Talk:Ted Bundy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Mugshot Board Information

As an uploader of quite a few mugshots (which are totally "fair game" for WP), I'm very curious why the arrest information on the mug shot in the infobox has been "whited out". Is there a rule I'm not aware of, where a freely-licensed, fair-use mug shot from a law enforcement agency must have the "mug board" info deleted? This seems very strange, as the information on the board only further establishes the historical validity of the image. Can anyone explain why Bundy's mug shot has the arrest information deleted? I "just" noticed this, and am puzzled... Doc9871 (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it was changed back in 2007. I never noticed this myself. The only thing I can think to do is to find the mugshot again and reupload it with the whited out portion intact. I don't know of any rule either about this info needing to be removed. I think it was done and nobody questioned it at the time so it stayed. I've never done one myself so I'll leave it to you to replace it with a new one, ok? --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I'll look for it! I figured it was some weird error - I mean, why would that information be concealed? Doesn't make sense. Thanks for getting back to me, Crohnie! I'll find the mug shot somewhere or other... Doc9871 (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it even looked weider because the website that it says it was retrieved from isn't the mugshot! I don't know where they got it from with all the changes being so old. Thanks for taking the time, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It was clearly taken from here, which explains it. I'll find a better copy... Doc9871 (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This image may have had it officially "blanked out"; cannot find alternative image it seems. If there's no copy with the mug info (as it appears), it's moot... Doc9871 (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mormon stuff

http://books.google.com/books?id=rO5IdAhFw_YC&pg=PA158&dq=ted+bundy+mormon&cd=1#v=onepage&q=ted%20bundy%20mormon&f=false

I've also heard he got into scientology and hinduism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.213.18 (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(1) The question isn't whether or not he joined the Mormon Church, the question is whether or not he denounced his Methodist upbringing. If he had, that would make him a "Former Methodist" as you are trying to assert by changing the category in question from "American Methodists" to "Former Methodists". If you have actually read "The Only Living Witness" as well as "The Phantom Prince: My Life With Ted Bundy", you would know that he did the Mormon thing largely to impress his then-girlfriend, "Elizabeth Kendall" (pseudonym) and her LDS family. (2) In Wikipedia, the issue isn't truth, it's verifiability. That may seem kinda backwards to you as a new contributor, but verifiability has its merits - and actually makes for a better encyclopedia. If what you "heard" isn't verifiable, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. But back to the changing of the categories: if you have a verifiable source that states Bundy renounced his Methodist upbringing, then please bring that reference here and the category can be changed appropriately. Until then, I think it really would be best to leave the category, "American Methodists" as is. If anyone else has any other thoughts on this, I'd be interested in reading them. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd personally remove the category entirely, as the "godless" (my opinion) Bundy only converted to Methodism to impress a girlfriend (as SRQ accurately pointed out). Any true Methodist would be ashamed to have Bundy in this category, and Bundy certainly didn't really believe himself to be one... Doc9871 (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahem...Bundy was raised Methodist as a child and went through the LDS baptism motions for his girlfriend and her family as an adult. I'm not so sure that he wasn't still a member of the Methodist church he grew up in when he died. But...how do you know what Bundy was thinking...? Can you possibly know? Would you even *want* to? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If Bundy was willingly Baptized into the LDS Church then he was no longer a Methodist (if he ever was one).

Whether or not he should be categorized as a Methodist (or a Mormon) is what I'm getting at. John List was a devout Lutheran, and I could see this killer begrudgingly listed in this category (since it factored heavily in the reasoning behind his crimes). With a Ted Bundy, especially when it's confirmed he "switched" religions out of opportunity at least once, listing him in any religious category is debatable. Of course I can't (nor would want to) get inside his head; but he was no active and practicing Methodist according to what I was confirmed to be. Having him in this category between "American escapees" and "American child murderers" only starkly illustrates the inappropriate nature of this category for this subject. IMHO, it should be mentioned in the article's body, not categorized... Doc9871 (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be offensive to you for Bundy to be listed as an American Methodist, but whether or not the categories are offensive to readers and/or editors isn't the point, nor should it be a consideration, should it? For example, Marsha Stevens was a pioneer in Jesus Music and Contemporary Christian Music, however at a particular point in her life she realized she was a lesbian. Her marriage broke up because of it, her standing within the Christian music industry crumbled, yet she continued to recognize and identitfy herself as a born-again Christian. Now, in her article here in WP, one of her listed article categories is "Christian Songwriters" (among others). Amongst a number of right-wing and other born-again Christians, that would be a complete slap in the face. How, exactly, does what you feel religiously or spiritually have any bearing on whether or not a category should stay or go in a Wikipedia article? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We could "wax poetic" all night long about other examples, but I'm looking at Ted Bundy right now. Is Bundy deserving of being in the Methodist category? I don't personally think so; but it's not for me to decide, either. Is there anybody... OUT THERE??!! (for comment) ;> Doc9871 (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "waxing poetic" about anything. You have claimed on other occasions to want to see good arguments in discussion regarding content, and I've given you one. The Stevens example is a good one, and actually falls right in line with what you were saying. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:WAX. Stevens is not a bad example, and I didn't say it was. It is getting off-topic to the Ted Bundy issue, which has nothing to do with Stevens... Doc9871 (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And neither does how you feel spiritually about whether or not in his heart he was still a Methodist or a Mormon or a Scientologist or member of the Temple of Set. The fact is that he was a member of the local Methodist Church he grew up in (until he died, IIRC) and there should still be a categorical listing in the article for "American Methodists" regardless of your feelings about the matter. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling I'm just going to go with what you say about BUndy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuudder (talk • contribs) 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Bundy left the Methodists Joined the Mormons and later joined the Hindus it seems he had no real ties to any of these groups and like Doc9871 suggested none of those categories should be on his page. -Tuudder —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuudder (talk • contribs) 02:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And you have verified with a reliable, secondary source that Bundy "later joined the Hindus", right? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well you insulted me when I last told you my source so I'm not sure if I'll tell you this time. --Tuudder (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt insulted - that was not my intent. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'll share my Hindu source some other time for now I have a source that lists him as a former protastant. [1] --Tuudder (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in the broadest sense of the term, "Protestant" would include the LDS church. So...I'm not sure where you are trying to come from here. Are you LDS and is *that* why you are holding to the position that Bundy was no longer Methodist (and "Protestant")? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My reasons are unimpotant. The fact is Bundy joined the Mormon Church his name is on paper as a member and as of the moment he signed it he officially left his previous church which is now confirmed by a source that you can or anyone else can read. --Tuudder (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well...as far as Wikipedia is concerned, your reasons most certainly *are* important if you're here with an agenda and are trying to push a particular point of view. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious just what your motives are to but I'd rather talk about the article. --Tuudder (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(@SRQ) - You're absolutely right that my "feelings about the matter" won't really have any bearing on the facts of the matter. I'm not going to revert anything; I rather ask other editors to assess the situation and voice their opinions. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And this ambivalence you're now demonstrating is confusing to me, because previously, you were stating how it was offensive to you as a confirmed Methodist (at least that's how I read it) that Bundy would be included in a Methodist category. So... ??? But as far as other opinions, yes, by all means let's have some. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly was confirmed a Methodist at the age of 13 (the proper age). Bundy's ambivalence towards religion and God (as he murdered innocent young women and girls) is in question, not mine... Doc9871 (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sociopaths don't really experience true ambivalence - they're essentially incapable of it. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No argument with that. Is he capable of honestly conforming to an organized religion, thus worthy of being categorized as a worshipper of that faith? Doc9871 (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

According to documented sources it looks like Bundy didn't really believe in what the churches said or anything he was just using the churches as a cover. That's why I hesistate to call him a mormon though he did convert--Tuudder (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about something someone believed or didn't believe who is now dead and none of it can be verified one way or the other anyway. But in reality, as far as content in a Wikipedia article, none of that matters. Verifiability over truth is what matters. Nonetheless, this all started when you wanted to change a category in the article from "American Methodist" to "Former Methodists". There is nothing in any of the sources you have listed that say he had his membership from the Methodist Church removed. Until that can be proven with a verifiable, reliable source that states he no longer was a member of the Tacoma, Washington Methodist Church he grew up in, then the category should stay as it is. What he believed, and when he believed it isn't the issue. That he fits the American Methodist category does. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Doc: "Is he capable of honestly conforming to an organized religion, thus worthy of being categorized as a worshipper of that faith?" Who cares? People become members of churches and organizations all the time without actually in their heart-of-hearts adhering to the beliefs and precepts of those churches and organizations. Here's an example: walking into a McDonalds doesn't make you a hamburger any more than becoming a member of a Christian church makes you a Christian. Having the label is just having the label - God is the one who sorts out the rest on His own. He doesn't need church rolls to tell Him who belongs to Him and who doesn't. But...is this issue *really* about Christianity/spirituality or is it about whether or not there is a verifiable reference available to prove Bundy was no longer a Methodist? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to relate or respond to the McDonald's analogy, really, as I'm not quite sure what you're saying with that. Why should Ted Bundy be categorized as a Methodist or a Mormon (or a Hindu, for that matter)? Because he was "raised" as one or the other? Because he "converted" at one time or another? Should he be categorized under "American Christians" on top of that (if there is such a category)? Is there a limit for individuals such as these? To "wax"... what was Adolf Hitler's actual "registered" religion, as if that would matter in a category for him? Bundy was about as non-religious and selfish an individual you can find. Categorizing him as a "Methodist" because a source confirmed he was raised Methodist, I think, is still "stretching" the limits of this category's purpose... Doc9871 (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, Doc - you're the one who brought up a question of whether or not Bundy could really be a Methodist because how could he really have "worshipped" (your terminology, not mine) as a Methodist considering who he really was, etc., etc. You stray from the actual issue, and then wonder why I answer the way I did in response to your straying. Whatever. Let's get back to the issue here, okay? And that is... (drum roll, please)...whether or not the article category should be "American Methodists" or "Former Methodists" - all because Bundy wanted to impress his lapsed-Mormon girlfriend and her non-lapsed LDS parents by getting baptised in the Mormon Church. You know where I stand on this - now...what about you? (IIRC, you have yet to say one way or the other) If you want to eliminate any and all religion categories from this article - fine. Bring it up in another section here on the talk page. But here - the is as I stated above, in this response to you. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't effectively argue religion with a minister, and I won't try (I don't know those aspects well). I see only one truly odd and misplaced category for Ted Bundy at the bottom of the page, and that is "American Methodists". If it were changed to "Former Methodists", it would look even "weirder". To not have that misplaced religion category would be best, I think, but I won't raise it in a separate section (as plenty of people are watching this, I would guess ;>). No category "mention" of his "Methodism" is necessary. He was raised a Methodist; big deal. Leave that (cited) in the article body; he shouldn't be"over-categorized" as a Methodist, former or "current" (heheee - get it? "Current" "ZAP!!" Tough crowd...) Doc9871 (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well there are two reliable sources showing above that he changed his religious twice. I have to admit that I missed this in reading the books. I think it would be interesting to add this bit to the article about how he switched his religious preferences on what was happening during his time of life. Maybe we could remove the categories and make a paragraph about the religions he took on with the references described above but both Tuudder and SkagitRiverQueen. Just reading this section was quite interesting which shows me at least that it could be interesting in the body of the article. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus nor decision agreed upong to completely remove the "American Methodists" category, Crohnie. I have to wonder what possessed you to completely remove the category - especially since you can see here that the whole matter is still under discussion. I've reverted that removal. Now - as far as I know, and according to everything I've read where his religion is mentioned, he was still on the church rolls at Tacoma's First Methodist Church. If they still considered him a member when he died (although, I don't know why they would want to), then he was still officially a Methodist - regardless of his other religious dalliances and flirtations. But...as far as completely removing the category - I don't think it's appropriate to do so until there's further discussion specifically about removing it completely. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well if we keep that one in than the other religions that he signed onto should also be listed since there are reliable sources posted in this section that show he also practiced others. I deleted it because it is shown not to be accurate as can be seen [2] and what Tuudder has shown. So, what I am saying is that it is shown that he practiced other religions than listing him as one specific kind is not accurate nor is it supported to be the only one. Thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue of church membership isn't about what you are practicing it's about which one you belong to. Until membership is renounced, you are removed from membership against your will or without your knowledge, or you have formally asked for removal from membership, you remain a member of that church. "Practicing' isn't the question - the category isn't "Practicing American Methodists", after all. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

How do we know this wasn't done? Which source says he is still a member? I saw sources saying that he went on to other religions so how do we know what religion he finally landed on? --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be combining a person having an interest in a religion, practicing it in part or whole, and actually being an official member of that religion. He may have had in interest in studying the practices of a particular religion or denomination but that doesn't mean he was an official on-the-rolls member of that religion. Do the sources you are referring to state he became an official member or that he just had an interest? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In his final interview with with James Dobson in 1989, Bundy makes references to still being a Methodist, believing in God, and what "wonderful Christian home" he was raised in. You can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDyBkEnBHJk It's possible his beliefs lapsed during the murders and other points in his life, but he definately considered himself Methodist at the end of his life.Ash Loomis (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at the reference at the top of this section. It says "Bundy joined the Mormon church that September". So with the reference you show, which is youtube and not a WP:RS, we have him joining two different religions which means the category on the article in incorrect and inaccurate according to sources. I rest my case. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

He also claimed to have been raised in a loving home with two wonderful parents. check his article and see how he lied for yourself. --Tuudder (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Tuudder, please click here ---> for the WP article on verifiability and truth to see how verifiability, not truth, plays into editing WP articles. But aside from that, there's no evidence that shows Bundy *wasn't* raised in a loving home with two wonderful parents. From everything I've read, Johnny and Louise Bundy were loving parents who did their best to raise all of their children in a loving, "wonderful" home. Other than his obviously twisted grandparents, Bundy was raised in a good family. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the reference isn't YouTube, it's the video itself which is avaliable independant of YouTube. I just thought that since it is also avaliable online, I'd just link to it so you wouldn't have to go and hunt down the video. We can still cite the video, not the YouTube link to it. Are you really going to try and argue that an official video interview with Ted Bundy isn't a reliable source? Perhaps Bundy did join the Mormon church for some time, but people switch back and forth between religions all the time. For the majority of his life, and by the end of it, he considered himself Methodist.Ash Loomis (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You still don't seem to be getting it, Crohnie. Whether or not he requested his membership from the Methodist Church to be removed and whether or not he considered himself to still be a Methodist is the question, not his Mormon baptism and dalliance with that particular religion to please his girlfriend's parents. That he still considered himself a Methodist at the time of his death seems to be addressed in the statement he made to James Dobson. And, BTW - no one is suggesting the YouTube video be used as a reference (good grief - here we go again with YouTube as a reference). All Ash is saying is that the video is available so you can see what he said (and are references required for categories, anyway?) The Bundy/Dobson interview was transcribed by FOTF almost as soon as the interview was over (Dobson used it shamelessly to push his particular agenda at the time), so a written reference/source is certainlly out there somewhere. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I still think that this is something that might be better in the article than in the categories. Maybe putting together a paragraph with the religion of choice and the references would be an interesting addition to add. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ted Bundy born Theodore Robert Cowell at the Elizabeth Lund Home For Unwed Mothers identity of his father is ugiven by his mother as either Lloyd Marshall Jack Worthington. though Bundy's family did expressed suspicion about Louise's violent, abusive father, Samuel Cowell. Bundy's maternal grandparents, Samuel and Eleanor Cowell, claimed him as their son. He grew up believing that his mother was his older sister. Ted learned Louise was actually his mother while he was in high school. doesn't leave much room to be his mother does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuudder (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he still believed he was his mother's much younger brother until the late 1960s. That doesn't mean he wasn't raised in a "loving, wonderful" home. I have cousins who were adopted shortly after birth and were not told by their parents they were adopted until they were both ready to graduate high school. Did it affect them? Certainly - they were hurt that their parents didn't tell them the truth for a very long time. But, parents in that time period - and long before - frequently kept information like that from their children; often into adulthood. And I would wager that 99.9999% of them didn't become serial killers because of it(which is what you seem to be implying here) and were most certainly raised in what would be considered "loving, wonderful" homes. But...what does any of this have to do with editing the article, Tuudder? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're ignoring that in Ted's case he was (according to the article) raised in the home of "Louise's violent, abusive father, Samuel Cowell." --Tuudder (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring anything of the sort. I even mentioned his grandparents above when I said, "Other than his obviously twisted grandparents, Bundy was raised in a good family". Regardless, this is all starting to go nowhere, Tuudder. Please remember: this page is for discussing improvements to the article and is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject (Ted Bundy). If you have suggestions for improving the article, please feel free to discuss those improvements - talking about Bundy's homelife and how he was raised has already been covered by his numerous biographers - it really doesn't need to be (and shouldn't be) rehashed here. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I was pointing out to another editor that Bundy's last interview contained falsehoods and you started talking about your own family for some reason. --Tuudder (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

On more than one occasion it's been kinda hard to tell who you were addressing because some of your talk-page contributions haven't been in the order of discussion and you haven't noted you were directly addressing a specific editor (that I recall). In the future, if you want to address a specific editor, you can do as Doc did above and use something like, "@Doc" or "@<insert editor's name here>". Even so, when you address specific editors on a talk page, anyone can (and may) respond - even on an editor's own talk page. Wikipedia talk pages are not owned by anyone other than Wikipedia, so everything here is fair game. Capisce? I did place a "Welcome to Wikipedia" template on your talk page earlier today - in that box, you will find all kinds of articles that give good tips and suggestions about navigating and operating within Wikipedia successfully. You would be doing yourself a favor by familiarizing yourself and taking advantage of what's there. Hope that helps. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break, Bundy's religion? (s?)

First, please remember that Truudder is a newbie so please remember don't bite the newbie, thanks. Truuder, on my talk page you mention his religions, would you mind listing all of your references here So we can discuss them one at a time? With what I do know about this, first I would say, the religion he chose in prison should most definitely be ignored. Prisoner always seem to find religion while in prison. My personal preference would be to add his religious choices in a new paragraph. With the length of this conversation it think it shows it meets notability standards plus it's interesting and would add to the article. I think the category listed is incomplete and should be removed or his other religious choice added which in a way would be silly and confusing to the readers.

So, how about we list all of the references and make a comment about what religion he chose and why he chose it. I'm sorry I don't buy the part where he is still listed as a methodist at the church. Unless we can prove that with citations is the question. Also, SkagitRiverQueen, you say in part "not his Mormon baptism and dalliance with that particular religion" is a major question in what religion he chose. If he was baptised a Mormon that he is a Mormon. I think saying dalliance with other religions is unfair to this discussion. So saying all of this, I think one of two things should possibly happen. Either we write into the article his different religions, with references and the add the categories of them or we get rid of the religion completely including the categories. Opinions? --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally would lean heavily towards the second choice: but I should explain. I personally am against "categorizing" Bundy into any religious categories at the page's bottom outright. I'm not against a well-written and well-referenced section explaining his religious dalliances, but I still don't think these "religions" should be "categorized", that's for sure. Thanks for facilitating the opening of this debate to further discussion, Crohnie! Doc9871 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing it Doc. --Tuudder (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As much as I hate backing her up, this editor seemed to indicate she had no issues with the category and stated that there was no consensus to remove the category here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

All it takes is a simple majority vote yes? --Tuudder (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't a vote, WP:CONSENSUS says cosensus results from discussion. SkagitRiverQueen strongly objected to the removal, so it needs to stay until the discussion has concluded. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So either we get SkagitRiverQueen to agree or no edit can be made? --Tuudder (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but discussion needs to continue. I don't think she will be available the next few days to continue discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's not fair to change the edit when an objecting editor is temporarily unable to respond and the discussion hasn't closed. There's plenty of time, and the category (while I don't personally like it) isn't vandalism or anything like that, and doesn't actually damage the article. It's just unnecessary in my opinion, but not everyone agrees. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok then shall we start a new discussion? And can we please keep this one organized? SRQ made it difficult to have a dialog with anyone other than her though I don't know if that was her intent. --Tuudder (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tuudder, we can't really re-start the discussion until the objecting editor returns. While you and I agree the category should be removed, SRQ does not, and has every right to participate when she is able to. There hasn't been a closure to the discussion, and as I pointed out, the category is certainly not "damaging" to the article, necessitating its removal. We cannot circumvent proper procedure, and consensus must be properly reached. No worries; there's no deadline, and if consensus to remove the category is reached, it will be; if it isn't, it won't be. We must wait for this. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly then you've convinced me to wait till SRQ returns for a vote. --Tuudder (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding, Tuudder! We've got to be fair to all concerned (or we would be in error), and SRQ did raise objection to its removal. We can't do it till she gets her say further and consensus is reached. I'm personally confident it will be in favor of removal, but I can't predict it (and consensus can change, after all). We'll see when she gets back (and it shouldn't be too much longer). Cheers! Doc9871 (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

However, once again, it is not a matter of voting. Discussion and the weight of arguments presented determine how a consensus develops. It isn't a matter of yea or nay. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite true ;> Doc9871 (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I see SkagitRiverQueen still has the ability to make friends and influence people. As usual, she is wrong. If you have yourself baptized into a different religion, then by definition you are no longer an adherent of your previous religion. That's the whole point. That's what baptism is all about. So Ted Bundy was by definition a FORMER Methodist as of his baptism into the Mormon Church in 1975. Period, end of story, thank you and drive safely. Thus the category he should be classified under, if any, is "Former Methodists". Nor should he be listed under a category of Latter-Day Saints, as he converted to Buddhism when he was in prison. These are all known facts which are documented in The Only Living Witness and The Stranger Beside Me. When I have time, which I don't at the moment, I will note those exact pages.

(continuing) He would at least be theoretically eligible for Category:Former Latter Day Saints as well as Category:Former Methodists, but the Former LDS category contains a note saying that "This category is for people whose former membership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any other Latter Day Saints denomination is a defining characteristic for them." I think that fairly clearly rules Bundy out, as there is precious little evidence that he practiced the LDS religion in any meaningful way. The other category he would be eligible for is Category:American Buddhists, as he is known to have converted to Buddhism on death row and there is no evidence he ever renounced that conversion--even if it was a conversion solely motivated by dietary concerns, as is documented.

(continuing) So, of five possible categories--Category:American Methodists, Category:American Latter Day Saints, Category:American Buddhists, Category:Former Methodists, and Category:Former Latter Day Saints--he is by definition not classified in the first and second, due to his conversions. He should not be classified in the fifth, based on the definition of that category in Wikipedia. He would only be eligible for the third and fourth, based on his jailhouse conversion to Buddhism and his Methodist upbringing. On that basis, I am deleting the "American Methodists" and "American Latter Day Saints" categories from the article. I will not delete either category 3 or category 4 as listed above, as they are technically correct, but I don't think it's useful to put those categories in the article as Bundy was clearly never a serious practitioner of any religion, at least not after he stopped going to Methodist church with his family. Vidor (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As an ordained Christian minister, theologian, and former Bible college/Christian theology professor, I can testify that your statement, ("If you have yourself baptized into a different religion, then by definition you are no longer an adherent of your previous religion. That's the whole point. That's what baptism is all about") is wrong. Well...it's wrong in reference to Protestant and non-Episcopalian/Anglican churches. The point of baptism is that it is a public confession of faith in Jesus Christ - it is not a statement regarding the church you are baptized inside of or the denomination of the person baptizing you. Those baptized in a Christian church building or in an outside location (minus the examples I gave above) are baptized into Christ, not into a denomination (except in the case of infant baptism, and then the baby is baptized into "the family of God"). Bundy may have been baptized in the LDS Church, but unless he renounced and then requested his membership from the First Methodist Church of Tacoma be removed, he was still a member of that church. I realize that Mormons have a different take on what baptism means within the confines of their religion (just look at the controversy surrounding their "proxy baptism" of Jews who died in the Holocaust for an example), however, the majority of Christian churches don't recognize Mormonism as a sect or denomination of Christianity. As a matter of fact, when joining a church or fellowship as a member, the majority of Christian churches don't recognize Mormon baptism as being valid, and any new member who was baptized in the Mormon Church has to be rebaptized.

Frankly, I really don't care whether or not the category is still in the article. But to then replace the category with "Former Methodists" is inaccurate. So far, nothing has been found to indicate Bundy ever renounced his Methodism or was removed from the church's rolls, so...that makes him a Methodist - even if just in name only.

--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should do what the references say. He changed his religion many times and so that would make him a former 'whatever' up until the last religion he took on. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Studying about a denomination doesn't make one a member of a particular church. If he was still listed on the church rolls of the Methodist Church he attended as a child, he was still a Methodist. Put something in the article about the various religions he studied - that's fine. But unless he denounced his membership and requested to be removed from that church's membership (or was removed by an authority in that church) he was still a Methodist. As far as "what the references say" - where is there a reference that states he became a *member* of any other denomination or sect or religion? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So far, nothing has been found to indicate Bundy ever renounced his Methodism He was baptized into the Mormon church. Do you speak English? Vidor (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

He was baptised *in* a Mormon church (or Temple, possibly). If he never formally requested his membership from First Methodist in Tacoma be removed, he was still a Methodist. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a quaint view of the whole notion of baptism. Every person in the world who got baptized into a new church will be interested to hear that it didn't really happen. Vidor (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Quaint"? Not hardly. All one has to do is look at Matthew 3:13-16, Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:38-41, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-5, Colossians 2:12, Galatians 3:26-27, Ephesians 4:4-5, (to name only a few off the top of my head). Not one of the Scriptures in the New Testament says that baptism = church membership. Baptism is not synonymous with church membership (nor vice-versa). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, "quaint" seemed nicer than "idiotic". Vidor (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess it *is* "nicer", however, both are inaccurate. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Asinine? Ridiculous? Lots of words are popping to mind. Vidor (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Using the references above I provided for you, it's obvious that John the Baptist and Jesus Christ put the practice in motion, but ultimately God is the One Who set it up. Got a problem with what Christian baptism really means? Take it up with Him. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this issue has been put to bed, but, following up on what I wrote above, Michaud and Aynesworth mention Bundy joining the Mormon church in Sept. 1975, "The Only Living Witness", p. 158. Vidor (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless TOLW states Bundy asked to have his Methodist membership removed, that info still means zip in relation to church membership. It's true that being baptized in the Mormon Church makes one, in Mormon eyes, a Mormon. Mormons who go through proxy baptism for the dead also believe that deceased person they are being baptized on behalf of is now a Mormon because of that baptism. But, no matter what Mormon doctrine teaches, Bundy was still a Methodist when he was baptized in the Mormon Church - and the Methodist Church does not recognize Mormon baptism as valid. As I have also stated previously, if Bundy never had his membership from the United Methodist Church removed and/or he never renounced his Methodist confirmation, he was still a Methodist. Look at it this way: if someone goes through a marriage ceremony with someone but never obtained a legal divorce, they are still married. It doesn't matter what the bigamist promised to the second person they married - the first marriage is still legal and binding. Even though there are no governmental legalities involved with the baptism scenario, the principle is still the same. In order to no longer belong to a denomination you formally accepted at one time, you have to request your membership to that denomination be removed before you can be officially considered a member of the new religion/denomination/sect. Find something that states Bundy formally left Methodism, and the story completely changes. Until then, you might want to read WP:LETGO. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, your viewpoint here is still as absurd as it ever was--I guess Bundy belonged to three religions at once while he was on Death Row, because he didn't send a notarized letter to whoever was in charge of the Methodist church or something, and the comparison of church membership to the legal contract that is marriage is completely insane--but I don't and didn't have any intention of restarting the debate. Rather I am doing what I promised to do above in my note of March 7: noting the specific, documented cite from The Only Living Witness that mentions Ted's baptism into the LDS. Whenever I skim through The Stranger Beside Me again I'll note that too. (Further note: p. 169 references Louise's disapproval of Ted's "switch of religions".) Vidor (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it that today's revision of the above (re: his mother's "disapproval") means you still haven't found anything concrete that verifies Bundy asked to have his United Methodist membership removed? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, and I'm not looking for it, because I don't care and I find your viewpoint on this position laughably ridiculous. Vidor (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you've made that abundantly clear more than once. Something I've noted, however, is the absence of anyone rushing to agree with your opinion that "my viewpoint on this position is laughably ridiculous". <shrug> --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like everyone but you thinks you are wrong. I'd venture to say that extends to most of Planet Earth, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned the proof is on the talk page. In any case, I most sincerely did not intend to reopen a debate with you as it would be just as constructive to have a debate with the chair I'm sitting on; I'm merely doing what I said upthread, noting the specific references to Bundy's religious conversions. Vidor (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

VW Bug photo?

On a subject that could potentially be much more useful to the article--Ted Bundy's Volkswagen is now on display at the National Museum of Crime and Punishment. Installed in February of 2010, apparently. There are articles all over the Internet, including here at the Washington Post and here at the New York Times, as well as a page at the museum's website, here. All three have photos of the car. What I am wondering is, would it be possible to get a photo of the car in the article? All the photos I'm finding in news stories are attributed to the museum. If we post one under a fair use justification, what are the odds that it will stand up to challenge? (If we picked one, the NYT photo looks the best to me, as it shows the car from a front-and-side view and doesn't have a person in the picture.) It would of course be even better if someone in the DC area could take a picture of the car or if we could find a photo someone's taken of the car that they posted under some kind of Creative Commons license or whatnot. Thoughts? Vidor (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, never mind! I found it on Flickr! Vidor (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Great find, wonderful addition, thanks. Looking at this photo make the car look like it's in such good condition. Was there one of the inside of the car, esp. with the passenger seat out? Just curious, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the photos in each of the three external links above, you can see the front of the car better, and you can see that it has several rust spots. Of course those photos aren't available under a Creative Commons license. I guess it would probably be driveable if you changed the oil and gave it a tuneup and whatnot. Ted certainly had no problem tooling around the West looking for victims in it. I have never seen a picture of the inside of the car anywhere, neither now or in any earlier sources like the Bundy books or that MTV news article from some years ago featuring Jonathan Davis of Korn and the car. But I have seen other VW Bugs, and they are awfully small, even with the passenger seat out. We should probably check back on Flickr from time to time; eventually someone may post a photo of the interior of the car. I read in an article once, can't remember where, that the interior of the car had been pretty much stripped bare by the police searches for forensic evidence. Vidor (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually your first reference shows the interior of the car. [3] I don't know if this is going to show it but if not in the photo, the upper right is the word next, click it. I think this is how Bundy kept the car when he did his trolling, at least that's what I remember reading. Be back later or tomorrow. Need my rest since I just got out the hospital on Friday, I'm exhausted. :) Thanks Vidor, good find. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you beat me to noticing that. Looks like a rubber flooring of some sort; I guess the cops did in fact take the carpeting off. Looks like some serious rust in the driver's side footwell. Such a tiny little car--even with the seat removed it's hard to imagine a victim crammed in there. I wonder how many of them struggled. Maybe he whacked them with the crowbar again if they started moving too much. Vidor (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, look at this. YouTube video of some dude going to Jonathan Davis's house. Davis is showing off his cars--fast forward to 2:50 and you can see Davis showing off Ted Bundy's car. Vidor (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have trouble with youtube videos, some kind of security hubby set up. The image though in that other reference of the interior of his car says so much more than just the photo of the car itself to me. The car is small but most of what I read about his car related to the interior of it. Thanks for finding these photos though, I've found it fascinating. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be pretty sweet if someone would post a photo of that interior on Flickr. We'll have to keep a watch out. Vidor (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

More links...http://www.theolympian.com/2010/02/23/1148094/a-car-with-a-heinous-history.html Maybe we need a section on the main page devoted to this car? Note that it bumped Dillinger's rideVulpineLady (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think we need a section on the car. It's just a car, after all. The picture is enough. Vidor (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Better photo of car? I think so. Shows clearly that the Bug only has one seat, shows the rust spots and faded paint better. Should we switch them out? Vidor (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There we go--both still at the Commons if anyone wants to change them back. Vidor (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Photo of sentencing document from the Chi Omega trial now up at Commons. I don't think it would be very useful for the article, though. Vidor (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Murder kit photo, again

User:Rockfang struck again, taking the re-sized, reduced photo, which I posted to the article on Jan. 27 in place of the original (twice as big, contained a hand-written caption), and shrank it again, reducing it to half of its previous size. Anybody who would like to keep the photo--which survived an admin review in January, remember, so this subject was closed--at the size it was on Jan. 27, please pitch in on the photo's talk page. Vidor (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I just want to note here that I too commented there to keep the consensus version of the image. Thanks Vidor, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ottis Toole

Ottis Toole was never arrested or convicted for the murder of Adam Walsh. The case was "closed" is an opinion of police not a court verdict. Therefore, it's more accurate to write that police believed Toole was Walsh's murderer than to state it as a fact. Thus I made the change.

PainMan (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The changes you made look good to me. Good catch on the Toole comment as you are correct about that. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, a case is closed when police say it is, and whether a case is closed or not is a matter of fact, not opinion. Vidor (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

the vW

someone made a mistake along the line ... that car is titled as a 113 ... the 113 didn't exist untill 1971(the super beetle) that car is a 111 standard beetle .. they said on the wall the seat with no bolts holding it in was unbolted .. i understand that they go by what info is available from news reports and such but they didn't think to make sure they had the right info on the car before they put it on display??????

Except we can't change such based on the personal opinion of an editor. We are required to reflect sources, not pick and choose what is used. And the National Museum of Crime and Punishment identifies it as a 1968 Volkswagen Beetle. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection, as the article does not call it a 111 or 113 or whatever. FWIW, The Only Living Witness specifies that the car is a 1968 Volkswagen Beetle. Vidor (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Carol Valenzuela

Authorities now believe that Valenzuela was the victim of a different individual, one Warren Forest, convicted of another murder and another violent assault committed near the place where Valenzuela's body was found. See article: "DNA Clue May End 38-Year Mystery, and a Sister's Pain", AOL News, May 29, 2010. Forrest has neither confessed nor been charged, but given the lack of any evidence tying Bundy to this murder and the fact that the Valenzuela murder was not on his 1989 confession list, there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to include this murder in this article. Vidor (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Vidor! "The medical examiner identified one of the women as 18-year-old Carol L. Valenzuela, who had been missing since Aug. 2, 1974, while reportedly hitchhiking in the Camas area. Police say they believe she was suffocated." I think that this tiny passage doesn't completely exclude Bundy - his name isn't even mentioned in this article. Don't think Valenzuela should be removed from the WP article, either; but rather you should add this as a "note". Bundy's exclusion of Carol on his confession list means little - the man was a pathological liar and notoriously "bartered" information about confirmed/possible victims. BTW - you might want to resize some pics over at Gacy - it's a little sloppy (I was going to do it, but I know you're better at it). Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No it does not mention Bundy, but it does say the following--"It is suspected that Jamie was the first victim of Warren Forrest," Buckner said. "It is [also] suspected that he was involved in the other cases, but [we] could never prove anything." So the relevant law enforcement agency does not believe Bundy killed Carol Valenzuela, but in fact believe they have a live suspect. Additionally, there is no evidence to link Bundy to the Valenzuela killing. I agree that Bundy was a notorious liar, but the fact remains that he gave the cops twenty names of victims, and Carol Valenzuela was not on the list. I'm afraid I don't know what "WP article" means. In any case, I'm not sure there's any concrete reason to include Valenzuela on the list. Actually, I'm tempted to remove Melanie Cooley as well. It's all unverified info, really. Vidor (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If we don't have sources saying they are Bundy's then yes they should go at least until something is found to give a connection to him. At the end of his life he was bartering and grandstanding to try to save his own life. He would have said anything to prevent the states execution of him. I think therefore he would have named anyone who had died mysteriously to make the officials beg for him to be given more time to tell the families where the bodies were. We need sources that make the connection to him and if it's not there then by all means remove it. Just my opinion, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be carried as someone Bundy was long suspected of murdering, but was later dropped as a suspect. Mostly because anyone who reads an older book will come along and try to add her as a victim and it addresses why it is not carried here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. No reason to eliminate the referenced material - it is at least verified in that way. The Cooley passage includes two different references: removing it as well wouldn't seem right. Someone will undoubtedly add Valenzuela back at some point, as he was suspected of killing her for decades. Why not add her back (maybe not on the main list) with the new reference casting doubt on Bundy as the killer? Doc9871 (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, thiswould indicate that it's our responsibility to at least mention her in this article. Lots of references for Valenzuela and Bundy out there... Doc9871 (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A subheading for additional suspected victims, then? Vidor (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Something to that effect, but maybe word it in such a way that not every missing girl from Oregon to Florida doesn't get stuck in there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your concern is why I'd just as soon delete Cooley and Valenzuela. But if we wanted to include this section, we could limit ourselves to one or more victims actually mentioned in the Bundy bios. Valenzuela, Cooley, possibly stick the blurb about Anne Marie Burr and Kathy Devine in there. Would have prevent, as you say, all the dopey "Debbie Harry ran into Ted Bundy once" stories. For that matter, we could list "Joni Lenz" there too--AFAIK he never confessed to that assault and technically there is no concrete reason to list her with the known victims. Vidor (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's referenced, we list it. We are not here to judge or quantify whether he committed certain murders or not: just to provide the information about it. Outside sources verify themselves, and it's our duty to report them. "Unknown hitchhiker" he "confessed" to is a "known victim"? Not really for us to decide (along with Valenzuela, Cooley, Lenz, et al,)... Doc9871 (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it is for us to decide. We're the ones writing the article. I don't think we're obligated to mention every possible victim that an author suggested Ted Bundy might have been involved with. We have a baseline list of twenty names that he confessed to law enforcement. Add to that four surviving victims he was convicted of in court--Kathy Kleiner, Karen Chandler, Carol DaRonch and Cheryl Thomas. The 1973 "unknown hitchhiker" is mentioned b/c Ted admitted that crime to Bob Keppel. The Idaho hitchhiker of 9/2/74 is there because Ted not only confessed but described the crime in detail. Anyway, I propose a "possible additional victims" section, to be listed below the main victim list, to include "Lenz", Cooley, Valenzuela, Ann Marie Burr, and the case that was eventually assigned to another perpetrator, Kathy Devine. Vidor (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was, "Is it up for us (as WP editors) to decide who Bundy did and did not actually kill: or to cite the sources that reference the claims"? No. Reliable sources are what they are, and we're not here to "synthesize" them. Carol Valenzuela has been in this article for some time (backed by sources). You want to chop it out? Then you must continue to discuss. Cite it, and well; I may be tempted to do my own work here if it's not resolved soon... Doc9871 (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am mystified by this answer, which seems to hold that we are obligated to mention every victim that any source ever suggested might have been a Ted Bundy victim. Debbie Harry once said she met Ted Bundy in New York, so I guess she goes on the list. As for the demand to "cite it", I did so, by providing a recent news report. Further, the answer above does not even address my proposed solution of a "possible additional victims" list. Vidor (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is fine. Debbie Harry would not have been a "victim" for simply meeting him (whether she really did or not)- lots of people met Bundy and weren't murdered by him. Valenzuela is listed in many reliable sources, and someone is bound to "re-add" her if we don't. I don't think she should just be removed: that's all... Doc9871 (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - I didn't mean to sound demanding with the "cite it" comment, Vidor: sorry if I've been harsh here. Nothing personal, as I know you are a very good editor who works hard to improve the project. Part of my gig is "ordering" people around for a RL living in a "pressure" situation, and as a result, I obviously can be very "snippy" sometimes. No deadlines here, but I forget that sometimes. Cheers, Vidor :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And I'd never snap to and cut it or chop it on order. Maybe why I didn't stay in such an environment for long. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You would be soooo fired where I work! Insubordination... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that's why I was promoted to driver (for the airport customers and to take the slightly, or not so slightly, drunk owner home. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What's below a driver? You were just too good at simply parking the cars? ;P Doc9871 (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Last time I looked, the golf ball was below the driver. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a "groaner" ;> Still not "signing", eh? How long have you been here? Freaking newbie... Doc9871 (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There you go. Vidor (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This is excellent! Great job, Vidor! There "we" go - the article is better now. Cheers, mate... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Sentence about Ann Rule in Childhood (quit reverting my edit)

This sentence does not belong there because:

A) It is logically disjointed from the flow, since the fact that it was "shortly after a traumatic breakup with his college girlfriend," which is mentioned makes no sense according to the topic of discussion, which is "WHEN DID BUNDY FIND OUT WHO HIS MOTHER WAS?" On the other hand this additional information adds context to the killing.

B) This contradicts information stated in "University years" section where it says that according to Ayn Rule he uncovered his ancestry in 1968 AND NOT 1969

c) Not convinced? Look up the reference. It is on Google Books. pp 17-18 describe the first murder, not his investigation into his origins.

So quit reverting my edit plox.

174.30.233.233 (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Quit reverting my edit plox" is really "ordering", not "discussing". See BRD. Your change may well get reverted, and you should discuss it here first before reinserting it if that happens. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That is some decent reading material. thx for recommending.

174.30.233.233 (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You should really read it carefully, though. It applies here... Doc9871 (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it belongs in the Childhood section where parentage is being discussed, not in the Washington section. And yes I will revert if you put it back there. Read the section in childhood and you will see that another reference is there about how Bundy found out that his sister was his mother type of thing. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

After I get back home from vacation I'm going to carefully review my copies of Rule and M&A and resolve this. Vidor (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Aspen courthouse photo?

It has been suggested to me that the photo I posted is not desirable, since there are trees in front of the building. Of course I do not have sufficient authority with the good folks of Aspen to cut their trees down. The photo I added was taken from directly across the street. I will be here in town for another 48 hours or so. Would it be preferable to take another photo from the side, showing Ted's window but not the whole front face of the building? It would be nice if the people of Aspen hadn't been so stupid as to obscure that beautiful old courthouse with large trees, but you CAN see Ted's window in the picture. Please give feedback now as we're leaving Aspen on Friday. Vidor (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded additonal photos. Which of these would be best for the article? 4708? 4709? 4712? 4715? 4716? 4717? Or stick with current photo? Vidor (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the first three, they are closer and not so distracting with the trees. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Victim photo?

I can't decide about this. There is a rather good photo of Caryn Campbell floating around a couple places on the Internet. Here it is at Find-a-Grave. This strikes me as both much better than the usual blurry scans from the books, and potentially useful to the article, as it illustrates what one of Ted's victims from his "organized" hunter-killer states looked like, as opposed to Levy and Bowman who were simply tragically unlucky victims of a random "unorganized" killer. The thing about this though is I'm not sure if it will survive a deletion challenge as I'd have to be posting it under fair use. Thoughts? Vidor (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Am I wrong but is this a computerized picture of her because it looks like it to me? Is Find-a-grave a fair use site for their pictures? I honestly don't know. I think what you're saying is a good reason for using a victim image though. Maybe the image showing like it has pixels showing is just me, do you see it too or do you see a clear image? Anyways, for this article, I say give it a go and lets see what happens. I'm getting ready to leave my computer so I'll respond more when I can. Been online too long today. ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks like it's a blowup from a picture that was printed in a newspaper. You know how B&W newspaper photos will look like a mass of light and dark dots when you blow them up, esp. if they're not of particularly fine quality to begin with? Vidor (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, now it's in the article. We'll see if it passes the challenge that will no doubt eventually come. Vidor (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise for "vandalising" the article - all I did was provide the real identity of TB's girlfriend. I was acting in good faith - based on factual information. I wasn't aware there had been a previous consensus to respect her anonymity. Nevertheless I feel this is factual information and is legitimate to include it. If TB's victims are not afforded anonymity why should his mere acquaintances? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.154.19 (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

To editor IP that starts with 203

Hi, I responded to you at my talk page. I don't know if you have changing IP's or not so I'm leaving you a message here too so that you see my response to your comment at my talk page. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Execution section?

I see that "conviction and execution" was split into two sections, with a new "execution" section being written and something like 5K of data being added to the article. I question the utility of this section. Does this article need to describe the details of Bundy's execution in minute detail? How a puff of smoke came from his ankle, or how his back arched, or how he flinched when they strapped him in? I'd support this if Bundy's execution was notable or memorable in any way, like any of the problems with electrocutions Florida had not long after Bundy, which led them to go to lethal injection. But Ted's execution was entirely unremarkable except for the amount of attention it drew. My strong inclination is to delete most of the "execution" section and again merge it with "conviction". Thoughts? Vidor (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to tend to agree here. "His eyes widened with fear as the chinstrap was applied..." - huh? This isn't a Stephen King story, and just because a newspaper article reads like this doesn't make it fit for an encyclopedia. His execution wasn't "botched" like Allen Lee Davis' was (that particular article is in very serious need of improvement, on a side note) - Bundy's was a "routine" execution that many condemned criminals have faced. The minutiae of detail added, while both in good faith and referenced properly, seems unnecessary. Vidor, you are quite correct in this post, in my opinion. Let's hear some advice from other editors first, but I would have no objection to bold deletions to this section after further discussion here. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - Obviously, you don't have to wait to do anything, Vidor. Discussion would be nice, though. Some pages get lots of "chatter"; and this isn't one of them. Anyone else out these? (cricket noises)... Doc9871 (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, this page is pretty quiet except for the four or five of us that hang out here. I'll be making that change shortly. Vidor (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Childhood clarification and timeline

Forgive me as I am new to WP editing but I believe the first three paragraphs need clarification and more detail in regards to Ted Bundy's parents and the timeline. To the average reader it is quite confusing especially for those of us who have not done significant research on Ted Bundy's biography in general.

1 - "Ted Bundy was born Theodore Robert Cowell at the Elizabeth Lund Home For Unwed Mothers in Burlington, Vermont, to Eleanor Louise Cowell. While the identity of his father is unknown, Bundy's birth certificate lists a "Lloyd Marshall" (b. 1916),[2] although Bundy's mother would later tell of being seduced by a war veteran named "Jack Worthington". However, Bundy's family did not believe this story, and expressed suspicion about Louise's violent, abusive father, Samuel Cowell.[3] Whatever the truth of Bundy's parentage, to avoid social stigma, Bundy's maternal grandparents, Samuel and Eleanor Cowell, claimed him as their son. He grew up believing that his mother was his older sister." These sentences establish several things - first, that we don't really know who Bundy's biological father is but his maternal grandparents claimed them as their child. Two, Bundy's birth mother and his maternal grandmother both share the name Eleanor (important later) and three, he group up believing the younger Eleanor was his older sister.

2 - "Bundy biographers Stephen Michaud and Hugh Aynesworth wrote that he learned Louise was actually his mother while he was in high school.[4] True crime writer Ann Rule, who knew Bundy personally, believes it was around 1969, shortly after a traumatic breakup with his college girlfriend". These sentences describe that Bundy did not learn the truth of his mothers identity until the mid to late 1960's depending on who's theory you believe. He would have been a teenager or young adult by this time.

3 - "For the first few years of his life, Bundy and his mother lived in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In 1950, they moved to live with relatives in Tacoma, Washington. Here, Louise had her son's surname changed from Cowell to Nelson.[6]" Which mother? His birth mother who he believed to be his older sister? This section leads one to believe this because she's referred to as "Louise" but it was 1950 when it occurred so that would mean he was only 4 or 5 when they made the move and his grandparents had claimed them as their own. A child that small was actually led to believe he was moving to the other end of the country with his older sister? Or was it his grandmother who was not longer married to his grandfather which would be more plausible but not really clarified in the text?

4 - "In 1951, one year after their move, Louise Cowell met Johnny Culpepper Bundy at an adult singles night held at Tacoma's First Methodist Church.[7] In May that year, the couple were married, and soon after Johnny Bundy adopted Ted, legally changing his last name to "Bundy"." This section basically says that at the age of 5 or 6 Ted Bundy now had a stepfather who adopted him and gave him is surname but if he believed that his sister was the one who married him how could any of this make sense? So, now one goes back to thinking maybe it was his divorced grandmother. I think most people at the age of 5 or 6 are quite immature and I realize that times were different for that generation but there still would have needed to be a clear explanation to the child that would have held up until at least his teen years when he found out the truth.

5 - "Johnny and Louise Bundy had more children, whom the young Bundy spent much of his time babysitting. Johnny Bundy tried to include his high school aged stepson in camping trips and other father-son activities, but the boy remained distant from his stepfather." This section seems to jump forward into the future while not mentioning much of his childhood relationship with said stepfather that may help clarify who exactly Ted consider these parents to be (adoptive father and older sister or bio mother and stepfather?)

I realize that each of these paragraphs is sourced properly and probably contain verbatim text but it would be helpful if more content could be provided to clarify WHO Ted Bundy grew up with in Washington? His birth mother whom he believed was his older sister or his grandmother who he believed was his birth mother? This is important because it would support the devastation of finding out the truth even more because it would mean his own birth mother was willing to deceive him his entire childhood even though she remarried and had him adopted by his stepfather early in his life. Additionally, his grandparents claiming his as their own would mean thats just what others were told but he did not actually grow up in the shadow of Samuel's violent, abusive household. Its also mentioned in other sections that Ted claimed to grow up "Loving Christian Family" which means the facade was even more elaborate. I think this clarification is even more important considering the subject matter of the article, a violent serial killer who's formative years probably played a huge part in his adult criminal life. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenhaired (talk • contribs) 11:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. If it's not supported by a reliable source, we can't include it here. Please edit the article using reliably sourced material, and the article will undoubtedly improve. However, phrases such as "the devastation of finding out the truth", and "the facade was even more elaborate" are probably not going to make "the final cut". Jus' sayin... Doc9871 (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and I have read the VERIFY and NOR but I was hoping someone who had actually read the biographies this section sites as sources could provide more detail and information to close the gaps in what reads as a confusing timeline and early history. Unfortunately, I have not read Rule or Michaud & Aynesworth's books on Ted Bundy or I would take a stab at it but I would think that those sources provide more detailed information on these events. The phrases you refer to are my opinions but they refer to what many consider to be important turning events in Ted Bundy's life. The deception of who his real parents were is what many consider to possibly by the turning point that made Ted a serial killer. I wasn't looking to have those opinions included in the article. Ravenhaired (talk)Ravenhaired —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

I don't think this amounts to much of anything. Obviously it was his real mother, Louise Cowell, who took him to Washington. The article refers to his "mother", not his fake mother. Vidor (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Internet movie database

The Internet movie database is not a reliable resource per wikipedia:cite. It should be removed as a citation.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

DoctorJoeE a major problem editor who thinks he/she owns this article

This editor seems to think he/she owns the article, and is constantly removing valid, cited contributions from other people because they don't adhere to what DoctorJoeE's vision of this article should be. This article has been completely rewritten and now had a lede that reads like an article, and a weasely and peacocked body. The editor also shows attitude, and is becoming a major problem around here. NOBODY OWNS ANY ARTICLE. Albert Snow (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, when you play by the rules and stop creating sock accounts, you'd be surprised how easy it is to collaborate with other editors. I see DoctorJoeE improving the article with a ton of references. Not all of his edits are perfect, but he's trying and improving. Trust me, if I thought there was a WP:OWN problem I'd be the first to call him out on it. I imagine that you are most likely the same editor as Vernanders (talk · contribs) et al., and you are complaining because he removed an edit that the rest of us who have contributed to this article for years agree shouldn't be here. Move along... Doc talk 20:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Albert Snow, but you are wrong. DoctorJoeE has vastly improved the Bundy and J B Cooper pages. It is so easy to make negative comments, yet not to improve the article. Please be positive. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC) 14 April 2011

As I said, it's most likely a sock of Vernanders/Fans and critics alike. Complaining because this edit was removed. I've let those "in the know" see if this is the case. Doc talk 20:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, isn't it, that WP:OWN issues usually translate to "How DARE you remove something I put in, never mind that it's wrong/unsourced/outdated" -- in other words, an ownership issue! Hello, Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle! You're right Albert Snow/Vernanders/FansandCriticsAlike/whoever you are -- nobody owns an article. Not even you.

For the record, I'm not doing this rebuild alone, by any stretch -- and this is a good time to say I'm very grateful for the collaboration of Doc9871 and others in the effort. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's all remember deny. It really comes in handy for things like this. The article is looking good. Is there going to be an attempt to go for the highest ratings for this article? That would be splendid! This is one of the first articles I started watching and it's been through a lot of changes some good, some not so good but right now I think it should be a go for getting this article ready for a GA review at least. Right now it's rated as a B. Just my humble opinion of course, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You've got a year's seniority on this one[4] over me: but I'm going to take the reigns and submit it to the GAN squad in very short order. Tired of waiting, and no one else seems to want to do it. The active core contributors are all here and there's no reason not to proceed. If their suggestions suck I'll just argue them till they get tired of me. Glad you're back :> Doc talk 11:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Go for it and ping me when you do it. I'd like to watch how it works and then also try to help do whatever is needed. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)