Talk:Arthur Leigh Allen

message: This alleged "source" link is less about facts on "Arthur Leigh Allen" and more about Michael Butterfield's persistent ad hominem attacks on living author, Robert Graysmith (see: wiki discussion at "Robert Graysmith" for Michael Butterfield's history as a Wikipedia vandal)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Graysmith
If Wikipedia editors continue to include such links they will be in clear violation of Wikipedia's Five Pillars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
AND "three core content policies": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
More specifically, these policies require that: "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view," they possess "Verifiability" and "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research."
With regard to the source in dispute, Wikipedia tacitly promotes a “battleground playpen” and thus diminishes its own credibility for disseminating facts worthy of a quality encyclopedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.1.22 (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is simply untrue that "Michael Butterfield's website ZodiacKillerFacts is less about facts on 'Arthur Leigh Allen' and more about an ad hominem attacks on Robert Graysmith."  I'll readily admit the web site is unfavorable to Graysmith since it points out many of the errors, fabrications and outright lies told by Graysmith in his two books on the Zodiac killer but the vast majority of the web site isn't about Graysmith or Allen but concerns the Zodiac killer murders.TL36 (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I indeed did click on the link and I stand by my statement.  On an off topic, is Oil City caught up in the country's heat wave or have you so far missed it?TL36 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

text: "On an off topic, is Oil City ...." LOL! - Not even close! Evidently your understanding of ISP triangulation matches your inability to comprehend the yellow journalism spewing forth from Michael Butterfield and his site links.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.113.109 (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and NOR Violations:  

message: I had redirected this to Zodiac Killer but someone came through and reverted. Many of the sources used in previous versions of this article were substandard, to say the least. Random personal opinions on websites are not reliable sources, per WP:RS rules. Furthermore, large amounts of text with various accusations against this person weren't even cited to any source at all, not even the bad ones. By removing all the junk that did not have a reliable source, there is not much here. In order to have Wikipedia articles of their own, topics must in some way differentiate themselves from the main topic. The only reason this person is notable at all is because of the Zodiac killer accusations, and there isn't much reason to give him extra additional coverage other than what that article would have. The existence of this article seems to have been solely for people to post their own theories and claims. That's not what Wikipedia is for. DreamGuy (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right. I reverted because I felt that it should be a community decision which would be more properly dealt with at AfD. IIRC, the suspects were separated from the main article as a split out. In practical terms, if you name him as a suspect in the article then different degrees of explanations would be needed to justify or explain that; if that occurs, we will see a section on ALA begin growing in the main article and become unwieldy as before and possibly undue weight given to him with respect to the main article subject. That said, I'm currently undecided on what I'd do at an AFD on this article. Notability is established via Graysmith primarily through his two books, one of which names him explicitly and notability has additionally been established via the Zodiac movie where they also use ALA's real name as a suspect. But like you, I don't want want crack/pet theories accumulating in the article either. This just happens to be a case where an AfD serves a constructive purpose in having the subject run through the gauntlet and either the community agrees to delete or the article gets a makeover and is improved. Thank you for posting this, btw. It gives other editors a chance to chime in.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources are easy to find - we just have to look a bit. If any need to be replaced that is easy to do. Do you believe all should be deleted an nothing moved over because the info is wrong?Moxy (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "sources are easy to find" but I don't think that replacing unreliable sources with reliable ones is easy to do. Considering how much space in the Zodiac killer article already details Allen, I don't see anything here that needs to be moved over.TL36 (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: He's only notable as a Zodiac suspect, so I think his article should redirect to the Zodiac article. Possibly the suspects section. Also most of the information here is already found in the Zodiac article, so there's not much to merge. Article should not be deleted, as it's possible that someone would search for his name. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article was deleted and someone did a search for ALA, I would certainly hope the results would first list the Zodiac Killer article.  However, what you're suggesting may well be the way to go.TL36 (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad sources, topic not notable on its own