Talk:Richard Ramirez/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial discussions

I noticed a few things in the article that are stated as facts that really shouldn't be. All the refrences to Ramirez raping children, for example, aren't facts. They are speculations. They were never proven and he wasn't convicted for them. They should be changed in a way so that they are not presented as facts. (However, in all actuality they probably are true.)

Can we get some more current information on this guy, such as, say, psychiatric evaluations? --Orborde 06:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

he raped 50 people and killed 10. there was a documentary on E! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.6.20 (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Night Stalker

I just want to say that this guy scared the shit out of millions of Californians for half a year. Since I was living in California at the time this article probably does have some minor NPOV problems. Please update the article as needed. --mav

Absolutely, lots of folks were having nightmares about coming home to meet "The Nightstalker"

--- Removed from article:

Ramirez's first known murder was of a 50-year old clown name Frank Toots. He was raped and stuffed in a trunk.

This needs a citation - I could find no mention of a "Frank Toots" associated with anybody named "Ramirez" on the Internet.[1] -mav 05:26, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The March 17 article says "1985 - Serial killer Richard Ramirez commits his first two murders", while the main article says "Ramirez committed his third known murder on March 17". Which one is it? -- Card 18:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why is he listed under "Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual People" and yet, nothing is mentioned of this fact in the article? - good question, i've removed it until somebody can provide some examples of his bisexuality

Raping old women and sodomizing little boys isn't bisexuality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac Crumm (talk • contribs) 06:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

- No, it's sexual abuse. Raping old women is certainly not bisexual. Furthermore, there is no evidence that this man had a strong attraction to both genders and/or persued relationships with men. It's very likely that he was sexually abused as a child and is trying to "even the score" through his own violent means. 67.174.31.228 03:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Infrigement

I believe portions of this page have been lifted from CourtTVs Crime Library website. Specifically, the Trial and conviction section contains sentences that are nearly identical to sentences from the Crime Library site. For example:

On August 3, 1988, the Los Angeles Times reported that jail employees had overheard a plan by Ramirez to shoot and kill the prosecutor with a gun that someone was going to smuggle to him in the courtroom. A metal detector was installed outside the courtroom and even the lawyers were searched.

is very similiar to the fourth paragraph on this page:

On August 3, the LA Times reported that jail employees had overheard a plan by Ramirez to shoot and kill the prosecutor with a gun that someone was going to slip him in the courtroom. A metal detector was installed outside the courtroom and even the lawyers were searched. Ramirez seemed surprised, and no gun was ever found.

Another example:

On August 14, the trial was interrupted because juror Ms. Phyllis Singletary did not arrive. That day she was found dead in her apartment. The jury was terrified; they could not help but wonder if Ramirez had somehow directed this event from inside his prison cell and if he might have something similar done to another of them. She had been shot and killed by her boyfriend, who later killed himself with the same weapon in a hotel. The alternate juror who replaced Singletary was so afraid she could not even walk to her place.

is similiar to the twenty-fourth paragraph on the same page:

Judge Tynan called them into court the next day and told them that Ms. Singletary had been shot by an abusive boyfriend. He assured them the incident was unrelated to the case. An alternate was chosen to replace her, although the woman was so overcome with fear she could not walk to her place. Yet more news was forthcoming. Ms. Singletary's boyfriend used the same weapon with which he'd killed her to commit suicide in a hotel. He left behind his written confession. They had been arguing over the Ramirez case and he had become enraged by her disapproval of Ramirez's lawyers.

There are other examples as well. Not all of them are as cut-and-dry as these, however, and I do not feel qualified to rewrite anything. 209.51.77.64 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've rewritten the offending material the best I can, I hope that it's good enough. Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 00:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The article still plagiarizes whole paragraphs from www.trutv.com : http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/ramirez/satan_2.html

It lifts word-for-word large sections of the article. I think it needs to be rewritten —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.161.156 (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambig link to Richard Ramirez (musician)

I've added a disambiguation link for the noise musician Richard Ramirez. I'm torn as to whether it should actually be there; on one hand, almost everyone searching for "Richard Ramirez" will be looking for the serial killer and not the musician, but on the other hand, for people who are searching for the musician, this is the best way to help them find the appropriate article without resorting to a rather cumbersome search. At any rate, there is the link; I leave it to concensus to determine if it should stay. MrBook 16:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

- Then does that mean there should be a link here for those looking for Twiggy Ramirez (musician) incase they got lost? I see your point with the similarities in names, but where do you draw the line at similarity and accidental discoveries? No Stahr (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A&E documentary

Since 04 October 2006 Youtube visitors are able to watch a documentary by A&E titled 'Biography. THE NIGHT STALKER RICHARD RAMIREZ' (part 1: [2]; for the other parts see the middle column). In it are various statements made that (somewhat) differ from the information given by Wikipedia:

- It wasn't untill his teen years that Ramirez began spending his nights at the cemetery. To escape from his abusive father as a younger child he simply clinged to his (overly) religious mother.

- Ramirez' uncle Mike (Miguel) was in fact a Green Beret who was heavily decorated (in the article it says 'claimed', which makes for the logical connotation).

- The woman he shot but whose keys ricocheted the bullet is not named Angela Barrio but Maria Hernandez (spelling might be incorrect). Also, he shot her inside her garage, not outside her condo.

- The rape and killing of children is nowhere mentioned in the documentary, and I don't recall reading anywhere that he was convicted for such a thing. Naturally, the chances aren't slim he did this; but it shouldn't be portrayed as fact.

- In the Wikipedia article there is mentioning of one Harold and Jean Wu. I pressume these people are William 'Bill' Doi (shot in the head, 3rd deadly victim) and his wife Lillian 'Lillie' Doi (invalid and raped, restrained with thumbcuffs). No Wu family named in the documentary.

- The same goes for Malvial (Malvia I found on another website, possibly the source) Keller and Blanche Wolfe. The documentary claims these two women were called Mabel 'Ma Bell' Doyle and Florence Long.

- The rape of a 6-year-old again is not mentioned.

- There is no mentioning here of Maxson (Max?) and Lela Kneiding whom he killed on the same night (20 July 1985) as Chainarong and Somkid Khovananth, called Chitat and Sakima Assawahemin this article. No information given about their (alledged?) son.

- No mentioning in the documentary of the strange case of Christopher and Virginia Petersen.

- Again different names concerning Ammed Zia and Suu Kyi; in the documentary Allias and Sukina Abbawah (spelling might be wrong).

I hope someone can be of aid. There is alot of differing information.

Who wrote these criticisms of the article? Your criticism is valuable, but you need to sign your comments. As it is, there are a lot of problems with citation in the article. Someone removed the Eagle Rock murder, which I had read about in a contemporary copy of the LA Times found on FirstSearch historical newspapers at a college library. They removed it because they said it wasn't mentioned in court, but they did not cite the court transcripts. I don't even know where to get a hold of the information on what Ramirez was charged with exactly. There is a lot of sensational info floating around about him on the web and on TV, and rightly so, but there must be some way to get details we can cite. I am going to tag this article to note that it has problems with citation, but I am going to replace the Eagle Rock murder and cite it when I finally have access to that resource again. After all, when I added that detail and others I was using the newspaper article as a direct resource.Asedzie 14:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Source?

The last link on the article, the supposed source for the ogre comment, is not working. I'll be removing this line until the source article link has been fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TrrpnFlyr (talk • contribs) 22:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Picture of article

Look at the picture of the Times article; the names of victims differ from those on Wikipedia. Something tells me we should go with what the Times has to say about it.

Doesn't make sense

"Ramirez then left the Los Angeles area, and on August 17, he shot to death a 66-year-old man in San Francisco, also shooting and beating his wife. The couple survived their wounds and the wife was able to identify her attacker as "The Walk-in Killer" from police sketches. Since "The Walk-in Killer" no longer fit the modus operandi of the attacker, the news media re-dubbed him the "Night Stalker"."

So he shot the guy to death, but the couple survived?

199.33.140.2 23:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Rivers

Location of Murders.

In this article it states that he murdered a couple in Northridge on August 8th. He actually murdered a couple in Diamond Bar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angelfan26 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Spelling

Does anyone have a source for spelling the subject's last name "Ramírez", with a diacritical over the "i"? While that may have been the correct spelling of the name of his ancestors, I can't find any definitive source for him using it, or for others using it to refer to him. If there are no such sources we should move the article back to "Richard Ramirez". -Will Beback · † · 21:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Rape/Sexual Assualt of RR's Victims

The claim that Ramirez sexually assualted at least one of his victims is supported by newspaper articles written at the time of the crimes. In fact, the scanned newspaper article on this very wiki page notes that Ramirez sexually assualted his victims. If this was not included in the A&E documentary it is possible that their research was insufficient. After all, as I am sure you all will agree A&E is not the final, authoritative source for every historical issue. These articles may not be available on the web, but they are available through library/college newspaper databases.Asedzie 13:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Possessed?

Anyone notice in a lot of this guy's pictures he looks completely possessed? Aside from the pentagram on his palm, just look into his eyes; looks like there's not even a human soul behind them. Some would probably say it's due to being a deranged serial killer, or whatever, but I'd say otherwise. Look at these pictures for examples:

http://www.evilkillers.com/Richard%20Ramirez_files/ramirez.jpg

http://www.allserialkillers.com/Richard-Ramirez-Mad.jpg

Hell, others even have thought the same. "She sometimes wished she had resisted longer and caused a hung jury. In her opinion, Ramirez had been possessed by the Devil, and his lawyers should have raised this issue."

--Tainted Drifter 22:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would this be relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.131.228 (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Because some holly rollers seem to believe that "demonic possession" is the answer to mentall illnesses they dont understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.199.12 (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Then post a seperate topic about it, saying what some "speculate", and what some "holly rollers" have said in the past about his mental state. Keep to the facts, don't just claim he looks possest. If someone attempted to "purify his soul" with a exorcism, then saying he looks possest could be relavant. Other then that, please, let's try and avoid any more romanticism, this page is messed up as it is. No Stahr (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio from crimelibrary.com

Just look at this.--ID burn 06:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to post the same thing. Its quite blatant. Uncle Cheech 21:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though a certain Anthony Bruno wrote the Crime Library article, that article states "©2007 Turner Entertainment Digital Network, Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.". I doubt that the copyright holders were the ones who put this on Wikipedia. It's an almost exact copy and probably the only reason it's no longer an exact copy, but still very obviously a copy, is that it has been edited so often since. Unless someone goes through the trouble of completely rewriting it, I think this should unfortunately be nominated for deletion on Wikipedia:Copyright problems per Wikipedia:Copyright violations. wjmt (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

The tone of this article is completely off base for an encyclopedia; it is way too sensationalistic and florid. I'm going to try cutting through some of the worst, but any help would be appreciated. Matt Deres 19:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Like a book

This article is written like it's some thriller book or something... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.216.222.12 (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I must agree, parts of it remain twisted with someone's opinion, not fact... Seriously, back up what you type or don't type at all... I'll try and take away the sentiment of 'romanticism' as best I can. Someone inform me if it's not as cut and dry as it should be after I'm done.

No Stahr (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Birth date

I'm adding a Template:Fact to his birth date. The article lists it as 29 February, but the reference (which CANNOT be accessed freely) description says "Richaro Ramirez, born 28 Feb 1960 El Paso County, parents Julian Ramirez, Mercedes Munoz". wjmt (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is crap

Barely a single sentence of this mess is appropriate for Wikipedia; it's all sensationalized, romance novel-level dreck. I strongly suspect that, judging from the broken link to the Ramirez interview and the hilariously inept prose, Philip Carlo wrote most of this and linked to himself to sell his amateurish books. The entire thing may need to be re-written from the ground up. Carlo, you are almost as bad as the scum you're obsessed with. 71.239.124.173 (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The repetitive use of "horrific" in the first section describing the Vietnam war photographs Ramirez was supposedly shown as a child are a subjective rather than objective viewpoint of the event. I do not think I will be able to edit it sufficiently, but I suggest that somebody do. Skylarken (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's copyvio. I nominated this article for deletion. wjmt (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely! Reading this article made me angry. Honestly, I find it offensive. It's like this is some short story a disturbed little teeneager wrote, not a series of real events. I think the tone of this article not only embarrasses Wikipedia and its standards, but also downplays the tragedy. This article needs a complete rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.132.1 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Early Life and Influences section

I tried to reword this in order to make it more objective, which I have done, but it still isn't wonderful. It requires references - mainly to Ramirez's epilepsy, childhood and music tastes, and more information about 'Mike' and 'his wife' - surname, dates, name of the wife etc. In addition, I challenge the statement that 'five-point pentagram' was 'the symbol of the devil'. Ramirez may have mistakenly thought it so, but as far as I've read (mainly the wiki article about the pentagram), the pentagram has always had positive symbolism unless inverted. There thus needs to be some more information about Ramirez's 'satanism', and how these beliefs developed. At present, I do not have time to do an in-depth search for references, though I will try a basic web search for facts (such as his date of birth).Skylarken (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylarken (talk • contribs) 05:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nate Griffiths?

This entry in the list of victims looks suspicious to me. The mention of him being survived by his lover/manager and pet cat gives me the impression that it is vandalism. An internet search on Ramirez and Nate Griffiths only brings up this page. Also, to my knowledge Ramirez did not commit any known murders in Michigan. However, as I am new to Wikipedia I do not feel comfortable editing the article myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.211.98.180 (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, did he really kill Peter Pan? 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.131.228 (talk)

Quotes

I noticed that none of the quotes given at the bottom of the page are cited. Please provide the citations or else have the quotes removed until someone is willing to provide citations.

--BBUCommander (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The section has been tagged requesting sources. Is there some particular reason why you would doubt them to the point of requesting their removal? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A few of the quotes seemed overly sensational and thus perhaps someone (other than Ramirez) manufactured them to give such an effect. Also, the quotes appeared to be made by different people due to their differing tones, implying again that some may be manufactured, though that may be due to the mental state of Ramirez. The reason for removing such quotes if no source is cited would be to prevent visitors from reading chronically unsourced information that could actually be fabricated (thus not wasting future visitors' time with contentious information in an already information-packed article). --BBUCommander (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

SargJohnLennon (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, and look at this Philip Carlo's page too... all he does is cite his own website when he claims that he was shot in the head with a .22..... I think this guy is just a talentless hack who edits these and cites his own website

In Underground Culture

This section is relevant as Ramirez has generated literally dozens of songs (the listed ones are just better known examples or more easily verifiable) and has had an impact over and above just the victims of his crimes and the community they lived in. Most serial killers do not capture the imagination of artists in this way. Zeitgeist et al Hpldreams (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It is particularly relevant as the linkage between heavy metal and satanism was intensified by media coverage in this case —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpldreams (talk • contribs) 05:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I would suggest you develop a section, supported by reliable references that aren't simply links to lyrics pages that could be copyright violations, that support that Ramirez was notable for being a catalyst for the linking of heavy metal and Satanism. What you are adding is simply trivia and as such has been determined as unproductive in articles pertaining to murderers and serial killers. Your edit summary rationale that "Not all serial killers becom iconic in this way" and comment above that "Most serial killers do not capture the imagination of artists in this way" are factually untrue, which you would know if you dealt with such articles on a daily basis. A large number of serial killers have song references, have inspired (or created) art, etc. If you can develop a prose (vs. list) based section that is reliably cited about his unique influence, such as what has been developed at Charles Manson#Manson and culture, then great. Note that the music section of that article concerns songs written by Manson, not about him. Lists of song references, comments that he has things in common with other serial killers, etc. without independently published sourcing isn't going to fly. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Night Stalker

How did Ramirez and the Original Night Stalker both gain the nickname?Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Because someone noticed they both stalked at night and they stole the title from Kolchak: The Night Stalker? Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

Could someone please find some citation for the quotes given here. Unless they're backed up by something, they really need to be deleted. I see absolutely no evidence how a quote given in a room where the two victims inside were killed AND the killer is the only one to remember what was said. Seriously, where is this stuff coming from?!? No Stahr (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved this new thread to the bottom of the page where new topics should start. I have no problem with the edits you made on the page. The proper thing to do is to tag thing you feel need citations. I can't answer where the quotes came from, but if you have doubts, please tag. The only problem I have with the tags you did add to the article is that they aren't formatted in a way that brings them to attention on the pages where citations needed show up. Rather than add ^{[[citation needed]]} at those points, could you please change that to the templates for that such as {{cn}} or {{fact}}? Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

the night stalker-

if you watched the documentary on E! called THS: the night stalker, has the truth about him. he raped a total of 50 people and killed only ten of them. he moved all over the place to kill, he didnt stay in one place. thank you. 14 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.6.20 (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

My question is: Is Ramirez still alive and is he still going to be killed by the state of california? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.160.62.82 (talk • contribs)

The answer to that question is in the opening paragraph of the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

But when? Since the opening paragraph has been written, has he been executed? It doesn't list a date. Furthermore the OP clearly wanted to know if there was any new evidence, or appeals, that may have repealed his execution (though very unlikely). (written by: Skye) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.118.243 (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

According to San Quentin State Prison, there are 637 male inmates on Death Row. The same article says that there have been 11 executions between 1996 and 2006. You do the math.   Will Beback  talk  08:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

New changes about abuse

The changes I just added were sourced and they did reflect the source accurately. I have restored them. Some of it was in both sources but not necessarily all. The abuse he endured as a child was mentioned in both sources. This is also backed up by many researchers who study the childhood of predators. I only cited the sources that specifically addressed Ramirez but 6there are many more that back up the fact that serious child abuse is a major contributing cause for violent behavior in violent felons. This isn't intended to excuse nor is it necessary for the article since I didn't attempt to add cause to the article but the sources I cited did make the claims I put in. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Also the broken link which you restored backs up some of what I added. It is the same person who wrote the book. Thanks for correcting the link I didn't see the article until after you corrected it. Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you added the same two general references for all of your changes: the general and generic "Philip Carlo: "The night stalker : the true story of America's most feared serial killer" 1996 and the general and generic "American Justice: "The Night Stalker"." Four specific general and generic references with no page numbers with which one could "check the source". Otherwise, one must read the entire book to verify the changes. The reference to American Justice gives no further publication information so that one could verify the changes. You also removed two of the three updated inline references that I added and replaced them with these two generic references. I'm sorry, but this isn't sufficient referencing, especially when you clearly say "Some of it was in both sources but not necessarily all." You're admitting the referencing isn't specific and one must read entire books to discover even if the content being referenced is in the source. There are uses of contractions in general content that is not directly a quote. You added the content, it falls on you to reference it completely and sufficiently to allow others to verify the content and that just isn't possible with this. WP:BRD says to be bold and then discuss it if it is reverted. All you did was restore what has been challenged. I know Philip Carlo is the same person as Philip Carlo, but the interview itself leaves no ambiguity as to specifically what page it is found. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You win not because you check sources nor because you are right but becuase you spend a lot of time on wikipedia and therefore qualify as a censor. If anyone checks sources they will find out I am right and the information is relevent. Wikipedia is increasingly becoming resereved for those that are more inclined to argue and less for those who check sources. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I check sources and according to Wikipedia policy regarding verifiability and reliable sourcing, I am correct. Your addition of the same two generic sources with no way to determine where in the book something is found, and a very generic reference to American Justice with absolutely no further information on what that is, or where one might find it, is not adding adequate sourcing information. And for the record, making personal attacks by calling me a censor because I spend a lot time on Wikipedia is not acceptable. I am right because I understand the requirements for sourcing. You make it impossible for anyone to check a source because your citations are inadequate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should thank you. As they say necessity is the mother of invention or it spurs action. I chose to google wikipedia censorship to find out what is being said about wikipedia off wikipedia pages and there is plenty to read. As for your concerns about a personal attack I suggest you don't act as a censor if you don't want to be called a censor. You haven't quite chased another wikipedian off since your not the first unreasonable censor I encountered this isn't too surprising but you have encouraged me to keep better track of censorship. If wikipedia wants to maintain a good reputation they will have to address this problem without sweeping it under the rug. Whenever wiki-censors chase wikipedians off they just create more critics and wikipedias reputation deteriorates. My contributions will still happen just most of it will be elsewhere. I will make a few comments to try to correct the problem within wikipedia since that is preferable. I wasn't looking for an argument. This edit was trivial but the problem of wiki-censorship isn't. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, you aren't helping your case much by claiming censorship when the issue has nothing to do with suppressing content. The issue is that you stuck the same two generic references for everything you wrote. I carefully explained to you that what references you added were insufficient. I'm really sorry you don't understand that, but that is your problem. You said "Some of it was in both sources but not necessarily all." If you can manage to stop yelling censorship long enough to let the problems I've explained sink in, then maybe you could see the problem. But you know, if it suits you better to cry censorship when the issue is inadequate citations, then whatever. Censorship isn't the problem on Wikipedia, lack of verifiable sourcing and citations is the problem, and that is the problem here. Call it whatever you choose, I can demonstrate the issue. Spend a little time reading WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:V. Perhaps you'll learn that sticking in the title and author of a book and a vague reference to what may, or may not, be a television program without sufficient information to find that program, or page numbers to find your sources in the book falls too far short to be of any use. It isn't trivial when you removed citations that takes you to the exact page where something is written to verify and replace it "this book said it and it was on this show - but some of it was in both sources but not necessarily all. Get the book and read the entire thing to find and if you get lucky and you have cable, you might catch the broadcast." That's not censoring content, that's stamping out inadequacy to make a case for the content. If you add content, it is your responsibility to cite it well enough to allow someone to find it. You didn't do that. That is the problem here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Present Situation

Ramirez is presently in very poor health as he's in advanced state of emphysema and may very well die before he can be executed. This may be worth mentioning in the article though I couldn't do it since it's locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.10.99 (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not without a reliable source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Biography

I found a site, whereon an article was posted. The writer used a plethora of sources, none dating past 1996 though. (written by: Skye)

The Night Stalker: Serial Killer Richard Ramirez

Archive 1

When?

When will he be executed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.91.7 (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on California's execution rate, around 3010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.218 (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)