Talk:Joseph James DeAngelo

Picture

You should take the third drawing of the FBI 2016's hand drawing of the serial killer as it looks very much like a younger DeAngelo.

Community reassessment

Golden State Killer

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist Consensus this does not meet the Good Article criteria AIRcorn (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Passed as a GA by an editor making only their 95th edit. Talk:Golden State Killer/GA1 was brief, to say the least. Although not unprecedented, I'd say it's unusual for an article of this length to pass without any changes being needed, no matter how small.

The article is a strange hybrid of information about an uncaught serial killer, and biography of the suspect. Yes I'm aware he's innocent until proven guilty per WP:BLP, but you have to look at things such as this pre-arrest section which still largely exists at Golden State Killer#Suspect profile and Golden State Killer#Suspects. Removing information about exonerated suspects, redundant lines of inquiry about construction work near 1979 Goleta murder etc. does't violate BLP, it keeps the article up to date and on-topic.

The lead doesn't summarise the article properly. To give just two examples, the claim about Virginia's DNA database being seen as the most effective and that Michelle McNamara coined the term Golden State Killer. While both are true, neither of these appears in the main body of the article.

The book source in footnote #2 is frequently cited without an accompanying page number. Footnote #9 appears to be a television show that is no longer available on the A&E Networks website, therefore unverifiable and needing to be replaced. Footnote #24 is hosted on googlepages and does not appear to be reliable. Footnotes #30, #34 and #38 s a podcast on Soundcloud hosted by "12-26-75". Simillarly Casefile podcast is used repeatedly. I listen to casefile, it's won awards, but it hasn't won them for its reporting and accuracy but for being entertaining. There's nothing in Wikipedia:Reliable sources about podcasts being reliable, although you could easily make a case for the LA Time's "Man In The Window" podcast about the Golden State Killer being reliable for example. Footnotes #36 and #37 are for what appears to be a self-published website about the Visalia Ransacker, the website's contact form makes it clear by the use of "don't hesitate to contact them [law enforcement]" makes it clear the publisher is independent of law enforcement. Why are we citing the opinions of random website creators about whether the Visalia Ransacker case was linked the Golden State Killer, when we should really be citing law enforcement and/or other reliable sources? Footnote #119 is a website titled "The Quester Files" containing all sorts of information about Bigfoot, UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, the occult and cold cases. His about page makes lots of grandiose claims such as he is the "controversial and highest profiled independent investigator of the East Area Rapist/Original Night Stalker. His work as presented on the Q Files and in books has inspired the reopening of cases, national press conferences, and various news reports." Given the many reliable sources covering the case, do we really need to scrape the barrel with sources like this? This shouldn't be considering an exhaustive list of problematic sources, just ones that jumped off the page at me. The whole sourcing needs to be properly checked, and the many self-published ones replaced with more reliable sources. On the subject of sources the table of East Area Rapist attacks at Golden State Killer#East Area Rapist (June 1976–July 1979) contains many entries lacking a citation.

The above shouldn't be taken as a complete list of the problems with the article, hopefully other editors will be able to bring up any issues they see as well. Rising5554 (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• I too was startled to see this had passed GA. The concerns above are all valid, and here's another: the topic is huge, with many twists and turns and side trips, and even determining whether the article meets crit. 3 ("Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail") would take a substantial amount of work, probably including interaction with the principal editors. EEng 17:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• I will also add that I haven't even checked if any of the sentences are accurately sourced by the sources cited. However picking one at random this source is being used to source the sentence "The FBI announced on June 15, 2016, that it was confident that the East Area Rapist murdered the Maggiores". While it is quite possible the FBI did indeed say that at their news conference it isn't covered in this source, the closest it gets is "Investigators believe the rapes and dozens of burglaries that were often used to scout neighborhoods escalated in 1978, when the killer fatally shot U.S. Air Force Sgt. Brian Maggiore and his wife Katie as they walked their dog". It's unclear whether the "investigators" referred to are police or FBI, and there's nothing about them being "confident". Based on this I would suggest the article needs to be carefully scrutinized. Also in the table of East Area Rapist attacks frequently contains sources such as this copy of a Sacramento Bee article. I'm not an expert on US copyright law, but it seems to me to be in violation of WP:COPYLINK? Rising5554 (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  Another no-no. The review is obviously bogus and the GA status should be withdrawn. EEng 20:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delist It seems very unlikely that, after a reasonably thorough review of an article of this size, a reviewer would find no WP:GACR violations, and not even have any questions, comments, or suggestions. The issues found by Rising5554 above are more than enough to convince me that the reviewer did not exercise sufficient care, or misunderstood the GA criteria or process. This was their first (and so far only) GA review, and as Rising5554 points out, they hadn't made many edits when they did the review, so likely just a case of inexperience rather than acting in bad faith. Pinging the reviewer, @Muttnick: (not to shame them, but just to make them aware of the reassessment, and give them an opportunity to respond - FYI, Rising, I think it's conventional to notify the reviewer and nominator with a {{GARMessage}} template on their talk page). Colin M (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Photo of a young DeAngelo

Is there a photo available of DeAngelo, when he was younger (i.e., during the actual crime spree)? It would be interesting to compare all of the police sketches with his actual photo. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Search Google Images for Joseph DeAngelo and you can find a few. But we cannot use them in the article unless we know for sure there is no copyright infringement. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Joseph DeAngelo pleads guilty

Surely the article can now be renamed to reflect this? JJARichardson (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed the other suspects that have said they were innocent. I believe we should ask to move this article to a new one centering around Joseph DeAngelo and his status as the GSK. Balkanite (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd say not yet for the page title itself; though as far as content, it's clear that the Golden State Killer is, in the end, about a man named Joseph DeAngelo, and the text should reflect it. But the sentiment of WP:NORUSH probably applies as far as a page needing a new title for the same thing: The existing "Golden State Killer" title isn't misleading or obsolete, and things could still go sideways until the judge orders the no-appeal plea agreement by actually sentencing DeAngelo. Also, WP:COMMONNAME is probably "Golden State Killer" until it appears that DeAngelo's real name will become as well-known. I keep having to look a couple lines back in the text to remember what his real name is, but maybe that's just me. WP:NPOVNAME probably is sufficient guidance: If his name becomes approximately as famous as "Golden State Killer" now is, then it moves. The page was moved 2 or 3 times already in 2018, including moving this page from Original Night Stalker to Golden State Killer (consensus move), from GSK to DeAngelo's name (non-consensus and moved back), and a consensus not to move at Talk:Golden State Killer/Archive 1#Requested move 26 April 2018, which involved whether "Golden State Killer" was more valid than "East Area Rapist / Original Night Stalker". (The other move discussions around the same time are in this old version of User talk:Dartslilly/Archive_1 for very silly reasons mentioned at User talk:EEng#Talk:Golden State Killer sections sent into oblivion in 2019.) --Closeapple (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I've done some edits to reflect the reality of the situation. For now the article page remains "Golden State Killer" in the style of Grim Sleeper. JJARichardson (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

This person was known as the East Area Rapist/Original Night Stalker long before an author called him the Golden State Killer in order to promote her book. A previous move discussion suggested that the article be titled Joseph DiAngelo once he is convicted. He has. Gary Leon Ridgway's article is not named Green River Killer. DiAngelo's article should similarly be named for him, not a nickname. 2600:1012:B059:E617:69D1:142D:8382:821C (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

He has not been convicted. Read WP:NORUSH. The world will not come to an end if we wait a while. Sundayclose (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

He is convicted by virtue of his guilty pleas, sentencing is the only remaining aspect of the legal process. Either way, DeAngelo being the GSK/EARONS is a clearly established fact and I see no harm in renaming the article. JJARichardson (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 June 2020

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

• Oppose for now per discussion above; perhaps later. WP:NORUSH, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOVNAME. Sundayclose (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I think WP:IGNORE can apply in this case, just my opinion. Would renaming now violate impartiality or objectivity? JJARichardson (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the impartiality or objectivity of renaming. My concern is jumping the gun right now because we don't know how things will go in this case over the next several months and there is no need to rush. At the very least we should wait for sentencing, which will finalize the legal proceedings. Anyone not familiar with the case who searches for Joseph James DeAngelo will get to the right article by redirect. Sundayclose (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone more legally qualified could chime in, but given DeAngelo's guilty pleas and the weight of forensic evidence, I fail to see what the future legal hitch could be. JJARichardson (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Never underestimate the legal profession's ability to throw a monkey wrench into a situation. If I could tell you every possible issue related to Golden State Killer and Joseph James DeAngelo that might unfold I would, but that's my point. We don't know. And when it comes to legal matters, Wikipedia is (and should be) very cautious, especially when there is no rush. If someone can tell me how the quality of the article or a reader's ability to find information is compromised by waiting a while, please do so. Sundayclose (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I am baffled that this article still uses the killer's nickname instead of his actual name. This isn't a case where the killer is unknown, like the Zodiac Killer. Where his identity is now known, we should use it. This is no different than Richard Ramirez, David Berkowitz, Gary Ridgway, Dennis Rader or Ted Kaczynski. Calidum 17:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support if this nomination happened a year, a month, or even a week ago I would oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. However DeAngelo has now pleaded guilty and has been convicted of the crimes. Moving the article would be appropriate now. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. It's better to just use his real name. Infernape612 (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The evidence and the DNA results point to him being the prime suspect, and the facial sketches matches what he probably would have looked like during the 70's and 80's as the Visalia Ransacker and the Golden State Killer. Note: the Visalia Ransacker is essentially the prelude to the East Area Rapist and the Original Night Stalker(as the other notorious serial killer Richard Ramirez claimed the moniker as well), or EARONS. But please, if the article does end up changing to DeAngelo, PLEASE keep the facial composite sketches and (if it's possible) put them beside James DeAngelo's mugshot so they can stay in the article, they would be of most importance to those that wish to see how they look strikingly similar. Thanks!Balkanite (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:Common name. That policy is clear. Regardless of the killer's real name having been revealed, that real name is not well-known. Come on now. I'll alert the WP:BLP talk page and WP:BLP noticeboard to this discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support DeAngelo pled guilty on all charges. There are no longer BLP issues here. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 00:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)