Talk:Keddie murders

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How about this? [2] DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Several sourced timelines appear on the site I run (http://keddie28.com/timeline.html). I created Timeline Z directly from the case files (I have a substantial quantity of them) and, unlike the contemporary ones compiled by members of Plumas County Sheriff's Office, none of my entries are taken out of context, often quoting reports verbatim, and are thoroughly sourced.Motthoop (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC) motthoop aka dmac[reply]

You said that you have a substantial quantity of the case files and i've been recently looking into the case is there anything that stood out to you in there? 2600:6C46:6100:183E:D5D5:F1BA:721B:EA36 (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed, SanFranGate was a trash article and rarely factual. Actually, much of the old timeline repeated here yonks ago was BS.Motthoop (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)motthoop aka dmac[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 ^Notify_Online 19:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: Many thanks, but that won't be necessary- the situation has been resolved and the article fundamentally rewritten. See [this at ANEW and this Talk page discussion and this TP generally. Another editor, not listed here and only peripherally involved demonstrated consistent bad-faith and continued to blindly revert up until the point they realised they were reverting an admin. Anyway, that's enough history- thanks for checking in here. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I love it when I'm not needed. :-) Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updating and expanding

I recently expanded this article significantly and have tried to give a well-rounded view of the crime and investigation; there have been plenty of bibliographic and other news sources published since the article's creation, which I've taken use of, as well as contemporaneous newspaper sources. I think pretty much all of the gaps have been filled in and previous complaints about tone and clarity are pretty much non-issues. If anyone notices something else that needs attention, let me know. --Drown Soda (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you've definitely expanded it. The article used to only be a couple of paragraphs, now it's very detailed. Great work. Melonkelon (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Melonkelon: Of course. I actually did some editing on this article about a decade ago when I was new (and wholly inexperienced) to Wikipedia. I see in the talk page that there had been edit wars and lots of sourcing issues in the ensuing years. I took a look at it by chance recently and saw how brief it was; given the amount of information and sources out there, I figured it was time to expand and really give the topic due diligence. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best Article to Source

(Redacted) Motthoop (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)MottHoop aka dmac[reply]

@MottHoop: I don't know who you are or who you think you are, but just because you claim to have personal access to the case files and dispute reported accounts doesn't mean you can propagate these ideas on Wikipedia. Per the way Wikipedia operates, we have to go by published sources, which includes newspaper accounts. This unfortunately means articles will not always contain absolute truths. The comments section of a news article is also not a reliable source. The Metcalf article(s) you mention as being the "most true" or most definitive were already included as citations in the article before you started making all of these edits. You have torn this article to pieces and it is an absolute mess compared to what it once was in terms of formatting and prose. You need to acquaint yourself with the way Wikipedia works before you start making transgressive edits like this, specifically WP:Verifiability, not truth and WP:Reliable sources. I am reverting the article to its former state. If you wish to write a crime blog on this case, that can be done elsewhere. --Drown Soda (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lupin VII and Serial Number 54129: I see you've already had interactions on Mott's talk page. Can you provide any further input on this talk page, specifically? --Drown Soda (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drown Soda From the few interactions I've had, I'd have to say they're an editor who doesn't understand what appropriately contributing to Wikipedia means. If I were you, I'd bring the issue up to ANI. Lupin VII (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lupin VII: I'll look into it—I've weirdly enough never dealt with this sort of thing on Wikipedia. Someone has now reverted my restorative edit (not logged in), presumably MottHoop. --Drown Soda (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drown Soda Reverted, and warning issued. I'll keep my eye on the page. Lupin VII (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lockdown and Revert. Unfounded Sources.

This entire article should be under lockdown and deleted until verified. Most of the text has been edited whereas the attributions no longer apply. Therefore, the entire article is based on unsubstantiated lies attributed to authors who never wrote about the specific details sourced as them.Delete the entire article, or STUMP it, until EVERY WORD is properly re-sourced. I can take this page back to Day Three, when it was assumed BY WIKI the murders never happened. That page is far more truthful than the current. Camden Lock (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Boubede

It is never explained in the article who was this John Boubede and how he was linked to the crime. Wataya7 (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, his name is in it, and his year of death. He gets one line at the end mentioning organized crime ties and death, but no context at all. Apparently, Smartt was sharing a nearby cabin with him. 2603:8080:2302:BC93:9538:626D:AA2F:333 (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I re-read the article several times and this name is never mentioned except in that one line. Very annoying. Also the name Gambert is mentioned, but this person isn't explained until the next paragraph. This name should be explained in it's first use, not the second. Makes it very puzzling to read. 2601:18C:8280:46F0:AC85:DF37:6407:5877 (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]