Talk:Smiley face murder theory/Archive 1

Content from redirected page

Skoch3 (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC): Why was all of the content on this page deleted and not included after redirect?

I don't know, but feel free to add it to the article. Like A Rainbow (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The May Day Mystery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_May_Day_Mystery notice smiley is part of the mystery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.181.23 (talk • contribs)

The article doesn't mention it, but by my count, many thousands of young men have drowned in the years in which this case is being looked at. Is it really so beyond chance that a smiley, one of the most common pieces of graffiti anywhere, would be found somewhere near 22 or the suspected sites? The article also doesn't mention that the smilies don't look much alike: there's no distinctive signature shape to their design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.197.62 (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have is that everyone acts like there were only smiley faces.The fact that Pat Brown only points out the smiley faces and ignores everything else should have raised a red flag.She should be dismissed as being a reputable source.I am not even allowed to point out there was other graffiti even though I give my source.The fact there was more than smiley faces does not convince me there was a killer but the way information is provided is reasonable proof of bias by both Pat Brown and Wikepedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What you say may be true... however please read WP:NOT... No matter how tempting it may be, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for rationality, rather it documents notable... for lack of a better word, "things". That you and I both think that the theory is probably hogwash doesn't detract from the fact that this was reported; and is therefore encyclopedic. Its inclusion as a phenomenon in wikipedia is not an endorsement of the phenomenon's claims to truth (see Geocentrism, for example). That having been said, the article could probably be better worded, and (not living in the states, and never having seen it reported) it might not actually be notable. --Storkk (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Said maybe better, a theory's truth is irrelevant to its inclusion in Wikipedia... only its notability. Cheers, --Storkk (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As police and other reliable sources have argued that the smiley faces could both be accidental and were not found in connection with the murder scenes anyway, I have included those sources. DreamGuy (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Page name?

I noticed that Smiley face murders was just changed to redirect here. Shouldn't it be vice versa? I understand the desire to keep a WP:NPOV but we can't make up neologisms either. Take a look at the Google results, the sources call them the "smiley face murders": [1] [2]. Also whatever the title is should follow WP:MOSTITLE ("Killings" or "Murders" shouldn't be capitalized in the name, and I'm not sure about "Face" either) Oren0 (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved this page back to Smiley face murders. Oren0 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I noticed there was only ONE external link to this wiki page. I know of many other sites to be added. On top of that, there are high traffic forum discussion threads that could be added, like the posts at God Like Productions (GLP) and Above Top Secret (ATS). I've been editing a lot of pages (adding links) and I got a warning so I might have to add them tomorrow. Momochan86 (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)momochan86

Two deleted topics

User:DreamGuy has deleted two sections (and references) as 'original research' with his own stated POV belief these were not "drunk drown people (who) were murdered". These are current topics in the news in a developing story. To avoid a revert war, I'm looking for consensus one way or the other.

Canadian link

Twenty two college-age men have disappeared in British Columbia, which have similarities to the US victimology. Investigators have been reluctant to link the disappearances to the US deaths or even each other. The public is calling for an investigation..

Notice that 2 of the 3 references are not mere bloggers as User:DreamGuy believes. One is CanWest News Service and the other is by KSTP journalist, Kristi Piehl, who helped break this developing story. No one yet claims there is a link, but families and journalists are seeking answers.

Questions of sexual discrimination

Families and news staff on both sides of the US-Canadian border question the lack of official concern for young missing men as opposed to missing women.

Here DreamGuy states "majorly POV pushing (it's not sexist to not believe drunk drown people were murdered)". It seems to me that it takes a "majorly POV" to reject statements by (a) a KSTP news anchor and (b) a web site established by investigators specifically for this case. By those lights, this article shouldn't exist at all. However, as a crime writer, I can attest that families and maverick investigators sometimes get it right.

The question is: Should these topics be included or not included?

Thank you for your opinion. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem here is that Wikipedia is not to be used for advocacy purposes, and that's what a number of these edits were doing. Blog reports (whether Kristi Piehl made the blog entry or not is irrelevant -- if she as a news reporter couldn't get it into mainstream coverage when she normally does coverage that shows that her bosses didn't consider it noteworthy, so why should we?) would be the material that isn't relevant to get mainstream news coverage and so are less likely to be able to be put into the article. The claim of sexual discrimination is a particularly bizarre one to be making, as the police response is that these people drowned because they were drunk. Gender wouldn't have anything to do with it, and suggesting it does based upon some blog posts is reckless.

If you check out our WP:NPOV policy, particularly the WP:UNDUE weight clause, you'll see that we are supposed to present views based upon the reliability and expertise of the sources. The FBI, police departments, leading criminologists and so forth all say that these people died of accidental deaths. We can mention the idea that it wasnt accidental (and indeed the article wouldn't exist otherwise), but we cannot give those claims the majority of the space in the article, as that would be clearly slanted to promote the fringe minority view. If a news anchor trying for publicity and some relatives of dead kids refuse to accept what the authorities say and think there was some serial killer or killers magically dragging big athletic frat boys into water to hope they drown of natural causes instead of getting out and kicking their asses, fine, they can believe whatever they want. But Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for them to present every argument they make. DreamGuy (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias and Slander Wikipedia

SHAME ON WIKEPEDIA I provided accurate information and provided sources as proof.The bias is ridiculous.If you guys had your way you would rename the article Smiley Face killer theory is BS.The article is garbage.

EVERY THING I ADDED WAS IN THE ARTICLES.EVERY SINGLE THING. PADILLAH MADE CHANGES WITH NO EXPLANATION.I do not believe this site to be reputable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It makes me ill that you allow someone to make a reputable detective that has done more work than the FBI or Pat Brown look like a fool.Shame on you.Thanks to people like yourself that don't like this article to be less one sided it will be easier to dismiss a drowning as a drunken accident every time a young man goes into a bar and has a drink or two.Thanks to you, people can ignore certain facts like the statement made by a law enforcement official "it was unusual for 3 young men around the same age to drown in such a short period of time".They can also ignore that that two of those were volunteers for an ambulance corps.They can also ignore that 2 out of 3 victims in the northeast in less then a 45 day period were disc jockeys.It is way too easy to dismiss one small part while those of us that know more are faced with a hard sell and are censored by people who keep the discussion one sided. No one has provided info that the FBI has done that much work and yet we are supposed to believe their opinion means something.The only evidence that is offered is that the FBI interviewed an individual that provided information to the detectives.Pat Brown only talks about the smiley faces and ignores the other graffiti.Dream Guy is trying to keep this article biased and one sided.The police as a whole have not rejected the theory.I am well informed about many cases and my additions to the article are removed. factual info that was removed complete with sources.

Other similarities Deputy Inspector Robert Martin made the following comment according to a Daily News reporter."it is "a little unusual to have three males in the river, of that age bracket, within 15 months,". He was referring to the drownings of Joshua Bender,Larry Andrews and Patrick McNeil in New York.Joshua Bender and Patrick McNeil were both volunteers for an Ambulance Corps.

Also underneath where pat Brown dismisses the smiley faces

More than just smiley faces During an interview with Milwaukee Magazine Gannon said “The smiley faces are one-thirteenth of the evidence we have" Gannon also said. “We found 13 distinct signs, symbols and markings.” He said the FBI is “not actively looking” at this evidence [10] (Ethan46 (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).

First, I would enjoin you to try and keep your talkpage entries as linear as possible. It's easier to follow the thread of the conversation that way. Second, you are stepping into a well known and perilous trap: the difference between truth and verifiability. If you can provide outside, third-party, trustworthy sources that make the same arguments you are putting forth then neither DreamGuy nor I have any business removing those statements (and believe me when I tell you, DreamGuy knows this). However, it doesn't matter at all how solid an argument you make, that's called Original Research. If you tried to convince us that water was wet we wouldn't care if you didn't have citations. So, convincing arguments will get you nowhere, bring us a citation from a newspaper or book and it'll go in with little problem. Padillah (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There are several people who have clear bias that have been abusing Wiki. They force thier rejection theories while rejecting and deleting clear patterns that have been documented in the media, both print newspapers and Internet.

One of these people (boyinthemachine) has been spreading his rejection theories all over the Internet and deleting data that doesn't fit his unusual views.

I deleted the rejection theory post because it is full of errors and lacks critical sources. It falsely claims that the Minneapolis Police have rejected the Smiley Face theory. They give no source. Actually the opposite is true. The police discused the theory with the national media and have not ruled out or rejected the smiley face theory in the Chris Jenkins case.

Boyinthemachine and DreamGuy both have stated or implied that a certain named person is the one doing the editing. There is no evidence for this and is libal, for which Wikipedia is responsible for.

Boyinthemachine even stated that this person was unprofessional because he was doing this editing. Again, there is no evidence for this. Wiki should remove such comments before it faces a lawsuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.27.175 (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It was Kondracki in Wisconsin that rejected the serial killer theory despite one young man being chased into the water and another drowning victim being described as terrified of water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Police: Evidence doesn't support TV report on Jenkins' death

"Minneapolis homicide investigators have been investigating Jenkins' disappearance and death since 2002, the police statement noted. "Although we have collaborated with investigators from the FBI and communicated with other jurisdictions in which similar drownings have occurred, we can neither confirm nor endorse the 'Smiley Face Murders' theory currently being publicized." http://www.startribune.com/local/18375754.html

The problem here is that the one article you site states that the PD "neither confirm nor endorse the Smiley Face Murders theory". This is different from what is claimed on Wiki. The Wiki page says the PD rejected the theory. Not confirming the theory and rejecting the theory are two different things. But your lack of brain activity cannot compute this. You have been preaching your rejection theory all over the Internet for so long now, that you want all real evidence to be deleted so it doesn't make you look like the mindless jerk that you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.27.175 (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

FBI Statement Regarding Midwest River Deaths

"Over the past several years, law enforcement and the FBI have received information about young, college-aged men who were found deceased in rivers in the Midwest. The FBI has reviewed the information about the victims provided by two retired police detectives, who have dubbed these incidents the “Smiley Face Murders,” and interviewed an individual who provided information to the detectives. To date, we have not developed any evidence to support links between these tragic deaths or any evidence substantiating the theory that these deaths are the work of a serial killer or killers. The vast majority of these instances appear to be alcohol-related drownings. The FBI will continue to work with the local police in the affected areas to provide support as requested,” said Supervisory Special Agent Richard J. Kolko, Washington, D.C." http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel08/statement042908.htm

This individual is attempting to delete all criticism and the discrediting of the theory in order to promote a biased account in favor of the theory.

This individual is also presenting individual fringe theories as being important to the case. This is not the place for every person's individual theories or specualtion. This is in fact, classic soapbox behavior.BoyintheMachine (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

To the anonymous IP who keeps trying to edit this page: Please read WP:NPOV, which is the policy on Neutral Point of View. This guideline dictates that we as editors display information in a balanced way. This article is not perfect, but since the FBI and major law enforcement agencies have not endorsed the theory of serial killer(s) on the loose, we must present it as only a theory. We are not supposed to convince the world that a theory is correct, only show what evidence exists and also show the evidence against. Also, please read WP:EQ to see what is appropriate to say in Wikipedia. Avoid threats and insults. One important quote in Wikiquette is, "Assume good faith." There are alot of guidelines to help us as editors come together to reach consensus. I suggest you read through some of them to understand where the other other editors are coming from. Angryapathy (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Theory by Mike Flaherty

This Mike Flaherty person appears to just be some private individual with a bizarre theory (spelling words ). There is no indication that this theory has received any serious press attention. We cannot devote a section of this article to completely unknown people's ideas, especially as the original theory is WP:FRINGE to begin with. We can't cover the fringe's fringe. I've removed it all, giving the reasons why it doesn't belong, but an anon IP account continually adds this section every time it is removed. For all I know it's Mike Flaherty himself. DreamGuy (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the only justification that IP user gives for putting the material back is "I will continue to overrule the Wiki-dictator DreamGuy who tries to force his bias on this blog."

OK< it's gotten far worse now. The IP address adding the info about the personal theory of someone nobody has heard of also has now removed all information showing that the police departments, FBI and etc. think the main theory is nonsense, and has also stopped even calling this crazy side theory a theory and calls it a "discovery". This article should not be used to promote personal opinions, especially when the overwhelming expert opinion has been removed. DreamGuy (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Rejection secion was removed because it contained errors and lacked critical sources. See the Bias and Slander section for a better explaination of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.27.175 (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

...snip... (this section removed according to WP:OUTING policy.)

None of the sources provided refer to Mike Flaherty except for the smiley face website that is unreliable. This section does not even come close to meeting WP guidelines and needs to be removed, and if the IP editor disagrees, then an administrator needs to be notified. Angryapathy (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP (71.13.27.175) and BoyintheMachine: Please stop the WP:OUTING or you will both be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I'm not entirely sure what's been said already isn't sufficient to get you both indef blocked. If you have any questions about what you've done wrong please see an admin or readWP:OUT. Padillah (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Padillah, Boyinthemachine has been posting libalous and undocumented statements on Wiki and other blogs. Like many people on the Internet, he thinks he can post whatever he wants and nobody will know who he really is because he uses a screen name. I am exposing who he is so people can sue him for libal and let him know in other ways how they feel about his childish rants. I cannot be blocked because I have endless IP's. I would be happy to quit posting, if Boyinthemachine apologizes for his libal and removes his libalous posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.27.175 (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please understand: I have notified an Administrator of the actions on this page. They are completely out of line and you are likley going to be blocked for making legal threats as well as trying to reveal others identities. We do not care if you are trying to expose someone, don't do it here. We don't care if you are trying to stop libelous statements: Don't do it here. This is an encyclopedia, or, at least, it's trying to be. And if you keep distracting people from getting the facts right how will it ever improve? Stop the crusade and edit in accordance with it's policies and you might find it's a easier place to be. Try and do an end-run around it's policies and guidelines and you will find your time here very difficult. If you truely believe you cannot be blocked because you "have endless IPs" I feel very sorry for you and the learning you are about to receive. It's your choice. Padillah (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki is a two way street, deleting a post because of bias is not a good example of a real encyclopedia. I dare you to try to block me. As long as libal is posted here, I have the right and duty to expose the libaler. As it stands now, I am OK with this page, but if someone adds something libalous, I will make things difficult for them and for anyone else who helps them. See, I was just blocked again, and I'm back. There is no need for acting silly here, just stop the libal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.81.168 (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected this talk page for the day. IP user, if you have concerns of this nature, please bring it up on WP:AN/I or a similar forum rather than engage in this sort of behavior. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching this and brought up the outing in the second paragraph there. This needs to stop and now. I will be posting more at the WP:ANI to see if we can get someone to at least oversight this talk page and if necessary the article history. I will say more later at the board. Please read WP:Outing. WP:AGF and WP:NPA for starters. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd delete them but I think oversight is needed here. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree but I've never done oversight before so not sure how to. Did you make the request? Also, as I said I think some indifinite blocks should be done and sock drawers found and emptied. Are you able and willing to do this for me? If so, would you supply me the links to it on my talk page so I can see how you did it? At least this can be a learning experience for me. :) Thanks Gwen,--CrohnieGal^Talk 14:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have scads of time to hunt for diffs now. If someone can give them to me, I'll ask for oversight. As for sock drawers, the semiprotection should stop the roving IP. Are there any user accounts other than BitM, who has been warned? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(undented) I'm only aware of that account and the anon IP, two accounts that I am aware of so far I'll get difs later as i am tired too much right now and am getting ready to leave the computer, that is if no one else gets to it. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I made an oversight request for the diffs I know about. Crohnie: if anything's missed, you just send an email through WP:RFO. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUT talk section

Any removal of material needs to be deleted by an administrator. Any reverts or deletions by regular editors will leave the information in the system, accessible to anyone. If you truly feel this is a case of outing (even though admins scoured this page this week removing outing information), please notify adminstrators, and stop edit warring. Angryapathy (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a few bad people on this page who insist on using WIki as a platform to spread libal. This is your final warning to stop! I promise that those engaged in this behavior will be very very sorry, very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nommagdor (talk • contribs) 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make threats on Wikipedia. This behavior is not tolerated and leads to bans. Angryapathy (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's too bad that certain people have forced this outcome. Believe me when I say this, those who violate the OUT policy will be biting off far more than they can chew. Who wants to be the first one to test this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nommagdor (talk • contribs) 16:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nommagdor, it would really do you much more good to: 1) Calm down. No one can talk to you if you refuse to listen. 2) Don't make threats. Either you can't do anything substantive, in which case they are empty. Or you can, in which case they are evidence. 3) State your issue rationally and clearly. "Stop OUTing" is not as specific as you might think. OUTing is very serious on WP so, since no one else can find the OUTing you are referring to, we don't see things the same as you do. Please, if you try to work with us we will try to accommodate you. If you only work to alienate yourself from the community you will soon find yourself alone. Padillah (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no outing in the removed text. Admins have already removed the text that qualified as outing. The text this new editor (who also can't spell libel, oddly enough) is deleting needs to be restored. DreamGuy (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's been blocked, again, as I assuming we have been dealing with the same sock puppet for the past few days. I wonder how long he is going to keep attempting to vandalize this page. Angryapathy (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the expressions of superiority he's displayed over and over again, I think we should all be on our toes for a little while. Padillah (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected this talk page for a time owing to IP harassment. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Csymons70 and the apparent COI

Csymons70, please understand, when an editor adds information to an article it must be backed by credible citations. This does not mean write your own citations and then post info citing your references. Amazon.com CreateSpace is not regarded as a reliable source, due mainly to the fact that anyone can post a publication there and there are few restrictions on content or reliability. Please stop adding information that is both not reliable and an advertisement for your material. Padillah (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate your comments but also note that reliable media sources have also published my content because they too have confirmed the sources - so I would hope that information can remain. I don't appreciate commenst made by others that I'm a "nobody". I just want to make certain that this site is maintained with integrity and not some bias against me. Hopefully this can be guaranteed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csymons70 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you this, the information you are presenting has already been added. And it's been supported by the FBI and various law enforcement agencies. Basically you are not adding anything, mearly repeating what every sane person that's viewed the files has said. How is this notable? It's like writing a book that proves Mark David Chapman killed Lennon, not that big a surprise. What are you ADDING that the FBI hasn't said? Or are you claiming more intimacy with the case than the FBI? Why should we add your stuff? Padillah (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ironically everytime I put somthing in from what I learned from the FBI regaring the classifications of serial killers and the reasons WHY they dismiss the theory it keeps getting deleted. My suggestion is either contact the FBI as I did or read the book. It's apparent that the moderators of this site are bias and simply feel that the theory is weight enough to generate traffic and interest and that's sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csymons70 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I'd like to point out, there are no "moderators" on this site. It took me a long time to realize that I can delete stuff just like anybody else. And I can add stuff too, as long as it improves the article. So don't get too worried about "moderators". I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding your problem. Is it that we even have the article at all? Or do you have a problem with not being able to add anything to it? Do you not feel that the denunciation of the theory is complete enough? Let's talk it out here and then we can add what is necessary to the article when we hammer out all the issues.

Some of the stuff you've added has been direct links to Amazon for selling your book. You'll forgive us if we don't want to advertise your book for you. The newer stuff you've added is the same as the FBI statements, so I have to wonder what you intend to add to the article (other than an indirect link to your book). We've got denunciations from The La Crosse, Wisconsin police force, the Criminal profiler Pat Brown, and the FBI - What more can you add? Padillah (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is this shouldn't be called Smile Face Murders because according to authorities they're not murders. The title should have theory attached to it. The reason the FBI has dismissed the THEORY is that none of the traits follow classifications on what they define a serial killer. The article lists that the FBI declined the theory but doesn't explain why. When I added that earlier it was deleted. The FBI has found no evidence, which we all know, but have dismissed the theory because they profile doesn't fit within the classification guidelines. I've also notice a number of theories that appear to be popular in the blogs. Train theory, terrorist theory, Mike Flannery and Krist Pehl also have theories that should probably be included. This way viewers can see all that is avilable regarding the topic. Maybe a section could be added titled "Other theories"? Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csymons70 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We're not just going to make a laundry list of crazy fringe theories. See WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. DreamGuy (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the bottom line: Wikipedia is not a place to publicize yourself. We have info from the FBI, police departments, and a famous profiler all saying there's nothing to the theory. You want to add sections where YOU say there's nothing to theory, so that you can promote a book you self-published through a vanity press. That's never going to fly. You aren't a recognized expert on this topic, and you cannot spam Wikipedia with references to yourself. Period. Anything you add referring to yourself will be removed, so don't bother trying to do it. And if you keep this up you WILL be blocked from editing. We take WP:COI and WP:SPAM very seriously here. DreamGuy (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Rename to Smiley face murder theories

 Done

In deference to the fact that Csymons70 has a valid point I suggest this article be renamed "Smiley face murder theories" to reflect the fact that they are not serial murders but unsupported theories. I suggest the plural so as to contain the variations on a theme that have cropped up. I am not as sure of the multiple theories, they may not have the level of notability the "Smiley face" theory has, but I do fully support the suggestion to title them as a theory rather than serial murders. Padillah (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think singular theory would make more sense... any offshoots of the main one is still based upon the same base theory. .. and it's doubtful if the offshoots will ever be notable enough for inclusion here anyway, DreamGuy (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

With no objections for over a week, I'd like to move this to "Smiley face muder theory" but I know there are redirects. How do I find the pages that link here? Padillah (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That was easy. But would it be best to leave this article and redirect to the "Theory" article or do a move and correct the dozen or so pages that link here? Padillah (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

We cannot just create a new article with the same content copied and pasted, so renames have to be page moves. And a bot usually comes by and cleans up the redirects after a while, so it's as easy as pie. DreamGuy (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I guess you're right. That was easy. Padillah (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest the article be renamed rejection of the smiley face murder theory,since that part takes up most of the article page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand how WP:NPOV policy works here. DreamGuy (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You obviously do not know how this is supposed to work.There was no citation for the statement most law enforcement agencies believe they were accidenatal drownings.I have been nuetral while you and padilah have been promoting pat Brown's theories and removing statements with citations.Padillah has also been caught in his own lies.You and Padillah obviously have the view there are no killers and are using wikipedia for your own means.You are also keeping the article slanted.I am not the one trying to slant the article as the liar padillah has stated.I never put information there was evidence and pahdillah pointed out I should have added another statement about a denial of evidence.I listed similarities that I don't believe is evidence in the first place.I stand by my accurate statement that the article is garbage and pahdillah is a liar.If you all want to take this personal that is up to you but I am telling it like it is.Are you on Pat Brown's payroll?: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to be careful depicting other editors as liars. I take great offense at this and demand you provide proof that I have lied. I regard this as a personal attack and will call for your banning if this issue is not addressed.

Meanwhile, I would like to communicate with you but find it exceedingly difficult to do so given your penchant for typing everything in lowercase and refusing to format your writings in any way. Space after a perid at the end of a sentance, the use of commas, capitalization... at least try and be understood. You accuse us of slanting this article and yet you have provided no content that's not blatantly POV. You have shown no effort to understand the policies here at Wikipedia even after several editors have asked you to review them both in general and specific policies. I am telling you this as a warning, you are well on your way to being banned from Wikipedia. After the blatant attack above I should simply request you be banned right now, but it's always better to have editors that are interested in the article content so I'd like to try and work with you, if you can find an attitude that allows you to work with anyone at all. Padillah (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You want me to provide proof after you made false accusations and I addressed them? You did everything you accused me of.You even misspelled sentence and period while changing the subject to my grammar btw. I really don't take you or wikipedia that seriously.Any one can edit here and sway the story one way or another. Why don't you prove I was cherry picking and I should have added the statement that there was no real evidence even though I listed similarities and not evidence? Those were similarities I don't even consider evidence. You are doing a dance around the issues you created and then acting like I should address my accusations.Once again you are being one sided. When you state something that is not true than it is a lie. That is not an attack just because I point it out. A lie by definition can be intentional or unintentional. If you want to believe a lie than there is nothing I can do about that. Ban away. If you familiarized yourself better with the rules than you would know a better reason for removing the similarities would be that it was based on my own research. Your motivation is suspect and not mine. I provided more information and did it with citations. Meanwhile information is still in the article with no citations from articles that say what it does in the article. Any reasonable person can see for themselves the rejection of the theory takes up most of the space on the page, and any one more familiar with the case knows there is more to the theory than what is in the article. I am not going to waste a lot of time familiarizing myself with wikipedia after encountering obvious bias and false statements. You attacked me. I did not attack you. I asked to not take this personal but it seems you did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing talking about - I have no idea what lies you are talking about. As far as your rather liberal definition of "lie", you may want to use dictionary.com to check your definitions before posting them. There is no lie if there was no intent. As for making changes to the article: if you don't care about your point of view enough to make the changes correctly, why should I? If you don't want to learn Wiki policy, fine. Don't. Let's see how far that attitude gets you. Padillah (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You talk at me and not to me.You start with an opinion before you gather the facts.Then you talk about having a discussion and yet after all this time you still do a dance about what you first said.I see no evidence you want a discussion. I think you want to be preachy.You said the following

"you mentioned that a detective said it was unusual that three teens drowned so close to each other but you neglected to add that he also said there was no real evidence linking the deaths"

I never presented that statement as evidence nor do I consider it evidence,yet you used that as an example of how I was slanting the article by not pointing out there was no real evidence.You sound like a crazy person to me and as long as crazy people are allowed to have so much influence there is no reason for me to learn more.This really is not about me.It is about you.You might want to tone it down it bit .I can make the case elsewhere without wikipedia.I don't need wikipedia to point out more information. I wanted a balanced article that is not one sided.I do not even have a reason to even care any more what is in the article. You act like you are some kind of GOD here .I have every reason to be wary of people like you and this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not a lie. You did just what I said. Your motivations may have been different but you did do exactly as I presented. And this very much has to do with you. You are the one that is attacking others. You are the one that is making accusations and not backing them up. You are the one that refuses to abide by, or even learn, Wikipedia policy. You are the one blaming others. How does that make this about me? Padillah (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between similarities and evidence. It would be like saying I should have mentioned something about oranges even though I was talking about apples. Similarities have nothing to do with real evidence.Only by believing that similarities are evidence would you have a reason to make the comment you made. You are the one who accused me of slanting the article ,gave a ridiculous reason why, and then you expect me to believe you want to discuss this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.62.199 (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make my statement a lie. You flat-out called me a liar but have yet to provide evidence of me having deliberately making false statements. I don't care one whit about your ability to obfuscate the issues, I am asking that you either prove I lied or retract your accusation. I saw you place statements supporting the Smiley face killer theory and no statements that adjudicate that impression, how you misinterpreted that request does not make me a liar. You also have some gaps in your understanding of "slanted article". Just because one point of view is clearer than another doesn't mean it's slanted, that POV may actually be the case. For example, the article on the moon landing doesn't have equal room given to "fake landing" theories, because it's widely believed to be real and those are called WP:FRINGE theories and have no right to demand equal coverage. So the article may be slanted but then again, so is the theory. Padillah (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh so now it is about how it is a fringe theory? So why It is is the article posted at all? To promote the rejection of the theory? You just keep attacking. You even had to bring up how I don't care about learning more but to be one sided you did not mention that it was because I don't care what you do to the article. I also have no intention of changing it.You got your way but still want to pick a fight. Feel free to leave up the statements in the article with no citations that are relevant also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

None of which addresses your attack on me. Prove I lied or retract the statement. If you want to remove uncited statements from the article, be my guest. If you want to pout, be my guest. But prove I lied or retract your attack. Padillah (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been to the Wikiquette page and registered a complaint. I am still looking for proof or a retraction. Padillah (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Paine edits

I'm talking specifically about this version of the article and edits. I think they should stay. If we look at this from a numbers point of view we can see four paragraphs, small but unambiguous, that deny the theory (MPD, La Crosse PD, Pat Brown, and FBI). Against one larger but supported by only two (Dr. Gilbertson and Dr. Wecht). And even the addition of that paragraph is balanced by the final quote from Delong re-stating the FBIs position. I also find it rather difficult, if not impossible to dismiss interviews from Larry King or people such as Wecht who, right or wrong, are known and notable. I think that particular version is balanced enough to stay. I might work a little harder to get the whole FBI denial quote since it is a bit equivocating, as a means of balancing against the weight of Wecht, but that's about all. Padillah (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Part of the WP:FRINGE rules and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT's role in WP:NPOV policy is that we do not give "equal sides" to views not held equally by experts. I have no problem with Wecht making claims about a single case and an FBI spokesperson pointing out that that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any of the others, but presenting "Dr. Lee Gilbertson" as an expert profiler and giving him about as much space as all of the FBI and police put together is not acceptable. The text of that version truies to paint him as a professor when he's only a mere associate professor and it tries to paint him as an expert on profiling when there's no evidence of any such thing... Larry King had him on not as an unbiased expert but because he's someone supporting the view, and he's doing so while selling his investigation services to families of drowned kids. The article needs to reflect the view that the overwhelming majoprity of experts and law enforcement see nothing to the theory at all, and conspicuously the only people supporting it are private individuals trying to sell their own investigation services and journalists looking for a juicy story. Encyclopedias, unlike Larry King and other infotainment shows, are not supposed to hype minority views just for the sake of making something sound more interesting, as that's irresponsible. DreamGuy (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I just took a look through everything, again. It's too much weight given. The Pat Brown section is referenced to a blog, no shouldn't be in. The rest down is referenced to Larry King transcript, way too much weight given to this in my opinion. I have to agree with DreamGuy on the policies here to follow. I hope this helps. Sorry I can't give more of an anyalysis of what I think but I can't type that long. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

DG, you are absolutely right about Dr. Gilbertson, I wasn't thinking about that. Much to your point Wecht and the FBI rep distracted me from looking up the good doctor. I think the amount of space his view was given had more to do with the length of his quote but that's irrelevant if he can't provide support for the "expert profiler" claim. I still hold that we should try harder to get the full FBI viewpoint into the text rather than a simple bland statement. Padillah (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So if I am absolutely right why do you contradict yourself later? And do not revert my edits and claim I bneed to talk about them on the talk page, as I did talk about them here and by WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO new, controversial material needs to get a consensus before it is added, not the other way around. DreamGuy (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My update to the article was made in good faith to maintain a neutral point of view. Felt the direct quotes would provide neutrality. However, I don't mind if they are summarized or an alternative sentence is suggested, but the information is very significant and should be included in the article was my point. I don't think wholesale deletion of the update was an appropriate response. I would have accepted someone's accurate restating. A criminologist is the type of background for an expert profiler, but that seems to be nit picking. As to Fringe, the current quote "ludicrous" qualifies to a far greater degree as something that could be classified as on the fringe - All those cited are medical and law enforcement professionals, and they are investigating a potential crime. As to weight its only one paragraph.

How about this as a more concise version:

On March 21, 2009, Dr. Lee Gilbertson, a criminologist and faculty member at St. Cloud University, stated on CNN’s Larry King that he supports the Smiley Face murder theory advanced by Gannon and Duarte and he further stated his belief that it could be a group committing the alleged crimes. He noted his view that the drownings did not match a pattern of accidental drownings. Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, cited what in his view showed evidence of a homicide in regard to the Patrick O’Neil death. Fly larvae discovered in the groin area was that of an indoor fly which indicated that the body was already dead before being placed in the water. Candice Delong, a former FBI profiler conceded, "Yes, regarding that particular case in New York, that certainly does sound like it was a homicide. I, however, fail to see the connection between the New York case and these other Midwestern cases. Perhaps we could learn."

Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas, please assume good faith with us as well. I wouldn't look on that particular revert as a wholesale deletion as much as a revert to discuss what is appropriate. In the past we've experienced way more drama than a fledgling theory like this should warrant and as such we approach any expansion with care. I've had editors get so worked up that they tried to reveal my real liofe details because of this article, so we tend to be guarded and wary. Having said that, I would change "He noted his view that the drownings did not match a pattern of accidental drownings." to "He noted his view that the drownings did not conform to the statistical patterns of accidental drownings." which is, if I read it right, more inline with what he is trying to put forward. At the risk of appearing like I'm waffling, I like the above proposed paragraph. I agree with DG that Larry King may not add importance... it does add notability and that deserves to be mentioned. Several people still watch that show and may see it and come here to look up the subject, we should be ready for that. Padillah (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. So with your changes the concise version would say:

On March 21, 2009, Dr. Lee Gilbertson, a criminologist and faculty member at St. Cloud University, stated on CNN that he supports the Smiley Face murder theory advanced by Gannon and Duarte and he further stated his belief that it could be a group committing the alleged crimes. He noted his view that the drownings did not conform to the statistical patterns of accidental drownings. Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, cited what in his view showed evidence of a homicide in regard to the Patrick O’Neil death. Fly larvae discovered in the groin area was that of an indoor fly which indicated that the body was already dead before being placed in the water. Candice Delong, a former FBI profiler conceded, "Yes, regarding that particular case in New York, that certainly does sound like it was a homicide. I, however, fail to see the connection between the New York case and these other Midwestern cases. Perhaps we could learn."

Thanks for the input.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks about right, but I am not a consensus. Let's see what some of the others say so we don't end up back here in another 15 mins. Padillah (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Placed the paragraph under Gannon and Duarte's theory to accomodate neutrality.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Any mention of Gilbertson is giving WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. We need more space given to the majority expert law enforcement opinions and less on people with questionable credentials trying to sell theories to the world at large. DreamGuy (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Any mention? Really? I think that's a bit overboard. Isn't that going to far the other way? We still have many more statements decrying the theory than we do forwarding it. As well as many more influential names coming out against the theory than for. I don't see a problem with weight. Also, given the "arguable" coverage by M.S.M. outlets, we might be coming close to losing the "fringe" moniker. Padillah (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, any mention. He's a WP:FRINGE source brought into a talking heads edutainment program, not a reliable source or accepted expert on the topic, and he's contradicting all the reliable sources/experts on the topic. That's clear WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Can't get any more clear than that. DreamGuy (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning Gilbertson is not undue weight according to wikipedia policy which states, "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space" WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Gilbertson is a certified gang specialist and criminal justice faculty member. He's frequently cited by the major media on this subject, and there's no claim that he's selling anything. Gilbertson is aiding in the investigation. These are professionals investigating potential crimes. The CNN report cited is a responsible and highly relevant report on the subject and notes key information on the topic which is not in the present article.

I'll see what I can do to address your concerns to add information from those who are not supportive of the theory, but deleting our documented content information on the subject is not really the appropriate response. It seems we've accomodated your concerns.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. This article is NOT specifically about a minority viewpoint just because you want it to be. And by "more attention and space" they mean than in the base article about the topic (which this is), which should have little or none. You have the entire concept of NPOV turned upside down. DreamGuy (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Then what is the article about, because that seems to be a moving target. When you need it to be the whole article is WP:FRINGE, but when FRINGE is used to support edits you don't like it's not like the whole article is WP:FRINGE. Please make up someone's mind. You can't expect to WP:OWN the article but only drop in on the talk page after three days and an WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit made to the article. We are trying to expand and improve the article, if you don't want to do that then you are more than welcome to edit whatever else you'd like. But the whole-sale reverts and complete denial of Any mention of Gilbertson is unacceptable. Padillah (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You are way out of line to portray this as an WP:IDONTLIKEIT situation. It's the WP:NPOV WP:UNDUEWEIGHT policy that applies here, especially as it related to conspiracy theories. Reverts are what you do when the whole addition is objected and no consensus to add it is found, per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. Wikipedia is not the place to promote fringe theories. And none of this should be new information to you. Your attitude that my opposing of bad changes means I am opposed to all changes whatsover and that I should therefore leave the article is just a strawman argument. And saying "only drop in after three days" is ridiculous, as I've been here the whole time. DreamGuy (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If I am out of line I apologize, but you're the one that denies "any mention of Gilbertson", not me. Those are not my words, complete denial of a persons comments is pretty standard IDONTLIKEIT behavior, what am I supposed to think? I don't see anyone promoting anything. Unless there is a book or side deal then please let me know and my view will change accordingly. I am not the one that said you are opposed to all changes, you are when you decried "any mention of Gilbertson" and reverted the entire edit including statements from parties other than Gilbertson. Again I ask, what am I supposed to think? And you can do the math but I believe 17:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC) until 02:11, 31 August 2009 is about three days. From the time I asked that we wait for others to weigh in till the time you reverted the main article edit (with no input on the talk page at all) is about three days. Now, had you come and addressed the proposed edits it would look quite a bit different. As it looks now you said what's what and we have to believe you. It looks, from the outside, like you are making an argument and are incredulous that we don't simply keel over and obey. As the article stands it looks like two kooks against the world. You talk about undue weight but fail to realize that the article is ridiculously slanted as it stands. It's a wonder it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia. There's no mention of anyone else that believes the theory other than the two detectives. The mere mention of some other legitimate parties (I don't mean the parents, there's obvious bias there) does not add undue weight, it's balancing the lack of believers. Padillah (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Gilbertson is aiding in the investigation. Mentioning Gilbertson is not undue weight according to wikipedia policy which states, "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space" WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Gilbertson is a certified gang specialist and criminal justice faculty member. He's frequently cited by the major media on this subject, and there's no claim that he's selling anything. These are professionals investigating potential crimes. The CNN report cited is a responsible and highly relevant report on the subject and notes key information on the topic which is not in the present article.

The single paragraph was placed in an appropriate proper place, under Gannon's and Duarte's theory [3]. The present article does not yet describe a significant part of the theory which holds that the drownings do not conform to the statistical pattern of accidental drownings. Gilbertson is aiding in the investigation. Attacking Gibertson seems to be an unjustified Ad hominem argument. There is nothing wrong with citing Gilbertson. And its only TWO sentences from Gilbertson. Its probably best to include his name and credentials. Attempting to exclude notable, relevant, verified docmented content, which is not in the present article, is what would amount to POV pushing. Its really unbelievable that anyone would object to the content in the paragraph, its not extreme or offensive in any way. Gilbertson's comments are about the subject itself, notable since they are covered by the major media, Gilbertson is a valid source about the subject - the article is not about Gilbertson: In sum, the objections to the content do not meet any contention of fringe under wikipedia policy either. Wikipedia policy permits valid notable sources in the discussion of the subject itself, even when the subject itself is a minority view point. Information is relevant, notable, and improves the article. There has been no valid reason presented why it should not be included. As to the FBI, let's include the whole FBI quote to expand that section since the present article only gives one ambiguous sentence intrepreting what the FBI stated.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Requesting comment regarding NPOV of listed edits.

The following edits are being disputed as NPOV. Please weigh in as to there relevance and POV for inclusion in the article.

On March 21, 2009, Dr. Lee Gilbertson, a criminologist and faculty member at St. Cloud University, stated on CNN that he supports the Smiley Face murder theory advanced by Gannon and Duarte and he further stated his belief that it could be a group committing the alleged crimes. He noted his view that the drownings did not conform to the statistical patterns of accidental drownings. Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, cited what in his view showed evidence of a homicide in regard to the Patrick O’Neil death. Fly larvae discovered in the groin area was that of an indoor fly which indicated that the body was already dead before being placed in the water. Candice Delong, a former FBI profiler conceded, "Yes, regarding that particular case in New York, that certainly does sound like it was a homicide. I, however, fail to see the connection between the New York case and these other Midwestern cases. Perhaps we could learn."

Padillah (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason they are disputed is that it gives WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to Gilbertson's views, a minor associate professor with a personal investigation agency trying to sell his services and who is falsely being presented as some sort of expert. Actual professionals on this topic -- the police departments in the cities in question and the FBI -- all say that there's absolutely nothing to the theories that there is a serial killer at work. As the experts on this topic, their opinion should not be sidelined by people looking for publicity for themselves to push conspiracy theories. It's pretty simple, really. DreamGuy (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Except for the fact that you have not provided proof that he is selling anything. Nor is he presented as an expert, simply a criminologist on faculty, which he is. I don't see, from the transcripts, him clamoring for publicity... there's no book deal behind this...Nothing to warrant this kind of vitriol. Padillah (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Google his name, he sells his services as an outside consultant. He's pushing a whacko theory so families of drowning victims can pay him to tell them that it wasn't their poor little innocent drunk son's fault he drowned and to be on TV. DreamGuy (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What the media has noted is that the investigators have expended their own personal funds to investigate the theory and potential crimes. And it has cost them. No one has alleged that they are making any profits or big money from it. So its highly unwarranted to suggest its profit motivated when no sources have suggested this whatsoever.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Profit and/or publicity for themselves. Ego. Future book deal. Whatever. But the important point is that they are minor people with trivial credentials making claims that are completely and totally contradicted by the experts. DreamGuy (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Gilbertson. Just because Larry King let this guy talk about his fringe theory doesn't make it mainstream. And a TV talk show is not exactly the most reliable source to begin with. We should keep out the sensationalism and undue weight represented by Gilbertson's claims. *** Crotalus *** 20:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys are giving him undue weight if you believe that Gilbertson alone can move this from fringe theory to mainstream. WOW. This is one junior faculty member, he's not nearly as impactful as you are making him out to be. The problem is, without Gilbertson we have an article on a theory nobody believes. Without someone other than the two detectives who brought it up this isn't even a fringe theory, it's a wild guess and shouldn't count as notable for inclusion. Even fringe theories get to have more than two people that believe in them. And Larry King doesn't make the guy's belief mainstream, that's pretty much my argument too. Just because this guy said it on Larry King doesn't mean this is widely accepted as being true. It's one guy we are trying to use to show this isn't just some cold case that two detectives won't let go of, there are other people that believe in this as well.

And aside from Gilbertson, what of the rest of the entry? Does Gilbertson's inclusion negate any of the rest of the entry? Should the entire entry be reverted just because Gilbertson is mentioned? Padillah (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you get the point here, as your arguments go against the side you are arguing. Gilbertson of course doesn't take the theory to mainstream, but we're suppose to give the mainstream view the majority of weight/space in an article. That's the whole point. Unless the FBI and police sections are expanded greatly there's no more room to cover anyone trying to support the fringe theory. And the rest of the section in question really is pretty trivial (not notable) and is still from the Larry King show instead of standard reliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That is definitely lending undue weight to a minor source. We do not and should not mention every minor source who ever commented on the idea. Gilbertson is of course a reliable source for his own views, but it would be misleading to expound upon those ideas here as though they were reflected in more reliable sources treating the topic at hand. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this section seems to give quite a bit of weight to a minority viewpoint. Maybe some of you should take a lot at Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Richard (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Then I say we need to delete the article. If the only people that believe this theory are the two detectives that created it then I don't think it meets enough notability criteria to be included at all. Padillah (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The topic got a fair amount of news coverage, so it's notable. And nobody said only the two detectives believe the theory, just that the experts don't believe it. DreamGuy (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's just it, the article (as it stands right now) very much does give the impression that these two detectives are the only people that believe this theory. The article as I read it says: These two guys thought they were hot stuff and tried to make-up a serial killer, but the FBI and everyone else shut them up cause it's a stupid idea. (loosely translated, of course). Padillah (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Gilbertson is aiding in the investigation. Mentioning Gilbertson is not undue weight according to wikipedia policy which states, "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space" WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Gilbertson is a certified gang specialist and criminal justice faculty member. He's frequently cited by the major media on this subject, and there's no claim that he's selling anything. These are professionals investigating potential crimes. The CNN report cited is a responsible and highly relevant report on the subject and notes key information on the topic which is not in the present article.

The single paragraph was placed in an appropriate proper place, under Gannon's and Duarte's theory [4]. The present article does not yet describe a significant part of the theory which holds that the drownings do not conform to the statistical pattern of accidental drownings. Gilbertson is aiding in the investigation. Attacking Gibertson seems to be an unjustified Ad hominem argument. There is nothing wrong with citing Gilbertson. And its only TWO sentences from Gilbertson. Its probably best to include his name and credentials. Attempting to exclude notable, relevant, verified docmented content, which is not in the present article, is what would amount to POV pushing. Its really unbelievable that anyone would object to the content in the paragraph, its not extreme or offensive in any way. Gilbertson's comments are about the subject itself, notable since they are covered by the major media, Gilbertson is a valid source about the subject - the article is not about Gilbertson: In sum, the objections to the content do not meet any contention of fringe under wikipedia policy either. Wikipedia policy permits valid notable sources in the discussion of the subject itself, even when the subject itself is a minority view point. Information is relevant, notable, and improves the article. There has been no valid reason presented why it should not be included. As to the FBI, let's include the whole FBI quote to expand that section since the present article only gives one ambiguous sentence intrepreting what the FBI stated.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Everyone who showed up for the RFC agreed it was undue weight, as I already explained to you earlier. You need to respect other editors' opinions and superior experience. It's not like you somehow understand NPOV policy better than all of us, who have been working with it for years. DreamGuy (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Careful DreamGuy, your ageism is showing. Padillah (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My what? Sounds like you're trying to make a personal attack, but it's such a bizarre statement I'm not following it. DreamGuy (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's the internet dude, look it up. And to belittle someone based on their apparent experience and then cry foul when you get called out is probably not as NPA as you might want to think. It was not an attack, just a warning that what you are saying could very well be construed as an attack so you might do well to be careful with the phrasing. Padillah (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you do not seem to understand the undue weight policy and appear to be using it to keep out any additions you do not like. Not sure why. And there is clearly not enough of rational basis, reasoned analysis, or the like, to claim any sort of consensus for your objections. With repect to weight, the policy clearly states, "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space." As to viewpoint, the documented content merely explains the theory, it doesn't exalt it above those who do not accept it as you may suppose, thus the theory is really not given any undue weight at all in the article with the added paragraph in that respect either. After you seemed make a big deal that the theory is a minority view point, you don't seem to get that when an article is about the minority view point more space can be devoted to it legitimatly. But even so, its only ONE paragraph that makes no claims of being better than those who don't accept the theory and in no way makes claims to refute any of those who don't accept it as you may suppose. Thus, you have no case whatsoever. You haven't explained as to content why you have an objection, but then attack the source itself. We cannot count too heavily on a minimun of posted discussion here that offers little substance or reasoning, except that somehow concludes that two sentences constitute undue weight? Also, you seem to have written on Padillah's talk page in parenthesis implying that perhaps its Gilbertson himself citing himself as a source in this article? Where do you come up with that? Padillah who has experience at working with you, appears to agree with me. Further, you make unproven claims as above where you claim that Gilbertson is trying to sell something when no media sources are making this claim. A pattern seems to be that you object without substance.

The proponents of the theory believe the drowning cases do not match the statistical patterns of accidental drownings and the victimological profiles may suggest a group. What's your problem with this? Its a simple fact of the theory in the topic at hand. Its not a claim to make undue weight violation, not any fringe violation. Its a simple statement that explains the notable topic at hand and its documented from valid verifiable source. Yet you are claiming this is undue weight somehow. You have not and apparently cannot explain how you claim this is undue weight, with or without Gilbertsons name in the sentence. We could state that the theory "suggests" that the drowning cases do not match the statistical patterns accidental drownings if this would satisfy you. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you clearly do not understand the undue weight policy at all if you think pushing the view of a WP:FRINGE theory is what it's for. Your personal opinions are completely irrelevant. The opinions of the experts -- in this case, the police and FBI -- are what counts. They think the theory is a fringe theory with no basis, and that's how an encyclopedia has to cover it. We're not here to give equal time to anyone with some wild theory against the experts. DreamGuy (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Support the inclusion of Gilbertson's views as proposed. It's supported by a reliable source. We can allow the reader to decide for themselves how much credibility to give his opinion. Cla68 (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately readers often determine how much credibility to give to an opinion by how much space is given to it, hence the whole WP:UNDUEWEIGHT clause. And, frankly, Larry King Live is not a reliable source for determining the plausibility of alternative criminological theories. It's an entertainment show, not an academic journal. On top of that, he's not doing anything but advancing the base theory as proposed by the originators, who are already covered in the article. There's absolutely no reason to add yet another one of these cranks, especially when so little space is given to the predominant expert view. DreamGuy (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cla89.I however do not understand why the part about McNeil should be added. Gannon worked on the McNeil case ,but no information is provided that he linked that with other drownings.The claim was made Chris Jenkin's drowning linked other drownings together.Let people decide for themselves if it is a fringe theory.People involved in law enforcement do not make a point of releasing all the information they have to the public any more than someone would show you their hand in a poker game. Are there rules about making unsupported claims about someone? I also think the detectives should be credited with investigating 89 drownings as that IMHO gives them as much credibility as those that disagree with them,even though they could very well be wrong as far as we know. The detectives went into this with a good reputation and the suggestion that someone is in this for a book deal is in bad taste.--Yankee2009 (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

— Yankee2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -DreamGuy (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Padilla. If this page is to exist, there needs to be proof that more than two detectives believe in the theory. If we can't get any more sources, then we should just delete the article. I have no problem including two sentences showing the more than two people believe in the theory. Larry King may not be a reliable source, but he is mainstream, and including a criminologist who was featured on the program shows that someone else believes in the theory. Angryapathy (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability is based upon coverage. This has had plenty of coverage. WP:UNDUEWEIGHT is based upon what the experts say about it. A topic can be fringe, get coverage, earn a Wikipedia article even if the *belief* in the theory is a tiny minority. Per NPOV policy we cannot mislead readers into thinking that the idea is supported more than it is. It is overwhelmingly opposed. DreamGuy (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we know if the theory is a minority view by law enforcement? I see no evidence either way.It is an interpretation. In other words POV. The wiki article says it is but the citations do not.The detectives investigated 89 cases in several states. A local authority and an FBI spokesperson making a comment the majority of drownings are alcohol related accidents is not a majority. A citation is not even given where a local authority says the majority of drownings were alcohol related. I see no reason to delete the whole article or compromise. Patrick McNeil has never been named as a suspected victim by the detectives. The articles used as citations say the following.

<The vast majority of these instances appear to be alcohol-related drowning," the bureau said in a statement.>

<The FBI and local authorities don't necessarily agree with the theory that all the drownings are linked and the work of a gang.> It would make more sense for the article to reflect what was said and not an interpretation. --Yankee2009 (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The drownings were ruled accidental by police in several jurisdictions. The FBI further weighed in on it. If it were not a majority of experts than they would not have called them accidental drownings in the first place. This is clear and overwhelming, and these are some of the worst attempts at rationalizing up support for a fringe theory I've seen. DreamGuy (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again you make unsupported comments. I do not support the theory. I support the rules being followed. You also say most were ruled accidental yet don't back up your claim. The comments I have seen lead me to believe that a lot of assumptions are being made. I am being sincere and backed up the claim the case has not been made the majority were accidents. They may be, but that is an opinion . Show me where it says most were ruled accidental. There is nothing in the articles that says most were ruled accidental. If that statement was made I would support it being in the article. --Yankee2009 (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You certainly are not supporting Wikipedia rules in the slightest -- sockpuppet violation, NPOV violation, RS violation, etc. etc. The police of many jurisdictions AND outside agents from the FBI ruled the deaths accidental -- do you deny this simple fact? This proves the overwhelming majority view of the experts, for if there were any significant minority among police departments they would have ruled those cases to have been homicides and launched an investigation. They didn't. Therefore they don't believe this ridiculous theory. It's already shown by all of the police rulings and the FBI further confirming those rulings. DreamGuy (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Many of the deaths were undetermined. You and the other editors are cherry picking information. There was no poll taken to establish that the majority in LE believe they were accidental deaths. The only basis any editors have for leaving an unsupported comment in the article would be it reflects their own personal belief.. Experienced editors should know better. Don't even bother to try to bait me with any more nonsense. There is a problem with your so called experts. Pat Brown writes books and benefits from publicity . Kondracki would use the drowning death of a young man to make a statement about the evils of alcohol before an investigation was even completed and the FBI decided way back in 2003 that cases of young men drowning in the midwest would not get priority. It took 5 years just to get a DNA test of the hair that was in Chris Jenkin's hand. However none of those FACTS you ignore mean I believe the theory. Please stop being a troublemaker. I notice they go easy on you here so maybe I will just call you Teflonguy. --Yankee2009 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW I know you broke the rules by campaigning etc etc.--Yankee2009 (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Going to WP:ANI is not campaigning. Have a little WP:AGF. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Going to someone's talk page to get them to take their side is campaigning. If you don't understand something you could ask rather than misrepresenting the facts and trying to make me look bad.I think this is more personal for most of you editors than you would like to admit. You can't keep your biased views from influencing the article or trying to size up the other editors. I did my homework. If you did yours you might know what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankee2009 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You did not assume good faith. Pot meet kettle.--Yankee2009 (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the second accusation of sockpuppetry you've made and since I'm the only other contributor on this page I have to take offense. Please explain yourself or remove the accusations. Padillah (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

Since the sole argument seems to surround Dr. Gilbertson (for reasons yet to be properly explained) let's remove his statement and post the remainder of the content. How do you feel about the following paragraph being added:

On March 21, 2009, on Larry King Live, Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, in support of the theory cited what in his view showed evidence of a homicide in regard to the Patrick O’Neil death. Fly larvae discovered in the groin area was that of an indoor fly which indicated that the body was already dead before being placed in the water. Candice Delong, a former FBI profiler conceded, "Yes, regarding that particular case in New York, that certainly does sound like it was a homicide. I, however, fail to see the connection between the New York case and these other Midwestern cases. Perhaps we could learn."

How about we add that? Padillah (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The reasons for not including Gilbertson were properly explained, and by multiple people, thank you very much. I'm not seeing any pressing reason to add the other parts either. It seems to have been chosen specifically to endorse the fringe side with the "Perhaps we can learn" statement by someone not currently involved with the FBI or the case as if she were talking for them in some way. And even if it's not it's a bit of trivia about some interchange on an infotainment TV show. DreamGuy (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I gotta admit it's starting to look like there's an issue here beyond additions to the article. I don't consider "It's WP:UNDUE" an adequate explanation, but I don't consider WP:UNDUE a well formed guideline so... If we can't establish that more than the two detectives that thought up the theory actually believe in the theory then, notable or not I think this article has got to go. As it stands the article is turning into a one sided attack on the detectives that formed the theory. Remember, notability is transient so just because it was notable back then doesn't mean it still is. Padillah (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you reject WP:UNDUE then there's no point to even discussing this. It's policy, fully formed with an extremely strong consensus, and we have to follow it. If you disagree with it, you can choose to edit here and follow it despite not liking it or leave and edit your own site under whatever rules you want. DreamGuy (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to give that whole "read the entire statement" thing a shot. It might work better than cherry-picking what you want to argue despite what the other person actually said. If you look, and that shouldn't be too hard it's only a couple inches up from here, you will see that the statement I made was I don't consider "It's WP:UNDUE" an adequate explanation... you guys seem to think my interpretation of WP:UNDUE is exactly the same as yours, and it's not. I don't think that of the 3827 chars that make up the current article having 1409 (36.8%) refer to the theory and 2418 (63.2%) refer to the debunking of that theory as undue weight. There are currently twice as many characters denouncing the theory as supporting it. With the suggested paragraph the numbers change to: 4783 total, 2365 for (49.4%), 2418 against (50.5%). And that's with the strict interpretation that the entire paragraph, including the FBI's denouncement, is "for" (in deference to your remarks about the "Perhaps we could learn" comment). Without that the numbers drop to 2266 (47.4%) for and 2517 (52.6%) against. So it's not as clearly WP:UNDUE as you and others seem to think. As for using Larry King Live as a source, it's not necessarily a source for information as it is a source for quotes. None of the information we are adding to the article is coming from Larry or his team, it's coming from the actual people present on the show. All of which you have summarized in a simple, "It's WP:UNDUE". I'm sorry but I don't find that summarization an adequate explanation. Padillah (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Its within wikipedia guidlines to include the paragraph. Keep in mind its only one paragraph, and someone is concerned about two sentences. And no, there has been no substantive or properly explained reason to exclude the content of Gilbertson's comments that the theory includes the concept of drownings which do not fit the statistical pattern of accidental drownings and that it may be a group committing alleged crimes. As noted wikipedia guidelines specifically state, "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space" WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The content should be included whether Gilbertson's name is included or not, since it is about significant elements of the theory, and yes, this substantive reason to include the content HAS been mentioned above. Gilbertson is aiding in the investigation and could be mentioned on that basis. The FBI is not fairly or fully represented in the present article. A larger portion or the full FBI quote should be included. A neutral presentation of the elements of the theory can in no way be considered as promoting it under wikipedia guidelines. The content is not offensive in any way. Agree with Padillah that the article seems to be turning into a one sided attack on the detectives. The topic is certainly notable. I've been open to compromises and suggestions, but whole sale deletions and not the appropriate response. Was very surpised that the basic content from the CNN citation was not already in the article in some form. The article certainly can use an update. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You claim: "Keep in mind its only one paragraph" -- No, actually, we already have other parts of the article that present that side, so it'd be more than one. We do not give more weight in an article to the minority view than to the expert view, period. And I really wish you'd stop trying to give lectures on policy when what you are saying is the exact opposite of what it's there for. The article is not an attack on the detectives, but the article has to acknowledge the simple fact that the overwhelming expert opinion is that the detectives' theory isn't right. We can't come out and say it IS bunk in the article, but we HAVE to let readers know that it's a minority view and present it as such, both by text and how much space is given to each side. Anything else would be HIGHLY misleading and a violation of the core NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You say the POV is already in the article. Where are you seeing the reference to the fly larvae? I'm looking but I can't find it. Padillah (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The POV that there's something to the murder theory. The absence of a specific detail in one part of that fringe theory is not significant, and, in fact, should be encouraged. Fully detailing various reasons why the handful of nuts believe these were murders while not giving more space with more details about why police and FBI say that there are no killers would be a massive violation of the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT clause of WP:NPOV. *IF* the theory ever moves beyond a fringe theory, then by all means we can include some of these extra details. DreamGuy (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'm arguing that this is not the case. The POV that "two whacked-out cops have a stupid theory" is in the article. But the POV that anyone other than those two believe that theory is definitively not represented in the article. That's my main contention: If 200 people believe it, that's fringe - if 2 people believe it, that's a "case of the munchies". There is a distinct difference between fringe and what this article is suggesting. Padillah (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Only four or five people so far who have anything like any expertise on the topic (and even there it's questionable that they'd even be considered to have any real expertise if it weren't for their relentless self-promotion) have been shown to support it, along with a mass of the public who likes weird theories as well as families who'd rather not believe their kids killed themselves drinking. Expert opinion on this, based upon the professionals who directly investigated it and had access to the reports, is overwhelming that there's nothing to it, as demonstrated over and over. You need to accept that. DreamGuy (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And what bevy of expert astrophysicists believe the moon landing was a hoax? That what a fringe theory is, something the experts deny but people believe anyway. Name a single credible expert that believes the Mars face or the pyramids indicates extraterrestrial life. They don't, people that actually know what they are talking about rarely believe fringe theories. If they did they could provide credible push-back and the main theory would incorporate their ideas. This is what needs to be portrayed in the article - "The experts know this is false but there are amateurs and housewives that believe this silly theory". Padillah (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to an article where the claim is made McNeil's death is linked to at least 40 others .[5]. I am skeptical that everything written in some of the articles is correct. Another article claims according to KSTP,they are linked to O'Neil's death,but the KSTP article does not say that. One article says 40 may be linked and another says 40 are linked according to the detectives. --Yankee2009 (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sources can be found showing that some news reports have covered this fringe topic. That doesn't mean that we can give that fringe theory WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. And please only post under one account. Pretending to be two people to try to mislead people about the consensus of the editors present is not an acceptable tactic here. DreamGuy (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I get the sinking suspicion that you are suggesting that Yankee2009 and I are sockpuppets of each other. You had better be very certain about that because you are about to accuse two innocent editors without a shred of proof. Your tone is becoming less pleasant the more opposition you encounter. If you think accusing people of sockpuppetry will make it easier to attack their credibility later you may want to rethink that strategy. Please explain your innuendo or remove it. Padillah (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The WP policy is very clear, "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space" WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Thus the content is permitted as stated above. The added content is about the theory itself, and the points are significant elements of the theory itself, thus it is valid content. Also, it is only one paragraph for the added content and only a couple of sentences, there is nothing undue about it, and its presented in a neutral way. It seems your objection is highly unreasonable. The added content directly relates tot he title of the article itelf, its about the subject. No where in the added content does it claim to be a majority viewpoint or imply that it is a majority viewpoint, so there is no case to exclude it. I don't mind if you want to qualify the theory as a minority viewpoint, so I added that to the statement. But the subject is notable and the added update of significant elements of the theory should be included. Included the FBI statement to clarify the FBI's reasoning as a majority viewpoint.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You're just repeating the exact same flawed arguments you made above and which were already shown to be wrong. But, hey, refresher course. When they say minority views can "receive more attention and space" they mean more than none or barely any for WP:FRINGE views, NOT more than the majority views, which is what you are trying to do. Right now this is on the cusp between total fringe and mere minority, but either way the primary, expert view HAS to be given the most attention in the article. Anything else is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. DreamGuy (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

While I do agree that the theory is probably bunk, this article spends more time making it seem like the theory is useless and spends more time focused on the rejection of the theory. If the theory is completely non-notable, delete the article. If not, add more information to show that the theory is worthy of inclusion on WP, and that other people do believe in the theory. I see no problem adding the professor to the article. If you find something that specifically says he is promoting his private investigation agency or that he is a worthless professor, then don't add him. Otherwise, you are making assumptions based on research of your own. Angryapathy (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There is ALREADY plenty of info to show that it's worthy of an article, but we can't push a POV in doing so b y giving undue weight to a fringe view. We HAVE to point out that experts say the theory is worthless in order to fairly cover the topic. This has been explained a zillio0n times and you just keep ignoring it. And I don't have top prove he is promoting anything to remove his statements, I just have to show it's a fringe view, which has already been done over and over. So start talking about actual Wikipedia policies instead of making up ways you think things should happen that do not follow policies. DreamGuy (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Show me the part of the article that expreses how notable it is? Show me the part of the article that shows the people besides the two detectives that believe this theory. You have yet to produce the part of the article that demonstrates that more than two people believe this theory. And then graciously deign to allow us to add yet another FBI statement that denounces the theory. Quote the line in the article that demonstrates more than these two detectives believe in the theory. Padillah (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Lets' keep the information.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course you agree, because you want any excuse to push your own personal view on the topic, which is very likely because you're the same person who previously posted under other user names. DreamGuy (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line folks is we had an RFC on this above, and since the material is controversial you would need to demonstrate a clear consensus to add it. You don't have that consensus, so it cannot be added. On top of that it's a clear violation of policy. Making the same bad arguments over and over doesn't change anything. DreamGuy (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not the bottom line. And consensus isn't ironclad, and it's obviously not as clear a violation as you appear to think or you wouldn't have this argument on your hands. I understand that you have suspicions of sockpuppetry for some on here but that does not excuse the ownership you've taken of this article. You accuse others of pushing a POV but you are pushing a POV as well, the POV that this is a crap theory and no one should believe it. Now, if you want the article to show that then write a better article. Don't do it by simply excluding stuff that defeats your POV. I don't like throwing around accusations but when it takes this much argument and in the end you agree to put in only the part that supports your POV that screams to me. I even provided you proof that this would not dilute the article and you can't accept that. And you say others are POV pushing? Padillah (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know how you ignore: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space" WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. That means, in very clear terms, you can talk about the minority viewpoint in more depth. Seriously, if you think this article doesn't deserve any attention, nominate for deletion. Otherwise, give more attention to the theory itself and supporters of it. Angryapathy (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That does not mean more depth than the mainstream view, it means more depth than totally fringe views. And you keep saying it either needs to have more info on the minority view or deleted. That's not how policies here work. At all. Repeating that same argument over and over does nothing. DreamGuy (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I think Angryapathy may be right.Simonm223 (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I seem to need to repeat myself because you ignore a very explicit statement in WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. You say that the minority viewpoint should not receive more attention. Well, that certainly isn't the case, when 2/3's of the article is about rejection of the theory and the other third mentions its existence. If this article is worthy of inclusion on WP, then we need to add more about the theory itself. And there is more information about it. But you have been fighting the inclusion of information from a prominent supporter that was featured on a major news outlet. I say we add one sentence to show that besides two non-notable detectives, one forensic pathologist supports the theory. Can we compromise on that? I feel if we at least mention a separate adherent, that gives the article more depth, and one sentence will still keep the attention on the fact that the theory is in the minority. Angryapathy (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is how my suggestion for the section would look like (new part in bold):

Gannon and Duarte's theory

While the majority of these cases are believed by local authorities to be the result of accidental drownings, Gannon and Duarte have theorized that the young men were all murdered, either by an individual or by an organized group of killers. The term smiley face became connected to the alleged murders when it was made public that Gannon and Duarte had discovered graffiti depicting a smiley face near locations where they think the killer dumped the bodies in at least a dozen of the cases. In March 2009, Dr. Lee Gilbertson, a forensic pathologist from St. Cloud State University, voiced his support for the theory on an episode of Larry King Live which discussed the alleged murders. We don't need to go into detail, but just show that this theory is worthy of inclusion on WP, with another supporter and the mention of the theory being discussed on a major news outlet.Angryapathy (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's ALREADY BEEN SHOWN to be worthy of an article on WP, based upon extensive news coverage of the original theory, and as covered several years apart. What is not worthy of mention is some person of no demonstrated expertise being named as a supporter for no reason just to get his name in and to try to artificially up the count of perceived support for the theory while not expanding the already under-represented police and FBI and other experts' views that there's nothing to this but some wild conspiracy theory. DreamGuy (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish you'd make up your mind between this subject being notable and this subject being frivalous. Then maybe we could have a logical discussion. Angryapathy (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea of Bigfoot, for example, is ridiculous, but it's also notable. That's why we have an article on it, but that doesn't mean the article can be used as a soapbox for all the people who believe in Bigfoot. The smiley face theory is notable in that it got a fair amount of news coverage, but experts overwhelmingly consider it nonsense. If you don't understand the difference then you have no business editing this article -- or any part of this encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize that not understanding your line of thinking prohibits my ability to edit on Wikipedia. How silly of me. Angryapathy (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not "my line of thinking," it's Wikipedia policy. What you say you want to do violates clear founding principles of this site. If you have a problem with that, then this site is not for you. DreamGuy (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It makes me wonder why a person that's a NGCRC Certified Gang Specialist who works in the criminal justice studies department has no demonstrated expertise. You say we want to include this "for no reason" yet we have repeatedly explained that there is currently a complete and utter lack of anyone else believing this theory. And I must question your approach that, rather than expand the FBI denouement it's preferable to limit the explanation of the theory. Padillah (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? A street gang specialist is not an expert on drownings or serial killer conspiracies. If he's the best Larry King could dig up to support the view, then point proven that it's a fringe view. DreamGuy (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I would love for you to support this change but it's becoming increasingly clear you have no intention of compromising. I have made a change to include a proponent viewpoint (the change suggested above). Consensus now widely supports this change so I made it. Be forewarned: if you revert it I can only assume you have no intention of allowing any changes to be made to this article and have taken ownership of it. As such I will ask for mediation to determine the best course of action. I made the smallest change I could in deference to your objections but I would feel fine supporting some variation of the full paragraph that was originally suggested. Padillah (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't even be serious. "Be forewarned: if you revert it I can only assume you have no intention of allowing any changes to be made to this article and have taken ownership of it." That's not only a violation of WP:AGF but it's an obvious attempt to WP:OWN the article yourself. It's funny how the "smallest change" you could come up with is the one of all the discussed changes most people objected most strongly to, as it adds no meaningful encyclopedic content to the article and has been clearly articulated to be an attempt to "support" the theory, which is a major NPOV violation. That's not a compromise at all, and so reverting it should not be viewed as "no intention of compromising". Compromise is not making your same demand over and over and over. So you should not be surprised that it got reverted. You can ask for mediation all you want, but, until you demonstrate a willingness to act in good faith instead of making petty personal attacks and threats, mediation will not be helpful either. DreamGuy (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?

The consensus was regarding the addition of the extra paragraph. I trimmed down the "evidence" presented regarding one case (Patrick O’Neil ) of the supposed 40 murders to a brief mention that there is another supporter of the theory, and it was notable enough to be featured on Larry King. I think this is a valid compromise from the two sides. Angryapathy (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not a compromise, it's adding the part that people objected most strongly to when it was discussed above. And, really, there's already too much space given to the WP:FRINGE view on this article. The only part that needs expansion is the police and FBI view. DreamGuy (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth the current consensus leans (by one, not counting the contentious input of one editor) toward including the information in some form. Taken to it's logical conclusion your outlook would have us not include anything about the fringe theory which, given that this is an article about said theory would make for difficult reading. Padillah (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Dreamguy, Gilbertson isn't notable enough to be included in this page. However, his name is mentioned alongside Gannon and Duarte in two major new outlets (Larry King and MSNBC), and pretty much every other somewhat reputable source for this subject on the internet includes Gilbertson along with Gannon/Duarte. I don't see how Gannon-Duarte are any more notable than Gilbertson. I guess this is the main cause for my confusion. Dreamguy wields WP:FRINGE to say we shouldn't add ANYTHING more to the article to support it, when basically the article solely states that two non-notable detectives (other than for this theory) believe in the theory. I don't feel there is any proof on this page that this is notable, and that is why I feel adding the Gilbertson/Larry King sentance. Even with the sentance added, the majority of the article is still dedicated to debunking the theory. And no, the RfC was about adding the entire paragraph, and not the jist of the source. So there is no consensus about adding Gilbertson. Dreamguy, please make up your mind whether this article meets WP:FRINGE to be included on WP but doesn't meet WP:FRINGE to add more information about it. Angryapathy (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: there are four paragraphs that denounce the theory, yet only one paragraph that posits the theory, and none supporting it. The 4 paragraphs themselves seem to be a little bit of undue weight, failing to give a balanced POV to this article. Allow some "support" statements, as the "Rejection" section is very non-neutral. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

In order to get things straight you need to understand our policies. You are using the words "undue weight" to describe THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY EXPERT VIEW (you can't give undue weight to the side our policies is supposed to have the most weight) and say that it's unfair to the under-represent the views of the fringe believers? Have you ever read NPOV policy, because you've got it completely backwards. Claiming 4-0 (presumably paragraphs picking a side) as a violation of NPOV is nonsense. We are NOT here to give "equal time" to anyone with an opinion. If you want to add statements supporting the fringe view then we also need to add many more statements about the majority view.Please take the time to read about WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and our rules on WP:FRINGE topics. DreamGuy (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And I am firmly under the impression that you are mistaken. We are not trying to say the fringe view is under-represented. We are saying it's not represented at all. There is a difference between non-POV and NO POV. Padillah (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The theory is clearly represented. To claim otherwise is just bizarre wikilawyering to advance a POV. DreamGuy (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And that's where you are misunderstand me. I am not talking about the theory. I am talking about belief in the theory. Currently you have a "notable" theory that exactly two people believe. Big deal. Padillah (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

None of us think the theory should receive equal time. The issue is that the theory is not presented as something that is believed outside of two non-notable detectives. The article is presented as, "Two detectives have a theory, and here's the reason why it is BS." There is no explanation as to how or why it is notable.

Nowhere in UNDUE or FRINGE does it say that in an article about a fringe view, editors must spend X amount of space to the fringe view, and Y amount more on the majority view. WP:FRINGE is more of an inclusion guideline than a content guideline; since you have admitted that the Smiley face murder theory meets that criteria, it holds little sway here. WP:UNDUE is more apt, with, In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. This page, even with the addition of contentious material, still meets this standard by showing that all mainstream source (police departments/FBI) do not believe in the theory. I do not see how adding slightly more background about the theory will shift the balance of this page to the minority viewpoint. Angryapathy (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Slightly more background from some nobody with no expertise on the topic who desperately wants to see his name in Wikipedia, apparently... DreamGuy (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Show me a page that says that about Gilbertson. Simple as that. Or is that your own opinion you have drawn? Angryapathy (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, have you found this page yet? If we are going to discount Gilbertson based on this we need some sourcing. Padillah (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you even asking for, and what does it have to do with anything? We discount him based upon WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, not based upon our personal opinions. It's nice to see you jump over a random comment where I am merely pointing out that the brand new user and his sockpuppets (the ones who first showed up, not the later editors with extensive edit histories) all seem to be trying to endorse this guy and finding it suspicious. But if you want to include him he hasn';t be shown to be notable and that his inclusion doesn't violate NPOV by giving coverage out of proportion. The proprtion is the main problem, and I've already suggested ways you might fix that, but you just want to play games apparently. DreamGuy (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Picture Wikipedia centuries ago: one guy says "I have a theory that the Earth revolves around the sun", so we have an article about it. No other guys are allowed to say "I think so too" in the article, but the Catholic church among others are all allowed to have statements saying they disagree vehemently with the theory. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And your point is? We're not psychic. We don't know which fringe theories will turn out to be right and which will continue to be idiotic for all time. The best we can do is go with what the experts say, and indeed that's EXACTLY what our policies demand. If you have a problem with that, go to a different site. If your sole argument is arguing against policy then you have no argument. DreamGuy (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We have a problem with your interpretation of the policies, actually. You think it is cut and dry to show the mere existence of a theory, and then debunk it. How are Gannon/Duarte any more notable than Gilbertson? They have the same motives, but you seem to have no problem with their names being on this page. Angryapathy (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Per NPOV, presentation in an article should represents significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Fringe and unorthodox views without meaningful support such as this should not be included. Richard (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Galileo Gambit? We read what all the sources say, weight it according to their reliability, and reflect that as accurately as we can. That is all. So far as I can tell, nobody here is debunking the theory, just relaying the points of the most prominent commentators.

I rearranged the presentation somewhat - the whole article was divided as subsections of one section. I also retitled Rejection as Reception - the FBI et al. do reject the theory, but Congressional material fits better now. Just revert and discuss if there is a better way to do this. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

@Richard: You miss the part where the entire article is about a fringe theory. Now, if "Fringe and unorthodox views without meaningful support such as this should not be included" then we can AfD the article right now.

@2/0: If you don't see the FBI and other police departments debunking the theory than we need to do a major rewrite of the article. My argument is that the article contains little else than statements debunking the theory. Including a lack of explanation of the theory itself. Other than the single paragraph explaining that two cops have a theory the entirety of the article is spent debunking the theory. Most of us are advocating exactly what you said; read what all the sources say (rather than just the ones that agree with us), weigh the reliability of the sources (rather than their presentation), and reflect that accurately (as opposed to misleading readers into believing what we have predetermined is the answer). I have no problem with that approach and would love if someone would try it with this article. Padillah (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

2/0 ... thanks for the realignment under subheadings. I was contemplating doing those myself, but my goal here is not to be involved in the article, but to be involved in resolving a series of differences! Thanks for taking the bull by the horns on that! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that a TV talk show should be used as a source in an article on a criminological subject, especially not when the talk show is being used to advance what the reliable sources seem to consider a fringe theory. As I stated in the RFC, there's no reason to mention Gilbertson or his talk show appearances at all. *** Crotalus *** 14:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How about an article on MSNBC? "The (smiley) face of a killer?" Angryapathy (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This article focuses on Gannon and Duarte; there is only a single quote from Gilbertson. *** Crotalus *** 14:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What is your burden or proof to add Gilbertson then? We have two major media outlets mentioning Gilbertson in support of the theory. Angryapathy (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

At what point can I depend on a quote from a person I am looking right at? If I'm watching a show and the guest on the show says something I think it's pretty dependable to say the person made the statement. Even though the statement was made on Larry King that doesn't mean he didn't say it. Padillah (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

@Padillah: By nobody here I meant editors at this talkpage, not sources. Sorry for being unclear. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe this article has a problem stemming from WP:FRINGE: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." This is where this article fails, because it does not show any acceptance at all, but simply rejection. Angryapathy (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This theory has no acceptance among any academic community. The cornerstone of the academic process is peer review. Gilbertson may spout off about this theory on talk shows, but he has never published a peer-reviewed paper on it. If he ever does this, then by all means, his research should be mentioned. Until then, it is just speculation. *** Crotalus *** 15:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole theory is speculation. I don't see your argument. And FRINGE does not say that there needs to be a published academic paper in a scholarly journal. Angryapathy (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact WP:FRINGE addresses the acceptance of works and statements without peer review in light of the fact that it may not be possible with a FRINGE theory. Padillah (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Besides, the source used to reference Gilbertson's opinion is a primary source. Unless his opinion is covered extensively by reliable sources, it should not be included at all. The above source provided from the Today show only takes in one quote from him. Richard (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And WP:NOR covers the use of Primary Sources thusly:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.

I think we can agree that CNN is a reliable publisher. I think we can all agree the Larry King show, while sensationalist, is still reliable as a source of quotes (you can watch the guys lips move for yourself). So being from a primary source should not be a problem.

Given DreamGuys insistence on using WP:UNDUE I'll quote a passage from it: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." [emphasis mine] Notability aside, if the view is only held by two detectives trying to make a name for themselves, we shouldn't include it at all. In other words, per your own favorite policy, unless we can establish that more than these two guys believe this theory, we should delete the article (and consider mentioning it in the one drowning case where it has any prominence). Padillah (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Crotalus horridus, where is the peer reviewed paper on Paul is dead? Or the Mars face? That's what a FRINGE theory IS. If there were an academic, peer reviewed paper on this we wouldn't have a problem, it wouldn't be a fringe theory any more. Padillah (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If a noted industry specialist discusses something on TV, gives his point of view, that's not OR. So, if a coroner comments on the evening news, that's the coroner's statement. If it's on something like Larry King (a well-known news program) that can actually have transcripts, it's quotable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Being an avid reader most editors are doing a fantastic job. Please [Personal attack removed per Talk page guidelines by - 2/0 (cont.) 21:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)].--Botdance (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, BWilkins for the information; I must apologize.--Botdance (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Those comments were certainly useless to this discussion. Angryapathy (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Summing up

As we seem to be arguing in circles, I think it would be effective to sum up the main arguments regarding the addition of a mention of Gilbertson in this article.

• Consensus has been reached

Consensus was never reached. The RFC started September 1st, and by my count, me, Padillah, Cla86, Simonm223, and Bwilkins support addition of Gilbertson, and Dreamguy, Richard, 2/0, and Croatalus are against. We'll ignore Thomaspaine due to suspected sockpuppetry. Even if I have missed people, consensus is not reached by a simple majority.

Agreed.

• Gilbertson is not a credible source

No independent sources have called Gilbertson's credibility or motives into question. He is an associate professor at a university, and has a Ph.d in criminology, and has been sourced on the subject on Larry King and in an MSNBC article/The Today Show.

Agreed. If someone is going to impugn this guys character they should have sources to back up the allegations.

• The sources for Gilbertson are not reliable

While Larry King may be a news talk program, it is not The Jerry Springer Show. A show that has former presidents on it on a regular basis is enough for the show not to be discounted.

Agreed. Unless there is support over at WP:RS it should be regarded as a reliable source.

• The addition of the information violates WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE

I think out of all the issues involved, this is the most critical and hotly contested, and comes down to two viewpoints: that adding Gilbertson would improve the article, or that it would weigh too heavily in favor of a fringe theory. I believe the article is slanted towards the rejection of the theory, as it should, because it is in fact a fringe theory. However, as has been quoted extensively from WP:UNDUE: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space." And even with the addition of Gilbertson, the article still shows that all involved law enforcement offices find the theory to be bunk. If this topic violates WP:FRINGE by being too unimportant, than the article needs to be deleted. Otherwise, since it seems to be agreed that the topic is notable, we are allowed to expound on the theory as long as it is shown that the theory is not widely held.

My suggested compromise from the beginning of the RfC was to add one sentence: "In March 2009, Dr. Lee Gilbertson, a forensic pathologist from St. Cloud State University, voiced his support for the theory on an episode of Larry King Live which discussed the alleged murders," which is much shorter than the original proposed addition, and seems to be a good middle-ground for compromise. I honestly don't care about the Smiley Face Murder Theory, but I do care about the article, and want to improve it, and I believe this will in fact make it a better article. Angryapathy (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The above is bordering on {{WP:OWN]] issues. We are not being listened to at all. We are simply being denied. Fine, what do you propose to address the shortcomings in this article? We have expressed a point of view, how would you address that outlook on the article? Or is the article fine as-is? There's nothing wrong with it and we should nominate it for GA right now. Please stop simply denying change and suggest a direction so we can start improving the article. Padillah (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you insist your changes be made despite not having consensus shows that you have WP:OWN issues. DreamGuy (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I insist a change be made. I'm open to any of the changes you've suggested too... oh wait. That's right, you haven't made any suggestions. You've just reverted others and demanded the article be written your way. Hmmm, you're right. I'm much more in line with WP:OWN conflicts than you are. Padillah (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you are INSISTING that a change be made, then YOU are the one with the ownership problems. You do not get to insist anything. What part of this very basic concept do you not understand? You're just one editor here. If you cannot get consensus to make the changes you insist upon, then you are simply out of luck. You need to deal with that. Running off to ANI and making extremely deceptive comments is an attempt to game the system. DreamGuy (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely. I have every right (and, in fact, am required by the WP community) to insist that this article be of a certain quality. If you think lambasting these two detectives and misrepresenting this theory as being believed by not one single person is the best this article can do then I argue that the notability of this has past and it needs to be deleted. You are just one editor as well and, for what it's worth, are exerting much more control over this article than I am. You have reverted changes because they mentioned Gilbertson. Then, when the change was rephrased to not include Gilbertson, your reasoning magically changed to something else so that you could revert that as well. I have neither made nor reverted any controversial edits to this page, while you have held sway (almost exclusively) for the entire argument. Having done nothing in any way sneaky or underhanded I object to the personal attacks. That's not going to win your argument for you. Consensus was not on your side (the rundown that has been presented was one !vote in favor of including the statement) and misrepresenting policy (or pieces of policy, as WP:UNDUE is not actually a policy but a way to enforce the WP:NPOV policy) is not going to help your cause either. Neither is attacking the editor, none of that will make this article any less heinously lopsided than it is now. Padillah (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You can insist the article be of a certain quality, but you can't insist that you're opinion of what constitutes quality must be followed. That's the whole basics of WP:OWN and you have invented up some bizarre rationalization to try to excuse your being unwilling to accept what other people say. And telling people only one person disagreed with you is sneaky and underhanded, as it was clearly false, so stop complaining about being caught doing it. And your claims of only one person voting against it is completely false. DreamGuy (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I'm forced to repeat myself and ask for a change that can be made. I never insisted my change be made and expounded on that above. I also never represented this as having one person that disagreed. I'd also like to ask you to provide the diff where I'm "telling people only one person disagreed with [me]". Of course, like all other requests for proof from you this will go unanswered as well. Padillah (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You can call that a "summing up" and declare yourself having a consensus all you want, but that doesn't make it so. The RFC brought in a number of outside commentators, and most of them agreed with me that the edits you propose give UNDUE weight to a FRINGE view for the purposes of pushing a POV. They don't feel the need to repeat themselves over and over just because you guys refuse to accept what we all said.

The bottom line is that you do not have consensus, your proposed changes are controversial and need to have clear consensus before you can put them into the article, and if you try to use the article to give undo weight to a fringe view you will be reverted. You already know this, having seen it happen. At this point you're just in denial and refusing to accept defeat and refusing to make any alternate suggestions. Demanding the same thing over and over and over again after multiple people have already explained why it should not happen is not a useful strategy. DreamGuy (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Dreamguy has declared the debate to be over. Since he obviously has God-like powers on WP, we must obey. Angryapathy (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You can "debate" all you want (though actual debate requires actually acknowledging and responding to what others say instead of saying the exact same things over and over as if they were new), but the bottom line, per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO is that if you want to make controversial changes you need to demonstrate consensus to do so. You haven't, so you won't be able to edit the article until you actually work something out with others instead of ignoring and/or insulting them. DreamGuy (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find it more insulting that since our arguments are counter to yours, you have dismissed them. And I haven't seen an inch of compromise coming from your side. Angryapathy (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So you feel insulted when you are ignored but don't think it's equally insulting for you to dismiss the opinions of all the editors who disagree with you (so much so that you pretend it was only one person instead of several)? Sounds like you want to play by different rules than what you demand out of other people. DreamGuy (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's good that the debate is over. I see a new and proper consensus based on policy rather than false consensus based on misreading of policy. looks like my work here is done. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke? If the debate is over then you admit you lost? Because if you think there's a clear consensus to do what you want to do you're mistaken. And I'd say that what you wanted to do was misreading policy but there's been no indication you even tried to read it in the first place, as the only comments you made explicitly contradicted extremely clear language in the policy. DreamGuy (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What I find to be beyond ridiculous is his insistence on provable inaccuracies. He says we are "...refusing to make any alternate suggestions..." when two or three different compromises have been offered. They are in the text above and can be looked up if needs be. He says "The RFC brought in a number of outside commentators, and most of them agreed with me..." but we've done rundowns and even considering the specious nature of one of the supporters there's still a single !vote for adding the information. Again, all one need do is look above. He makes statements like "you won't be able to edit the article until you actually work something out with others instead of ignoring and/or insulting them..." while having given no input on a compromise or even recognition that there are valid arguments being made about the fitness of the article. I came here at his behest to weigh in on the edits being made. Now that I don't agree with him I'm showing WP:OWNership issues. When he comes to get me, that's fine. But when I ask for advice from someone that asks me for specifics, I'm shopping. DreamGuy you are becoming insufferable and your attitudes towards this article are becoming clearer and clearer. Padillah (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the compromises you have offered have been the exact same things suggested and rejected earlier. Your attitudes toward this article and Wikipedia policies are extremely clear. If you can honestly sit there and act like the problem is that I don't let you do what you insist must be done despite the fact that several editors have all disagreed with you, then you either are quite deluded or are trying to game the system. Your highly deceptive comments posted to ANI suggest the latter, because even someone extremely deluded would know that many of the things you said there are just false. DreamGuy (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what compromise is, a little yes and a little no. Your argument is like saying Chocolate Ice Cream is the same as Strawberry Ice Cream because they are both just Ice Cream. No, they are different flavors, and it's this subtle difference that makes it a compromise. Yes, I would hope that my attitude towards this article is clear, I have explained it several times: With no representation that anybody but the two detectives believes this theory it lacks encyclopedic merit and should be deleted. If more than the two detectives believe the theory then we need to present that in the article to maintain NPOV. Several editors disagree with you and you seem to have no problem telling all of them they are wrong, why should this side be different? You do realize how ego-maniacal that sounds, don't you? When You insist everyone else is wrong, they don't understand you. When I insist you are wrong I'm deluded? Keep your personal attacks and let's talk about the article. Padillah (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If people can't take the idea that they are wrong, then they should read policies and educate themselves first. Listen, LOTS of editors said YOU are wrong, but you just pretend they didn't say anything and try to claim it was only me. If thinking editors are wrong is egomaniacal, then everyone on this page is a raving egomaniac by your definition, because whole groups of people disagree with each other. That's not pathological, that's to be expected. And it's sad that you try to call me egomaniacal and then turn around and say *I* shouldn't be making personal attacks. That's just plain hypocritical. You need to focus on the actual article and you need to come up with real compromises instead of fake ones that ignore what other people said to push exactly what you wanted in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have brought this page and it's problems up at AN/I

• I saw the AN/I thread, and have read the above debate. I conclude that Gilbertson's views are relevant, have been presented in a reliable source, CNN, and would not give undue weight to a fringe view if included. Articles about fringe theories should include such supporting statements by a college professor in a relevant field, as presented on CNN, and not just sources which debunk it. There is a failure to present a neutral point of view about a fringe theory when any statement supporting it, from what would be considered a reliable source in other articles, is excluded on such an incorrect basis as "undue weight." Blogs should be excluded, but not Gilbertson. I believe the "theory" is a combination of many unrelated accidental drownings (young men have been getting drunk and drowning for centuries) and people have been drawing Smileys on walls since the 1970's, so some conjunctions are inevitable. Some drownings are homicides. That does not make it all a Vast Conspiracy. Edison (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not just sources that debunk it that have been given, as the claims by the people who presented have been already presented in the article... describing the theory itself is a promotion of the idea, which needs to be weighted properly with more reliable and more expert views. Gilbertson would be undue weight to a fringe view, and I see nothing to conclude that he would be a reliable source in other articles, so saying that because he would be accepted elsewhere he must be accepted here is not a good argument. Even if we accept him as a reliable source, giving too much weight to sources sharing a fringe view violates NPOV, as it confuses readers into thinking that because it takes up a lot of space in an article there must be some truth to it. Please read WP:FRINGE for specific examples on cases like this are handled.DreamGuy (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

How does the single sentence AngryApathy suggested (that you shot down for the exact same reasons presented here) constitute "a lot of space"? Padillah (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A lot of space compared to main expert view, which is underdocumented on the article. UNDUEWEIGHT is all about how much space is given. Also, in listing of names of supporters, listing more names of supporters of the FRINGE view gives the false impresion that more people in general believe the FRINGE view. If we want to expland the coverage of the nut view we need to expand the coverage of the mainstream view first. DreamGuy (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Saw this at ANI, I agree with Edison above that Gilbertson should be mentioned. It is an odd interpretation of the relevant guidelines and policies to completely exclude him. The universe of experts is not exhausted by the the FBI and police experts; his inclusion shows there is some expert debate. A single sentence is not a lot of space and is not likely to confuse readers, our job is not to censor wikipedia in order to protect them.John Z (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• DreamGuy has done some great work in this article, by preventing fringe views from having an inappropriate forum, but it has progressed to ownership of the article, and to demands that no presentation of the fringy view by a college Associate Professor on CNN be allowed at all, which is unsupported by any guideline or policy. Edison (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Matybe if you actually read our policies and guidelines you'd know what you were talking about. It's not that this one person's views *can't* be included, it's that including them (a mere associate professor on a edutainment talk show) without first expanding the info on the FBI and police and other experts who all say the theory is nonsense would give undue weight to WP:FRINGE believers, which is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. You should already know how this all works. If not, go read them. They are linked for a reason. Take the time to educate yourself. DreamGuy (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been around for good reasons so now some input. I think the suggested sentence above by Angryapathy would be acceptable. Though I am not mentioned I do say above on this talk page that I think the paragraph lends too much weight for the one interview. I just did a search again and if I looked at it correctly its been five months since anyone has talked about this. Is notability going away? Also my search from 5 months ago shows ABC and other stations not mentioned in the article so maybe a search and adding some of these others in may help the article. I am recovering from spine surgery and have nerve damage right now that is affecting my ability to do this kind of editing so I am just tossing this out incase there is interest. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right, if this article is really this insignificant it needs to be deleted. If not let us expand it. But how can I be sure that proper research and sourcing will be respected when I have editors saying, point blank, "Any mention of Gilbertson is giving WP:UNDUEWEIGHT." There are editors that have admitted that any edit they don't agree with will be reverted out of hand. The article can't progress under those circumstances. Padillah (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same ridiculous argument. Just because you don't get to fill the article up with POV-pushing content doesn't mean it should be deleted, and Crohnie in no way suggested that. And I didn't say that anything I disagree with will be reverted out of hand, just the things you said you demanded which you clearly do not have consensus to do. If you ever get a real consensus, by all means. But you are lying about who said what, as you keep trying to falsely paint this as me versus everyone else. *Several* editors agreed with me above, and explained why, so it's not like you can misread them. The problem here is you misrepresent what others say and the new people coming in are confused and think that what you say is accurate. DreamGuy (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) DreamGuy, it is you who continue to make the same arguements, and have failed. The policies you quote state almost exactly the opposite of what you say. The majority of people have now said the same. Your argument is dead. This is why Padillah has said that you must have some issues with WP:OWN - and from what I can see it's either WP:OWN, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and hopefully not WP:DICK. Get over it. This is a minor article, and not worth raising your heart rate over. The theory, as put forward, needs to have at least 1 additional, sourced proponent. There is one. Add it in. Done. Move along to some random article that also needs improvement. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. My argument is not dead, it was supported by multiple editors above, and it follows the actual policy. You keep talking about policy but show no evidence of having read any of them. And if you are now just proclaiming that I should be ignored, then it's obviously you who have the WP:OWN problems. DreamGuy (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said you were to be ignored, I said that consensus has changed (and it happened days ago). I have edited the article once to fix grammar, and otherwise don't care about it, other than helping both sides to properly read policy and make the article actually fit policy. People are now very able to do so, and I think everyone's cooperation has been a benefit to that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There certainly is no consensus to change the article, the only people who claim there is have ignored earlier comments completely and misrepresented comments. And, again, when it comes to making articles fit policy, your comments, out of everyones' on this page, have been the ones most directly contradicting what the policies say. It's pretty cheeky for you to claim you're here to help people "properly read" policy when you show no evidence of having read it at all. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Procedural Note This talk page has been brought up at WP:ANI. You may want to head over there in order to participate in the discussion. Basket of Puppies 12:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I support inclusion of the material supporting the theory, on the grounds that the basic principle of NPOV is that all significant POVs are described, and that in the context of this article the POV in support of the theory is a significant POV; also that a criminal pathologist at a university is someone I would consider an expert on this. I think it's good to present a POV from a university, not only from police forces, to get a broader range of views. It would be helpful to find refs of university profs opposing the theory, if there are any such; if not, I don't see how it's undue weight to briefly mention the one university prof (or expert who is not from a police department) in the field who has commented. If a very large number of profs have expressed opinions opposing the theory then an undue weight argument can be made to exclude Gilbertson.

As a compromise, I suggest a very brief mention, and toning it down with words such as "although", to reduce its weight, but including footnotes to the references so that interested readers can find more information. I suggest adding it to the beginning of the second paragraph of the Reception section, like this: "Although the theory has received support from a criminal pathologist and by evidence of indoor fly larvae on one of the corpses, criminal profiler Pat Brown calls the serial killer theory "ludicrous", ..." (with appropriate ref tags added). Coppertwig (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That phrasing would not work as it suggests that one body maybe possibly being murder (or death by natural causes that ended up in a river later, or other scenarios) means it supports the idea that all of these countless drowning victims were murdered by the same guy, which is silly. DreamGuy (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We write articles about silly theories, if they are notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do write articles about silly theories. Of course. That's why the is article is here. That's not the issue (unless you are replying to someone ridiculous argument above made by people that unless we give more info on the theory it must be deleted.) But the suggested wording in question says that fly eggs on a single corpse somehow supports the theory, which is not just describing the theory but actively endorsing the claim of the theory. DreamGuy (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is a silly theory, and deplore the ownership of this article displayed by DreamGuy. Lots of young men have consumed excess alcohol and drowned in bodies of water, for the past several millenia. A few of the drownings may have been homicide rather than accident, and there may have been smiley face graffiti somewhere in the vicinity in the last 3.5 decades. But some kooky theories are notable due to significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, These sources may not be excluded from being presented in the article due to DreamGuy's good-faith but mistaken notion of "undue weight." Edison (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And I deplore an editor coming here based upon outright deceptive comments placed on ANI page and making highly aggressive but false claims because he/she hasn't bbothered to l ook into it more than what the original deceptive complaint said. The people with ownership problems are the ones saying the article has to advance the theory and not taking other people telling them they can't into account. I am not saying kooky theories can't be covered at all (and y9o'd know that if you read what I said), what I am saying is that WP:UNDUEWEIGHT (and if you'd read it, you'd know this too) cannot give more space to fringe theories than to the leading expert opinions. We can give more info on the kooky theories, but in order to do that w would first need to expand the mainstream experts views with more details, more sources, etc. The people demanding the article be changed aren't interested in that at all, only in advancing the fringe theory at the expense of the mainstream, expert view. That's a clear violation of multiple policies. DreamGuy (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And if you read our comments, you'd know that the addition of Gilbertson is not slanting the article in favor of the theory. It is only showing that other support exists. And if you read UNDUE, then you'd know that it only says that you have to make it known that the minority view is in fact only the minority. It gives no guidelines for the content ratio of minority/majority as long as the majority view is clearly marked. Angryapathy (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, have you even read UNDUE? It's not just that things are clearly marked, it's that content cannot be misleading, and stacking up supporters of one side being mentioned and space being given is EXTREMELY misleading. I don't know how anyone can even get UNDUE at all without knowing that. And WP:FRINGE spells it out as well. And by reading your comments I don't find out what's real, I only find your opinions on it, so "if you read our comments, you'd know that..." is just nonsense. DreamGuy (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And I find your opinions on your interpretation of UNDUE to be nonsense, also. So at least we have something in common here. Angryapathy (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not an interpretation, it's what it actually says in unambiguous wording. I posted it below on this very page for you, since it's clear you never read the actual policy page. DreamGuy (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It uses subjective language so it is, by deffinition, an interpretation. It uses words like "fairly", "significant", "in proportion". How significant? In what proportion? Fair to whom? How can you possibly say these are unambiguous? Statements like that make me think you are being intentionally obtuse. You can't honestly think phrases like "much more extensive" are concrete. Heck they're not even grammatically correct. Padillah (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com is not a reliable source

I removed a link to a page on Examiner.com being used as a reference. That site does not meet WP:RS standards, and has been extensively discussed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. People who write for Examiner.com are just people off the street blogging things. Examiner.com has no direct editorial oversight. While a small number of people there might be reliable sources on their own, they'd have to have some outside qualifications to prove it. The article in question is by someone calling themselves an "Education Examiner" so were only approved to write about school topics and so forth, so even if she were a reliable source on that, there's no way she is a reliable source for this particular topic.

And, honestly, I'm surprised anyone looking at it would think it qualified. The person very clearly just aped the content of this Wikipedia article and shows no indication of knowing anything about the topic beyond what she read here. DreamGuy (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight

For those who haven't read the actual policy, here are the parts of it that a couple of editors above tried to claim do not exist:

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

That was the first sentence. People claiming that undue weight says nothing about how often things are mentioned apparently didn't even read the first sentence of the applicable policy.

"Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader. Wikipedia:Fringe theories and the NPOV F.A.Q. provide additional advice on these points."

And WP:FRINGE is pretty clear on this. Also:

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view."

That directly contradicts several arguments above.

"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."

An editor above claimed that undue weight had nothing to do with proportions and that anyone who read it would know that. So, did he just not read it and was bluffing, or did he skim it and miss the entire point, or what?

This is all pretty basic stuff. Again, all it takes is for someone to actually read it to know this is in there. But because some editors kept insisting it said the exact opposite of what it really says, I decided I had to quote it here. I would hope the editors in question would stop misrepresenting what policy says, especially now that it's right here and can't be denied. DreamGuy (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for proving the point we've been saying all along. If this article was called "The Various Theories of a bunch of dead guys", then yes, the Smiley Face theory would be minor, and agreeably, the mention it has would be more than appropriate. However, this article is called "Smiley face murder theory". Therefore, it's about one specific theory, and therefore does not qualify under WP:FRINGE, and must have sufficient weight behind the posit of the theory, which include one single damned backer who was on international TV and is an expert in their field. Thank you for solidifying the point. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, talk about completely missing the point of policy. The name of the page does not mean that we can ignore NPOV policy and write it to give undue weight in favor of the theory. I'd say you have major reading comprehension problems, but, again, it seems like you don't even bother to read in the first place based upon just how dramatically what you claim things say differ from what they really say. DreamGuy (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, again I am forced to ask you to bold a number in all that noise. Your first statement is to call out the first sentence in WP:UNDUE and say that mentions how often. Fine, then you can point out the number of times it says. Or maybe the proportion of major:minor we should have. You maintain that the policy is clear cut, fine. Show us the clarity. Is 40:1 enough? what about 41:1? 42:1? Where does that policy get clear?

Also, please point out the arguments that the minority view overwhelm the majority view. I've been here since this thing started and I don't remember anyone forwarding that opinion. (That hasn't stopped you from claiming someone forwarded that opinion but that's a different question).

No one is saying it says the opposite. We are saying we don't agree with you. Why are you allowed to disagree with us and we're "kooky" but if we disagree with you we are saying policies are the opposite of what they say? There are currently NO supporting statements in the article. So, by your representation of the policy you are holding to the assertion that there are NO supporters of this theory, right? Well, this is demonstrably false. And since it is demonstrably false that should be reflected in the article. Padillah (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Dreamguy's quotations would be applicable if we were discussiing adding the Smiley Face Murders to the Serial Killers article. In fact we are writing an article that is about a minority view, and about a fringe theory. The article is in fact titled, "The Smiley face Murder Theory". And he conveniently left out one part of UNDUE: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." Let's dissect this:

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space

This article is about the minority viewpoint. Can't even argue that point. I guess that whole "more attention and space" part is confusing. Wait, it's not.

However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

This article strongly shows that all reputable law enforcement agencies reject the theory. And the article is not written from the perspective of the minority view. All we are doing is showing that someone, besides the two non-notable private investigators, support the theory. The article still implicitly states that the theory is not accepted, even with the addition of Gilbertson. I fail to see how mentioning that the theory has support from an academic slants the article so much that the reader will suddenly think, "Oh my God, there's a serial killer on the loose! Lock the doors!" The issue is that this article shows no support for the theory itself. We have a reputable adherent from a reputable source (I'm still waiting on your sources say that Gilbertson is in fact a hack professor trying to gain money for his private investigative firm, BTW, and that Larry King is not a reliable source) that shows that this theory is worthy of being on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The claim "this article shows no support for the theory itself" is bizarre. It is both wrong -- we show that some detectives believe it and what they say, without going into excessive detail -- and irrelevant anyway. Wikipedia articles are not about showing "support". Things and still be without support and still be notable enough for an article. But we mention what the theory is and who came up with it, which is showing the support. We're not here to make a detailed list of everyone who supports it, as that would be misleading without an equally comprehensive list of everyone who doesn't support it. On top of that it serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. It is free of any meaningful content while at the same time slanting people's views. As I've said, if you want to expand the list of supporters of one side you also have to expand the other side. If you do, then adding this would not be undue weight. But -- surprise, surprise -- you guys are only interested in increasing the "support" for one side. If you're here to increase support that's about as blatant of a NPOV violation as one could have. DreamGuy (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"We're not here to make a detailed list of everyone who supports it"

We're not making a detailed list of everyone who supports it. We are listing adherents from each side which can be sourced reliably. This includes the detectives, Gilbertson, congressman, the FBI, the police departments, and criminal profilers. As this is an article about a minority view, as is explicitly stated in WP:UNDUE, we are allowed to give more attention to the theory, provided the article states that the view is in the minority. Here's a compromise: if we add the bit about Gilbertson, then we add a statement like, "No law enforcement agency believes that the drownings are linked in any way." That sums up the majority view, and lets the reader know that the theory is, in fact, a minority view. Angryapathy (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to note that consensus does seem to be swinging toward inclusion. I believe that inclusion results in an article which respects policies like undue, neutrality, fringe etc better than exclusion. Editing an article to increase support for one side is not a blatant NPOV violation if one presents or supports rational arguments that that is what is necessary for neutrality, indeed it is frequently called "neutralization".John Z (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Dreamguy's Consensus

According to Dreamguy, we can achieve consensus, even with differing opinions, as long as it suits his views. But no consensus can be reached if he is on the other side of the argument. You know, I'd respect his opinions more if he could at least be consistent (he claimed that Gilbertson could not be added because there was consensus against it. Then, after showing evidence aginst his claim, he said we can't add it because there is "no consensus" to add it.) Or responded to points brought up that defeat his argument (we are still waiting for him to show an independant source to support his claims that Gilbertson isn't a reliable source). How do you work with an editor that refuses to make compromises or acknowledge the other editor's arguments? Angryapathy (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You suggest mediation. Like this... Padillah (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Angryapathy, you're not going to get anywhere by merely making personal attacks and completely false accusations. Start acting in good faith and then maybe we'll get somewhere. DreamGuy (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am just summing up what has happened. You have in fact waffled on where the consensus lay, and in both cases, each supported your opinion. You have also avoided discussing subjects when your point was disproven. And you have failed to make any attempts at compromise. If stating the truth is an attack, then I am an assailant of truth. Angryapathy (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your supposed summary bears no resemblence to what actually happened here, so you're either outright lying at this point or are just blinded by stubbornness. Neither is an excuse for the personal attacks. DreamGuy (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"You are lying or being blinded by stubbornness." Wow. Such a classy way to tell someone to avoid personal attacks. Pot, meet kettle! Angryapathy (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

DreamGuy, your actions regarding this page are becoming inexcusable. We've been doing this for two months now, we need to get past it. Would you be willing to submit to mediation? I, for my part, have no problem with it. Please let me know so we can proceed. Padillah (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid that, because in the scope of this project, the addition of one source to support a theory seems minor. But otherwise, we are at an atter standstill. I support mediation, since maybe it will get somewhere. Angryapathy (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As already pointed out yesterday, mediation only works if all sides are acting in good faith, and at this time we have no reason to believe you and your two compatriots are making any attempt to do so. You are leaving balatantly deceptive comments, making nonstop personal attacks, and ignoring clear policies. On top of that, the only thing you seem to care about, and the one you offer up as a supposed "compromise," is the very thing multiple editors have clearly said violates our policies. You have been offered suggestions several times on how you might progress toward changes that would actually follow policies, but instead you pretend that nobody has done anything. That's bad faith, and how could anyone expect you to do anything but continue the same distortions in mediation until you demonstrate a willingness to start following Wikipedia's standards for civility and good faith? DreamGuy (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Are these accusations about us, or about yourself? Because you are doing everything you accuse us of. Angryapathy (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide diffs? If I have acted as horrifically as you are presenting here than I would like to see it and adjust myself and apologize accordingly. Any diffs that can illuminate the type of attitude you describe above would be a great help. Padillah (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary for this diff makes it quite clear: the policy arguments have been shot down, so DG is now merely discounting the qualifications of those who have a POV he doesn't like. I'm sorry to say that DG has now escalated the disruption, which is unfortunate. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course nobody should engage in personal criticism. I believe everyone is acting in good faith. But as I said in the edit before that diff, it does seem clear that consensus has changed to favor inclusion. The RfC had Angryapathy, Padillah, Cla86, Simonm223, and Bwilkins for inclusion and Dreamguy, Richard, 2/0, and Croatalus against. CrohnieGal supported inclusion later. Thomas Paine1776 supported inclusion, but seems to be suspected of sockpuppeting - but he is in good standing apparently and AFAIK is not suspected of being the same as anyone else on this list. The recent uninvolved editors, myself, Edison and Coppertwig all support, and DGG (here)and Elen of the Roads (at ANI) may support inclusion too. So there are at least 9 for and only 4 against. My opinion is that our policies, taken together, clearly indicate inclusion, that the article will then be more neutral and respect WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE better than it would without it. The addition proposed seems very small to me, and could hardly be more inoffensive. One sentence about one independent reliable source in support. It is important to include for neutrality because there is a great deal of difference between one and none, and exclusion gives a false and misleading picture of the reception of the theory. It is possible to give undue weight to majority theories. And the consensus, particularly of those recently editing the article itself, favors inclusion.John Z (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said John Z. As I have said before, this article itself means little to me, other than proper application of policy - I'm a newcomer to it as well. As much as it's a not-vote, it appears that the extra eyes on the policy issues have been beneficial to the article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree that consensus supports inclusion of the information. The information from the CNN program is legitimate, notable, and is presented in the article in a neutral way [6]. Its not offensive in any way. The CNN program is a recent and responsible presentation of the topic and should be included. Gilbertson's view that the drownings do not match the statistical pattern of accidental drownings is a significant element of the theory. Gilbertson is qualified to make the statement and he's been cited as a qualified source by major networks on this topic. Mentioning Gilbertson's view in support of the theory is not undue weight according to wikipedia policy which states, "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space" WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Thanks for the input. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

ANOTHER CAUSE FOR SUDDEN DISAPPEARANCE AND DEATH

I read the argument here on this page and can't understand why it exists. I suggest that the project be discarded and started over.

There is no evidence for the theory of a Smiley Face serial killer or gang of them. I cannot find a way to decide the issue. It does not matter what experts think. Only a fair statement of the news reporting is possible.

In a very few of the sudden drowning deaths of college students there is circumstantial evidence of psychotic paranoia. In one instance the dead student phoned a relative telling them he was being chased. Police followed his running footsteps down the river bank and across the ice to open water where he drowned. His trail in the snow on the river ice show he was alone. This suggests that a mental event is to blame for that death.

--Section editted. Please do not use talk pages for advertising.--

Ask yourself why most of these deaths are college students? Researcher44 (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Researcher44, it's not Wikipedia's place to ask ourselves anything. That's called Original Research and it's not allowed here. We can only publish what we can verify in other sources. Padillah (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)