Talk:Keddie murders: Difference between revisions
GreenC bot (talk | contribs) →Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page: spelling: necessaryily -> necessarily |
Ad Orientem (talk | contribs) →Edit Warring: new section |
||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
==Move discussion in progress== |
==Move discussion in progress== |
||
There is a move discussion in progress on [[Talk:Carnation Massacre#Requested move 13 December 2014 |Talk:Carnation Massacre]] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Carnation Massacre crosspost --> —[[User:RMCD bot|RMCD bot]] 02:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
There is a move discussion in progress on [[Talk:Carnation Massacre#Requested move 13 December 2014 |Talk:Carnation Massacre]] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Carnation Massacre crosspost --> —[[User:RMCD bot|RMCD bot]] 02:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Edit Warring == |
|||
Hi all. A request has been posted on RFPP to lock the article due to edit warring and a heated content dispute. If I need to do that, I will. But I don't like locking articles and so I am appealing to everyone to seek consensus here before making any controversial edits. Please remember that there are multiple avenues for resolving content disputes including posting neutral requests for comment on wiki-projects and RfC. For now I am going to decline the request to lock down the article on the assumption we are all capable of reasoned discussion and respect for consensus once achieved. Thank you. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 03:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:09, 10 January 2017
This article was nominated for deletion on 24 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
California Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Discrediting Book/Documentary
Blazerwolf has edited this article several times with what ended up being this note, situated, oddly, in the reference section: NOTE: The above mentioned book is a Coffee Table Book with photographs and personal observations. No real story is provided. The documentary is a compilation of home made video segments.
What's makes a "coffee table book" (i.e., one with a lot of illustration) illegitimate? And if Time/Warner made the same documentary with higher video quality would the contents suddenly count? Etc.
It's actually not an accurate description of the documentary, which is a shaped story told mainly in interview footage with the participants in the events it covers and it's been well reviewed by at least one "legit" newspaper.
I've reversed it as these are plainly personal biases. Toyblocks (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Tone and Sourcing
The article that's been quoted so often and used as a source (author: Kevin Fagan, "Exorcising ghosts of past / New owner hopes to reopen resort" http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Exorcising-ghosts-of-past-New-owner-hopes-to-2910393.php) is error-filled, exploitative tripe. It's a fictional ghost story, and most 'facts' in the article have long since been disproved. As with most poorly-researched articles on the murders, it should never be quoted or sourced in this article. Wiki users should know by now that just because something appears in the 'news media' does not remotely make it true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motthoop (talk • contribs) 23:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Unsigned Comment
Please give this article more time. There are other people with direct knowledge that have been just made aware of this page and I would expect them to want to add further information. This article is about a legitimate unsolved murder from 1981. It has historical value and can be linked to substantiating evidence.
WHAT THE HELL IS THIS ARTICLE??
All I can find appears to be a sophisticated viral marketing campaign. Are there any substantive sources for anything in this article? - Abscissa (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Check out this web site. It has an article from a newspaper at
the 20 year anniversay of the slayings: http://asylumeclectica.com/asylum/sightseer/us/ca/keddie.htm
Cpmason (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, like that is a reliable website to cite. Anyway, it's always the same two articles, and cabin28.com, that are cited as sources for these crimes. There needs to be more substantiation than that, especially when the reliability of those sources has been called into question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gazel Ministry (talk • contribs) 18:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What do people think of the website quoted in the article [1]. It looks kosher, but I'm not in a position to judge, and anyway it only mentions these "keddie" murders in passing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
How about this? [2] DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Numerous references to the Keddie Murders may be found in the archives of the Plumas County News, some of which may be found online at http://www.plumasnews.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeshredder (talk • contribs) 21:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Timeline
I deleted the timeline that had been on this page for some time. It was unreferenced and contained a lot of apparent suppositions, not to mention the fact that very little of it dealt directly with the time of the murders. I'm open to the prospect of portions of it being restored if they can be appropriately referenced. --Clay Collier (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
san francisco gate
There may be a mention of the case in the san francisco gate in 2001 which might put it pre viral marketing campain.[3].Geni 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
There should be no further talk of the veracity of this artice. And I disagree strongly about some things being removed. There was nothing speculative about the timeline entries. Overland51 (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is jam packed with stupid language
His 'buddy'? Three children, two of which 'belonged' to Glenna? Can someone please make the English of the article less clumsy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.239.241.8 (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
- http://www.socyberty.com/Paranormal/Unsolved-Mysteries-Part-1-Cabin-28.124492
- Triggered by
\bsocyberty\.com\b
on the local blacklist
- Triggered by
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Watts Riots which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Carnation Massacre which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Edit Warring
Hi all. A request has been posted on RFPP to lock the article due to edit warring and a heated content dispute. If I need to do that, I will. But I don't like locking articles and so I am appealing to everyone to seek consensus here before making any controversial edits. Please remember that there are multiple avenues for resolving content disputes including posting neutral requests for comment on wiki-projects and RfC. For now I am going to decline the request to lock down the article on the assumption we are all capable of reasoned discussion and respect for consensus once achieved. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)