Talk:Ricardo López (stalker)

Blunt Title

The title seems just so rather blunt -- would something like Ricardo Lopez (Bjork stalker) make more sense? Stalker is just quite generic. Theopolisme 06:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the "stalker" even needed there at all? Other famous stalkers' pages don't have it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.186.209.144 (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

See also

Are they related? Pubserv (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Issues

There are definitely some issues with this article, including a general lack of citation and some writing issues; like what does his porn addiction have to do with stabbing himself with needles? --Alexgm12 (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, it reads like it was written by a 12-year-old in a remedial English class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.156.239 (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Diary

Where can I find the written diary? --95.113.244.191 (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Goldie is not "black"

' Angered over this perceived betrayal and the fact that she was involved with a black man, [...] '

'Goldie’s mum Margaret was forced to flee Glasgow when her violent dad kicked her out because she was dating a black boyfriend. She then met Goldie’s dad Clement in Leeds — but her life still spiralled out of control. Goldie said: “Her dad was an alcoholic and he got off on beating her up. “Then she met a black guy and dating a black guy in Scotland was a BIG thing back then. “It’s changed a lot but for her back then, she was run out of Scotland. She ran away from her family basically.' ~ https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/archives/news/41551/my-mother-was-run-out-of-scotland-for-dating-a-black-guy/

Btw, shouldn't the f-words be censored in this article? Not very family-friendly. Beingsshepherd (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

A bit late, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Bmf 051 (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2020

In the See Also section:

• Mark David Chapman, the man responsible for the murder of English singer who murdered John Lennon in 1980
• John Hinckley, Jr., the man who attempted to assassinate U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1981
• Robert John Bardo, the man responsible for the murder of American actress who murdered Rebecca Schaeffer in 1989
• Yolanda Saldívar, the woman responsible for the murder of American singer who murdered Selena in 1995
• Nathan Gale, the man responsible for the murder of American musician who murdered Dimebag Darrell in 2004
• Kevin James Loibl, the man responsible for the murder of American singer who murdered Christina Grimmie in 2016

The section as currently formatted is excessive and long-winded. A short explanation of why each entry is relevant here is sufficient, and further details can easily be found by following the links. Thanks. 82.132.235.18 (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done GoingBatty (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether he shouts "This is for you!" or "Victory!"

The source of the page says "Do not change this to victory, it is not in the source." It's literally in the video, it does not get more sourced than that. Anything past that is just someone else's interpretation of what he said, he did not have a script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.201.44 (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a source that he says "Victory!". That may very well be what it is said, but you still must provide a source. The audio is quite muffled, so the video alone is not a sufficient enough source. Your repeated reversions constitute WP:EDITWARRING. Bmf 051 (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

My source is the same source by which someone originally said he shouts "This is for you!". "This is for you!" should not be the default just because that's what someone thought they heard first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.201.44 (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not true. The ABC News report (here) says "This is for you!". This is a reliable source. Your own intuition is not a reliable source: it is WP:OR. Bmf 051 (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Where did the ABC News report get that he said "This is for you!"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.201.44 (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't make a difference. The content must be WP:Verifiable, not verified. ABC News is WP:VERIFIABLE. You, as a source, are not. Please sign your comments using "~~~~". Bmf 051 (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It absolutely makes a difference. If the only source that ABC cites to say he says "This is for you!" is the video which you've already said is muffled beyond being a valid source, that makes it invalid and circular. Wiki is supposed to be about accuracy, not technicality. "Kompressor" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.201.44 (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The way to improve accuracy is through WP:Verifiability. Wikipedia will never have 100% WP:Accuracy, but it should have 100% verifiability. Citing a reliable source that transcribed the audio is acceptable. Transcribing the audio yourself and publishing it is WP:OR. Bmf 051 (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

But they cease being a reliable source if they're only transcribing from a recording that is admittedly unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.201.44 (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

And you suddenly become a reliable source by transcribing the same audio? ABC News are reliable because they have a record of being reliable. You do not. Bmf 051 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

"ABC News are reliable because they have a record of being reliable." Appeal to authority/genetic fallacy. If there was such a thing as an infallible source, Wiki would be unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.201.44 (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

How is basing an encyclopedia on reliable sources "an appeal to authority"? This is literally the foundation of Wikipedia. "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. [...] All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. [...] Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." ABC News has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, therefore they are reliable. Bmf 051 (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Because validity should be taken on a case by case basis. If you start just using a source as valid and infallible then you're going to run into accruing errors. Either what someone thought they heard on the video is valid, or it's not. That's the ONLY thing we have to go by in this case. ABC's history is not relevant. You can't have it both ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.201.44 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Then you need to present reliable secondary sources that transcribe the audio differently or otherwise dispute the ABC translation. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

No, because the audio has already been admitted to be low quality. ABC's version should not be the default or end all be all just because it's what someone else thought they heard. Either what someone thought they heard is valid or it's not. The history of a source is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.201.44 (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Which sources state the audio is low quality? —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Why should it not be the default? Thus far, it is the only verifiable source that transcribes that part of the video at all. Unless you can provide another. Bmf 051 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

"Which sources state the audio is low quality?" Bmf 051's first reply was "The audio is quite muffled, so the video alone is not a sufficient enough source."

"Why should it not be the default? Thus far, it is the only verifiable source that transcribes that part of the video at all. Unless you can provide another." How can it be a verifiable source when they're listening to the same video we are? The video you've already called muffled beyond usable as a source. Please pick one way and stick with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.201.44 (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I've seen multiple sources hear either "Victory!" or "This is for you." I heard the former, but I can also hear the latter if I try hard enough. The latter makes more sense contextually. I've seen similar fights break out in comment sections on YouTube videos about him. It seems to be a Laurel/Yanny situation.

While I hear "victory" more often than not, I'm inclined to think it's not since that doesn't really make sense. "This is for you" sounds more like something someone would say before offing themselves over an obsession. 209.6.200.92 (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

“United in heaven.”

“He would commit suicide after mailing the bomb, hoping that he and Björk would be united in heaven.”

There is no indication that he believed that he and Björk would be united in Heaven, this seems to be a common misconception as he did not express a desire for this to happen. He also hated her for her relationship with Tricky (and later Goldie) and while he initially was trying to kill her, when he changed his plan from the HIV infection needle to the book with acid, he did not want to kill her as much as he wanted to disfigure her as he considered lifelong trauma worse than death. He also at one point claimed to be a Satanist in the tapes which conflicts with the “United in Heaven” story. MountainDew20 (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

That claim is cited to two sources in the article. Have you checked if they say this? Popcornfud (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

When I click the link to them I am redirected back to the Wikipedia article. MountainDew20 (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Ignore the last post, I am not familiar much with how Wikipedia works and did not realize there was another link to click. MountainDew20 (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)