is saying that Harry Martin the current Supervisor of Napa is not a reliable sorce. Ed Neil is hardly the person to discredit anybody. After you read his post and the thread on Zodiac killer.co under the thread archived message board/ other suspects/ the house on zodiac corner and anothrer thread consisting of several parts on archived message board / trash bin / carls cavern you will note that Ed Neil constantly make up information in order to strenth his misconceptions . Ed Neil has not researched Robert Hunter past picking up a a phone book at the SF library. I cite Harry Martin and the Napa Sentine;l as a sorce of the information. I am the son of the original researcher and who better would tell you that the way Ed Rosaia came across Hunter is not what Mr. Neil contends. Basically if Ed Neil cannot move towards the truth in this simple fact ( because it make sush simple since ) then how can he be expected to actually discuss ihis phone book entrys as absolute proof as to who lived at 3799 Washington and when they lived there. Phone book entries mean nothing. And as far as the property ownership goes it means just as little as explained in the discussion and in the letter I sent to you . So lets keep it simple here everybody knows Ed Neil has a problem with me , and that problem is that I reveal hif deceptions and lay them out for all to see.

Take this seriously or there will be a problem.

Go for it, Carl. Everyone knows you have to back your claims up. Ed_Neil 14:55 26 February 2007

I wish to remind both of you that NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH IS ALLOWED ON WIKIPEDIA! I am re-writing this article today, and any original research I notice will be deleted immediately. Same goes for speculation. Attempts to reinsert material that violates policy will result in the article being locked again. Jeffpw 06:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder Jeff, my research is from the Napa Sentinel and the original researcher who supplied the material to the Sentinel was Harry V. Martin.

Ed Neil appears to be on a crusade to be a one man cover up artist . His efforts are clear, his works speak for themselves . I beleive that if you read the house on zodiac corner you will realize Ed made a little booboo vwhen he describes Robert Hunters ability to have lived at 3799 Washington Street as IMPOSSIBLE, again IMPOSSIBLE . The battle he chose to involve himself in is by his own making .

He is full of fear that his solid reputation as a researcher has met an end.

Once I proved that it was possible he began running in circles in an attempt to recover.

All he needed to do is call a wittness , he was and is not interested in the truth and never has been . Just how credable is a fella who says something is impossible even while documents prove that it is possible . And when presented with the documents does no further research to prove his point while knowing the truth is just $9.95 away . He could have called Victor Schenterrilli and got the information straight from the horses mouth . So basically Ed Neils first research efforts failed miserably , he got caught in a few little lies , and hes afraid to admit it.

Interesting. Carl is calling me a liar, and yet, at zodiackiller.com,

More interesting is that all the threads regarding Hunter have been removed from Zodiac Killer .com Do you really think that removing the information will save your ass. Your kidding right. I saved the entire site using Front Page and have every thing you ever posted , you look pretty bad Ed .

I have a rock solid reputation for being truthful and objective. Unlike Carl, I deal only with the facts and the truth. Carl's problem is that I've proven that the suspect he and his dad have wasted 34 years pursuing cannot possibly have been the Zodiac Killer, and he doesn't like it. Ed_Neil 16:20 27 February 2007 Based on the proof who is Katherine Hunter . what is Hunters address in Lake Tahoe Where were Hunters kids registered for school in 1969 . Where was Hunter on 10-11-69 and who did witness him signing papers .

Basically your roxck solid case does very little as you mentioned ( not me ) that SFPD had him as a prime suspect . If they had him as a prime suspect and could not have cleared him on his handwriting tell me exactly how you were able to accomplish this task witout so much as a sample . I beleive you posted Hunters signature on a deed as PROOF that Hunters writing was not that of the Zodiac , Ed does this really sound Rock Solid sounds like a hollywood type rock to me .

Could some kind editor who knows who is who go back and add all the ISP Addys and date and times posted to all these anonymous statements? I think I know who is calling whom childish names, but I would be nice to be certain. This kind of thing is only going to heat up with the release of the film.Lisapollison 11:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] americas most wanted

a documentry appeared on americas most wanted today. probably gonna create some excitement about this.

____________________

Imagine how you would feel to see your name here, there and pert near everywhere as being a suspect in any crime, let alone murder, and you are innocent. People are so quick to accuse resulting in harm to innocent folks. For those that do this reprehensible deed, well, I hope YOU are falsely accused some day. Just seems fair to me.68.13.191.153 13:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you posting this here? Labyrinth13 05:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I Know This Is In The Wrong Place..... I've never added a comment to the discussion pages before, just made minor edits to unimportant articles, so I don't know how to add a new entry to this page or if I should have edited the "Robert Hunter" discussion part instead. Please feel free to re-place this where it belongs!

My question is about this entry:

• During an October 2002 ABC television special about the Zodiac case (Primetime Live: The Hunt for the Zodiac Killer), Rodelli was informed by Primetime that Mr. X willingly supplied a sample of his DNA, it was compared to a sample taken from the Zodiac letters (presumed to be from the actual killer) and that no match was found.

IMHO, this sentence is a little bit biased (having no personal theories on the Zodiac myself---I'm a noob to this case). Can we add that the DNA evidence is very possibly NOT the dna of the Zodiac, for the reasons Mike lays out on his site? I think it's a very safe statement that, because the envelopes were sent before the advent of DNA testing, there's a very strong chance that the exposed surfaces of them have been hugely corrupted by over 30 years of handling. Regardless of whether they were ever "taken home as trophies" as he says, even if they never left the SFPD they were most likely held, at some time, by countless people (after being fingerprinted) and breathed on, sneezed around, laid on the desk that was just sneezed on, etc. I think that it should be noted that the DNA evidence should be taken with a grain of salt because of these reasons, and that *none* of the suspects can safely be eliminated by this DNA, until/unless it is matched with dna from the unexposed surfaces or (not understanding why this hasn't been done yet) the red-brown hair that was found under one of the stamps.

Thanks! Weiwuweix 20:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Sarah S. (weiwuwei)

Weiwuweix: Excellent point. By all means, edit that entry as you see fit. But please remember to add a properly formatted inline citation for the information that you rely on. Thanks. Labyrinth13 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added two sentences to the end of the "Dateline" paragraph briefly summarizing Rodelli's DNA counterargument, and the implication it might have on the other "ruled-out" suspects. Cited it to the page on Rodelli's site about the new DNA stuff. I followed the WP citation guide as best I could understand---sorry if it's a wrong format or what have you! Thanks! Weiwuweix 22:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Sarah S.

[edit] New rewrite

Question: "there is more glory to killing a cop than a cid [sic] because a cop can shoot back." - is the sic intended as "civ", short for civilian, i.e., non-cop, or as "kid", or is this unknown? It's confusing because the statement is in close proximity to comments about attacks on school busses. In any case, this should be clarified.

---

I have rewritten this article, and deleted all suspects. There were no arrests, and the only real suspect was Arthur Allen, who was conclusively proven not to be the Zodiac.

The article was too long, anyway, and badly needed a severe editing. If you disagree, reinsert suspects, but only with sources showing them to be real suspects. No living persons without sources. Personally, I think to add suspects is just speculation, which has no place in an encyclopedia. The article is still in bad shape, but is now a lot better than yesterday. At least it doesn't violate policy now (well, not by much). Jeffpw 08:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw, I have no problem with the deletion of the "suspects"(although, I think somewhere Allen has to be mentioned). I do however have an issue with you about the removal of 1985 film "the Mean Season" from the pop-culture section, not only is the film is noted in several serial killer "encyclopedias", but the producers of the film have made it clear that the film was heavily influenced by the Zodiac crimes. I have put it back....where it certainly belongs. Please be respectful and keep it there. Also, how familiar are you with the case? (JT Mac 11:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

• Funny you mention that. I did a Google search and found something interesting. It was actually taken from a novel, In The Heat Of The Summer by John Katzenbach, and had nothing to do with Zodiac at all. If you can find a reliable source which states otherwise, please reinsert it. But the emphasis is on reliable. Not just some message board. I am seeing a lot of original research in this article as it is, and was quite lenient in my edit. I should have removed even more, but am hoping people will provide some decent/better sources. And though it is of no bearing on my correction of the manifold policy breaches in this article today, I am highly familiar with both this case, The Mean Season, and most of the books which were written about Zodiac. I also lived in California at the time of the murders, so I am not exactly a neophyte here.Jeffpw 11:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw, I just did the same search and found no such reference. The movie has an ORIGINAL screen play. I am a P.I. in the Bay Area and I am currently working with key figures in the Z case. There are a handful of dedicated people who maintain this page(and some who F#@! it up with clutter). I'm not sure you are qualified to make wholesale changes to this page. Please allow those of us who are, to do the "heavy lifting" if you will. If you would like to learn more about this case, I would strongly recommend "This is the Zodiac Speaking" by Mike Kelleher and Dr. David Van Nuys. Until you can improve your Z acumen(Knowledge...sorta), please refrain from further edits on this page. Thank you. (JT Mac 12:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

I support Jeffpw's actions here completely. He may not be as familiar with the case as you claim to be, but I would suggest he is more knowledgeable about the relevant Wikipedia policies this articles must comply with (especially WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:OR). I suggest you work with him to create an article that is both good coverage of the subject and complies with Wikipedia's policies. WjBscribe 12:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Apparently I am qualified to make "wholesale" changes to this page, since I seem to be the only one here who has a clear understanding of the policies and protocols of this website. Let me remind you, Tmac, you do not own this article. I will remind you to be civil in your messages. I found your last post here to be patronizing, and more than a little irritating, since I had to remove so much crap to this article today simply tobring it into conformity with wiki guidelines. In the meantime, since you clearly cannot Google correctly, here is (one of) the page which shows the origin of The Mean Season. Please also look here on our website. Let us hope that the information you place in this article will be a tad more accurate than your assertion that The Mean Season was an original screenplay. Jeffpw 12:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw and WJbscribe, I'm not impressed. Jeff, there is no shame in ignorance(which means void of fact), just stick to your area of expertise(which is obviously not the z case). I'm very patient and I will just keep adding what you delete. If you think I'm bad, wait until the rest of the regular contributors see what you've done to their work. This is mild compared to what your in for. (JT Mac 12:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

And you wait until I have you blocked for violating the 3 revert rule. You may also wait until I have this article page protected if it once again violates biography of living people and verifiability policies. Jeffpw 13:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

JT Mac, your last edit seemed a little pointy. Care to explain? WjBscribe 13:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to explain....if we cannot compromise than the page should be deleted altogether. (JT Mac 13:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

• This is now on the administrator's notice board. Further vandalism to the article (such as Tmac's blanking of the page) will result in blocks (as has now happened to Tmac) and page protection. Jeffpw 13:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I have been editing here and have been involved in some of the recent discussions and edit changes, I want to add my two cents about the edits done yesterday by Jeffpw.

I personally think that Jeffpw has done an outstanding job in cleaning up the article. Sure, a lot of the work that went into many of the areas was deleted, but let's all face up to reality: most of the stuff there totally violated Wikipedia rules, anyway.

The standards here for adding information are no different from that which a reputable publisher would demand as far as vetting information for a non-fiction book. It is not always easy to determine what is and isn't a reliable source, but it is fairly obvious that one's personal opinion, not backed up by either published and/or evidence examined by experts, completely is not.

-- Labyrinth13 14:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Labyrinth13. I appreciate that seeing so much information deleted can be distressing. However, others need to appreciate that libel lawsuits are potentially equally distressing to us here, and some of the info I deleted verged on libelous, if it was not actually libel. To be frank, I meant it when I said I had been lenient with my deletions. The Lass disappearance, for example, gives a message board, and a reposted email as a source. This is quite clearly original research, but I know about the disappearance from my own reading, and know it can be verified in Graysmith's book, so I left it in. Let's move forward with an agreement that we verify what is inserted now. It's gonna be very difficult to meantime this article in the near future, what with the film being released. Let's not make it harder than it has to be. Jeffpw 14:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeff you seem unaware of what the heck you are talking about . Robert Hunter was a real suspect as others were also . Maybe you refer to him as a real suspect because they searched his residence. The fact that Robert Hunter is a verifieable suspect is clear. He is mentioned in San Francisco Chronicle although not by name .Harry Martin cite in the Napa Sentinel that at least three different police juristrictions have him as a prime suspect. This type of understanding leads to people like you who do not know the facts inserting opnions that are based on nothing more than fellings, and we know that feelings should not be the controling factor in what is deemed reliable and or truth. Basically until such a time that you get your head out of your ass you should just mind your own fucking business and let someone else edit suspects according to rules not feelings. The rules are simple and appear to be fair. If you can conclude that a suspect is not a suspect according to the rules of Wikipedia then you have an argument , but until then doing so is a violation of the rules set up to protect reliable information. I suggest you sit back and relax .

As far as facts go anyone could have written the letters including me when I was 7 years old. As far as the DNA on the envelope apply the same logic. Although Allen was indeed a public suspect , some researchers including myself beleive firmly he was computer generated using CIA based personal information. This also explains why there is absolutely no documented record as to why Allen became a suspect in the first place. To futhere this bizarre clim which is indeed real , I add supportive material as when Police searched Allen in 191 although they found actuall bombs and an assortment of firearms he was never charged with a crime . Any sexual offender found with bombs and firearms would spend the rest of the decade behind bars . Allen was not charged because of his CIA contact and his positive works in the Zodiac coverup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.209.81 (talk • contribs).

I just saw this. Please learn to sign your comment using the 4 tildes (~~~~). You seem upset by my deletion. I did that in order to comply with Wikipedia policies, especially those about libeling living people. If I recall correctly, Hunter was a living suspect. I further recall there were no sources to support the assertions--rather a problem with many of the suspects listed. I did point this out a few days ago, and say I would be deleting if the info was not sourced. Since the policy actually calls for deleting immediately, I think it was fairly lenient of me. If you or others want to add sourced suspects to this article, please feel free. But unsourced material that violates Wikipedia policy will be deleted immediately. I would also like to add that this article was becoming very long, and was filled with opinions, original research and unsubstantiated claims. All of that has no place here. Please stick to the bare facts. Especially in a case like this, the facts are dramatic enough. They don't need to be embellished. Lastly, please remember to be civil in your comments here. I don't take kindly to being sworn at. Jeffpw 21:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw: I think that it would be helpful for you (or anyone else who knows) to provide a good example of just exactly what a proper "sourced suspect" entry would look like. I'd be happy to provide one myself, but am not 100% sure that I know all the Wikipedia requirments. Having that info posted here would be a great "touchstone" for future editors who want to get things right. Thanks. Labyrinth13 21:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's almost midnight here, Labyrinth, so I will do that in the morning. I'll create one for Arthur Allen, since he is the longest term suspect. But basically, the point is to have neutral, verifiable sources (newspaper articles, books, websites which have a good reputation) that show what you have written, so readers can see you haven't created it yourself. Also, just facts, with no opinions. Let the reader form their own opinion. Jeffpw 22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow... I was actually thinking of listingthe suspects and providing links to individual pages to help shorten this article. Personally, living, dead or otherwise, it's my opinion that the known suspects should be listed, since they are listed in online sources and/or in published material (books, newspapers, etc). The real problem here is that Carl has no documentation to back up a single one of his assertions concerning Hunter and has consistently refused to do any research to give me a single thing to look up to verify anything he says. On the contrary, I have proven (to my satisfaction anyway) that Hunter cannot be the Zodiac Killer, but his inclusion in the list of suspects I think is justified because there are people who have heard of him and will want to know more. It's no different than discussing the dozen or so Jack the Ripper suspects, since only one (or none) could have been him; the thing is, they're all dead, unlike many of the Zodiac suspects. What it comes down to is, as I've pointed out before, suspects like Hunter, O'Hare, Marshall and others have made no effort to sue anyone for anything, so compiling information about them from preexisting sources that they have not sued should not make wikipedia liable for anything (if this is a concern here). Ed_Neil 16:15 27 February 2007

Ed Neil: As far as entries involving living persons are concerned, being sued is a major concern for Wikipedia and reading through the Wiki manual of style, I saw that removing un-sourced information about them is standard policy.

Above, I have asked that a set of guidelines be posted so that editors can have something to follow in order to make entries conform to the right protocols and standards. As soon as that information is presented, I plan to do some rewriting of the suspect entries to see if they will pass muster. Labyrinth13 01:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You can see the bio of Allen I wrote at this page. I only included information I could source. This is an example of how a bio should be written, in terms of verifiability, neutrality, use of third party sources and policy regarding bios of living people. I know Allen is dead, but since this is to be an example, I thought I should use the highest degree of caution, since possibly living suspects might be profiled in this manner. Hope this helps. Jeffpw 10:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw: Nice example and thanks for taking the time to format the example and post a link. I've got some other things to keep me busy at present, but when I get a chance, I'm going to start researching and rewriting a few entries. Labyrinth13 16:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw , I beleive Ed Neil has bowed down finally and used a rather interesting word to describe hi finding as his opnion. This is a big step for Ed and I commend him on his efforts to clean up his side of the street. Good work Ed I always told you that it was not proof and just a half assed opnion and I feel you have crossed over to realizing that. Keep up the good work. I know these deep moral truths are the most difficult things in life that we face. You are THE MAN again I commend you . Moving forward. Jeffpw The Napa Sentinal is owned by Harry Maritn as you already know . Harry has an extensive millitary background and is currently the Supervisor of Napa . His word is known and He has won awards for his investigative research . How can I cite the work properly .Also Jeff I have some very interesting details that I would be willing to share with you if you send me an email at rosaia@sbcglobal.net please write zodiac material in the subject line . I beleive you stated that you were involved in the Zodiac investigation and I am interesed in what your take is on some information I have . This information has never been discusse dother than my personal associates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.209.81 (talk • contribs).

68.127.209.81/Carl: Instead of continuing to use a lot of space on this discussion page to attack another editor that you have issues with, why don’t you just simply rewrite the Robert Hunter article per the example posted above and then submit it for review? As has already been pointed out to you in great detail several times here already, if you follow the guidelines (see the example posted by Jeffpw above) and cite all of your sources, leaving out personal opinions or anything else that cannot be substantiated with a proper source, you should do just fine. As a quick reference, use these links when editing your new entry: WP:COI, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:RS. Thanks. Labyrinth13 18:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Labyrinth , I am asking what part of my post on Hunter needs to comply to what regulation. I cite Hary Martin as the sorce, and repeat that he is a creditible sorce . Can you tell me what part of my post on the suspect does not comply . According to what I have read everything appears to be copacetic.I am new to this area of the internet and maybe some of the editing procedures are bejond my level as I have not read all the guideline but repeadely when I posted the information before the only message I receive was to cite the sorce . Having complied with that request the information continued to be removed by Ed Neil who is his own sorce . And getting into that argument it appears that He is backing down on his own sites intentions by using his opnions to base his conclusions in regards to this suspect. He constantly deleted my posts at his site for his personal interests and is doing it here to . Again I am asking for futher guidance in this matter. I would just repost the information on Hunter but am asking for assistance because I am tired of wasting time . I want to post it and have it there for all who are interested . I would like to repeat that since Ed Neil has retracted his statements about the reliability of his material it seems fitting that he not be the one to edit anything in rgardsto Mr. Hunter. He might better battle Harry Martin asking him to retract the article on Hunter than oppose me in my efforts. Thanks again,Carl ps if we cant really be sure about Ed Neils work in regards to 3799 Washington Street how can we be sure Hunter did not own property at Lake Berryessa , just because he said he never found records . More than likely he chose not to find them , and of corse there is the other possibility that he owned the property in a corporate method. If Ed Neil looks for the Lost Dutchman and does not find it dioes this truly mean it does ot exist. According to the LOGIC he uses to research Hunter the Lost Dutchman Gold mine does not exist . Help me with the post and we will move forward . Thanks again, Carl —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.209.81 (talk • contribs).

Carl: First things first: You should get into the habit of "signing" all your future posts and edits by typing in four tildes when you are ready to post something here. It really is important.

Re how to rewrite your Hunter entry: In a nutshell, you must backup every statement in any entry that is being submitted as a "fact" with a corresponding citation from a noted, published source. For examples of what are allowable sources, see any of the links that Jeffpw and I posted above. See also User:Jeffpw/sandbox for an example of a properly cited entry. Note that at the end of each sentence, an inline citation has been made, backing up with a reliable source every single assertion that is being made.

I don't have your original Hunter post in front of me, so I can't address it point by point. However, I do recall that your entry had no inline citations at all. It is not enough (nor is it a proper way to cite a source) to just write in "such and such newspaper/magazine article" at the end of your entry. You must format it as an inline cite and provide the name of the publication, date, author, page numbers, etc.

Your original entry also included a lot of your own opinion. It is important for you to understand that, although you may feel your opinion is highly relevant, it is not allowed on Wikipedia as it essentially is seen as pure conjecture and not backed up by reliable sources. This applies to everyone here.

I suggest that you take time to get familiar with working on the computer and particularly, with the rules of editing on Wikipedia. You can always use the Wikipedia:Sandbox to see how edits will look without disrupting the actual entry you are wanting to edit.

-- Labyrinth13 20:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am really tired of reading Carl's outright lies. I have not retracted a single thing; I stand by my research, and that research completely and totally exonerates Hunter. If any of you want to avoid being sued, then I suggest you block Carl's IP if at all possible. This is really getting ridiculous. Ed_Neil 20:01 28 February 2007

Ed Neil: One avenue at your disposal would be to post a notice about this at WP:RFAA.

-- Labyrinth13 04:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As an impartial person in this matter, and as someone who used the version of this article a week ago as a jumping-off point in learning about the case, I have to say I'm disappointed to see the "suspects" list go. Perhaps better terms for it would be "Official Persons of Interest" or "People Who Were Investigated At One Point Or Another" or some such, but I think that if they were actually investigated by the police, and had enough circumstantial evidence to make them people of note, and there are sources that don't perpetuate the "Wikipedia is unreliable" stereotype, they belong on this page. I'll refer to the Jon Benet Ramsey article and the OJ Simpson Trial article, both of which mention suspects that were later ruled out and, in the OJ case, suspects who were never investigated seriously and source only one book written on the theory (the Jason Simpson theory). I think this is what makes Wiki so cutting-edge, that we can conglomerate all of the info, even those that are theories, into one place that gives credible sources for things, instead of having to go to a billion amateur websites to find out who was a suspect and why, and get all sorts of bunk info along the way. True, we cannot put a bunch of unsourced crap on here that is just the speculation of a group of non-Law Enforcement-related people, but in reality, if the person was actually investigated by the police to the extent that it became well-known, they're probably used to that fact by now and cannot get away from it. Richard Jewell knows this pain, but he just kind of has to deal with it, because he was, in fact, a major suspect. Sucks for him, but he's got an article here, too. Not listing them here won't make them any less former-suspects. I think WP is doing them a great service by listing them here under circumstances that are held to higher standards, rather than forcing people to have to go to some very biased websites with possibly false information just to find out why they were suspects. Weiwuweix 07:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Sarah S.

Weiwuweix, that is what we have been discussing. The article as it stood was actually the disservice to our readers that you mentioned. Much of the information about suspects was unsourced and a violation of various policies here on Wikipedia, thus making it completely unreiable and tainting the rest of the accurate information the article contained. Please read the above discussion for the specific violations and how to address them. Further, the article was well over 70 kilobytes, and there was both a tag on the article and a warning in the edit window that it was too long and material should be either split or deleted. I chose to delete due to the above mentioned violations. Should you or others wish to reinsert material about suspects, I suggest you do two things. After writing highly sourced, accurate, neutral entires about the suspect which do not contain original research or opinion, create a new article called "Suspects in the Zodiac killer slayings" or whatnot. Then make a one sentence entry for each of those suspects, add a section with those one sentence entries, and a link to the new article. If all of my suggestions here are followed, then A) this article will become a lot more stable than it has been in the past; and B) there will be no length problems. Hope that helps to clarify my actions (though I have written extensively about them already). Jeffpw 09:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I need some help around here . I have Leona Robert complete history . I can cite article in 1970 which lists her as Zodiacs first Sonoma County victim and can list enough coincidences that are all documented to positively make her a zodiac victim. This creates a mass connection to many of the Sonoma County victims.

Detective Butch Carlstead and others at the time had Zodiac connected to as many as 80 homocides. For public safety and relations it was neccessary to scale down zodiac to fit the Law Enforcement needs and public was never made aware of a mass of information connecting the killings. I posted the information under Leona Roberts as Suspected victims.

I am quite sure that she can be linked based upon my findings and those printed reliable sorce documents .

Also noted is that she died from an unknown virus that infects the brain. Only 6 known vit rus can do this in USA

Most of which can be weaponized and put in an aresol. A small laboratory with only 100,00 today can accomplish this task. Zodiac made terrorist threats in the letter previous to Leonas Death and I am quite sure that death by lethal virus is indeed similar as a military type weapon ads in such it would take a person skilled and learned in that area to describe the exact nature of the weapon and its marketable uses. Coincidently the top researcher of this disese was located in Berkely at that time. More information shows that this virus could only be transported by a mosquito , unfortunately from my personal experience there are not very many mosquitos left hanging around in mid december, but I did the research and can cite various sites of the usgov that support this info.

I can also cite Robert Greysmith as a researcher who first lists her cause of death in his first edition as unidentified virus and later in his second edition as exposure. Certainly this downgrading of the cause of death came about to fit some bodies personal needs . I Also need to express that while modern researchers have changed their opinions on many issues on every topic available under the sun . New theories change all the time , they are also used in the media to control masses and create a desired need . Fortunately for the rules of Wikipedia I can cite the story when it happened as opposed to the story as it evolved and changed to fit he needs of the masses. So basically in a nutshell Zodiac killed Leona with a millitar type virus , the media ran the story to satisfy the family and friends at the time and covered the story up. This is by chance of luck that Greysmith mentioned it in his first edition , now a collectors edition (IMO) I can guarantee youm that if a victim was found today that had died from a virus that infects the brain like the one Leona had Ben Ladin will have beeen the named sorce of that attack and thousands of innocent Iracqis will die for the cause. Tell me I am wrong.

Enough said on that I need some assistance citeing the work and doing it pronto. If you can be of assistance I really would appreciate it . It would also help Leon and the many other victims who lost their lives to this killer.

I will lay out a line of documented coincidence that positively show that Zodiac is responsible for this girls death. This opens a great big mass vault of unwanted worms , but what the heck its all true and basically thats all we really want is the truth. Even Ed Neil really wants the truth,.... or is this what he is so scared of. Carl Rosia posted on the 26 Feburary 2007 at about 9:45 in the morning I can be reached at 650-483-6691 or email me at Rosaia@sbcglobal.net or you can look up my address on the internat. Hope for the best.... but prepare for the worst. Good luck Ed you can fight me but you cant stop me ..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4leona2 (talk • contribs).

Please take some time to read WP:ATT. "coincidences" are not what we want to see here; we want to see verifiable sourced information. If you have a reliable source that links the Zodiac Killer to this individual, then the information from that source can be added with a cite, but not extraneous musings on the topic. Much what you've stated above would not be appropriate for inclusion in the article because it appears to be original research and not reliably sourced. Please remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We are here to report what is verifiable, not uncover the "Truth^TM"--Isotope23 17:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take the time to read what I posted all the coincidences are indeed Documented . posted by Carl rosaia just before lunch . ..... oh I see you are confused a little here I should have said that the documents when arranged and outlined in particular order appear to be a coincidence I will reqword for thse who apparently are book smart and litteral morons sorry for the abuse it just comes out sometimes when dealing with asking for help

68.127.209.81 01:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)I do not know exactly how to proceed so again I am asking for assistance . I am wanting to change the number of suspected victims to represent the original tally of 84 back in 1974 . This information is clearly what is considered to be reliable and is the compiling of many authorities. Futhermore the current work is aimed at minimizing the capabilities of the Zodiac killer as was in Greysmiths changing the the cause of death to Leon from unidentified virus to exposure. Although I know this is a public relations type comment as was the clearing of Robert Hunter in the Chronicle six years after he became a suspect. All these incidents unfortunately SCREAM COVERUP ... we really know there is no cover up. I just have to relate the information as it was when it was virgin and true . I do not like stories that are based on twisted facts and or others opinions . There would need to be documented closure of the cases involved that were connected to the Zodiac at that time before anyone in law enforcement , or media can start reducing the 84 number down to where it is todayy . Without such documentation that shows these case were closed out how can we be certain the authorities are actually citing reliable information when disclosing their current numbers to the media and then to common folk like you and Ed.

If we can work on the numbers issue that would be good. Greysmith has a good starting list to cite and there are everal magazines that carry the same . I am more hell bent on Leona being killed with an unidentified virus than anything else so I will attempt to focus on that issue. Being she was considered the first of the Sonoma County I want to get her listed as a victim . Once I can get her listed then I need some advise as to how to how I can Link the victim to the chain of coincidence that connect her to the Zodiac killer all being documented of corse.

I beleive that a public information site built for interested peoples should contain this sort of information so long as it is documented. It goes the same as how my father came up with Hunters name as a suspect., and that information is also documented .

I beleive that once these two objectives are realized a bright clear picture will shine through the muck. 4leona2 06:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone see the article written by Duffy Jennings. Duffy made a mistake in citing the date for the Farraday-Jensen killing citing that it had occured on Dec 20 , 1969. We all know that it actually happened on Dec. 20 , 1968, This complete article is written on Nov. 12, 1969 and is on page 6 of the San Francisco Chronicle

I want to cite the incorrect article and point out that this is a overlooked peice of evidence that points to Zodiac and his methods and the fact that he repeats his works on aniversaries. He intentionally kept Leon alive for 10 days to ensure her death was on the anniversary of Farraday-Jensen. The article has never before been mentioned concerning these date coincidences . Also the fact that Farraday had the ring clenched in his hand when he died and Leona was found nude except for a ring on her finger speaks volumns .Is it ok to cite work that is known to be incorrect? Pleas help I am drownding 18:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)4leona2 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

68.127.209.81 01:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)can I use the phrase, " This is the link that puts the nail in the coffin" to describe the connection to the article written on Nov. 12, 1969 as the basis that connects the Leona Roberts story .68.127.209.81 01:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For about the third or fourth time, please sign your talk page posts by typing in four tildes ~~~~ at the very end of your post to get the IP / user ID and the time-date stamp to automatically appear. Posting "posted by Carl rosaia just before lunch" does not cut it. Thanks. Labyrinth13 20:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I wasn't saying your edits were wrong, or that I wanted the article to "go back" or anything. In fact, what I said was: "True, we cannot put a bunch of unsourced crap on here that is just the speculation of a group of non-Law Enforcement-related people, but in reality, if the person was actually investigated by the police to the extent that it became well-known, they're probably used to that fact by now and cannot get away from it." I was supporting your position that anything that's on here should be well-sourced and reliable. I DID read everything you have written on this page, every word of it, and it helps when you read every word of other peoples' entries, as well. I'm not trying to flame or be snarky, quite the opposite. I just wanted to make the argument that although the "suspects" section may have needed to be torn down and started fresh to ensure the quality of the info in it, IMHO it should be somewhere, eventually. This was in totaly agreeanment with your statement. I just feel like you're a little bit sore about all of the work you've put in here and how much some people are making this extrememly hard for you, but I don't think that means you should be able to dismiss the logical arguments of others concerning this article. I'm on your side, man, I promise, I want this artcile to be quality, but I also don't want to have my words ignored without having been read, even. I was supporting you----you didn't need to argue against me. As it's obvious that no one but WP Admins (or whatever they're called) are going to be allowed to edit or add to this article for a while, I'll just stay away and get my info from other places for the time being. If all of this arguing keeps going on, so will everyone else. Weiwuweix 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Sarah S.

Weiwuweix: Please read above where Jeffpw has suggested the following:

Should you or others wish to reinsert material about suspects, I suggest you do two things. After writing highly sourced, accurate, neutral entires about the suspect which do not contain original research or opinion, create a new article called "Suspects in the Zodiac killer slayings" or whatnot. Then make a one sentence entry for each of those suspects, add a section with those one sentence entries, and a link to the new article. If all of my suggestions here are followed, then A) this article will become a lot more stable than it has been in the past; and B) there will be no length problems.

Jeffpw is saying that a whole new entry should be made and then simply wiki-lined to the main Zodiac killer entry. To me, that suggestion is the perfect solution to this whole thing. Labyrinth13 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally, I agree! I whole seperate page would be great! That's why I originally said it should be "somewhere." I can't add this section---I'm way too new to the case to not eff it up, but I'll help edit it for spelling and grammar once it's done. Let's all be friends! We're all really intelligent; let's work together, everyone! Truce! The enemy of your enemy is your friend; we're all enemies of Zodiac. Let's move forward!

And a big, sincere thanks to all who have worked SO hard on this lately. I appreciate it. Weiwuweix 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Sarah S.

[edit] Suspects

If/when anyone wants to create the new "Zodiac suspects" page (and I would suggest doing so only after you have an entry ready to go), you can learn how to do so here: Starting a new page.

-- Labyrinth13 23:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And feel free to practice and preview your changes by entering them at User:Jeffpw/sandbox before adding them to this article or making a new page. Sandboxes don't link to other pages so won't show up when people search for Zodiac here on Wiki. Jeffpw 05:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to redo the Zodiac suspects, however, due to concerns about the length this article had grown to, I'd like to just have their names and dates of birth/death (if known), and link it to another page entirely. That way, this entry will not grow substantially more than it is now. Also: I'd like to add pics of the victims and suspects, but they kept being removed last year when I originally put them in. All of them come from zodiackiller.com and have Tom's permission to post them here (and mine too, FWIW). (Ed Neil 01:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

The main concern about the length of the article was for the main entry and removing the suspects has taken care of that. If someone creates a new entry for suspects per the discussion above and then links it via wiki-link to the main article, then that will not be a problem (at least not unless the new suspects page gets too long). I don't know enough about image-posting, other than what you have observed, i.e., that everytime I've tried to post one -- with the exception of my own copyrighted images -- they've been pulled).

-- Labyrinth13 01:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a few words (once again) about the suspects. Even if you make a list, and it is linked to another article, the suspects definitely have to have sources in this article as well. Imagine that the sources are only put in the other article, and in some future edits they are removed (or the page gets voted for deletion). Then you have a section here that is completely unsourced. Each Wiki article should be able to stand alone without support from other articles. As to pictures, it is true that Wiki has some arcane, frustrating rules regarding images. Often perfectly acceptable images are deleted because a Fair Use rationale was not provided. If you have specific pics you want to see added here, why don't you let me take a look at them to see if they meet the requirements? I've downloaded many images and have only ever had one removed as a violation. That said, I've heard the rules may get even more strict in the near future, so we may soon be seeing a practically imageless Wikipedia. Jeffpw 05:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand about linking in both the suspect list as well as the linked wiki page. I'll be working on that... I was growing worried about the length of this entry, but I wanted to get everything in here too. Each name, birth/death dates and the links/sources in the main entry should be fine then, right? Oh, and all (or at least most) of the victims'/suspects' images come directly from zodiackiller.com, and we do have permission from Tom Voigt to use them. I suppose I can provide links to the images so you can see them, Jeff. (Ed Neil 06:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

As long as you're not copying verbatim, Ed, you don't need permission to report in an article what you find ion another website. And nobody should be copying verbatim (cutting and pasting). I mention this not because I think you will do that, Ed, but because there was some text inserted in the article last month that was exactly like what was in another article. Plagiarizing can result in somebody being blocked from editing. And yes, each suspect entry should have as much info as possible, including verifiable, reliable sources. Jeffpw 08:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I do not know exactly how to proceed so again I am asking for assistance . I am wanting to change the number of suspected victims to represent the original tally of 84 back in 1974 . This information is clearly what is considered to be reliable and is the compiling of many authorities. Futhermore the current work is aimed at minimizing the capabilities of the Zodiac killer as was in Greysmiths changing the the cause of death to Leon from unidentified virus to exposure. Although I know this is a public relations type comment as was the clearing of Robert Hunter in the Chronicle six years after he became a suspect. All these incidents unfortunately SCREAM COVERUP ... we really know there is no cover up. I just have to relate the information as it was when it was virgin and true . I do not like stories that are based on twisted facts and or others opinions . There would need to be documented closure of the cases involved that were connected to the Zodiac at that time before anyone in law enforcement , or media can start reducing the 84 number down to where it is todayy . Without such documentation that shows these case were closed out how can we be certain the authorities are actually citing reliable information when disclosing their current numbers to the media and then to common folk like you and Ed.

If we can work on the numbers issue that would be good. Greysmith has a good starting list to cite and there are everal magazines that carry the same . I am more hell bent on Leona being killed with an unidentified virus than anything else so I will attempt to focus on that issue. Being she was considered the first of the Sonoma County I want to get her listed as a victim . Once I can get her listed then I need some advise as to how to how I can Link the victim to the chain of coincidence that connect her to the Zodiac killer all being documented of corse.

I beleive that a public information site built for interested peoples should contain this sort of information so long as it is documented. It goes the same as how my father came up with Hunters name as a suspect., and that information is also documented .

I beleive that once these two objectives are realized a bright clear picture will shine through the muck. 4leona2 06:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Did anyone see the article written by Duffy Jennings. Duffy made a mistake in citing the date for the Farraday-Jensen killing citing that it had occured on Dec 20 , 1969. We all know that it actually happened on Dec. 20 , 1968, This complete article is written on Nov. 12, 1969 and is on page 6 of the San Francisco Chronicle

I want to cite the incorrect article and point out that this is a overlooked peice of evidence that points to Zodiac and his methods and the fact that he repeats his works on aniversaries. He intentionally kept Leon alive for 10 days to ensure her death was on the anniversary of Farraday-Jensen. The article has never before been mentioned concerning these date coincidences . Also the fact that Farraday had the ring clenched in his hand when he died and Leona was found nude except for a ring on her finger speaks volumns .Is it ok to cite work that is known to be incorrect? Pleas help I am drownding 18:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)4leona2 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the perfect place for a suspects page would be Wikisource; it would correspond well with the scans of the letters, which are already over there. Frankenzoyd 20:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Frankenzoyd

[edit] Archive

As the discussion page was becoming too long, I cut out all but the most recent discussions and pout them in the archive. This material caqn be found at the top of the page. Jeffpw 09:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Zodiac in pop culture

That entry looked way too cluttered and disorganized, so I completely reedited it. Looks and reads much better now. (Ed Neil 01:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

Nice job. Looks much better and reads easier. Labyrinth13 01:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, too. It looks terrific, Ed. Jeffpw 05:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed today that you added "The Mean Season" to the pop culture list. Unless it has been archived, there is discussion above about that entry. Unless you have a source which cleazrly shows this film is inspired or heavily influenced by the Zodiac case, I don't think it should be included. Another editor tried to argue that it was an original screenplay based on the case, but the fact of the matter is that it is adapted from a book. I have searched on Google and found no references to support the conclusion that it was, indeed, inspired or influenced by Zodiac. Jeffpw 09:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen it myself, but was told by another investigator who has that the serial killer is very similar to the Zodiac, even down to communicating with the police through the media. According to amazon.com, the book by John Katzenback was published in January 1985, and the movie was released on 15 February 1985, so it appears to be a movie tie-in rather than the Leon Peidmont screenplay being based on the book. Granted, Graysmith's Zodiac would not come out for another 14 months, but the Zodiac case has been discussed in true crime books going as far back as 1971 (The California Crime Book) and true crime magazines in 1970 (Front Page Detective was the first), so there was plenty of information prior to 1985 about the case that either Katzenbach or Piedmont could have referred to. I did some online checking and, other than the one or two who have noticed similarities and mentioned it to me, I haven't found any sources that say yes, The Mean Season is based directly on the Zodiac Killer. So... unless it's just coincidence, it seems one is based on the other. Is it OK then to note that there are similarities between the two rather than say one is based of the other? (Ed Neil 06:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

"so it appears to be a movie tie-in rather than the Leon Peidmont screenplay being based on the book"

Don't leap to conclusions, Ed. Books have been known to be held back because of the free marketing of a movie. In this case, though, it appears that the novel was In the Heat of the Summer by John Katzenbach.

source: http://www.mcpl.lib.mo.us/readers/movies/movie.cfm?browse=M [sorry, I don't know how to cite properly] Note that they have the title as In The Heat of the Night, but if you go to Amazon, there is no In the Heat of the Night by Katzenbach, but there is In the Heat of the Summer, which is identified as the source of The Mean Season. Published in 1983 (not sure if there was an earlier edition than that). ThatGuamGuy 16:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)sean

Thrash metal and hardcore band Converge includes a song entitles 'Zodiac' on their CD 'Caring and Killing'. ChaosAD339 02:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New York Zodiac

Does anyoen remember enough about the guy in New York who called himself Zodiac and was attacking people for several years? He was eventually caught and I think it would make sense to include him here as a copycat.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by pennyjw (talk • contribs).

He has his own article. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 16:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And other than the name he is not a copycat, so including him here (except as a disambiguation, which we already do) would be nonsensical. Jeffpw 09:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] zodiackiller.com

There is an ongoing low-grade edit war over whether the an external link to [zodiackiller.com] should remain. I think the link is valuable as it contains images of Zodiac letters that are not available elsewhere on line (to my knowledge). I know it has it's own POV, but that alone does not disqualify it according to either WP:MOS or WP:EL. Jeffpw has claimed that the link is disagreeable under WP:MOS and WP:EL. Since this article, like all wikipedia articles, is a community product, please use this article discussion page to reach agreement. Heathhunnicutt 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that Jeffpw wrote on Labyrinth13's talk page that the reason he dislikes the External Link for zodiackiller.com is that the site is already refernced as a citation. I disagree: specific pages of the site are references, but the site itself is not listed. Heathhunnicutt 19:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree all you want, but it is a guideline here on Wikipedia, specifically Wikipedia:External links#References and citation. The site is used 21 times as a reference. To add it as an external link is both redundant and a breach of style. I wouldn't make the change if I did not have policy and guidelines to back me up. Jeffpw 20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote -- specific subpages of the site are linked. There is no obvious way to discover the site otherwise. Heathhunnicutt 21:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Heathhunnicutt, any reader clicking on the link in the references section to the website has the option of clicking on a link within that article to the mainpage, where they can partake of the whole cornucopia of Zodiac facts and trivia available there for their edification and titillation. I don't share your apparent lack of faith in our reader's technical and intellectual proficiency. If I sincerely thought that readers were so mentally challenged that they could not navigate simple links, I would give this up and only edit the Simple Wikipedia Jeffpw 10:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw, I think there are pretty low odds of most readers clicking on the citations and finding their way to that site. That's why I think it is valuable to provide the link. However, WP:EL would have to be changed in order to support my POV. Meanwhile you are doing a great job overall with this article, and I don't see the point in running you off, although I do think you are kind of the misguided opinionmeister on this one disagreement. What would you think if that site was called out in the Notes section as an unnumbered note? After all, a large number (half?) of the citations are to that site. Heathhunnicutt 20:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't a clue as to what you mean. Heath. It seems that you admit my edit reflects Wikipedia policy, while your addition did not. So what's the point of continued carping? On an unrelated note, I strongly advise you to read WP policies regarding self-published sites, reliable sources and original research. The material you have tried to add today about the cryptogram fails WP:RS, looks to me and others as WP:SPS, and is obviously WP:OR. As such is it not appropriate to include it in this article. While I am sure you are editing with the best of intentions, it makes it difficult to improve the article, when inappropriate material is constantly added. Jeffpw 20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw, you're too opinionated. Carping on policies when policies can be changed and do change all the time is your silliness. As for the decipherment from Christopher Farmer, for it to be WP:OR, it would have to be my OR, not someone else's. As for WP:SPS, true enough but the guy is a U.S. National Security Fellow, so maybe he should be given a little credit. Those considerations aside, his decryption is easy to verify aside from the mapping of Zodiac symbol and upside-down Aries symbol. You're just getting tunnel vision over your idea that this article is going to be tarnished by crazies. The fact is that calling Farmer's result an uncofirmed decryption is absolutely true. Stating that the cipher has not been decrypted is no longer absolutely true. So you want the article to be wrong. Fine, have it your way! Heathhunnicutt 03:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw, I have been looking over your user contributions. I think you have taken a number of "interesting" positions in similar arguments in the past. I would encourage people to peruse your contributions lists, especially those who you have swayed to view you as some kind of authority. Heathhunnicutt 21:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Heathhunnicutt: I fail to see what point you are trying to make with your above post. If Jeffpw is basing his edit decisions on sound Wikipedia rules and protocol, what significance does his work elsewhere on Wikipedia have in regard to this particular discussion? Please clarify. Labyrinth13 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on WP articles is a combination of appeals to policy and appeals to common sense. Then there are people on Wikipedia who appeal only to policy and neglect the circumstances. My complaint with the article is that it currently contains a false statement in that it claims the cipher has not been solved. That was probably never the right thing to assert. Heathhunnicutt 22:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I have to agree here with Jeffpw re the recent attempts to add the solution to the thirteen-character cipher and the rather dubious source that entry relies on. That source totally fails the tests set out by WP:RS. There is nothing there on that website that has been verified by any other source and the whole premise relies on such things as pure coincidence and something called "Zodiac numerology" to prove points. Labyrinth13 21:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I third the motion. I removed the first addition of the supposed solution because the source failed the tests Jeffpw and Labyrinth13 mention. If you examine the methodology, any key thought up can produce a solution. Even the ciphertext is guessed at, such as thinking the Taurus symbol corresponds to the numeral 8. (To be even more picky, I'd point out that the site's proposed solution uses a trivial substitution cipher, when the Zodiac's prior message was made with a far more complicated algorithm.) Jimbonator 03:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbonator -- I think you are being a bit too much of a skeptic when you call the numeral 8 in a circle the Taurus symbol and claim it does not map to the number 8. Furthermore, Farmer's solution is not a substition cipher as you seem to think, so I am not sure you should criticize it.

You're right, I misspoke when I called it a substitution cipher. That doesn't mean I shouldn't criticize it. As for the circled-Taurus symbol, I'm not the only one who feels this a possibility. And none of your comments here explain why his solution should be featured and not the many, many other partial and full solutions which have been proposed but unverified. Jimbonator 04:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How exactly would you "verify" the solution? The primary reason I respect Farmer's solution is that it makes sense on a number of levels. The "My name is" cipher is apparently intended as a clue to the 340-character cypher. However, it does not share an alphabet with 340. This implies the connection might be the type of cipher employed. As for the 8-in-a-circle, it clearly is a Taurus symbol, but is it not also clear that assigning it the value 8 is no stretch? Given that this approach decodes 11 of 13 characters in a systematic way, to me it seems clearly superior to the attemps made by others. Heathhunnicutt 05:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The broader point here is, Wikipedia doesn't exist to reprint original research; please read over the guidelines Jeffpw links to, especially WP:OR and especially WP:SELFPUB. Verification will be difficult for this particular cipher due to its short length, but that doesn't mean all proposed solutions should be listed here. Jimbonator 07:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Labyrinth13 -- The solution resulting in ABLOODHTRAINM makes two assumptions I don't like and those are mapping the Zodiac symbol and the upside-down Aries symbol arbitrarily. Mapping the 8-in-a-circle to 8 at least has a rationale behind it. The methodology of addition-modulo-26 a key with the plaintext to generate ciphertext is an easy cipher that is harder than substition but no doubt something the Zodiac could have done. I corresponded with Mr. Farmer and he freely admits that mapping those two symbols was arbitrary -- and not the product of exploring Zodiac numerology that you thought it was. By the way, I seriously doubt that Mr. Farmer is a numerologist. I think if you read his writings you will understand that he believes the Zodiac was a numerologist, and is trying to "get in his mind." Heathhunnicutt 03:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but I'm still left wondering what all you wrote has to do with including Farmer's proposed solution of the "My name is . . ." cipher into the entry per the Wiki rules? He is still essentially guessing, in my opinion and nobody has provided an outside, reliable source that says Farmer is correct, so in my book, that makes it original research. Labyrinth13 14:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask you something: who is allowed to WP:SELFPUB? If the decryption came from Bruce Schneier, would you feel the same way? It's one thing to cite WP policies, but WP policies are (a) mutable and (b) contextual. In this context, there aren't going to be any non-selfpub solutions. In the case of this article, I think a mistake is being made. At the least, the article could state that "the cipher is believed to be unsolved, but many attempts have been made, including recent attempts at non-substitution ciphering. Somehow, I doubt that would fly in the Jeffpw-owned article; although at that point the assertion supported by the reference would not be the conclusion, but the fact that people have tried to reach one. Heathhunnicutt 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Heath, if you think WP:OWN means enforcing policy about an article, you are sadly mistaken. Sorry you have taken umbrage at my reversions of your edits, but you have been adding things which violate policy and that myself and at least two other editors think is a load of crap. I don't see anybody on this page supporting what you are trying to do here, and several advising against it, and quoting policy to support their decisions. That should tell you something, but it hasn't. I am not surprised, since your talk page is littered with similar altercations. You seem to thrive on contentious edits and confrontations. Instead of tilting at windmills, hadn't you best just try to improve articles with material that actually increases the knowledge base?? Just a suggestion. Jeffpw 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that I prevailed in most of those altercations, usually by pointing out WP policies. Anybody who wants to critique my contributions across Wiki articles is welcome to view my contributions to Wiki. Heathhunnicutt 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Heathhunnicutt: I suggest that you, the only person here who takes exception with the consensus opinion re the 13-character cipher solution that you want to include, start the process for WP:RFC. This most certainly seems like it has reached the point where an independent, third party is needed. Labyrinth13 23:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, there are three of you, and that is a consensus? I think I will be content for you three to be shown up by actual cryptographers accepting the solution. As someone with experience in cryptanalysis, I am confident you three are all wet, and time will tell. Heathhunnicutt 23:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There are four of us here at present: you, and three people who disagree with you. A consensus by any other name. Labyrinth13 23:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Heathhunnicutt: Is there a link you can provide to a Wiki rule that says that a website that has been cited as an internal reference should (or may) also be identified by name? If you can provide one, please do as I want to be able to look at both sides of the discussion here. Thanks. Labyrinth13 21:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I'd be happy with Zodiackiller.com being listed just once in either the External Links or References section, unless the main entry is using info that is exclusive to/developed by my website. But it needs to be a link, as there's no Wikipedia policy that negates doing so. Tom_Voigt 1:05 a.m., March 6, 2007 (UTC)

Tom, if you go to the references section, you will see that there are at least 17 distinct links to your site. Anyone clicking on those links is taken directly to your website. Since there are already so many distinct links, adding it to the external links section goes contra to what is stated at WP:EL. Add it if you wish, but if anyone here has any illusions about this article ever achieving good article or featured article status, let me disabuse you right now: these sort of style lapses will preclude this from ever being more than a "B" rated article here. I will further add that in my time at Wikipedia, I have never seen as many pissing contests as I have seen here. It would help if those editing here would actually take the time to read Wikipedia policy and guideline pages before embarking on ill conceived editing adventures. I realize there are not any immediate rewards to reading policy pages, but the delayed gratification of seeing your changes show up in text form just might make for a better article. Please give that some thought. Jeffpw 09:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that I feel 17 links is overkill. Just one link is fine with me. Tom_Voigt 2:35 a.m., March 7, 2007 (UTC)

Modesty is a virtue, Tom, but all those links are necessary. They point to pages which support the assertion in the article. In other words, by certain sentences you'll see a footnote. When you click the footnote, it takes you to a clickable link. Clicking that link will take you to a page which verifies the sentence in the Wikipedia article. Your site is considered a reliable source, since it has existed so long, and is cited by both newspapers and tv shows talking about the case. Jeffpw 11:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also in agreement with Jeffpw here re the ongoing "links to zodiackiller.com" question. It is fundamentally more important to use links to Voigt’s website to verify that information being presented is true and correct, rather than to just simply provide a visible text link that guides people to that site. That is the true spirit of what Wikipedia is all about, anyway. Wikipedia is first and foremost, an encyclopedia, not simply a web platform to guide web surfers to other sites. Labyrinth13 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "My Name is ..." cipher question

I'm creating a new section because the, er, discussion about this issue is in the wrong section, and has become quite tangled with multiple threads of thought.

Heathhunnicutt, I don't believe Farmer's solution even meets the common sense test, but that's not the issue here. It's up to you, as an editor, to substantiate via reliable third-party documentation the claim that the code has been cracked. (Farmer's web site is *not* third-party; it's a primary source.)

What if Bruce Schnier offered a decryption? He's an expert, all right, and one a lot of people have heard of. But unless other reliable folk report on his work and consensus builds that he solved it, it doesn't get reported here that the code's been cracked. Likewise, you ask why doesn't the article say "Many have tried to solve the puzzle, but ..." First, that type of addition isn't what you've been arguing here for, like, a week now. Second, all the Zodiac ciphers have been attacked by law enforcement (Federal, state, local) on down to amateurs. In other words, saying "Many have tried to solve the cipher(s)" is like saying "Many have wondered who perpetrated all these crimes." It goes without saying.

I feel you believe Wikipedia is a place to promote new ideas and research. It's not. It doesn't matter if the original research isn't yours (as you state elsewhere), it's that it's original.

Just for fun, here's my solution: (a) Remove all funny characters: "AEN K M NAM" (b) Remove letters in NAME as they first appear: "K NAM" (c) Reverse: "MANK". Solved. Anyone can do it. (Try it yourself.) Less complicated than Farmer's solution. Mank is a real name, too. None of this has any place in a Wikipedia article. Jimbonator 23:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not been arguing this for "like, a week now" -- I have been arguing this for two days. This is the kind of hyperbole you get when 3 people form a gang and call it a consensus. Do you have any other objection to the true statement which could be added? Heathhunnicutt 23:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's hyperbole, a kind of hyperbole that comes from weariness. Between this flare-up and the zodiackiller.com link you pushed for, it seems a lot longer than a week. Do I have any other objections? I object that you keep bringing up side-issues -- my credentials, what constitutes consensus, the background and viewpoints of other contributors, appeals to expertise, appeals to common sense -- rather than read guidelines and come to accept what Wikipedia's purpose is. Jimbonator 23:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And here I have been trying to obtain consensus on what true statement could be placed in the article which both negates the currently false assertion and also opens the door to citing supports the other theory. It is important that we not misinform people as the article currently does. By the way, if you think I don't know my way around wikipedia, I again invite you to peruse my contributions and get back to me. Heathhunnicutt 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There are four of us here at present: you, and three people who disagree with you. A consensus by any other name. Labyrinth13 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, yes anybody can contrive a false, dumb solution. I can do that, too. What Farmer did is use a well-known cipher method and a logical understanding of the phrase "My name is ____" -- that it provides the key, not a clue to the contents of the cipher. Earlier, you thought his solution was a substition cipher, which led me to believe that you don't realize the method Farmer employed is entirely common and accepted. (What is not accepted and common is his mapping of symbols to ordinals.)

Currently the article states that the cipher has not been solved. Is that a fact? Heathhunnicutt 23:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the statement currently in the article:

The Zodiac continued to communicate with the authorities for the remainder of 1970 via letters and greeting cards to the press. In a letter postmarked 20 April 1970, the Zodiac supplied a thirteen-character cipher that he claimed held his name.

That statement is not true. The ZK wrote "My name is _______ (coded letters)". That does not mean his name is in the coded letters. What Farmer thinks, and IMHO makes a ton of sense, is that his name is not in the cypher, but is the key to the cypher. So: how are you going to back the current statement up with references? It's an assertion of fact that nobody can back up -- probably because it isn't true. Heathhunnicutt 23:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose a solution: Change the line "thirteen-character cipher that he claimed held his name" to "thirteen-character cipher that seemed to imply would reveal his actual name." Perhaps if we simply changed the text to something along those lines, we could get off this dead horse we've been flogging here for what seems like like a week to me, too! Labyrinth13 00:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Or even "..some have interpreted this to be his actual name encoded." or something like that. Mr Christopher

I like Chistopher's better than Labyrinth's, primarily because the cipher itself implies nothing. Why not: "some have interpreted this to be his actual name encoded, while others believe he meant his name should be used as a decryption key.<refs go here>"? Heathhunnicutt 00:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not: "some have interpreted this to be his actual name encoded, while others believe he meant his name should be used as a decryption key, while still others think it is a message from outer space aliens?.<refs go here> Where does it all end? Labyrinth13 00:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Where the references end, obviously. That's the basis of Wikipedia, isn't it? Heathhunnicutt 00:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I disagree that is the basis. I was always under the impression that Wikipedia simply gave a basic outline of a subject and in no way seeks to be the end-all/be-all repository for every piece of knowledge available on a given subject (both to keep down the size of articles and to avoid such obvious problems as the one we are experiencing on this entry at present). Labyrinth13 01:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you are wrong there. Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic. Heathhunnicutt 01:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's just agree to disagree, then. I'm getting tired of this silly back and forth and it is beginning to appear to be nothing that we are going to be able to settle without outside opinions. Labyrinth13 01:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

HH: The word doesn't mean what you think it means in this context. Please read What Wikipedia is not. -- Jimbonator 01:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made an edit which more closely follows what Zodiac wrote. Jimbonator 01:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I state for the record that I support your new edit, both because it more closely reflects what the Zodiac killer wrote and because it seems to be a good solution to ending this particular debate. However, I'd be interested in hearing what other editors (outside of just the four of us currently debating this) think about it, as well. Labyrinth13 01:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Do any of you three object to a {{fact}} tag on that statement? If so, why? Heathhunnicutt 23:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have added this, except Lab13 asked for other opinions! I think the article should say something like "Only one cipher has been *confirmed* by Law Enforcement authorities as 'solved', though cryptographers (professional and amateur alike) are working, to this day, to solve them all." Problem solved, right? The SFPD, FBI, and all other LE people have only EVER made press statements saying the very first cipher was "solved." They've never said that about any others, and though they may soon say "we confim the solution of the 340 cipher" they haven't said that YET. If Ken Ley's article was updated 5 minutes after it got out that he died, I'm sure this one will be edited the very minute that/if they hold the press conference that Chris Farmer solved it----but until then, trying to fairly represent one possible solution over another is just impossible. Plus, trying to hint that it may have been solved just makes the page convoluted. It would be distracting. If there's going to be one link to a "possible" solution, there should be an entire seperate article for "Possible Zodiac Cipher Solutions" because there's a lot of people out there who are *sure* their solution is not only correct, but "easy" or "logical" or "clean." One of them may be right----but not *Wikipedia Right*, yet. IMHO. Weiwuweix 05:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Sarah

Thanks for weighing in, Weiwuweix. I support your solution to the disputed paragraph in this article, and hope others will voice their opinions, too. Jeffpw 08:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Weiwuweix, that's the smartest thing I've read on this entire talk page. ThatGuamGuy 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)sean

[edit] External Link to the Z Files

With this edit [1] user Labyrinth13 linked the article to his own site, which is selling the book he wrote. Is that in accord with Wikipedia policies, because it sure seems sketchy to me? That is, aside from the fact that the external link, like zodiackiller.com of three days ere, is already linked in the references, which we just learned from Jeffpw violates WP:EL. Heathhunnicutt 02:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I see it is really covered in WP:EL, "Links normally to be avoided," point 4. Heathhunnicutt 02:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The only violation I see, Heath, is your violation of WP:POINT. The Labyrinth website does not violate point #4, which states Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. That is meant for sites like Amazon.com. The Labyrinth site gives a lot of information related to Zodiac that cannot be found on other sites, such as detailed information about The Most Dangerous Game and film clips from Zodiac movies, as well as original news broadcasts at the time of the Zodiac killings. That is information which readers here would probably be interested in reviewing. WP:EL does mention conflict of interest, and says the link should be mentioned on the talk page and editors not associated with the site should view it and decide about its inclusion. You have done that, for which I thank you, and I, as an editor not involved with that site, have reincluded it as a link providing additional information to our readers. Jeffpw 08:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, the link was added by the person who profits from it. The site isn't that good. I think you're just frothy since I pissed you off recently, but you have no point here at all. Heathhunnicutt 18:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Heath, your personal opinion of the site is irrelevant. The simple fact is that it does not violate the policy you cited in your attempt to defend your removal. And I am not angry or otherwise provoked by your actions. Please stop trying to make editing here a personal thing. Confine your remarks to contributioons, and not contributers. I've asked you that before; I am asking again. Jeffpw 20:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw: Again to set the record straight, the site was added by me and then removed by me and then added again by another editor other than myself. The page history supports that as a fact. Earlier today, I posted the relevant links above. Anyone interested can look for themselves. Thanks. Labyrinth13 21:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, editor opinions of the site are relevant, and each of them could be defined as 'personal.' According to WP:EL a site should be externally linked only if it is a good site and not primarily a commercial site. The Z Files are commercial and not that good. Both sides of the equation have to be evaluated to make a decision on the link. Do you see what I mean? Heathhunnicutt 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing that I find most interesting is the fact that the only two people who have ever complained about my link being here are Heathhunnicut and Tom Voigt, two people who in the past several weeks, have been trying desperately to thwart Wikipedia rules in order to get a prominent link displayed to zodiackiller.com.

I have no connection with Tom Voigt. Heathhunnicutt 18:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said that you did. I only pointed out that so far, only two people here have a problem with my link in the External links section, you and Voigt, both of whom are pushing hard to have zodiackiller.com displayed in violatin of the rules. Nothing more, nothing less. Labyrinth13 18:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with anyone removing the link to my website at anytime, provided that they can show how its inclusion here at present is in violation of Wikipedia rules. I also would have no problem removing my link if it is deemed necessary for the article to be nominated for good article or featured article status. You will not see me launch into a HH or Voigt-style tirade over the removal. I feel that the integrity of the entry is more important than promoting anyone’s website or personal interests.

So you have no problem with me removing that link. Heathhunnicutt 18:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Read my words carefully above: I have no problem with anyone removing it who can demonstrate how the link being there is in violation of the rules of Wikipedia. I do object to someone removing it who seems to be driven by some sort of personal agenda, however. Thanks for asking. Labyrinth13 18:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally removed the one internal link to my site myself and removed all the external links pending mediation. It was another editor who restored the External links and then placed my link in there since that time. (Please point a link to that information while you are pointing fingers).

I’ve learned a thing or three since all of this started and admit to some bad editing mistakes in the past. Since that time, I’ve tried to read as much of the rules as possible to avoid repeating the same mistakes again. If I may suggest, that is probably a good idea for everyone involved here who is unsure of how to proceed when editing this entry in the future.

-- Labyrinth13 14:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

For the Information of All Interested Parties

Date when I added citation link to my website: [Revision as of 14:27, 16 January 2007.

Date when I removed all External links (including my own) pending mediation: Revision as of 21:55, 9 February 2007

Date when I removed my own external link and formatted section for inline citations to comply with Wikipedia rules: 18:15, 23 February 2007.

-- Labyrinth13 15:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually participate in real mediation using the request for mediation? Or do you mean, you just got consensus from other article editors? Heathhunnicutt 18:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actual mediation. See the talk page archives. Labyrinth13 18:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The only actual mediation I see in the arhives is mediation against Tom Voigt that briefly mentions your site link and compares it to accusations by Jimbonator that he had a conflict of interest. Voigt was claiming hypocrisy. I do not see any text indicating that the mediator addressed any concern about your links, only about Voigts. I hope you would be willing to reenter mediation on this subject. I think your link is a violation of policy. An alternative would be for you to link to a page that is not advertising your book. Heathhunnicutt 18:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record and to all interested parties: When asked about whether or not I had been involved in formal mediation, I was not at all implying that the mediation involved this current conflict. I think that is pretty obvious and want to make sure that is pointed out here. Labyrinth13 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Formal mediation sounds good to me. I want to get this settled once and for all. Since you are the one who takes issue with this, I think you should get the formal request for mediation started. Once you have done that, invite me to participate and I'll be happy to give my version of events. I also request that Jeffpw and Jimbnator be added as involved parties as they both seem to be in consensus opinion with me here concerning this issue. Finally, until such a time as we do enter mediation, I'd prefer to stop discussing this with you as we don't seem to be able to agree on anything and this back and forth with you is non-productive. It is my belief that both of us would benefit by taking a break from this and walking away for awhile. Thanks. Labyrinth13 18:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request already filed, thank you. I disagree that anybody is involved here other than you and me, but arguably Jeffpw. Heathhunnicutt 18:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Last communication until such time as formal mediation starts: I formally request that User: Jeffpw be included as he most certainly is a party to this dispute and is directly involved. Also, can you place a link to the mediation request page? Thanks. Labyrinth13 18:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Mediation is rather drastic step in a conflict which has only begun today. Why don't both of you read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes before taking this so far? Seems awfully dramatic to me. A better approach to me would be to ask for comments from other editors here who have noting to do with that website what they think. Jeffpw 18:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. And I agree.

If you or anyone wants to bother to read back through all of the threads here, you can see that I have already tried several times to suggest to HH that he and I both need to take a break from all this, something I was fully prepared to do today, but changed my mind when I saw the current issue he has raised here.

I am all for trying to work this out, whether through formal mediation (if it is so granted) or just by taking a break for a few days, (preferring the latter).

I will not, however, stand by and watch yet another person come on here who seems to be driven by some sort of personal agenda that conflicts with both the rules and consensus opinion here. Show me where my link violates the rules and/or get enough people here who want to remove it because they think it is not proper and you will not hear another word from me about it. Thanks. Labyrinth13 19:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I will sign "agree" to the mediation only if Jeffpw will also agree to join in as he is also a party directly involved with this dispute (he is the one who added my link to the External links section once I had personally removed it). I have added Jeffpw as a party to the mediation and will sign only after he has signed.

-- Labyrinth13 19:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't agree to mediate until all other steps in conflict resolution here have been tried. That includes discussing here, building consensus for one side or the other, requests for comments. It is absurd that this has been sent to mediation when the dispute has existed for less than 24 hours, and I do not feel that Heath has done this in good faith. In my eyes, this has more to do with him not getting the external link included that he wanted, and not having that cryptogram included in the article. Both os those were clear violations of policy. This link does not ciolate policy that I can see, as I stated above. Jeffpw 19:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't agree, then I won't agree to it either as I feel that I am not the sole person involved in this dispute. I further agree that all of this is primarily being done in bad faith because Heathhunnicut is not getting what he wants here.

One last time: Show me where my link violates the rules and/or get enough people here who want to remove it because they can demonstrate with an intelligent opinion how it is not proper and you will not hear another word from me about it. Labyrinth13 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you two seem rather hypocritical. I actually no longer want zodiackiller.com in any of the links, because it is rather ridiculous that this article depends so heavily on that site. Yes, I think you and others were out to lunch over not citing Farmer's solution, but I agree to disagree on that one. But I also agree that my opinion of you three is that you probably are detriments, and then I find that one of you is a profiteer. Fascinating. So don't agree to mediation if you don't want, but rest assured that marks you as a hypocrite considering you already said you would agree. Jeffpw is not really an involved party, and neither is Jimbonator -- there is no need for them to agree to mediation. Heathhunnicutt 19:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I will remind you one more time to be civil, heath. Further breaches of civility will be dealt with according to Wikipedia policy. Jeffpw 21:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The page history record here can vouch for what I have and have not done and what I have and have not said.

As for me not participating in mediation, the only reason why I will not agree is because you and I can't even agree on who all is involved! I say Jeffpw is a party and you say he isn't. Jeffpw added the link to my site after I removed it. As such, your beef is more with him, rather than with me. He won't agree to mediation, so neither will I. That is why I won't sign. Any other reason is simply your subjective opinion.

Now if you don't mind, let's both just drop this, walk away from this issue for a week or more and see if anyone else will come and support either your position re the link or otherwise. Agreed? Labyrinth13 20:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose walking away from the issue for a week sounds like taking the high road. Of course, that would also ensure you one more week of revenue from book sales wouldn't it? Not Agreed. If Jeffpw won't agree to mediation and you insist he be involved, I suppose we could downgrade to an RfC or upgrade to ArbCom. But giving you another week to profit seems a little bit like a disingenuous suggestion not intended to resolve the conflict at all. Heathhunnicutt 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Do whatever you feel you need to do. I'm through with this for awhile. Have a nice weekend. Labyrinth13 20:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Labyrinth13 -- your site has a section for Videos. In that section are many links to YouTube videos, some of which you uploaded to YouTube. It's not clear whether these uploads of yours would violate Wikipedia:Copyright, but I suspect they do. As stated at the top of WP:EL, such linking is covered in WP:Copyright:

If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.

Any response on that? Heathhunnicutt 21:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Though you're doing nothing here but creating arguments out of thin air, Heath, I will respond. Here is the full text of the partial quote you provided: Notice on linking to YouTube, Google Video, and other similar sites: There is no ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by these guidelines. From Wikipedia:Copyright: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. The external link is to the Mainpage of the Zodiac subsection, not to the videos you find contentious. We are not linking to copyright violated material. Nice try, but no cigar. Are you this argumentative on every page you edit? It's becoming very irritating and I fear administrative intervention may be required. Further, since you've made no constructive edits to this article, and only seem to come here to argue, I think it's safe to simply ignore you from this point further.Jeffpw 21:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue of copyright infringement is hardly created out of thin air. What actually happend is that I further explored the site and found further problems with it. Do you think the site is not contributory infringement of copyrights? Heathhunnicutt 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on External Link to Z Files

I am filing a Request for Comments on this article. I request comments on the propriety of the link to "The Z Files" found in External Links. I feel that this site should not be externally linked. In particular, I think it runs afoul of the following policies:

• From WP:EL: Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. The Z Files page contains a link to another page on the same site: Zodiac Videos. This is a link out page to a bunch of YouTube content that is probably not fair use.
• From WP:EL: The Z Files page contains an advertisement to buy a book written by user Labyrinth13. This seems to be against WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided point 4: Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. (And note that the book is already noted by ISBN in the references section.) Heathhunnicutt 22:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New external link to Spyderware

As there's been a lot of contention about External Links with this article (and the fact that I've been embroiled in this contention), I want to make it clear why I've added a link to sypderware.net's Zodiac site.

First, there appears to be no commercial interests there. The site provides a great deal of statistical analysis and neato JavaScript tools for the user to take a crack at the ciphers. Neither of these things are present in the entry here, nor should they be, but may very well be of interest to Wikipedia's readers. It seems like a "fit" for the External Links guidelines.

Finally, I have no relation or connection to sypderware.net. -- Jimbonator 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. X

Due the recent revisions, Mr.X is only mentioned once, without explanation. If Mr. X is important (and I admit I'm not Zodiac-ologist enough to make the call), he needs explanation. If not he should probably be deleted like the other suspects. D. Deadwood 00:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refresh

I've been pretty busy lately and can't recall why Labyrinth13's link is allowed to be listed in more sections that my link (Zodiackiller.com).

His site is listed in "References", "Further reading" and "External Links". When I recently added a Zodiackiller.com link to the "External links" section, here is what I was told:

"There has been discussion about the Zodiackiller.com link on the talk page of the article. Pleaswe do not reinsert it, as you have twice already. As it has been used as a reference, adding it to external links violates policy here. Jeffpw 08:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)"

That's quite hypocritical considering Labyrinth13's site is also used as reference...but he is allowed to keep a link in the "External links" section. Explanation please.

Tom Voigt 12:45 a.m., March 23, 2007 (UTC)

Labyrinth's site is not listed as a reference, Tom. I have checked that carefully more than once. If you can point to a reference where his site is used, please post that here and his site will be removed from External Links per policy and guidelines here. His site is listed only once, in External Links. his book is listed in further reading, with publisher and ISBN number given. They are distinctly different resources, hence no violation of policy. Please assume good faith. I don't appreciate being called a hypocrite, and further personal attacks will be dealt with according to Wikipedia policies. Jeffpw 09:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize; I was wrong. One link is to his website, the other is to his book. Tom Voigt 4:25 a.m., March 23, 2007 (UTC)

The continuing problems with Tom Voigt on this site are most unfortunate. He is suffering similar problems with his inability to handle a team effort on his own site. This Zodiac Killer Wiki entry has recently surpassed Tom's site as #1 for Google hits, and that may help explain some of his behavior. When you enter the public domain, at some point you have to realize that it's not all about you. This is practical advice, probably applicable across a wide array of domains. Zdefector 00:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What does Google have to do with me apologizing for a mistake? I think you're obviously trying to start an altercation. Tom Voigt 1:10 p.m., March 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article structure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Continued counterproductive badmouthing

User "Tom Voigt" weighed in with this comment on my personal discussion page:

"Curt, your weird obsession with me is troubling. I suggest therapy. Tom_Voigt 8:36 p.m., April 4, 2007 (UTC)"

After perusing this person's other posts and his discussion page, I am left wondering if he ever adds anything constructive. That said, I would ask that he refrain from making comments to Curt or anyone else on my page. I'm not a go-between. Zdefector 07:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You are, of course, perfectly in your rights to request this and I apologize for using your page to respond back to Tom's statement above. It will not happen again. Labyrinth13 14:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Curt, you left out the part about how you contacted Zdefector to try and dig up some non Wikipedia related dirt about me. (I have a feeling you'll attempt to cover yourself by bringing up what happened months ago before I understood Wikipedia policy, but we shall see.) Tom_Voigt 12:40 p.m., April 6, 2007 (UTC)

Tom, you are sounding paranoid, automatically assuming that I am looking to “dig up dirt” on you. (Remember, this is Wikipedia and you should always WP:Assume good faith). The only people that I have ever known who react the way that you have above are usually people who actually have something to hide or who have memories of past shameful events in mind. (For example, I remember where I was the day that the BTK killer was arrested). My post on his page is there for anyone who wants to read what I said to him and my reasons for contacting someone privately are between me and the person I contacted and not open to discussion.

I have no desire to continue to butt heads with you on here. It is a huge waste of time. If you will leave it alone and behave yourself, so will I. Labyrinth13 20:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Zdefector wrote about me: "I would ask that he refrain from making comments to Curt or anyone else on my page. I'm not a go between." Does that mean Curt can't also make comments about me? Probably not. Tom_Voigt 12:40 p.m., April 6, 2007 (UTC)

Curt, you've proven countless times that you can't "leave it alone." Zdefector's comments about me that sparked you to contact him (search engine ranking) are non-Wikipedia related. "Good faith" doesn't apply. But, argue away. The fact is, since you posted it here at Wikipedia, it's open for discussion. Tom_Voigt 7:20 p.m., April 6, 2007 (UTC)

If I contact Zdefector (or anyone on here) privately once or a dozen times on a non-Wikipedia related matter, than it is 100% none of yours or anyone else's business and has absolutely no bearing on anything that may or may not take place here, now or in the future. Period. End of story.

You and I don't have anything left to discuss with each other. If it makes you feel any better, I think that this particular thread should never have been started in the first place. Let's just move on as I have also suggested to Zdefector on his talk page and put this to rest for good. Later. Labyrinth13 03:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Curt Rowlett's personal request on my discussion page was a week old and had not generated further discussion until user Voigt dropped a stinkbomb.

His actions illustrate some of the ongoing editing problems with this entry. User Voigt -- if he's the same Tom Voigt -- is a Zodiac impresario who sells and promotes Zodiac-related books, memorabilia, ad space, and the latest -- an over-the-top offering of the personnel files of Zodiac suspect Arthur Lee Allen.

With items like this for sale, Voigt has a vested interest in, for instance, Allen's continued suspect status and a conflict of interest where editing here is concerned. As a result, his edits and comments should be subject to the kind of scrutiny that Curt Rowlett -- and others -- have provided.

Such scrutiny may represent an obsession, but it is not with Tom Voigt. It is with the need for unbiased, factual data. Zdefector 03:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Pssst! ZDefector! Curt uses his website to sell a book, and he uses Wikipedia to promote it! But of course that's different than what I do, right? Or are you calling him an "impresario," too? I thought name calling was frowned upon here. I guess only when I do it. By the way, maybe I no longer consider Allen a viable suspect, hence the liquidating of Allen-related items to help pursue other leads? Apparently that possibility never crossed your mind. Tom_Voigt 8:43 p.m., April 6, 2007 (UTC)

Curt, I'm sure most true-crime buffs remember where they were when BTK was arrested, so if you're looking for a pat on the back or a cookie, no soup for you. As far as "past shameful events" are concerned, not only do I not aspire to be as perfect as you, I strongly suggest you keep you immature innuendos to yourself. Tom_Voigt 1:06 a.m., April 8, 2007 (UTC)

I'll make one final suggestion to you and anyone else reading this: We all (meaning you, me and everyone else) need to stop right now using this thread to make personal attacks or I will ask an admin to step in. I will note for the record that this is my third request/suggestion to me, you and everyone else to cease and desist and remain civil. Your call.

P.S. Anyone reading this may want to have a look at the Wiki rules concerning the consequences of personal attacks. Labyrinth13 13:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am asking an admin to step in and ban/block/do whatever is necessary to re-establish harmony around here. Honestly, Tom, you have accused just about everybody who has passed through this page of bad faith editing, and it is getting tiresome. I ask you to stop it right now. In the meantime, I am asking admin to handle it as they see fit. Jeffpw 14:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into all the user actions/interactions around this page.--Isotope23 18:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw/Isotope23: Thanks to you both for stepping in. Labyrinth13 19:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23, please make sure to also look into the behind-the-scenes stuff, such as Labyrinth13 contacting Zdefector in private about me. His motive had nothing to do with this article and actions like that can give one reason to believe good faith is absolutely not intended. And Jeffpw, this has nothing to do with accusing anyone of bad faith editing, so you might want to pay closer attention. Tom_Voigt 1:57 p.m., April 8, 2007 (UTC)

Consider also the RfC above on External Links and sites which sell books/sites which are for sale themselves. Tom Voigt and Labyrinth13 both operate Zodiac Killer-related web sites, each of which sells something. Heathhunnicutt 23:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that issue had already been resolved. In any event, thanks for not singling me out. Tom_Voigt 5:45 p.m., April 8, 2007 (UTC)

When it becomes against Wikipedia rules to contact someone privately, I hope that all email links will be removed from profiles provided by Wikipedia here for doing just that!

Tom seems to be confused about just what the "bad faith" rule really means and what it covers here. Private contact between people off the site that remains private (and out of the public eye) and the things that happen while publicly editing here, as far as I understand things, are mutually exclusive of each other. My motives for contacting Zdefector, regardless of whether it was to discuss Voigt or whether it was to discuss the price of eggs in China, is not against the rules here, so far as I understand them, so long as the conversation remains private and out of the public eye.

But for the sake of argument, even if such contact was against the rules, Tom has no idea of what Zdefector and I discussed or even if we ever actually had a conversation with each other (we didn’t). As such, Voigt is simply guessing as to the "why" and ignorantly calling it “bad faith.” And please don’t miss the irony of all this here: While he is accusing me of "bad faith" in private, Voigt's accusations here are, of course, a very public act of bad faith on Voigt’s part against me and here for all to see!

Why? Voigt is grasping at any straw that he can in order to find something/anything to hold against myself and others who do real editing work here. Voigt is angry with me because I was part of the recent effort here that fought to keep him from placing illegal links all over the entry (such as linking the first words in the entry directly to his website. See page history and discussion archives).

So while admins are looking at the history of these pages, I would urge you to closely examine Voigt's contributions so far, which mostly consist of 99% mischief and personal attacks vs. the !% or less of actual "work" he has done on these pages. (Outside of trying to add links to his website and one recent edit he performed to add sound files which feature interviews with him, I am not aware of one bit of content here that he has edited or created).

He has, however, been ever ready to start a fight with anyone here who disagrees with his "work," myself in particular, it seems. I haven’t been perfect as my own history will show, but I have done real work here and have also attempted to defuse several arguments and/or sought to get admins involved when a third party was needed (including posting a notice on the admin notice board about the current discussion and contacting both Jeffpw and Isotope23, I might add).

I welcome close scrutiny of everyone involved here and will be happy to let the chips fall where they may.

Thanks. Labyrinth13 01:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Rawlette, you are making quite a few negative assumptions about my motives. Aren't you supposed to do that good faith thing? I hear it's policy. And since when is it an issue how much or little someone contributes to the article? And why are you making an issue out of the radio links I added? Those shows weren't about me, nor was I the only guest. By the way, complaining about events from several months ago when I didn't understand the rules is quite silly indeed. Even apologizing after a mistake isn't good enough for you people. Seems to me when you run across someone who doesn't blindly agree with the good ol' boys club, it's time to bring in the admins. Regarding contacting Zdefector, you know what you did. There was nothing good faith about it. Tom_Voigt 6:25 p.m., April 8, 2007 (UTC)