Talk:Arthur Leigh Allen

Circumstantial Evidence?

I would have thought a direct match between shoe sizes was more than cicrcumstantial, because shoe sizes vary greatly among the standard population, so an exact match is promising. Farther, I believe that the shoe footprint type was one left by a type of shoe only sold in Naval bases, and he was the only suspect to work in the navy.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen a reliable source that showed Arthur Allen's shoe size is 10.5 which would match the killer's. Concerning the Wing Walker boots believed to be worn by the killer at Lake Berryessa, there is no evidence that Allen ever wore or owned a pair of Wing Walker boots although this story appears in Graysmith's first book. Since its publication, there has been a very dubious witness state that Allen owned such a pair of boots. Incidentally, these boots are associated with the Air Force as much as the Navy and over half a million were manufactured. By the late 1960's, they could easily be purchased at military surplus stores. Check out this link http://www.zodiackiller.com/LBReport11.html for some more information on the boots.

Robert Graysmith's books' Zodiac and Zodiac Unmasked are loaded with errors and fabrications which makes them unreliable sources.TL36 (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Explain how?--Malleus Felonius (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

By "explain how?" I assume you want a list of some of Graysmith's errors. Here are 2 links for you TL36 (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/graysmith.htm

http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/movie.htm

And here are some links to consider about the webmaster of Zodiackiller'facts' regarding his ongoing credibility issues:

http://zodiacevidence.co.uk/default.aspx?g=posts&t=33

http://zodiacevidence.co.uk/default.aspx?g=posts&t=44 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.1.22 (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV and NOR Violations:

closed thread due to off topic sniping... ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This alleged "source" link is less about facts on "Arthur Leigh Allen" and more about Michael Butterfield's persistent ad hominem attacks on living author, Robert Graysmith (see: wiki discussion at "Robert Graysmith" for Michael Butterfield's history as a Wikipedia vandal)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Graysmith If Wikipedia editors continue to include such links they will be in clear violation of Wikipedia's Five Pillars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars AND "three core content policies": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view More specifically, these policies require that: "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view," they possess "Verifiability" and "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." With regard to the source in dispute, Wikipedia tacitly promotes a “battleground playpen” and thus diminishes its own credibility for disseminating facts worthy of a quality encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.1.22 (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC) It is simply untrue that "Michael Butterfield's website ZodiacKillerFacts is less about facts on 'Arthur Leigh Allen' and more about an ad hominem attacks on Robert Graysmith." I'll readily admit the web site is unfavorable to Graysmith since it points out many of the errors, fabrications and outright lies told by Graysmith in his two books on the Zodiac killer but the vast majority of the web site isn't about Graysmith or Allen but concerns the Zodiac killer murders.TL36 (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC) See, User:TL36: You can't even quote correctly. The "source" link re: "Arthur Leigh Allen" at ZodiacKillerFacts.com is what was originally tested and found to be spilling over with ad-hominem attacks directed at Graysmith. Did you even click on that link (from an earlier version)? Tell Michael Butterfield to give some facts about Allen and to quit his abusive agenda aimed at Robert Graysmith (certainly, as far as Wikipedia entries are concerned, here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.1.22 (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC) I indeed did click on the link and I stand by my statement. On an off topic, is Oil City caught up in the country's heat wave or have you so far missed it?TL36 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC) User:TL36 states: "I'll readily admit the web site is unfavorable to Graysmith ...." ROTFLOL! Butterfield writes about Graysmith on the site in question: "Ghoul: an evil spirit that robs graves and feeds on the dead" - And YOU'RE TELLING ME THIS IS GOING TO PASS MUSTER ON WIKIPEDIA? Here's one of Michael Butterfield's site images: http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/images/graysmith.jpg These are just two of many examples of what is connected to the original link that was deleted. Note how it was speciously typed in as "Facts about Arthur Leigh Allen" with no website identified, but rather as a honey pot to draw readers in to Michael Butterfield's disturbed and egomaniacal world [If you're an apologist for him, then do one better: Get him some help!] At least Tom Voigt of Zodiackiller.com, and despite a falling-out and lawsuit with Graysmith, can provide a page with some objective/balanced facts about suspect Arthur Leigh Allen without an ad hominem agenda. And no, Tom Voigt does NOT currently believe Allen is a viable suspect. I neither know Tom Voigt personally, nor have I ever been a member of his site; I'm certainly no supporter of his current Person(s) of Interest. "On an off topic, is Oil City ...." LOL! - Not even close! Evidently your understanding of ISP triangulation matches your inability to comprehend the yellow journalism spewing forth from Michael Butterfield and his site links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.113.109 (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Cracked the code?

This guy claims to have cracked the 340 cipher and identified the killer as Arthur Leigh Allen. http://tewksbury.patch.com/articles/tewksbury-native-ive-cracked-the-code-of-the-zodiac-killer RainbowOfLight ^Talk 04:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Until it receives adequate coverage in reliable sources and gains acceptance through some authority, it remains an unvetted fringe theory which doesn't merit mention in the article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

RainbowOfLight, Unfortunately, the individual responsible for this claim is a complete fraud and his "solution" has been declared "not valid," "worthless" and "an insult" by the various codebreakers that have examined it.TL36 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to a detailed explanation of the code-breaking hoax made by this publicity-seeking fraud:

http://oranchak.com/zodiac/corey/hoax.html

Bad sources, topic not notable on its own

I had redirected this to Zodiac Killer but someone came through and reverted. Many of the sources used in previous versions of this article were substandard, to say the least. Random personal opinions on websites are not reliable sources, per WP:RS rules. Furthermore, large amounts of text with various accusations against this person weren't even cited to any source at all, not even the bad ones. By removing all the junk that did not have a reliable source, there is not much here. In order to have Wikipedia articles of their own, topics must in some way differentiate themselves from the main topic. The only reason this person is notable at all is because of the Zodiac killer accusations, and there isn't much reason to give him extra additional coverage other than what that article would have. The existence of this article seems to have been solely for people to post their own theories and claims. That's not what Wikipedia is for. DreamGuy (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You may be right. I reverted because I felt that it should be a community decision which would be more properly dealt with at AfD. IIRC, the suspects were separated from the main article as a split out. In practical terms, if you name him as a suspect in the article then different degrees of explanations would be needed to justify or explain that; if that occurs, we will see a section on ALA begin growing in the main article and become unwieldy as before and possibly undue weight given to him with respect to the main article subject. That said, I'm currently undecided on what I'd do at an AFD on this article. Notability is established via Graysmith primarily through his two books, one of which names him explicitly and notability has additionally been established via the Zodiac movie where they also use ALA's real name as a suspect. But like you, I don't want want crack/pet theories accumulating in the article either. This just happens to be a case where an AfD serves a constructive purpose in having the subject run through the gauntlet and either the community agrees to delete or the article gets a makeover and is improved. Thank you for posting this, btw. It gives other editors a chance to chime in.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - merger ...not just deletion and redirect but merger as in the meaning here transfer of relevant info.Moxy (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Article should redirect to either the Suspects or a new Arthur Leigh Allen subheading. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. There is still a problem with the sources used. Graysmith's second book, "Zodiac Unmasked" is a questionable source by Wiikipedia standards in that it relies heavily on rumors and personal opinions. The last source used, the inaccessible article, "Still a suspect" by the Vallejo Times-Herald doesn't say "neither the Vallejo nor the San Francisco Police Departments have ruled out Allen as a suspect," but it's used as the source for this inuendo. I have additional concerns but will stop here at this time.TL36 (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources are easy to find - we just have to look a bit. If any need to be replaced that is easy to do. Do you believe all should be deleted an nothing moved over because the info is wrong?Moxy (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "sources are easy to find" but I don't think that replacing unreliable sources with reliable ones is easy to do. Considering how much space in the Zodiac killer article already details Allen, I don't see anything here that needs to be moved over.TL36 (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

He's only notable as a Zodiac suspect, so I think his article should redirect to the Zodiac article. Possibly the suspects section. Also most of the information here is already found in the Zodiac article, so there's not much to merge. Article should not be deleted, as it's possible that someone would search for his name. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If the article was deleted and someone did a search for ALA, I would certainly hope the results would first list the Zodiac Killer article. However, what you're suggesting may well be the way to go.TL36 (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There was only support and no opponents, so I went ahead with the merger. It now links to Zodiac Killer#Suspects--Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)