Talk:Dennis Rader

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Genetics This article is part of WikiProject Genetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this page, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] ED2K Link

Who put that edonkey link up to the law and order episode, is that allowed? Russ Frank 10:52 17 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.171.208 (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming issue

I have an issue (annoyance) with the use of the name "BTK killer."

  1. Since BTK stands for Bind Torture Kill, you're saying "Bind Torture Kill Killer." It's the same issue as "PIN number."
  2. On that note, since BTK was the name of the murderer himself, BTK Killer sounds like a person who killed BTK
I've been thinking that myself. Around Wichita, if he's called "the BTK" anything, it's usually "The BTK Strangler." Mr. Billion 04:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Interesting point I hadn't considered. "BTK Strangler" was one of the names he proposed for himself in a letter to the TV news back in the 70s, and it stuck. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A google shows 220K hits for BTK serial killer, 190K for BTK killer, and just 22K for BTK strangler. The phrase, flawed like PIN number, is the one used by the news media. I don't think there's a great need to change it at this point. --Dhartung | Talk 07:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I found the term for the acronym redundancy. It's called RAS Syndrome.
Yeah, in Wichita we just call him "BTK" Voltagedrop 02:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTK is a name (an alias that he gave himself, but still a name). It's not an acronym anymore; it takes on a meaning beyond the original words. It's possible for me to refer to "Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, son of Ilya" without sounding like an ass. It's possible for me to refer to the "OS/2 operating system". He's the BTK killer! Richardcavell 16:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

BTK killer is not redundant. Referring to him as "bind, torture, kill" is referring to a person with a list of verbs. One would not refer to microsoft as "code, patch, release", nor to a person as "eat, sleep, work".

[edit] Middle name "Lynn" verified

AP wire story from K.C. Star googuse 07:01, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arrested

How was he captured? - 68.72.116.8 17:37, 26 February 2005 (UTC)

They stopped his car on the way home from work. Tyciol 05:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should we use breaking news stories for reference material?

I'm not convinced that we should use breaking news stories as a source for material in Wikipedia. This is due to the significant degree of inaccuracy and speculation that occurs in "up to the second" news releases from organizations with a vested interest in increasing readership over immediate accuracy.

Because of this, I'm not convinced that we should be labeling a suspect so vigorously ... particularly posting his picture here. We merely aid and abet the destruction of his life if he is indeed not the BTK killer, which we must assume before evidence sufficient to support the accusation "beyond a reasonable doubt" is available.

I might sound like a pre-internet fuddy-duddy for not wanting to have "up to the second" information here, but I'm more concerned about the place of Wikipedia as a source than as a mirror. Courtland 19:22, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Well, your instincts are good, but I hardly think Wikipedia can do more harm to his life in the (apparently unlikely) event he turns out to be the next Richard Jewell. He's literally been identified in newspapers on the other side of the world. Wikipedia doesn't have a problem with news stories, per se, that can't be solved as they are proven inaccurate and corrected -- the example here being the question of his daughter's role, which is still not 100% clear. We do excel, after all, at correcting ourselves. What is important to control the process is to maintain clarity and NPOV throughout. For instance, the page was moved to Dennis Rader, which was a mistake. But having him identified as a man arrested and believed by the police to be the suspect is nothing that is Wikipedia's fault. --Dhartung | Talk 23:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I really think some of the editors need to take a break here and stop adding every single tiny bit of information that comes down the line. Do we really need to know the specifics breakdown of when the daughter's DNA was alleged obtained, and that it was supposedly gotten twice? The more details you add the more you get wrong, like the original story that the daughter voluntarily gave DNA. It's an encyclopedia entry, give the important facts and leave the trivia out, or at least wait long enough until you know that these bits are really honestly accurate.

And if you absolutely feel like you must cram new information in here, consider paragraph breaks. DreamGuy 18:17, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Just a suggestion. If you have a problem with the article, the best way to fix it is to make it better yourself. If you have a suggestion in Talk, try using more honey than vinegar. Breaking news can be done in Wikipedia (arguably, Wikinews is a more appropriate place, but a. that project remains adolescent and b. try stopping it here) -- a most excellent example is 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, which over the course of a few days evolved from a very rough collection of trivia to one of Wikipedia's best articles.
The main issue with some of the problem edits you're getting at isn't that the facts are put in and changed later -- that's just Wikipedia in a microcosm -- but that sometimes they aren't done in the most encyclopedic manner. That doesn't mean everything has to have a "Wire services reported ..." disclaimer, but the hinkier statements of fact should have been better qualified and sourced. An article such as this one, though, probably attracts a lot of inexperienced editors. Better just to fix their faults and improve the article; good work begets more. --Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doubts

Why are you reverting doubts section. the man is not convicted yet, and he is portrayed as if he was. -Unknown

Why? Because the article does not in any way protray him as convicted, it says he is the main suspect and why, which is true. Your additions were highly unencyclopedic and violate NPOV rules with the "bloodthirsty" comment. Your recent revert back to your bad version claimed the other version is "libelous" -- that's is complete nonsense. Please learn about the libel laws before you try to talk about them. DreamGuy 22:30, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Please learn about the presumption of innocence before you try to execute the poor man and keep your lynching drive under control. as for the libel, it is hardly a nonsense: putting a photo of a mere suspect on the page of some mass murderer tantamounts to saying that the two persons are the same. it certainly gives such an impression, and THAT is also libel. How would you feel if your photo was posted here? Yet he is AS INNOCENT AS YOU (or as guilty as you are), until proven by court otherwise. Who is going to pay damages for libel when he gets cleared? BTK has not sexually attacked his victims - so the DNA and disk might have been planted, and the alledged confession - denied by public attorney - also does not imply guilt (have you ever heard of false confessions????). From the dictionary:
libel: a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel
-Unknown
As far as your comments above go, newspapers around the world have lawyers who understand libel as part of their job, and none of them have a problem with printing the facts that he was arrested, etc., so it's pretty bizarre for you to come along and try to lecture us. Please give these arguments a rest, because they are horribly misinformed on the actual issues involved. DreamGuy 15:11, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

You know, he has confessed to those ten murders of which he is suspected. I don't know what all the brouhaha is about. There's the confession, the incriminating evidence from the disk, the DNA samples, and the positive identification from Steven Relford. There's little question about it, particularly if Rader himself (judging from his own admission) is going to plead guilty in the trial. Mr. Billion 20:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, although I agree with your basic point, it is only accurate to say news reports claim he has confessed; the authorities have so far refused to confirm that rumor. We're probably going to be seeing people overreact in both directions; our job is to sort them out and make the competing claims encyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 03:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It is a floppy disk

On the front cover of the Wichita Eagle today, they showed four items (photos) from the package sent to KSAS-TV. It was a purple floppy disk, not a CDROM.

Interestingly, it seems to be that Microsoft serial numbers placed on the disk were used to trace the operating system to the church of which he was president. Gotta love those serial numbers....unless you're a serial killer.... - Nunh-huh 23:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suspects Full Name

The article refers to both Dennis Lynn Rader and Dennis Lucas Rader. The only google hit for "Dennis Lucas Rader" is the Wikipedia entry, but there are only two hits for "Dennis Lynn Rader". I suggest using either using just the middle initial (which, according to google, is common), or omitting the middle name altogether. Epithumia 17:39, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

Until we have a source which we could cite for his middle name, that seems wise. - Nunh-huh 23:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Mr. Billion 03:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See AP source at top for name "Lynn" - Nunh-huh 07:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On the news articles

Try to avoid Yahoo News articles, since those tend to disappear quickly from their original addresses. At least, that's been my experience. Mr. Billion 05:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

Should we be re-directing Dennis Rader to the BTK entry before he's convicted? (and no, I don't think he's innocent) Voltagedrop 02:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the only article on which he's been discussed... where else would it redirect to? If you are asking if that means we are basically saying he's the killer, not really, because victims of killers often have their names redirect to the killer's article too. It's a necessary redirect for people looking for info and this is a reasonable way of handling it. DreamGuy 05:29, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
That's actually a pretty good answer. Voltagedrop 16:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite-now that he has confessed

This whole article needs to be rewritten almost - now that he confessed. We may want to make the main page Dennis Lynn Rader instead of BTK Killer --VTEX 28 June 2005 04:59 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I added a few sentences regarding his confession but he must have spent close to half an hour pouring his guts out on live television. He is to be sentenced in August, which will only be a blurb. His guilty plea pretty much sealed his place in the books. Wikologist

[edit] Will this guy hang from the gallows?

And how many relatives will be allowed to watch the execution? -- anonymous edit by 195.70.48.242

First of all, in Kansas what few executions are allowed to proceed are done by lethal injection, not hanging (<opinion>a pity, as you cannot reuse chemicals, but you can reuse rope</opinion>).
However, none of the murders to which Rader has confessed were committed when Kansas had the death penalty for murder. Under US law, a criminal must be punished under the laws in effect at the time of the crime, not under the laws in effect at the time of conviction. Therefor, the worst that Rader can get is life + hard 40 for his crimes. Now, *if* a murder committed at a time that Kansas had a death penalty for murder were linked to Rader, and were he convicted of it (and were all the inevitable appeals to fail), then in theory Rader could be executed. However, given the likelihood of all appeals failing, and given the current governor's political leanings on the death penalty, it is very unlikely that Rader would be executed by the state.
Rader being executed by his fellow prisoners, however, is much more likely - hence why it is very possible Rader will not be placed into the general prison population, but rather will be treated as a "special security" prisoner (namely, isolation 23 hours a day, 1 hour for exercise). N0YKG 14:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is this man's major malfunction?

Does he suffer from intrusive thoughts from an OCD condition?

Most serial killers are motivated by compulsions revolving around sexual fetishes and social dysfunction stemming from insecurity. Unusual numbers of them were abused as children. See Serial killer. OCD is not, so far as I know, a common trait among serial murderers. --Dhartung | Talk 05:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

This probably isn't the best place to have this conversation, but there is a condition related to OCD called Attention Deficit Disorder. Please note that (IMHO) the term 'Attention Deficit Disorder' as originally described has a much smaller scope than the current popular culture of calling kids with behavioural problems 'ADD'. Serial killers have a much higher rate of ADD.

In any case, his problem is that he has a sexual fantasy involving struggling/strangulation/death. It's debatable whether this itself constitutes a psychiatric illness. There's no need for any other psychiatric illness to explain his conduct. - Richardcavell 05:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Rader as title of article

To keep consistency, as nicknames usually redirect to the official name, this article should be moved to "Dennis Rader" and have BTK killer redirect to it. While not a big issue, I think it would make more sense to do this. --Mrmiscellanious 18:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article moved

Moved the page to Dennis Rader (BTK killer). --ThomasK 07:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

That is very contrary to Wikipedia style. Parentheses are used for disambiguation, but only when necessary. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity), Wikipedia:Disambiguation. "Dennis Rader" does not need disambiguation. BTK killer is a search and article term in and of itself. The article name should be "Dennis Rader" and "BTK Killer" should remain a redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 18:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I've requested a move as above. [1] It needs to be done this way due to edit histories pre-existing at both locations. --Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no, nicknames don;t normally redirect tot he official name, all redirects go to the most common name. "Official" has nothing to do with it. In this case it's hard to tell which is more common, so the move wasn't necessarily horrible, but the policy most certainly is not to go to the official name. DreamGuy 22:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The original was at BTK killer (going back to before his identification), his name was added as a redirect, and now someone moved it to an overly complicated/disambiguated title (perhaps in part because "Dennis Rader" per se was unavailable). The correct title should be Dennis Rader with BTK killer a redirect to that. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments
Well, it was done. There doesn't seem to have been any objection, either. Thanks, User:§! --Dhartung | Talk 23:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Already completed by §. Dragons flight 19:49, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IQ dispute

Inconceivable that Rader's IQ was 72--someone at that level can barely function independently, and he got thru college. This isn't found in any of the documentation I've seen. (unsigned, but by User:66.30.229.235)

Yeah, that's a really bizarre claim, and as it was unsourced and highly suspicious, I removed it.DreamGuy 22:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

To the person who keeps reinsterting lots of links to trivial sites (I also left a message on your talk page): Please go read the Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam policies. By their very nature, just about all freewebs/geocities/blogspot/live journal/etc. pages simply are not encyclopedic enough to be listed here. Wikipedia is not place for people to dump links to a bunch of other websites, and especially not ones that the person adding the link made him- or herself. DreamGuy 12:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there may be more than one person, but I'm at least one of them. I inserted, twice, a link to memoirs of BTK on www.memorywiki.org. I've read the external links policy and spam policy, and I don't think the link is either. I'd say, rather, that the link adds value to the article insofar as it provides an eyewitness account of what went on (by me, in this instance; I was there, really). It's a primary source, so to say, and serves the same function as a "sourcebook" (with primary material) in a history class. True, there is only one memoir of BTK in MemoryWiki now, but I hope that there will be many more (lots of folks were there). MemoryWiki very young (I started it only two months ago), but it is growing pretty rapidly. I'm doing my best to promote it (I should add that I've rec'd a lot of help from people at the Wikimedia foundation and at Wikpedia).

In any event, I won't keep putting up the link if you're not convinced it adds value to the site. If you are, contact me and I'll reinstate it (or you can do it yourself). I'd like to assure you that MemoryWiki is not trivial in purpose or in fact. It's designed to do something very important: to make sure that our experiences are not lost. Marshall Poe 10:19 am, 11 November (EST)

Sorry, just not encyclopedic... it's basically original research/vanity/nonnotable, which all are not things Wikipedia looks for in links, as explained in the External links policy i already gave the link to. DreamGuy 16:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
It's not original research, it's a primary source. Lots of encyclopedia articles site primary sources, surely you won't deny that. It's not vanity (note my name does not appear on the site other than as author of two entries--out of well over 100). It's not non-notable as it's a major initiative by a small community (there are about 30 of us), and one day (with your help!) it will be very large. The real question is this (and not addressed by the External Link policy): should Wikipedia articles link to pertinent primary sources? Do you have any convincing arguments that they *shouldn't*? I can't think of any. Perhaps we should take this discussion to Wikipedia-l (or whatever list is appropriate) and clarify the policy? Perhaps someone in the community has a useful suggestion. The question will come up repeatedly as people (posting to MemoryWiki, Wikisource, and whatever) try to include primary source links to Wikipedia content pages. We need some clarification. Where would you suggest we seek guidence? MarshallPoe
It does not count as a primary source by any stretch of the imagination. It clearly is vanity as you worked on it and therefore want to link to it. If you had posted the same info tot he article directly it'd be original research and prohibited, posting it to another wiki and then linking to it doesn't make it any less original research. The site isn;t encyclopedic in the slightest. It isn't a question of you seeking guidance it's a matter of you realizing that just because you worked on something it doesn't mean it's encyclopedic enough to be listed as a link here. The policy doesn't need to be clarified, as it's very clear, the only reason you are confused is you want to believe that some silly thing you worked on is magically a "primary source." It doesn't work that way. DreamGuy 00:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Marshall Poe: I removed the link last time, not because it was not of value but because it did not work. Perhaps there was just a minor glitch in it. I am the other person who has tried to put in external links (I do not consider them as links to trivial sites) & have included a discusson of this on my user page BigBugBigBug 00:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

External link 8 is dead. (Pleads in RM format)

[edit] Handwriting

Can someone check this claim that BTK did not send any handwritten messages? I dispute this but because I don't have original sources, I'll have to leave it to someone else. - Richardcavell 16:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Republican?

He's a Republican [2] [3] -Unknown

Neither source can be confirmed. However, the source for his voting record simply links to a page directly copied from this article, and is unconfirmable. Should probably be deleted -Anonymous

I noticed that as well and deleted that sentence as well as the corresponding reference. Maimone 17:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sedgwick County

Could someone look at this statement that Sedgwick County is 'in and around Wichita'? It sounds awkward. - Richardcavell 09:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is he a pedophile?

In the documentary I watched, they kept calling him a serial killer, a psychopath, but then added 'pedophile' onto the list. That just seems wrong. Yes, one of his victims was a kid, but I very much doubt he had any special interest that would be classified as pedophilia. He had the urge to kill, and was aroused by human suffering, that he did not exclude children as victims wouldn't classify him as a pedophile. It is good the article does not use this wording. Tyciol 05:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe he was, from what I've read he's just a sicko who enjoyed watching people suffer and die as part of his 'sexual fantasy'. There was no key interest involving minors in the testimony, other than reference that he partook in some 'sexual fantasy' relevant acts with a girl, hung in a basement, but no details are given on that so it may be a death focus perhaps? 211.30.80.121 02:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. He is not a pedophile. However, in this day and age anyone who does harm to a child is labelled a pedophile. Pretty stupid, if you ask me but go figure society. TripleH1976 03:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Testimony

Whilst admittantly I am only half way through his testimony in his 'confession', I already have grave misgivings over the course of justice of this man. Either he's got mental problems with coherency, or he didn't seem to have legitimate recollection of his own actions short of the reference materials provided to him.

Can anyone clarify this subject for me? Did he reveal anything in his testimony that was unique to the reports filed by police and crime scene investigators? This testimony reads like a script of a man confessing to something he didn't do knowing he was going down for it regardless and wanting to expediate the media circus he was in. Whilst I agree with and condone the courts judgement based on the facts presented, there's just something outstanding that doesn't quite add up about his testimony.

Did psychologists find any learning disabilities? I saw reference to a low IQ above, which was debated and subsequently removed, yet all is not right with this man, apart from the percieved psychotic problems one must have to committ such acts in the first place.

(Addendum: Furthermore, he even got the addresses wrong on some of the locations.)

211.30.80.121 02:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

He definitely didn't remember some of the addresses correctly, but they may never have been important to him in the first place. (Indeed, he may only have learned them from the police/media). I doubt that he'd plead guilty if he didn't do it. He is definitely not psychotic. Don't use words like 'psychotic' or 'schizophrenic' to write someone off as 'mental' - it does a great disservice to nonviolent psychiatric patients, not to mention the fact that it makes him seem 'not guilty by reason of insanity'. He definitely has no psychiatric disorder, and he definitely has a guilty mind over the killings. - Richardcavell 15:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggest Dissociative identity disorder as a psychiatric diagnosis. Dynzmoar 19:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think he had DID, but it seems pretty clear that he did in fact have a psychiatric disorder. He has some type of personality disorder and certainly an antisocial disorder-- and the fact that someone could lead such a double life for 30 years certainly points towards some sort of disorder. Just because he has psychological problems doesn't mean that others with psychiatric disorders are anything like him, and no one is suggesting that as far as I know. It doesn't make him seem "not guilty by reason of insanity", either-- he clearly knew what he was doing. That doesn't preclude some sort of disturbance in his mind which caused him to commit these acts.--Gloriamarie 17:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Police applicant?

Shortly after his arrest, there was speculation that Rader had applied unsuccessfully for a position with a police department in the Wichita area. The official response was "no comment." Has there been more info on this question? Dynzmoar 12:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prison Disciplinary Report

From the "Legal Proceedings" section of the article:

According to Rader's record in the Kansas Department of Corrections database, he had a Class Two disciplinary report concerning "mail" on April 10, 2006.

I've removed the next sentence:

Which, if convicted, could result in the removal of privleges such as access to radio and television.

Is that true? Is there a source? --zenohockey 03:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kerri Rader's DNA submission

I am not sure where to find a source for this, but I took a class with Leut. Kenneth Landwehr (lead homicide detective Wichita PD) and he said they got a search warrant for Kerri's DNA from records at her Gynecologist in order to catch Rader, instead of Kerri voluntarily submitting her DNA as this article seems to suggest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.97.10.250 (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Biography Tense

Since Rader is still living, it does not make sense to say he "was" the son or brother of someone, this should be changed to "is". I haven't checked much of the rest of the article, but the same goes for that... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.14.56.19 (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Photos

why doesn't there appear to be any photos of him of how he looked all those years ago when he committed the crimes?- that surely would be the true face of the killer when he was most active

[edit] Victim list

I strongly disagree with the removal of the victim list. The list is fairly short, and ideally would include the ages of the victims, and the dates of their deaths, to give substance to their inclusion. I can think of no other account of Dennis Rader's crimes that does not give the names of his victims, and when they were killed. This is carrying a "no lists" policy to an absurdity. — Walloon 06:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It was not the "no list" policy that I was concerned about. The victims in question were private people, and should not be named per WP:BLP#Privacy_of_names. Although the victims are dead, their families may be harmed with the wide amount of information available. As in accordance to BLP, "do not harm", and I see no loss of context from the removal of the list. --DarkFalls talk 06:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The "privacy of names" policy does not address dead people at all. Please explain how the victim's families are going to be "harmed" by giving the victim's names and ages here. As I said, the victim's names and ages are given in virtually every other account of Dennis Rader's crimes. It's just bizarre to redact that information here. — Walloon 09:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I thought some of the victims were murdered in 2005... I've restored all but a bit of info relating to a living member of a victim. --DarkFalls talk 09:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed some of the many problems in this article

What a mess!!

The article contained several <ref>[...]</ref> style cites which did not show up as there was no <refereces/> tag. I created a References section and placed the needed <references/> tag in it.

The article contained two separate sections named "Notes". One of the two (the second one) contained two notes tagged with {{note}}.

  • The first {{note}} had a matching {{ref}} in the text, and I converted this to a <ref> style cite. The link in the cite was dead but I found another article which matched the title and which had content about BTK — and placed a <ref> style cite in place of the {{Ref}} tag.
  • The second note {{note}} did not have a matching {{ref}} in the text. The link was dead, but I found another article which matched the title and which had content about BTK — looking at that, I figured out what part of the text the cite would support, and placed a <ref> style cite there.

That emptied the second of the two "Notes" sections. I moved the first of the two "Notes" sections to the location in the article previously occupied by the second of the two.

The article contains several inline external links. I converted some of these these to <ref> style cites. In some cases I ran into dead links here, and I tracked down alternative sources where needed. I also supplied cites to satisfy some {{fact}}s.

I ran out of time with a lot of problems still remaining in the article -- in particular there are still a bunch of inline external links in there and some number of the links in the article are probably dead. In particular, any link to an article on the http://www.kansas.com/ website is probably dead. perhaps I'll get back to this and do some more work on it. -- Boracay Bill 07:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganize sections?

The sections layout of this article makes no sense to me. I'm not sure how to fix it, but jumping straight from "early life" to the conviction, and then going back haphazardly through the trial and the killings themselves, seems to be the wrong order. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's awful and confusing. I hope someone has time to fix it. Moncrief (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No mercy!

The article fails to explain why didn't they sentence him to death using federal law? The state could have skipped prosecution and give the case to the FBI, so the BTK could be condemned by a US district judge and lethally injected. If I remember crrectly murder statues were incorporated in US federal law in the mid to late 1960s, because of some southern states' indifference to prosecuting killers of negro civil rights activists. 91.83.21.52 (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's accurate... you might be thinking of cases where people acquitted of murder by the proverbial all-white southern jury were convincted in federal court of civil rights violations, which basically meant they were white people who killed black people (or white sympathizers) purely for racial reasons, although it was somehow deemed not to be double jeopardy. I believe for someone to be prosecuted by a federal court for homicide (not civil rights violations, interstate stalking, etc.), the homicide needs to fit into a specific spectrum of cases... such as assassination of elected officials or terrorism. --Rividian (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early Life

Could somebody please explain *why* the Early Life and Personal Life sections were deleted? They were added back once and then re-removed. --MQDuck 06:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)