Jump to content

Talk:Joseph James DeAngelo/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Requested move 30 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved Sceptre (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


Golden State Killer → Joseph James DeAngelo – DeAngelo is the GSK/EARONS. He has pleaded guilty on all charges and awaits sentencing. JJARichardson (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I think WP:IGNORE can apply in this case, just my opinion. Would renaming now violate impartiality or objectivity? JJARichardson (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about the impartiality or objectivity of renaming. My concern is jumping the gun right now because we don't know how things will go in this case over the next several months and there is no need to rush. At the very least we should wait for sentencing, which will finalize the legal proceedings. Anyone not familiar with the case who searches for Joseph James DeAngelo will get to the right article by redirect. Sundayclose (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Someone more legally qualified could chime in, but given DeAngelo's guilty pleas and the weight of forensic evidence, I fail to see what the future legal hitch could be. JJARichardson (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Never underestimate the legal profession's ability to throw a monkey wrench into a situation. If I could tell you every possible issue related to Golden State Killer and Joseph James DeAngelo that might unfold I would, but that's my point. We don't know. And when it comes to legal matters, Wikipedia is (and should be) very cautious, especially when there is no rush. If someone can tell me how the quality of the article or a reader's ability to find information is compromised by waiting a while, please do so. Sundayclose (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
And given the prominence of the name "Golden State Killer", it should be in the very first paragraph of the lead, no matter what the title of this article is. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
It is a BLP article. That is why I alerted the WP:BLP talk page and WP:BLP noticeboard to this discussion; I alerted those pages for wider input. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose in part of the BLP, but also that "Golden State Killings" is a name tied to the series of events from a simple google search. He only just has confirmed his guilty and will be sentenced, but I can see that he will be the type of person, like Lee Harvey Oswald, that will likely be evaluated by psychiatrists and others to learn how his ticked and get into his mind, and then he as a person and not just as the serial killer will become more significant -- if that makes sense. It's not necessary wrong to shift over to the real name, as we'd still be naming him in the current article at this point, but the article still is more wrapped around the identity of the "killer" and not this person that has only now admitted connection to it. in time that could change. --Masem (t) 00:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There is no BLP issue anymore and since this criminal has had tons of well known names its best to keep it to his legal one.★Trekker (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I would say no, he is the publicly known "Joseph James DeAngelo", the "Jr." is merely part of his legal name. JJARichardson (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:BLP is germane to any article that discussed a living person. Sundayclose (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm well aware. But there is no longer a BLP issue now that he has pleeded guilty.★Trekker (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
That depends on what you mean by "issue". If there is a potential BLP violation (and I'm not saying there is or isn't), then there is a BLP issue. Sundayclose (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The man has admited guilt in a legal case, there is no reason to believe Wikipedia will get in any trouble for moving the article to his name. If we were that worried about potential issues we might as well censor any images of Muhammad over at Commons lest we get bomb threats. Lets not make issues out of nonissues for the sake of votes in a move discussion. If one wishes for it to be kept at GST or moved to another name they should in my opinion argue COMMONNAME, not BLP.★Trekker (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Please consult your texts from law school and give us the evidence. And while you're at it, look into your crystal ball and tell us everything that will happen on this matter for the next few months. Or we could just wait a while and see how the legal case unfolds. The latter seems simpler since doing so has zero effect on the quality of the article. Sundayclose (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Have you considered not being rude for no reason just because someone finds your arguments weak?★Trekker (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I've considered it about as much as you have considered your presumptions about your legal knowledge. But ending this delightful banter is fine with me. Sundayclose (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Calling out terrible arguments is not being rude. But I guess you felt personally attacked. Unfortunate.★Trekker (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support While there is no rush to change, the current introduction to the article starts with his name and identity, and lists two other pseudonyms before getting to the more recently coined "Golden State Killer". As written this article fully appears to be about "Joseph James DeAngelo Jr." and the title should reflect that. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Be careful of assuming that the current version of the lead reflects the history of the article. This edit, made yesterday, changed the lead from GSK to Deangelo. I would therefore strongly propose that the lead be not changed from the original for the misleading effect it has on readers until this discussion here is closed. Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'm satisfied with the current presentation of the article (for example the Biography section being first) and believe it should be about the named person. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    I agree that an article should be consistent and WP rule compliant. However, the lead as is suggests a decision has already been made and that this proposed move is simply a logical step to correct the lead/title mismatch. JabberJaw (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:Common name per Flyer22 Frozen and Masem. Confession just happened. It could be contested; Facts can arise calling this new information into question. With Zodiac Killer, there were countless people who confessed to the killing who were not the killer. We need some time to pass so that it is clear the name of this new person is equated with Golden State Killer in the WP:RS. Right now, the bulk of the material is under Golden State Killer, and until that changes, WP:Common name dictates we use that for the name of the article.
    The article is written around a particular killer identity for a particular set of murders and other crimes, that were later linked to other unsolved crimes. Hence, even if it is without question DeAngelo, the old name has a particular set of characteristics that give Golden State Killer its own notability--as would the Zodiac Killer if that killer was identified with 100% certainty. However, as Masem said, the notability of "Golden State Killer" may slowly be replaced by DeAngelo in the WP:RS.
    That said, I do think there should be a separate article dedicated to the person who confessed and that it be mentioned in the Golden State Killer article.--David Tornheim (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose at present following the reasons presented by Masem. It may very well be that we get to the point where it's best to switch to his name but we're not there yet. Blythwood (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support He's confessed and is the main topic of the article. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@OXYLYPSE: If you don't mind, please take a look at this stable of June 27, 2020. DeAngelo was not the main topic of the article then. A flurry of new editing has taken place in the last few days based on the recent confession, some by new editors who have replaced Golden State Killer with his name without any source justifying the change, e.g. [1] and have rapidly reorganized the article to make it look like the article was written almost entirely about DeAngelo, e.g. this version.
The article is 13 years old, so these major changes are superficial and misleading. I have reverted some of those misleading edits. It is likely new editors are unaware that changing the text of a sentence without confirming that the revised text is supported by the old source(s) is very misleading and in probably worse than adding unsourced content, leading readers to believe the unsourced material is sourced. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@David Tornheim:, Hey. Thanks for pointing that out. I've had a look at the old version you linked and it is demonstrably different to the current article. I just wonder though what the next steps are with this article? I'm not following this as closely as you are so do correct me if I'm wrong here. 1. The information in the article was about the Golden State Killer. 2. DeAngelo is confirmed as being the Golden State Killer(?). What's your ideal outcome on this if both of those points are true? This page has essentially already become a bio of DeAngelo. I'd appreciate your thoughts! -OXYLYPSE (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@OXYLYPSE: I don't claim much expertise in the WP:RS, but some knowledge of the chronology based on recent news in my news feed of the confession and recent DNA evidence matching from genealogy. I believe the confession was made as part of a plea deal to avoid the death penalty. I know of at least one case we studied in my paralegal class where a convicted person who was forced to confess continued to insist that he was innocent and while in jail he offered new evidence he believes would exonerate him.
I believe both (1) and (2) are likely true, although it is possible that (2) will be challenged. It's up to the WP:RS to draw the conclusion. The problem with changing the title (and content) is that 13 years of accumulated content which relies primarily on sources that use only the pseudonyms. Even if (1) and (2) are both true, it would be WP:SYN to make this kind of substitution, where the content is grounded in the old WP:RS that uses only the pseudonym rather than directly mentioning DeAngelo.
If experts feel confident that the two are one and the same, we will start seeing new WP:RS that can replace the older WP:RS written before the confession and recent DNA evidence matching from genealogy. I believe a separate article for DeAngelo is appropriate, but I see Joseph James DeAngelo has existed as a redirect to this article as a suspect since at least April 2018. There is no question that DeAngelo meets notability requirements & that might be a good place to put new material for now rather than burying it the way it had been.
Please also see the discussion in the next section below. Jabberjaw says s/he is more familiar with WP:RS and has contributed much to the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: I agree - It's up to WP:RS to draw the conclusion. Using sources that only reference the pseudonym to talk about DeAngelo does appear to contradict WP:SYN.
I don't think it is unreasonable to refer to DeAngelo when using references using his various nicknames, as it is a well-established fact they all refer to DeAngelo, though I do think the article would be improved by updating with newer sources. JJARichardson (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Other serial killers articles are filed under their name, not their pseudonym. dashiellx (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There is no reason to continue to use the media-given name now that there has been a conviction. (Yes, I know, technically he pleaded guilty but that is still counted as convicted of the charges.) The operative clause of WP:IAR is: "...prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia..." The rules linked above are preventing the improvement of the project for no good reason. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This is long overdue. Back when they got him, it should of been renamed since it was confirmed that he was the killer. Felicia (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Before he got caught, he had so many monikers that it's questionable whether "Golden State Killer" was even the clear WP:COMMONNAME. But now he's been caught and has pled guilty, it's time to move this from a pseudonym.LM2000 (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
That's not what you said about Nelson Frazier Jr., long suspected of being the SummerSlam killer called "King Mabel" and confirmed to have operated out East as "Big Daddy Voodoo", admit it! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
You deserve a barnstarn for remembering this response.LM2000 (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Pseudonyms like OAR/EAR/GSK, while useful in tracking and maintaining awareness of unidentified and active criminals, serve no purpose except to mythologize (for lack of a better word) violent criminals and their actions. In light of the guilty plea and the DNA evidence, I feel it would be appropriate to primarily refer to him by his actual name rather than these pseudonyms that undoubtedly acted as a boost to his ego. Rktrf (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:Common name. He is best known for being the "Golden State Killer" or "East Area Rapist". He was not known by the name of Joseph James DeAngelo until recently. If the move is made, I suggest it be "Joseph James DeAngelo (Golden State Killer)". --I Mertex I (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support He wasn't known for being the GSK until the GSK was known to be him. Since that happened, and it's now known, it'll stay known from now on. Change with the times. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The "Golden State Killer" moniker is itself fairly recent; until DeAngelo's arrest, the more common moniker was "East Area Rapist/Original Night Stalker." This was also the precedent of Dennis Rader, whose article title at creation was "BTK Killer." Carolus (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Carolus~enwiki: Thank you for that comment. I thought the name "Golden State Killer" was much older--I certainly remember "Golden State Killer" more than the other monikers. I had mistakenly assumed the original article of 2006 used that moniker. In fact, the article's name wasn't changed to Golden State Killer until 17-Apr-2018. I may change my iVote. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Honestly the best known name for this guy is was EARONS for a long time.★Trekker (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if the name change back in mid-2018 (which was mind-boggling stupid, IMNSHO) actually helped promote the GSK moniker. In short, the name is so common because Wikipedia uses it. Carolus (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

*Consensus to change, move procedure should proceed. JJARichardson (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop repeatedly declaring consensus, especially since it's not your decision. Sundayclose (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Correct that it is not my decision, apologies for impatience. JJARichardson (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • oppose for now; per WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:NORUSH. Maybe someday later, when Golden state killer is known by his real name. Also, kindly note Joseph Newton Chandler III is not known as Robert Ivan Nichols, same goes for Lori Erica Ruff/Kimberly Maria McLean. Just because we know subject's real name/identity, doesnt mean it is the title by which the subject is known. Because of the same reason, Equus africanus asinus is not an article title, nor "Luna" is the title of Moon. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    • But "Golden State Killer" is not and has never been this guys common name..... The name was made up around 2013 and this article was moved to that name way later.★Trekker (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Like Thor Odinson once said: "...all the words made up" (including names), like night stalker, earth, moon, luna, and others. And yes, golden state killer is currently the common name. Definitely a lot more recognisable than the suggested one. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
        • No it's not. It never has been. It was a name introduced only a few years ago for a figure that has been famous for decades, the most common name was "EARONS" once they figured out the two perps were the same. This is an egregious case of recentism.★Trekker (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Support with redirects for most-known nicknames. Lindenfall (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Title / First line of WP:LEDE

I have restored the first line of the WP:LEDE so that it says Golden State Killer. It should not be changed until the move discussion is closed (per Jabberjaw). Besides, as I mention in the edit summary, most of the sources don't match up with the content. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, it is better, but other recent changes to the infobox details, for example, and the lead photo in particular still ‘screams out’ DeAngelo. I guess the question is, how much of the lead should remain unchanged to avoid concerns of bias in the move discussions? Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
And the Biography section? —DIYeditor (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I believe it should be be changed back to the way it was until the move discussion is closed.
It should be restored to this version of June 27, 2020 with any new edits that improve the article but do not substantially change the structure. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I still prefer the way it was when I came here, [2]. DNA evidence and confessions and convictions confirm the identity. We should have an up-to-date article on the topic. Wikipedia is not news but we should reflect current knowledge. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Jabberjaw I would have changed infobox back and some of the other things in the article too. I considered restoring an old version from before 6-28-2020, but some of the edits in the flurry of activity in the last few days are fine (e.g. [3]). I didn't feel like going through all those old versions to try the last good version and put all the good edits that follow back into it. If you or any other editor feels like it, go for it. I did also consider a page-protection to auto-confirmed users to slow down the flurry of edits. Have you checked the edits since 6/27/2020? Are most of them good or not?
Bottom line: I support changing the infobox back and other material that overstates equating the two (to this version of June 27, 2020), but adding information to the extent it has been shown in WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. For neutrality’s sake, somehow safeguarding the version until the debate is finished would be ideal, but then again the page is of massive editorial interest and focus at the moment too, so would that be feasible? As a major contributor to this article, my main interest is for fair move discussion unbiased by recent edits, as I have outlined above. I have been observing (rather than evaluating) recent changes, so as for the practical logistics of what you propose, not as sure... Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Jabberjaw FYI. I reverted reverted this misleading edit that has this problem. If you see other edits like that, please let me know. I must agree with you that misleading edits by new editors like that are confusing editors who come to this move discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

David Tornheim Hi - the lead has recently changed again - as the rollbacker, I'll leave it up to you do decide how much of it to revert. May I suggest a note is included by the article name to notify (particularly newish) editors to not change the title given the discussions going on on this page? Thanks again. JabberJaw (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Jabberjaw Could you do it? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • MisterShoggoth Can you please revert this edit with a misleading edit-summary? Please wait until the move discussion is completed before making such such a major change to the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Sundayclose I think you are noticing the same things that we are. I'm starting to thinki we should request admin. intervention, because I feel these edits are disrupting and compromising the objectivity of the move change discussion. I convinced one editor to change their vote because of it. It seems to me that these irregularities warrant having the move discussion halted, the page restored to this version of June 27, 2020 or one like it (but adding any actual improvements based on the WP:RS that have been added since then), and then the move discussion restarted. What do you think? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: I agree. But I'm not sure whether an admin would do anything though. It's not vandalism. Possibly page protection, but then if it gets protected to the way it is now it's even worse. Getting an admin to restore to a previous version then add back the improvements would be very messy; most admins probably don't want to get involved in such an action, especially since some people are fine with the way it is now. I'm not sure what action can be taken?? Sundayclose (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, to complicate matters further, I think it is clear that the objectivity of the move discussion is becoming increasingly compromised, particularly given that the person who proposed the change is actively editing the article (as per these recent edits) as if the discussion was already closed. JabberJaw (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@David Tornheim and Jabberjaw: I don't know how feasible this is, but we could copy the article to a personal sandbox, then ask an admin to restore to the way it was before the requested move. And we could ask at WP:ANI whether the move request has been spoiled because of (intentional?) edits to the article that could bias this discussion, and restart the move request. After consensus anyone is free to restore material from the current version of the article. Just a thought. But, despite our best efforts this all may become a moot point after sentencing. Sundayclose (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sundayclose:@Jabberjaw: but we could copy the article to a personal sandbox No need for that. But, despite our best efforts this all may become a moot point after sentencing. I disagree. What matters is what the WP:RS says. I'm going to draft a statement for WP:AN/I here, and we can fix it so that we agree it makes the case. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC) [withdraw draft AN/I based on [4] --David Tornheim (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)]

Draft for proposed AN/I filing

What: this move discussion.

At least three editors believe there are irregularities in this move discussion that are so serious that the move discussion needs to be restarted. Context of dispute: The Golden State Killer article dates back to ______ diff. For years, the killer's identity was unknown, and the article has developed substantially to the size of ____ with ___ references that refer to moniker Golden State Killer. There were a number of suspects. There were also a number of other monikers for murders that became connected to the Golden State Killer. With the development of DNA testing, the suspects were narrowed, and in 2018 DeAngelo was arrested for ___ of 13 the murders. About a week ago further work using genealogy databases narrowed the suspect for all of the murders to DeAngelo. DeAngelo confessed in plea deal to avoid the death penalty.

Because of the recent confession the article has received... [to be continued]...--David Tornheim (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC) [withdraw based on [5] --David Tornheim (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)]

@David Tornheim:, the great majority of !votes above, both before and after any supposed shenanigans, are to support the RM. For the most vociferous Oppose !voter to file an ANI over the RM's direction may present the appearance of "sour grapes". I would suggest very carefully considering the advisability of an ANI filing over this matter. Is the name of this article really worth the effort and drama of ANI? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Eggishorn Thank you for your feedback. Yes. I would prefer to work this out here with experienced editors like yourself to address the issues we are having without having to go to another noticeboard.
If you would please answer some (or ideally all) of these questions, maybe we can find some common ground and come to an agreement of how to move forward to address the problems:
(1) Do you agree that these two edits changing the title are a problem, when the move discussion is not over, and when the title of the article is Golden State Killer?
(2) Do you agree with this edit I made restoring the title? In not, why not?
(3) The Big Question: Let's say source (1) of 2019 says "DeAngelo = Golden State Killer", and source (2) of 1990 says "The Golden Gate Killer did X". Do you agree that it is WP:SYN to say that "Deangelo did X," if neither sources says that?
(4) Do you agree that this edit is a problem because of WP:SOURCEHIJACKING and WP:SYN?
(5) Do you agree that this edit is a problem because of WP:SOURCEHIJACKING and WP:SYN?
(6) Do you agree that changing the info box to be a picture of DeAngelo right before the move discussion is a problem?
(7) If you agree with some of these things, what can be done to stop these these undesirable edits from compromising the move discussion or the article itself if the move gets approved?
(8) If the move is approved, what happens to all of the statements made that are grounded in WP:RS that does not specifically mention DeAngelo?
I also note that the discussion above #Community_reassessment from last year drew attention to some of these problems. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
This issue can't possibly be worth all this. EEng 06:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Here's my personal opinion as an individual administrator. This is a routine content dispute that does not belong at ANI, which does not adjudicate content disputes. Instead, pursue our various dispute resolution options. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Absolutely. This would be laughed off ANI. On the question itself, it's amazing the amount of time spent battling to the death over which of several adequate titles gets pride of place, and which are redirects. It's got the title it's got. The guy's gonna be sentenced soon (comparatively, anyway). With time the right title will be more apparent. Stop wasting all this time arguing about it for now. EEng 06:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@EEng: As I discuss below, I think there should be an article for each, because it is my understanding that most of the WP:RS in the "Golden State Killer" does not mention DeAngelo, and both are notable. You admitted above "the topic is huge, with many twists and turns and side trips...." What is to happen to sentences that that have WP:RS that do not mention DeAngelo? How do you answer the question I asked in (3)? You mentioned in #Community_reassessment that the article has problems. It seems to me they are getting worse with the edits I mention in (4) and (5), regardless of what the article is titled.
As I see it, The Golden State Killer article is primarily a story about how the police struggled for years with clues (like Zodiac) to eventually identify a serial killer. The recent edits are having the effect of confusing the story by adding incorrect statements claiming the police already knew who the killer was before they did. I think that is a grave disservice to readers, don't you? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Cullen328 Thanks for the advice. I was considering that too. Do you have any thoughts of the problem of WP:SYN I mentioned in questions (3) and (4)? My concern is that if this move is approved, it is going to create a big mess if editors continue to substitute "DeAngelo" for "Golden State Killer" when the WP:RS doesn't reflect it. (That's why I think having one article on each would temporarily address the new focus on DeAngelo's significance, and the "Golden State Killer" article could be adjusted as more WP:RS connects the two, and once the bulk of the best WP:RS says that both are one and the same, then merge "Golden State Killer" into DeAngelo.) I just don't see the advantage of having this article turn into a huge mess, which is happening as we speak.
I have never seen this issue come up with an article before? Have you? If so, what happened in that case(s)? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
David Tornheim, this is how I evaluate the matter: We have a series of crimes that many reliable sources ascribe to a criminal moniker. Much more recently, a person was arrested and accused of committing those crimes, and has now pleaded guilty to those crimes. So far, as far as I know, no reliable sources have reported that the guilty plea was unduly pressured or extorted or that the confession was the result of torture. I cannot see under these specific circumstances that it is synthesis to conclude that this specific person committed the crimes ascribed to the criminal moniker, at least those specific crimes that the person pleaded guilty to. Requiring that excellent historical sources about these specific crimes be excluded if they do not mention the confessed murderer by name seems like dogmatic pedantry in defense of a confessed murderer to me. Perhaps you see things differently. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Thx for the reply. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
It is a clearly established fact that Joseph James DeAngelo is the Golden State Killer and all of the other nicknames ascribed to him in the referenced articles. Therefore I do not think my edits following his guilty pleas, and in good faith anticipation of the article renaming, have been in any way disruptive or damaging. If I or other editors have breached any guidelines, I believe this has been been in the spirit of WP:IAR. JJARichardson (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
With all due respect, I disagree that editing "in anticipation of the article renaming" in the midst of the renaming discussion is not disruptive or damaging. Dragging out WP:IAR as an excuse to make any edit has been done so much on Wikipedia that it's meaningless, and I don't think it a justification in this case. The changes to the article certainly aren't vandalism, the disagreements about renaming are honest, and the renaming may have succeeding regardless of the edits to the article, and I'm fine with that. But the changes to the article done during an ongoing renaming proposal are far from good examples of courteous consensus-building. Sundayclose (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, I did not make the contended edits because I "like" them, but because I think continued references to DeAngelo by his monikers in the article body would be a disservice to readers. But I fully support him being referred to as "the offender" or "the suspect" in context of pre-capture investigations. JJARichardson (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Like them or not, you made them. And some of us here consider that inappropriate. Sundayclose (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @JJARichardson: Some of us consider it a disservice to misrepresent what is in the source in violation of WP:SYN. I agree that WP:IAR is not an affirmative defense.
I fully support him being referred to as "the offender" or "the suspect" in context of pre-capture investigations
If you revert the edits you and others have made and are continuing to make, which have accomplished the opposite, I would consider that a strong step in favor of resolving the concerns expressed here. The same with changes to the title that misrepresent the true title of the article, and changes that to the WP:LEDE that over-represent how much of the WP:BODY specifically talks about DeAngelo.
@Sundayclose:, @Jabberjaw: At this point, I don't anticipate filing at WP:AN/I or DR any time soon. One other venue that might make sense is WP:OR/N regarding the problem of WP:SYN--I might file there. Please be my guest if you (or anyone else concerned) want to file. I am happy to be named a concerned editor for the reasons stated in this section, and happy to chime in, in support of those concerns if it is filed. I am also happy to collaborate on the above draft or one like it.
Another option is to ping one of the moderators at DR to simply read this section, and give advice on how best to move forward. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I should point out that I have only edited the article body to make reference to DeAngelo in the "Crimes" section, purely regarding those he pleaded guilty to. However, sections about the investigative process still make use of nicknames and other descriptors, and I think this is appropriate. JJARichardson (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm less enthusiastic about filing anything (or supporting a filing) now, and I withdrew my draft based on [6]. The Golden Gate Killer moniker is less notable, significant, and established in the WP:RS of the article than I had believed when I came to this page or when I wrote that draft. I do think there are still problems about WP:SYN that seem to have existed even before DeAngelo's confession, probably even before the article was moved to the name "Golden State Killer". I also don't like the article being changed as if the decision to rename has already been made. But I no longer think the Golden Gate Killer moniker carries so much weight. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment' If his arrest, DNA evidence, and guilty plea, had occured before Wikipedia there would be zero controversy creating the page with his real name. Only because there was a big time delay and the killer got recognition for years before his real identity was found are we even having this debate. Thus the debate is really an artificial one relating to when Wikipedia was made rather than a real policy debate. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
The association between the golden title and a formerly trending comedian's dying wife's final wish is also a problematically small elephant in this post-Oswalt room, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@Harizotoh9: Hi. The name equus africanus asinus was the official name long before wikipedia came into existence, still it is not the article title. Same goes for Nova vs Earth, and Luna vs Moon. Luna is Moon's given/official name, yet Luna's article is called as "Moon". —usernamekiran (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Consensus appears to have been reached, could an uninvolved editor please close discussion and make the move? JJARichardson (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm glad that we are victorious against him and the other killers. Also, we identified him as the mastermind of this crimes. I hate criminals. People also strongly hated criminals. Rdp060707 (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Age of victims

Why don't we mention the age of DeAngelo's victims? This article is inside the Category:Child sexual abuse in the United States, and with similar articles, we do give the age, see Mack Ray Edwards, Oakland County Child Killer, or Jeffrey Dahmer. According to a radio report that I've just heard, DeAngelo's youngest victim, claimed in 1976, was 3 years old, where the recording of the testimony in court of mother Jane Carson Sandler was played on the air: "First, you blindfolded and gagged and raped me. Then you did the same to my 3-year-old son. How dare you!" The report also said that DeAngelo's recent 2018 detection and arrest occured while he was trying to abduct a 9-year-old girl. --46.93.159.224 (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The 2:21-minutes radio report is available here: [7] It may be in German, but you will be able to read the words "Golden State Killer" in the title of the audio file, and hear the words "Joseph DeAngelo", "Sacramento" (as the place of the court), the name Jane Carson Sandler, and portions of her English testimony. The report is by Deutschlandfunk, a rather reliable source. --46.93.159.224 (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: Golden State Killer has been sentenced to LIFE IN PRISON!

Hi, everyone! I recently discovered news of DeAngelo has been sentenced to life in prison. Should we put that down in the main article? Here's the source if anyone wants it: [[8]] Balkanite (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://biodiversitycyprus.blogspot.com/2015/07/genista-fasselata-decne.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 12:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://biodiversitycyprus.blogspot.com/2015/07/genista-fasselata-decne.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 12:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The "copyright problem" is due to vandalism by an IP address. The ugly template needs to be removed ASAP. JJARichardson (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no copyright problem, that blog copied our wiki article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.191.199 (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Also as the wiki markup in the vandalism shows it wasn't copied from the blog anyway, but from the corresponding wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.188.75 (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Merge. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge Visalia Ransacker here. DeAngelo pled guilty to the murder of Claude Snelling and is thus the Visalia Ransacker. There is no reason to have a separate article for one of his "personas"; if one of his personas was notable enough to have its article, it would be Original Night Stalker or East Area Rapist. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The suspected crimes of the VR are extensive (120+), with nearly all lapsing due to various statutes of limitations, and unless you can find better sources to support that he has pleaded guilty to all of these crimes currently associated with that suspect, then a separate page including that uncertainty is indeed warranted. JabberJaw (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
He has pled guilty to the central crime of the case, the murder of Claude Snelling, and attempted abduction of his daughter. If there was more than one person involved, then the "Visalia Ransacker" as a lone offender didn't exist, and it'd just be a string of burglaries committed by numerous individuals.--RM (Be my friend) 02:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I find it very telling that after 18 days, no-one here has been able to cite any sources or WP policy whatsoever to substantiate the faulty rationale behind the recommended move of this page - e.g. a court document or similar detailing a conviction or admission of guilt for each/all of the 120+ crimes. Yes, the VR case is very very complex, and I recommend reading the entire article. Anyway, IMO every one of the inferences made here in support of it fails the most basic Wikipedia:No original research scrutiny. JabberJaw (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
That seems a little pedantic to me. Not every single possible EAR incident is confirmed to be DeAngelo either. JJARichardson (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
That's bogus, as various reputable sources recognize DeAngelo was the Visalia Ransacker. [9] [10] [11] [12] None agree with your fringe POV that California needs to suspend the rule of law and retroactively abolish the statute of limitations to try DeAngelo for every single ransacking. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Given the nearly consensus expert opinion of the identity of the individual(s) responsible for the crimes (and I hate to present this as a "gotcha!") your interpretation is closer to what would be defined as original research, a fringe hypothetical that does not meet the requirements for how Wikipedia is organized. SIADmander (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The separate article is outdated following DeAngelo's conviction for the Snelling murder and should be merged into the greater timeline. The EAR was also connected to many "suspected" but unconfirmed incidents. JJARichardson (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support He's confessed to the Snelling murder which is the central crime of the Visalia Ransacker and related crimes that the statute of limitations makes them unable to charge him for. --WGFinley (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It's ridiculous to have two articles for the same person. He's pled guilty to the Snelling murder. This should have been merged after the plea, I don't understand how this is even debatable.--RM (Be my friend) 02:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • We know that DeAngelo was caught from being murderous, and he did a dangerous thing to everyone. Visalia Ransacker is DeAngelo, so it is true. The people and I are victorious against criminals, so my vote is: Support. Rdp060707 (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with you. I mean, he does confirm that he's the Visalia Ransacker and that he's responsible for the murder of Claude Snelling. So, yeah, both articles should merge since his admission to all the bad things he did. Emotioness Expression (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"His employment history in the 1980s is unknown"

Maybe we should look further into his employment. Emotioness Expression (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I second this, however we don't know where to start. Balkanite (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_James_DeAngelo/Archive_2&oldid=1192657035"