Talk:Ted Bundy/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

"Bundy was regarded as handsome and charismatic by his female victims"

How do we know that? I'd be really interested in a source, since it reads like something sourced from gossip rather than any witness statements. If it doesn't have a source I think it should be removed because it could be quite hurtful to the family and friends of his victims.--Omegaalephnull (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple sources quoted in paragraph 3 of the "Modus operandi and victims profiles section" of the article. In any case references are not quoted in the lede. David J Johnson (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are a half-dozen cites in the article already, and there could be at least a dozen more, since every biography & article points it out. In any case, I'm not sure why you think it "could be hurtful" to victims' families; it's a simple fact. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I can see what the editor is talking about. There really should be some qualifying term added like "sometimes", "often" or with "some" victims. The problem is that the way it reads implies that every victim regarded him as handsome and charismatic across the board. I can't imagine his youngest victims, especially, thinking this of him: especially when he impersonated authority figures to force their compliance. And we can't know that all of them regarded him as handsome/charismatic even though the majority of sources note his charisma and appearance. I know it's been written like this for a long time but I think it would be more accurate to add a term that shows that not every victim regarded him this way. Doc talk 03:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Most books and articles mention his good looks and charisma, then reinforce the point with descriptions of the women who showed up at his trials and giggled when he looked at them; but yes, the young girls he lured out of school, and perhaps DaRonch, who he talked into a ride to the "police station", were probably exceptions. And then there are the victims he attacked while they slept, who never even met him. I'll add a qualifier. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 04:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Many women did find Bundy handsome, good looking, and were quite taken by his personality. This is why he was able to abduct and kill so easily as women kept disappearing, as those he spoke to couldn't bring themselves to believe that somebody with Bundy's demeanor could be the diabolical killer. Even Carol DaRonch, who wondered about Bundy, said he "looked nice".Kmsullivan12 (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Kevin, good to hear from you again and trust you are now well on the road to recovery? Your contribution above is spot-on. David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ted Bundy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Cause of death

The cause of his death was execution by electric chair. I do not think it should say homicide. 206.169.225.83 (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC) amy

Please see extensive past discussions on this subject in archives of this page. Brief summary: Bundy's death certificate officially lists his COD as "homicide". All executions are homicides. See also justifiable homicide, and the "state-sanctioned homicide" section of the main homicide article. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
One of your main arguments is re the death certificate. But please see edit editsum of this edit. (Eric Corbett has plenty FAs under his belt. I don't know if the situations are analogous, but I think so.) IHTS (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
We have a secondary source too, cited in the article. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I decided to check Wikipedia article concerning other executed criminals. Many don't list a cause of death, such as Frank Abbandando, Manny Babbitt or Ned Kelly. Those which do list the cause of death as being execution or the method of execution, such as John Wayne Gacy, Charles Starkweather or Gary Gilmore. That this specific entry would list the cause of death as "state sanctioned homicide" reeks of POV pushing and the fact that an unannounced discussion was held on the topic while no one was looking does little to legitimize this. Simply put: We already have a word for state sanctioned homicides, and that word is "execution". Attempts at having people use this wording stinks of activism, and I would like to remind everyone involved that Wikipedia is not your activism platform. Looking at past archives, it seems the reasoning is the statement on his COD. Not only is this besides the point (which is that this is inconsistent with how the cause of death of other executed criminals is listed or that "state sanctioned homicide" is nothing but a prolix way of saying "execution"), but that in itself isn't even relevant. If a drunk man had written "Exploded into fairies" on the COD, would we write that as the cause of death in the article? Are we going to start calling suicides "self-homicides" while we're at it? Calling it a "state sanctioned homicide" is an abuse of language, nothing less, and one which reeks of POV as well.Akesgeroth (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
And a very pleasant good morning to you as well. Several points to make here: First, previous discussions have revealed a surprisingly common misconception, that "homicide" & "murder" are synonymous - which they are not, of course - and that is likely the source of many of the visceral objections posted in the past. Executions are homicides; simple fact, no POV involved. (They are not "murders"; that would be POV-pushing, not to mention completely inaccurate.) Second, your objection to the descriptor in question is duly noted; but this point has been discussed repeatedly here, and consensus has consistently favored this particular terminology in this particular article. Third, we use that particular terminology because it was used on his death certificate, as repeatedly noted, above and in past discussions -- duly sourced, both primarily and secondarily. Actually, the precise source wording is "homicide" -- "state-sanctioned" was added recently in the hope that this discussion would not continue interminably. (My personal preference was to leave it as "homicide", because that most accurately reflects the sources, with a blue-link to either the "state-sanctioned" section of the "homicide" article or the separate justifiable homicide article, but consensus favored the change.) Fourth, regarding other WP articles, each article's content is determined by its sources; if other articles on executed criminals use different terminology, it is either because the cited sources use different terminology (death certificates vary from state to state), or because someone has dropped the ball, and hasn't reflected the source material accurately. I hope this will contribute a bit of clarification and historical perspective. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
To add my complete agreement with DoctorJoeE's remarks above. This issue has been repeatedly discussed in the past and consensus established by editors. It certainly has not been hidden and the the Cause of Death is as the Death Certificate and is not a WP:POV edit. I respectfully suggest that the concerned "editor" checks the evidence before embarking on a attack on the motives of others. David J Johnson (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
For the record, this reply is directed to both David J Johnson and !DoctorJoeE. First of all, I want to stress that my intervention was not meant to be hostile. I apologize if my wording made it seem otherwise, but I have a tendency to do that. Either way, my point remains: This is inconsistent with what is seen on the description of other executed criminals and circumlocutory. It's to "execution" what "visually impaired" is to "blind". Let me explain my perspective and you may understand why I was shocked.
I don't exactly know much or care about Ted Bundy, or other executed criminals. I came here because, while watching a show, they mentioned Ted Bundy and what he did and I got curious and decided to fact check it. Now, some might say Wikipedia is a bad place for fact checking, but for personal, trivial interest, I see no harm in it. Either way, I came across this, began reading and saw the cause of death as "State sanctioned homicide". Needless to say I found that very odd. So, I checked when the change was made, expecting it to be vandalism, and couldn't find it in history. I decided to check the talk page and I found this discussion, which directed me to the archive, where I was able to find one previous discussion in the matter. Said discussion implied there was more in previous archives, but I couldn't find it for lack of interest. I decided to check other articles concerning executed criminals and found that no such wording was used elsewhere.
In the last few years, I've had the misfortune of having to deal with people trying to push ideological slants in many articles. The fact that I can find inconsistency, that the reason for this wording is a technicality and that attempts at talking about the topic are shot down with claims of previous discussion is quite in line with the sort of thing I've had to deal with when POV pushing was happening. However, if POV pushing was indeed happening, I'd expect similar arguments on other articles and some ridiculous edit wars, neither of which I've noticed. Thus, this seems to fall in the category of "odd editor choices".
I maintain that the word "execution" should be used. But I'm not adamant about it either. You do however need to be aware that it is an odd wording which will raise eyebrows. Akesgeroth (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, thank goodness you didn't intend any hostility -- because I think we might be forgiven for getting that impression. And I would venture that the fact that you found fault with only one word in a 14,000-word article that, I think most would agree, holds its own in accuracy and quality with anything written about Bundy, speaks well for the article. You may consider that one word "odd", but it is accurate, and sourced - which, as we've already explained, is why we use it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Page Vandalized

There is significant vandalism on this article. I don't have time to comb through history at the moment. But someone more able than I needs to actually look... the history is really all we need... just need to get the vandalized sections back, as there is research to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.137.225 (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I started taking a closer look at the "Childhood" section and started with some copy editing. I'm currently pulling books and fact-checking any changes. Is there a specific change you noticed throughout any of the text? I plan on combing through it more when I have my materials in order. Thanks! Agranat2 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
None of your edits had anything to do with historical accuracy, which has already been thoroughly checked. So no need to waste your time. Thanks anyway. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is a clear consensus for Option A.

Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the cause of death on Ted Bundy's page be listed as:

Option A:Execution by electrocution or

Option B:State-sanctioned homicide (execution by electrocution) 17:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Please see extensive discussions of this point in the archives. Bundy's death certificate (referenced in the article) specifically lists his cause of death as "homicide", and the article duly reflects this fact, with the later addition of the "state-sanctioned" modifier, because some readers (and editors) were unaware that not all homicides are murders, or illegal. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell in the discussions in the archives, the primary arguments for listing the cause of death as homicide are: 1) because this is verifiable and 2) because it's listed on the death certificate. 1) is irrelevant, as far as I can see, because finding sources which support the fact that Bundy was excecuted is trivial; I am not convinced by 2) because I know of no guideline on WP whereby we have to slavishly follow the wording used on official documents. On the other hand, the argument against listing "homicide" as the cause of death: that this is not consistent with other wikipedia articles; is not the kind of phrasing one would expect from an encyclopedia – Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, says he was executed –; is potentially confusing; and seems like it is advancing a particular PoV on capital punishment. As the phrasing "state-sanctioned homicide" is so unusual and inconsistent with our other articles on excecuted criminals, I can see why it would look like PoV even if it isn't intended as such.
What I don't understand is what the argument against listing the cause of death as simply "execution by electrocution" is... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The issue of Cause of Death has been discussed time and time again and consensus amongst editors has always been to leave "homicide" in the article, whilst bracketing "execution". Homicide is properly referenced from the official Death Certificate, which readers must accept will vary from state to state, country to country. We should, therefore, accept that COD will vary from article to article. Wikipedia should exist as a reliable, confirmed source, accepting differences in variations by different authorities. Frankly, I cannot see why this matter has been raised yet again, just because a reader failed to check the edit history. I therefore Oppose any change. 20:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
After doing more reading in the archive, I'd like to point out that this assertion: "The issue of Cause of Death has been discussed time and time again and consensus amongst editors has always been to leave "homicide" in the article" is a complete fabrication. There's one discussion that I can see, here, and there's a grand total of 4 editors involved, 2 of which felt that the phrasing should not be "Homicide", and the other two are DoctorJoeE and DavidJJohnson, who are very active on this page and regularly revert any changes to "their" preferred text. There's absolutely NO consensus that the phrasing should read "Homicide". Furthermore, the Cause of Death, for a long time, was phrased as "Execution by electrocution" until this edit, in which the "Homicide" phrasing was slipped in by the very same DoctorJoeE, with a misleading edit summary that didn't mention the cause of death at all. Ever since then, every attempt to correct the phrasing has been reverted by one of those two (DocJoe and DavidJ) accounts. That's not consensus, that's an editor trying to assert ownership of a page, in my opinion. Rockypedia (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Option A - Execution by electrocution - this phrasing is simpler, accurate, and consistent with other executed criminals' pages on Wikipedia. I don't see "extensive" discussions of this in the archive; I see DoctorJoeE in ONE discussion (Archive 5) dominating the discussion. The current phrasing is highly unusual and nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it state we have to word-for-word copy what's on the death certificate. Another good point Caeciliusinhorto made is that while it's unintentional, the phrase "state-sanctioned homicide" does seem like a protest against the death penalty, and thus could be interpreted as PoV. Rockypedia (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Option B Option A for consistency with other executed individuals. Yes, the death certificate says "homicide". So do the death certificates of other executed individuals, as it is the valid technical cause of death; the person was killed by the actions of another person. But there's a difference between homicide as a cause of death (a statement of fact! and homicide as a crime (a judgement of guilt). And "state-sanction led homicide" can too easily be read as a non-neutral phrasing. Even as someone who opposes capital punishment, the phrasing grates. oknazevad (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused, oknazevad, you said Option B, but you seem to support Option A in your comment. Typo? Rockypedia (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
D'Oh! My bad. Corrected above. oknazevad (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Option C: Electrocution. If necessary, the reason for electrocution can be included in |conviction_penalty=. Failing that, Option D: do not include cause of death at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A since we follow what the reliable secondary sources say (i.e., that he was executed), whereas the death certificate is a WP:PRIMARY source, and per WP:PST this should only be used in conjunction with and following from an independent RS in order to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. The latter sentence sums up precisely the situation we have here. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 04:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A B is idiotic (and I say that as someone who thinks the death penalty is a relic of more primitive times). EEng 04:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A of course, since it best describes the event in the clearest language. There are several wrong statements in the argument "Homicide is properly referenced from the official Death Certificate, which readers must accept will vary from state to state, country to country. We should, therefore, accept that COD will vary from article to article":
  1. Readers "must accept" nothing, particularly not jargon we try to force-feed them.
  2. We don't care and shouldn't what is on any official forms. We are here to describe things, not some bureaucrat's convoluted and legalistic description of things.
  3. That cause of death would vary from state to state is a good clue that we would be going down a wrong path with the "homicide" bit. It is not a service to the reader to change our description of basic facts depending on jurisdictions.
  4. And I mean of course it was a "homicide". Executions in the state of Florida are not carried out by raccoons. Readers probably already know this.
So that's a lot of poor agumentation to pack into two sentences. Additional arguments for Option A noted above apply -- preponderance of notable sources using that term, us wanting to be careful about using primary sources, and so forth. Herostratus (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Good point about the raccoons. So if you threw someone to the lions, what would that be? EEng 12:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Leocide, of course. Rockypedia (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Cracks me up: If you watch some MGM films with the captions turned on, when the lion roars it says, Roaring. EEng 12:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
We do have an entire [:Category:Deaths due to animal attacks]] which includes "Deaths due to fish attacks" (Ichtyside I guess) and even "Deaths due to bird attacks". I think I'll stay inside today. Herostratus (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Struck by mackaw. EEng 20:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I refuse to re-argue this comparatively trivial point yet another time; we've merely been following the source material, which, over the 9 years I've been here, has always been what everyone says we're supposed to do. In past discussions, no one has ever convincingly explained why an execution is not a "state-sanctioned homicide", as described in the cited sources. I would also make the point that "slavishly following" sources is what we do here, and the editor who sees no reason to do that should probably find something else to do. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Fun side discussion

Branching off from a comment above...
Hey I need to point out again - you keep saying "I refuse to re-argue this comparatively trivial point yet another time" as if you've argued it over and over again. You haven't. There was 1 discussion on archive page 5 about it, and there were 2 editors that opposed the view that you and 1 other editor held. If there's several other discussions hiding somewhere, point them out, or stop lying about how you've discussed this "over and over again." Even Archive 5 discussion wasn't a discussion; it was basically you saying "I'm right and you're wrong, tough cookies" and that was that. Even now you're acting like a child, maintaining that you're still right while saying, "I've changed it. You win." in your edit summary. You don't own this, or any other page, on Wikipedia, but you certainly seem to think that you do, based on your words and actions. The editor who doesn't read and understand WP:OWNERSHIP should probably find something else to do. Rockypedia (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
We follow the secondary sources, not primary, as I can have no doubt has been pointed out to you over and over. Glad to hear you won't be arguing about this any more. Hey, I know! When people go to prison, let's call it "state-sanctioned perambulation restriction". EEng 13:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Says the editor who said "I really don't care" the last time we discussed this. (Yes, I'm well aware of your legendary argumentative nature.) I would add that the argument, "it's idiotic" is easily the laziest I've ever heard here, and basically means you don't have a better one. Do you have a source for "state-sanctioned perambulation restriction"? We have sources for "state-sanctioned homicide". It's that sort of sarcastic nonsense that makes it so hard to change anything for the better here. It feels like Wikipedia has "hardened" a lot in the last couple of years -- no one's around except people who have a vested interest in the status quo. It's become almost impossible to improve anything.
I've removed the descriptor. Hope everyone is happy. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
There was nothing sarcastic in my saying "state-sanctioned homicide" is idiotic. It is, and it's not that no better argument is available, it's that no other should be needed. I've already given one (primary vs. secondary sources) and here's another: we talk in language normal people will understand, not bureaucratic-sounding circumlocations. By the way, the article needs a severe copyedit. EEng 15:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
We cited secondary sources, as I explained last time. And no, "it's idiotic" is not an argument, it's just offensive. And I've conceded the point already, since in this case, following the guidelines is just not worth the trouble. AND, the article got a "severe copyedit" before submission for GA and has changed little since then, so it's fine. Enough. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, last time you said you had secondary sources (supporting "state-sanctioned homicide") but never said what they were that I can see. The source that was cited in the infobox was [1], but Googlebooks doesn't find the words santion nor sanctioned in it (though of course Googlebooks searches aren't 100% reliable). I'd love to hear a quote from this secondary source. Prediction: It's someone's rhetorical flourish.

GA is a very low bar, and certainly doesn't make an article immune to improvement. This one is way overdetailed ("He broke through the ceiling into the apartment of the chief jailer—who was out for the evening with his wife" -- which matters because... why?) and has a definite journalistic flavor ("skeleton crew", "He deflected blame", "revelers"). EEng 15:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It matters because had the jailor not been out for the evening with his wife, the escape would have been thwarted. This was added as a clarification when someone asked about it. Details matter, sometimes. Minimalism is not always a good thing; I suspect that ominous trend evolved when most people stopped reading actual books, and began relying on Googlebooks for all of their information. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, people have been writing like they're being paid by the word for ages. The reasoning here is so backwards I've memorialized it for posterity [2]. Extra points for saying that Bundy walked out the front door "to freedom"; I'm surprised it doesn't say "to the furtive ersatz freedom of the hunted man". EEng 16:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
While I agree with some of your observations on that page (I've been modifying stupid photo captions since I got here), I don't agree with that one, because there is a difference between clarity and redundancy, and I don't believe that clarity diminishes an article. Let's leave it at that. I appreciate the extra points; I can use all of those I can get. Moving on. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
BTW, a new editor is presently adding -- and re-adding -- unsourced details, so I may need a bit of help if he starts an edit war. I've left a message on his talk page, for all the good that ever does. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey Doc, if "the article got a "severe copyedit" before submission for GA" and that was in 2011, and "has changed little since then, so it's fine" - why did you change the execution wording to Homicide on 27 March 2013? Asking for a friend. Rockypedia (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Two things about "state-sanctioned homicide" that bother me are one, it smacks of trying to make a point -- look at this horrible thing the State of Florida did! (let the reader decide that for herself; besides, isn't "horrible" pretty much the assumed descriptor for most things that the State of Florida does?) and two, it's belaboring the obvious: with "execution by electrocution", you can assume it was state-sanctioned, otherwise it would be an "assassination" or something. And again, no raccoons were involved (I hope; although the State of Florida is keen on saving labor costs). Herostratus (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ted Bundy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the cause of death on Ted Bundy's page be listed as:

Option A:Execution by electrocution or

Option B:State-sanctioned homicide (execution by electrocution) 17:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Please see extensive discussions of this point in the archives. Bundy's death certificate (referenced in the article) specifically lists his cause of death as "homicide", and the article duly reflects this fact, with the later addition of the "state-sanctioned" modifier, because some readers (and editors) were unaware that not all homicides are murders, or illegal. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell in the discussions in the archives, the primary arguments for listing the cause of death as homicide are: 1) because this is verifiable and 2) because it's listed on the death certificate. 1) is irrelevant, as far as I can see, because finding sources which support the fact that Bundy was excecuted is trivial; I am not convinced by 2) because I know of no guideline on WP whereby we have to slavishly follow the wording used on official documents. On the other hand, the argument against listing "homicide" as the cause of death: that this is not consistent with other wikipedia articles; is not the kind of phrasing one would expect from an encyclopedia – Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, says he was executed –; is potentially confusing; and seems like it is advancing a particular PoV on capital punishment. As the phrasing "state-sanctioned homicide" is so unusual and inconsistent with our other articles on excecuted criminals, I can see why it would look like PoV even if it isn't intended as such.
What I don't understand is what the argument against listing the cause of death as simply "execution by electrocution" is... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The issue of Cause of Death has been discussed time and time again and consensus amongst editors has always been to leave "homicide" in the article, whilst bracketing "execution". Homicide is properly referenced from the official Death Certificate, which readers must accept will vary from state to state, country to country. We should, therefore, accept that COD will vary from article to article. Wikipedia should exist as a reliable, confirmed source, accepting differences in variations by different authorities. Frankly, I cannot see why this matter has been raised yet again, just because a reader failed to check the edit history. I therefore Oppose any change. 20:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
After doing more reading in the archive, I'd like to point out that this assertion: "The issue of Cause of Death has been discussed time and time again and consensus amongst editors has always been to leave "homicide" in the article" is a complete fabrication. There's one discussion that I can see, here, and there's a grand total of 4 editors involved, 2 of which felt that the phrasing should not be "Homicide", and the other two are DoctorJoeE and DavidJJohnson, who are very active on this page and regularly revert any changes to "their" preferred text. There's absolutely NO consensus that the phrasing should read "Homicide". Furthermore, the Cause of Death, for a long time, was phrased as "Execution by electrocution" until this edit, in which the "Homicide" phrasing was slipped in by the very same DoctorJoeE, with a misleading edit summary that didn't mention the cause of death at all. Ever since then, every attempt to correct the phrasing has been reverted by one of those two (DocJoe and DavidJ) accounts. That's not consensus, that's an editor trying to assert ownership of a page, in my opinion. Rockypedia (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Option A - Execution by electrocution - this phrasing is simpler, accurate, and consistent with other executed criminals' pages on Wikipedia. I don't see "extensive" discussions of this in the archive; I see DoctorJoeE in ONE discussion (Archive 5) dominating the discussion. The current phrasing is highly unusual and nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it state we have to word-for-word copy what's on the death certificate. Another good point Caeciliusinhorto made is that while it's unintentional, the phrase "state-sanctioned homicide" does seem like a protest against the death penalty, and thus could be interpreted as PoV. Rockypedia (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Option B Option A for consistency with other executed individuals. Yes, the death certificate says "homicide". So do the death certificates of other executed individuals, as it is the valid technical cause of death; the person was killed by the actions of another person. But there's a difference between homicide as a cause of death (a statement of fact! and homicide as a crime (a judgement of guilt). And "state-sanction led homicide" can too easily be read as a non-neutral phrasing. Even as someone who opposes capital punishment, the phrasing grates. oknazevad (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused, oknazevad, you said Option B, but you seem to support Option A in your comment. Typo? Rockypedia (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
D'Oh! My bad. Corrected above. oknazevad (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Option C: Electrocution. If necessary, the reason for electrocution can be included in |conviction_penalty=. Failing that, Option D: do not include cause of death at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A since we follow what the reliable secondary sources say (i.e., that he was executed), whereas the death certificate is a WP:PRIMARY source, and per WP:PST this should only be used in conjunction with and following from an independent RS in order to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. The latter sentence sums up precisely the situation we have here. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 04:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A B is idiotic (and I say that as someone who thinks the death penalty is a relic of more primitive times). EEng 04:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A of course, since it best describes the event in the clearest language. There are several wrong statements in the argument "Homicide is properly referenced from the official Death Certificate, which readers must accept will vary from state to state, country to country. We should, therefore, accept that COD will vary from article to article":
  1. Readers "must accept" nothing, particularly not jargon we try to force-feed them.
  2. We don't care and shouldn't what is on any official forms. We are here to describe things, not some bureaucrat's convoluted and legalistic description of things.
  3. That cause of death would vary from state to state is a good clue that we would be going down a wrong path with the "homicide" bit. It is not a service to the reader to change our description of basic facts depending on jurisdictions.
  4. And I mean of course it was a "homicide". Executions in the state of Florida are not carried out by raccoons. Readers probably already know this.
So that's a lot of poor agumentation to pack into two sentences. Additional arguments for Option A noted above apply -- preponderance of notable sources using that term, us wanting to be careful about using primary sources, and so forth. Herostratus (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Good point about the raccoons. So if you threw someone to the lions, what would that be? EEng 12:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Leocide, of course. Rockypedia (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Cracks me up: If you watch some MGM films with the captions turned on, when the lion roars it says, Roaring. EEng 12:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
We do have an entire [:Category:Deaths due to animal attacks]] which includes "Deaths due to fish attacks" (Ichtyside I guess) and even "Deaths due to bird attacks". I think I'll stay inside today. Herostratus (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Struck by mackaw. EEng 20:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I refuse to re-argue this comparatively trivial point yet another time; we've merely been following the source material, which, over the 9 years I've been here, has always been what everyone says we're supposed to do. In past discussions, no one has ever convincingly explained why an execution is not a "state-sanctioned homicide", as described in the cited sources. I would also make the point that "slavishly following" sources is what we do here, and the editor who sees no reason to do that should probably find something else to do. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Fun side discussion

Branching off from a comment above...
Hey I need to point out again - you keep saying "I refuse to re-argue this comparatively trivial point yet another time" as if you've argued it over and over again. You haven't. There was 1 discussion on archive page 5 about it, and there were 2 editors that opposed the view that you and 1 other editor held. If there's several other discussions hiding somewhere, point them out, or stop lying about how you've discussed this "over and over again." Even Archive 5 discussion wasn't a discussion; it was basically you saying "I'm right and you're wrong, tough cookies" and that was that. Even now you're acting like a child, maintaining that you're still right while saying, "I've changed it. You win." in your edit summary. You don't own this, or any other page, on Wikipedia, but you certainly seem to think that you do, based on your words and actions. The editor who doesn't read and understand WP:OWNERSHIP should probably find something else to do. Rockypedia (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
We follow the secondary sources, not primary, as I can have no doubt has been pointed out to you over and over. Glad to hear you won't be arguing about this any more. Hey, I know! When people go to prison, let's call it "state-sanctioned perambulation restriction". EEng 13:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Says the editor who said "I really don't care" the last time we discussed this. (Yes, I'm well aware of your legendary argumentative nature.) I would add that the argument, "it's idiotic" is easily the laziest I've ever heard here, and basically means you don't have a better one. Do you have a source for "state-sanctioned perambulation restriction"? We have sources for "state-sanctioned homicide". It's that sort of sarcastic nonsense that makes it so hard to change anything for the better here. It feels like Wikipedia has "hardened" a lot in the last couple of years -- no one's around except people who have a vested interest in the status quo. It's become almost impossible to improve anything.
I've removed the descriptor. Hope everyone is happy. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
There was nothing sarcastic in my saying "state-sanctioned homicide" is idiotic. It is, and it's not that no better argument is available, it's that no other should be needed. I've already given one (primary vs. secondary sources) and here's another: we talk in language normal people will understand, not bureaucratic-sounding circumlocations. By the way, the article needs a severe copyedit. EEng 15:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
We cited secondary sources, as I explained last time. And no, "it's idiotic" is not an argument, it's just offensive. And I've conceded the point already, since in this case, following the guidelines is just not worth the trouble. AND, the article got a "severe copyedit" before submission for GA and has changed little since then, so it's fine. Enough. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, last time you said you had secondary sources (supporting "state-sanctioned homicide") but never said what they were that I can see. The source that was cited in the infobox was [3], but Googlebooks doesn't find the words santion nor sanctioned in it (though of course Googlebooks searches aren't 100% reliable). I'd love to hear a quote from this secondary source. Prediction: It's someone's rhetorical flourish.

GA is a very low bar, and certainly doesn't make an article immune to improvement. This one is way overdetailed ("He broke through the ceiling into the apartment of the chief jailer—who was out for the evening with his wife" -- which matters because... why?) and has a definite journalistic flavor ("skeleton crew", "He deflected blame", "revelers"). EEng 15:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It matters because had the jailor not been out for the evening with his wife, the escape would have been thwarted. This was added as a clarification when someone asked about it. Details matter, sometimes. Minimalism is not always a good thing; I suspect that ominous trend evolved when most people stopped reading actual books, and began relying on Googlebooks for all of their information. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, people have been writing like they're being paid by the word for ages. The reasoning here is so backwards I've memorialized it for posterity [4]. Extra points for saying that Bundy walked out the front door "to freedom"; I'm surprised it doesn't say "to the furtive ersatz freedom of the hunted man". EEng 16:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
While I agree with some of your observations on that page (I've been modifying stupid photo captions since I got here), I don't agree with that one, because there is a difference between clarity and redundancy, and I don't believe that clarity diminishes an article. Let's leave it at that. I appreciate the extra points; I can use all of those I can get. Moving on. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
BTW, a new editor is presently adding -- and re-adding -- unsourced details, so I may need a bit of help if he starts an edit war. I've left a message on his talk page, for all the good that ever does. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey Doc, if "the article got a "severe copyedit" before submission for GA" and that was in 2011, and "has changed little since then, so it's fine" - why did you change the execution wording to Homicide on 27 March 2013? Asking for a friend. Rockypedia (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Two things about "state-sanctioned homicide" that bother me are one, it smacks of trying to make a point -- look at this horrible thing the State of Florida did! (let the reader decide that for herself; besides, isn't "horrible" pretty much the assumed descriptor for most things that the State of Florida does?) and two, it's belaboring the obvious: with "execution by electrocution", you can assume it was state-sanctioned, otherwise it would be an "assassination" or something. And again, no raccoons were involved (I hope; although the State of Florida is keen on saving labor costs). Herostratus (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ted Bundy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ted Bundy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Police investigation question

"After inputting the many lists they had compiled—classmates and acquaintances of each victim, Volkswagen owners named "Ted"," ... how did the police know they were looking for someone called "Ted"? Can't see it mentioned in the text. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

According to multiple witnesses, he introduced himself to women at Lake Sammamish State Park as "Ted". This is indeed mentioned (and sourced) in the text, toward the end of the "Washington/Oregon" section. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2017

Change: Ted Bundy's 1968 Volkswagen Beetle, the venue for many of his crimes, on display at the now-defunct National Museum of Crime & Punishment[87][88]

to

Ted Bundy's 1968 Volkswagen Beetle, the venue for many of his crimes, is now on display at Alcatraz East Crime Museum.[5] Drish21 (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Wikipedia page and the post from Alcatraz East just aren't enough here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree; the photo shows the car when it was on display at the NMCP, which is what the caption says. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"died in" vs. "was executed"

An ongoing edit war has seen User:DoctorJoeE continually change the description of Bundy's death to "died in the electric chair." To me, this is ridiculously and unnecessarily ambiguous. He was executed. There's no debate about that. What possible benefit to the reader is realized by describing that event as "he died in the electric chair"? I don't even understand the purpose of making that verbiage more ambiguous. I'd like to hear it, if there is one. Rockypedia (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

There was no edit war until you started one. The original edit (by another user) was reverted per WP:BRD, with an invitation to discuss -- with no response. You responded with "fuck your edit war" -- as if one BRD revert constitutes an edit war -- and continued to insist on your preferred wording -- and then tried to claim that your change was the original wording, which it obviously was not. What is "ambiguous" about "died in the electric chair"? Is that not, by definition, an execution? Does anyone of reasonable intelligence need it explained to them that when a prisoner is placed in an electric chair and electrocuted to death, that that constitutes an execution? Readers are not idiots; they do not need to be spoon fed. Normally I would not waste time arguing a minor content dispute like this; I was perfectly willing to discuss this with the editor who made the original change, had he wished to. But when you interfere with a routine BRD by shouting, "fuck your edit war", and try to force your preferred terminology on the community, the community will nearly always push back. If you can gain consensus for your preferred descriptor, so be it; if not, we'll go back to the original, longstanding content, per WP guidelines. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
How is "died in the electric chair" more specific than "was executed by electric chair"? Rockypedia (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, across all of Wikipedia, the phrase "died in the electric chair appears 6 times. "executed by electric chair" appears 54 times. It's clearly the preferred verbiage, which is not surprising, as it makes far more sense. Rockypedia (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, let's see if anyone agrees with you. So far, zippo. The fact is, either way, everyone knows what you mean. And I don't care that other article editors have dropped the ball on this. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The fact that no one besides you and I have read this talk page in the last 2 days is hardly evidence of "zippo" editors agreeing with me. And "I don't care" doesn't strike me as a particularly persuasive argument. How is it "dropping the ball" to use the more specific description? You still haven't explained why you think the non-sensical "died in" is the better phrasing. I'd also remind you that your odd battle for the "state-sanctioned homicide" phrasing was roundly rejected once an RfC was started, and I'm pretty sure an RfC here would end up the same way. I'm also curious why you waited a full day(!) before removing that RfC from the talk page. Do you have no answers for any of those questions? Rockypedia (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm happy with either description of the death of Bundy in the electric chair. What I do object to is the obscenities and juvenile comments from Rockypedia. It should also be pointed-out to this "contributor" that editors do have a life outside Wikipedia and cannot comment to every single remark the day it is published. David J Johnson (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
No worries, David, I've been here way too long to take such bait. You may have noticed that he also attempted to reopen a closed RFC (immediately reversed by a bot). The reason I archived it - as I explained at the time - was that consensus had clearly shifted, so there was nothing left to discuss. In multiple previous discussions, consensus had always been to go with the terminology in the source -- which was Bundy's death certificate. I still object to ignoring sources, but the debate went the other way this time, and I was tired of arguing about it anyway, so I conceded the point, which made the AFC moot.
All this is irrelevant to the current question, of course, which is: Do readers need to have it explained to them that when someone dies in an electric chair, that it's an execution? I don't think so -- and so far, no one else does, either. I would also point out that "executed by" is inaccurate (and sounds illiterate) -- Bundy was not executed by the electric chair; he was executed by the State of Florida using an electric chair. So the proper wording would be, "executed in the electric chair" -- which returns us to the question of whether that's an improvement over "died in the electric chair" -- and in my view, it is not. "Executed" is not "more specific" than "died" -- what else takes place in an electric chair? -- it's just redundant. And you'll need a better argument than argumentum ad populum - a basic WP principle is that each article stands on its own. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
If you're so sure that "executed" is the same thing as "died in", start an RfC and let's see what the community thinks. Rockypedia (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
This has evolved into a classic WP:IDHT, hasn't it? One more time: it is the responsibility of the user who wants to make the change to gain consensus for that change. Since we are now over 3 weeks out, with no interest or support (let alone consensus) for your contention that "died in the electric chair" is not self-evident, we are going to return to the original, longstanding wording. I hope you will have the grace to drop the stick, just as I did with the state-sanctioned homicide debate that you keep re-referencing. Besides, as you are probably aware, the community tends to regard RfCs over changing one or two words of content, particularly when previous discussions have generated little or no interest, to be a waste of everyone's time. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Your opinions here seem to be remarkably self-serving. The previous RfC attracted no less than 35 comments and votes in a little over 24 hours, and you claim "previous discussions have generated little or no interest"? Wow. In addition, this RfC, should you wish to start it, will most likely go the same way, as it's a very similar change that was proposed in the previous one. Going on that precedent alone, it's obvious to me that the wording you've just changed (again to your preferred version) is the one the community would say makes more sense. But that's just my opinion; start the RfC and let's be done with it. Rockypedia (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Read it more carefully; I wrote that THIS discussion has generated no interest over a 3-week period. And yet again, the onus is on the one proposing the change to gain consensus for it, which you have not done. So stop changing the wording in the article, until you can gain consensus for doing so. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

"Stephanie Brooks" Identity

It seems the widely accepted identity for the object of Bundy's affection seems to be "Diane Edwards". However, there doesn't seem to be any reference to that in the article, nor can I find an external source that explicitly states that's her real name. If I manage to find one, is it okay to add that to the article? I don't see why her identity needs to remain hidden if it can be outed from a simple Google search. --155.52.47.40 (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

This seems to have implications to WP:PRIVACY and I would strongly suggest that you read this initially. Any quoted sources must be reliable per WP:RS and should be discussed fully with other editors via WP:RfC. Personally, I can see no reason to "out" this person and intrude on their privacy, but await further comments from other experienced editors. David J Johnson (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on the first sentence in the 4th paragraph of the lead

Resolved
 – It's snowing.Consensus is to support Option A.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

How should the 1st sentence of the 4th paragraph of the lead, which describes how Ted Bundy died, read?

Option A: Bundy was executed by electric chair at Florida State Prison.... etc.

Option B: Bundy died in the electric chair at Florida State Prison... etc.

Please leave your answer in the Survey section below. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option A - I find "died in the electric chair" to be needlessly ambiguous. Why would we not state the actual cause of death in the lead? ie, Bundy was executed. He didn't have a stroke while being strapped into the electric chair, or die of any other cause - he was executed by electric chair. Rockypedia (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A - Far more accurate. I dislike these generic generalisations and these generics in language. Lets have less ambiguity. scope_creep (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A. B Makes it sound as he just sat down on a museum piece and just happened to have a heart attack. He was executed (which is material) - and the means of execution (interesting, but less material than being executed) was an electric chair.Icewhiz (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option B. Really? Does anyone really believe that anyone dies of natural causes in an electric chair? "Died in the electric chair" is self-evident. Isn't it? I can't believe we're arguing over this. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 12:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary "Survey". As I have stated before, I really have no view on which format the death is noted. To argue over such a minor point is frankly stupid and a gross overreaction. What I strongly object to is Rockypedia's snide and obscene comments when making a reversion. Take a look at his Talk page history for reference. Surely he can edit without the juvenile remarks? David J Johnson (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I just saw them. Nobody needs or wants gross snide statements like that, and they are in there forever. scope_creep (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A - That he was executed is surely the most pertinent fact. Why avoid saying it? Option B is needless use of the passive voice. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option B -- there really is no need to be redundant here. If he was on the electric chair, of course he was executed.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindleReader (talk • contribs) 21:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
comment This user started an account mere hours after the other 2 option b votes were registered, then somehow miraculously found his way to this particular RfC and made his fourth edit with a vote, despite having "just getting started with Wikipedia." Are you kidding me? I suggest that this RfC be limited to confirmed users that were confirmed before the RfC started. Rockypedia (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Update This user was blocked via checkuserblock-account on 24 Aug 2017. Rockypedia (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
If he was, of course, executed, then why not say it? Why must the reader read into what is implied? This is practically WP:EUPHEMISM. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A - I see no reason to exclude the word "executed", its more descriptive yet still neutral. Meatsgains (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A - This person was obviously executed for crimes that he was convicted of committing. Guy1890 (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A - is what I personally prefer and it is accurate, but I would point out that probably the reason the sentence once said Bundy died in the electric chair is because that is what the source says that is supporting that sentence - Ted Bundy, the notorious serial killer, died today in the electric chair. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
comment I would add a note that the entire piece is written in a flowery manner, more like a novel than a straight news piece: "after a night of weeping and praying, just as the sun rose over the north Florida plains...", "Gone was the storied cockiness. He was ashen..." etc. It would probably be a good idea to find a more news-type piece as a source. Rockypedia (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for edit, last sentence of the first paragragh

The phrase "The true victim count remains unknown, and could be much higher." is both unsourced and also misleading.

The count could also be lower as it is well known that Bundy was confessing in an effort to delay his execution (as even discussed in the entry) and includes confessions which have not been tied to any recorded crime or missing person. Additionally, as also noted, the confessions included directions to bodies but none were found.

It is just as likely Bundy either fabricated crimes or confessed to crimes he had researched. There is frankly no reason to believe he was guilty of even all of the 20 listed as confirmed. There is certainly no justification for stating there may have been more than 30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.7.171 (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, please sign any comment you may make - as per Wikipedia convention. It does seem from your comments, that you have read the intro (which does not need references) and not continued to read the text of the article. There are plenty of valid references, from good sources, regarding the supposed number of victims; the full extent will never be known. Your comment about the directions to bodies which were not found, does not account for the fact that the statement(s) was made years after the disappearances - therefore any remains could have been destroyed by animals long before any search. I would not agree to any edit that changes the content of the "first paragraph" Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

There is a series called Angel Of Decay season 1. The story of Ted Bundy is at the start. Director and writer Jamie Crawford 2015 197.89.112.64 (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. This doesn't contain any real request although you apparently would like this information added. But we need a source that Ted Bundy is relevant to this show, especially since its IMDb page doesn't list any character named "Ted," "Theodore," or "Bundy." CityOfSilver 16:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ted Bundy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Mugshot

Numerous mugshot images are included in the current article but not this one: [6] Maybe it should be added? ...2604:2000:7040:A600:912:7505:836B:7794 (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Under In Media:

The first season of Investigation Discovery's series [www.investigationdiscovery.com%2Ftv-shows%2Fserial-thriller%2Fabout&usg=AOvVaw0YTCKmOPLSKbwfx9EzRWxG Serial Thriller], "Angel Of Decay," focuses on Ted Bundy. Each season is deliberately evasive about the identity of the killer profiled, but it becomes evident as one views the show. The IMDB full cast page lists Ted Bundy[1]. The show also references the connection to Ted Bundy on an ID page[2]Lisa in pdx (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile[3] is in pre-production starring Zac Efron as the charming serial killer. The film chronicles the crimes of Ted Bundy, from the perspective of his longtime girlfriend, Elizabeth Kloepfer, who refused to believe the truth about him for years.Lisa in pdx (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Under External Links:

Murderpedia.orgLisa in pdx (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External Links

Under External Links:

Murderpedia.orgLisa in pdx (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-neutral?

Tanner, Dobson and Blumenthal are not bound by WP:NPOV, yet they pass WP:V and WP:N. They are entitled to their own opinion, after all the afterlife is a subjective theological belief, not an objective fact. James Dobson agrees with John Tanner (prosecutor) that Ted Bundy made peace with God and died as a born again Christian. This is verifiable in Max Blumenthal's work. It does not have to be WP:THETRUTH, notable opinion suffices. There are lots of other sources which corroborate this story, Google is your friend. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

JCD: There is tremendous cynicism about you on the outside, I suppose, for good reason. I’m not sure there’s anything you could say that people would believe, yet you told me (and I have heard this through our mutual friend, John Tanner) that you have accepted the forgiveness of Jesus Christ and are a follower and believer in Him. Do you draw strength from that as you approach these final hours?

Ted: I do. I can’t say that being in the Valley of the Shadow of Death is something I’ve become all that accustomed to, and that I’m strong and nothing’s bothering me. It’s no fun. It gets kind of lonely, yet I have to remind myself that every one of us will go through this someday in one way or another.

JCD: It’s appointed unto man.

Ted: Countless millions who have walked this earth before us have gone through this, so this is just an experience we all share.

Ted Bundy was executed at 7:15 am the day after this conversation was recorded.

— http://www.pureintimacy.org/f/fatal-addiction-ted-bundys-final-interview/

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

So, (i) there is a notable claim that Bundy died as a born again Christian and (ii) there is no way to objectively assess the sincerity of his conversion. So, I rendered this view with attribution, that's what WP:ASSERT says. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Primefac you're invited to discuss here: Dobson is notable and entitled to his own view; this also holds for Blumenthal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

David J Johnson, please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

For the Christian right, Bundy is a serial killer who repented and went to heaven. It's not my view, it's their view and it's their constitutional right to believe it. The criticism of such view is harsh, see Video on YouTube. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, as shown at WP:NPOVN, I was working under the assumption that an opinion which is both WP:V and WP:N guarantees inclusion. In my mind that automatically fulfilled WP:DUE. It has been shown to be false, as far WP:PAGs are concerned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in commenting, but I have been away. This offending paragraph is written in a non-neutral manner and almost like a ad for the "born-again" movement. Considering Bundy's other attempts to avoid execution, one must doubt the sincerity of this conversion. As I have stated elsewhere on Wikipedia, this article received GA status as a result of the efforts of DoctorJoeE and a para such as the one being discussed completely wrecks the neutrality of the article. I strongly oppose any re-insertion. David J Johnson (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I had a misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works, now that's settled. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2018

Span of killing :

Change from August 31, 1961, or February 1, 1974 – February 9, 1978 to May 1973 - February 9, 1978. Here's why : Ted Bundy said to FBI agent, Bill Hagmaier that his first kill was a hitchhiker in May 1973, around Olympia. He most likely did not killed Ann Marie Burr in 1961 (source). You can't put an estimate date when the DNA and testimonies link to everyone but him as the main suspect. BundStuff (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Dates should not be altered. Not a reliable source. Most creditable researchers prefer to keep the question of Ann-Marie Burr's disappearance as a possible Bundy crime. David J Johnson (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2018

escape Ted Bundy: June 7 1977 - June 13 1977 ------ December 30 1977 - Februari 15 1978 178.119.85.72 (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 18:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

In Media

Wikipedia comrades: Please forgive my ineptitude; I welcome edits if you feel this information is appropriate. Thank you!

The first season of Investigation Discovery's series [4], "Angel Of Decay," focuses on Ted Bundy. Each season is deliberately evasive about the identity of the killer profiled, but it becomes evident as one views the show. The IMDB full cast page lists Ted Bundy[1]. The show also references the connection to Ted Bundy on an ID page[5] Lisa in pdx (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile[6] is in pre-production starring [Zac_Efron|Zac Efron] as the charming serial killer. The film chronicles the crimes of Ted Bundy, from the perspective of his longtime girlfriend, Elizabeth Kloepfer, who refused to believe the truth about him for years. Lisa in pdx (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

True, Bundy was not the typical street gangster, at a certain time he had the prospect of a brilliant career inside the Republican Party. In fact, Bundy co-authored a state guideline for preventing sex crimes. He was smart, well educated, handsome, neither poor nor having an underclass background, he was socially connected and on a path that could have lead to power and affluence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=serial+thriller+angel+of+decay+cast&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKlNfHkLXYAhVY-mMKHUKWBr8Q1QIIdSgF&biw=1228&bih=663
  2. ^ http://crimefeed.com/2015/06/inside-ted-bundys-head-10-cringeworthy-quotes-angel-decay/
  3. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2481498/
  4. ^ Serial Thriller
  5. ^ Investigation Discovery Crimefeed: "10 Cringeworthy Quotes from the Angel of Decay"
  6. ^ Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile

Regarding the “In Media” section, it appears this section doesn’t really have as much content as some of the other infamous serial killers, such as Jeffrey Dahmer. I’ve found some pretty great content right here, let me know your thoughts before I put them in! Books:

  • Rule, Ann (1980). The Stranger Beside Me. W.W. Norton and Company Inc. ISBN 978-1-938402-78-4.
  • Sullivan, Kevin M (2009). The Bundy Murders: A Comprehensive History. McFarland and Company Inc. ISBN 978-0-786444-26-7.
  • Aynesworth, Hayes (2000). Ted Bundy : Conversations with a Killer. Authorlink Press. ISBN 978-1928704-17-1

Television:

  • There is the show Ted Bundy: Devil In Disguise. It overall profiles Bundy.
  • This show is called Ted Bundy: An American Monster. It focuses on the hunt for “prolific serial killer” Ted Bundy, as recalled by the man who brought him to justice. It Includes archival film and case documents reveal deeper truths behind the crimes.
  • Another show about Bundy is called Ted Bundy: What Happened. This TV show recalls the horrific crimes of “charismatic law student” Ted Bundy, who killed at least 36 young women.

Music:

  • “Stay Wide Awake” by Eminem alludes to Bundy and his crimes
  • Aborted’s song “Meticulous Invagination” includes Ted Bundy and what he is known for.
  • “Blow” by Tyler the Creator refers to Bundy.
  • “Ball” by T.I. also incorporates references to Ted Bundy.
  • Porcupine Tree’s song “In Blackest Eyes” directly refers to the serial killer.
  • “Bundy” by Animal Alpha openly addresses Bundy’s crimes.
  • “I Motherf-cker-” by Church of Misery includes Bundy-related themes.
  • “Ted Bundy” by Mr. Morbid and Melph is a song that also directly alludes to Bundy’s career as a killer.
  • “The Ted Bundy Song” by Macabre explicitly focuses on the serial killer.
  • Blitzkid’s “Mr. Gore” includes heavy reference to Bundy.
  • “Ted, What’s the Porn Like in Heaven” by Allusondrugs directly addresses the serial killer’s self proclaimed addiction to porn and how it fueled his rage to kill.

Oliepandolie (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Oliepandolie

Grammar Errors

Regarding spelling and grammar, I noticed a few errors I’d like to touch base on and implement after having some of you look it over. For starters, I’d like to change Bundy described his grandmother as a timid and obedient … feared leaving their house”to ““Bundy described his grandmother as a timid and obedient … feared to leave their house”. In addition, I’d also like to omit the comma from “Ann Rule, who knew Bundy personally, believed that he did not find out until 1969, when he located his original birth record in Vermont”. A change also needs to be made for “Bundy is facing right in the first photo and facing front in the second. He has medium long hair” to “medium length hair”. Additionally, “For two days he wandered aimlessly on the mountain, missing two trails that led downward to his intended destination” should be edited to “down to his intended destination”. Moreover, changing “Bowman, on the right, has longer dark hair parted to the side” to “long dark hair” should also be made. An edit also needs to be done for “When asked his religious preference after his arrest, Bundy answered ‘Methodist’” to “when asked about his religious preference”. In addition, for one of the photographs, the caption needs to be edited from “1977 photograph—taken shortly after first escape and recapture[179]” to “the first escape”. I also noticed that “Speaking mostly in third person” should be changed to “the third person”. In like manner, “It becomes possession” needs to be edited to “a possession”. Changing “All of Bundy's known victims were white females, most of middle-class backgrounds” to “the middle-class background” also needs to be done. Continually, a change should be made from “October 18: Melissa Anne Smith (17): Vanished from Midvale, Utah; body found in nearby mountainous area[118]” to “body found in the nearby mountainous area”. A comma also needs to be omitted from“Donna Gail Manson... left her dormitory to attend a jazz concert on campus, but never arrived”. Another comma needs to be omitted from “Three additional witnesses saw him approach Janice Anne Ott... with the sailboat story, and watched her leave the beach in his company.[98]” Moreover, another comma should be removed from “Kloepfer was interviewed by Seattle homicide detective Kathy McChesney, and learned of the existence of Stephanie Brooks. Finally, the last unnecessary comma should be removed from “Seattle police had insufficient evidence to charge him in the Pacific Northwest murders, but...” In contrast, a comma needs to be added to “Near its summit, he broke into a hunting cabin and stole food, clothing, and a rifle.” In like manner, a comma should also be placed “In a parking lot, he approached 14-year-old Leslie Parmenter”. An additional comma is necessary for “In the stolen vehicle were three sets of IDs belonging to female FSU students, 21 stolen credit cards, and a stolen television set.[208]”. With this in mind, a comma also needs to be added to “In many cases, he wore a plaster cast on one leg or a sling on one arm”. This should also be done for “At secondary sites, he would remove and later burn the victim's clothing,[300]”. The last of grammar edits should be made when omitting an extra space from “Bundy was again moved to a different cell .[243]”. Please let me know if you see any errors within my own corrections. Thankyou!

Oliepandolie (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Oliepandolie

External Links

I’ve found a handful of reliable, useful external links that can be added to this article for further exploration on Bundy. Let me know what you think of these!

Oliepandolie (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Oliepandolie

Diane Edwards

The Netflix "Conversations with a Killer" documentary names Ted's college girlfriend as "Diane Edwards". Shows a yearbook photo of her with that name. Shouldn't the page reflect that, instead of continuing to refer to Edwards by Ann Rule's pseudonym "Stephanie Brooks"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.246.183.174 (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, please sign any post you may make. This issue has been discussed before. You would need reliable, secondary, sources before making any changes. David J Johnson (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
It's odd, you telling me to sign my posts makes me not want to sign my posts, so I won't. As for reliable sources, surely the Netflix documentary is exactly that.
It's odd, you refusing to sign your posts makes me want to block you so I did. The other IP, too. Signing is required and any further unsigned posts will be removed and the IPs blocked. If you don't want to be treated like an ass then don't act like one.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, memories--anyway, the Netflix documentary is in fact a reliable source, and here is another. User:Vidor

Artifacts

It seems the “Artifacts” portion of this article is a little dry. I’ve done some research and found more content for this area. If you see any errors or have any comments, please feel free to say them here.

  • A ski mask, rope, flashlight, handcuffs, gloves, and a nylon mask were all found inside Bundy’s 1968 Volkswagen Beetle’s glove compartment.
  • There are various handwritten letters from prison and death row written by Ted to various friends and family found here.
  • There’s a county jail medical record, check, and log for Bundy here.
  • Polaroid photographs of Bundy’s victims have been found throughout the years.
  • Photographs of Nita Neary, a witness on the stand to Bundy’s Chi Omega crimes, can be found here.
  • A Christmas card signed by Bundy stating “God Bless you, Peace Ted.” is also on sale and can be obtained online.

Oliepandolie (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Oliepandolie

Was Bundy really a psychopath?

At several points in the article sociopathy or psychopathy is strongly emphasized as a probable pathology. But like others have suggested, Bundy doesn’t appear to be a prototypical psychopath. His murders appear to be primarily emotionally-motivated (not instrumental) and he presented suicidal ideation, very atypical of the condition. Even ASPD is questionable due to his relative lack of criminal history outside of the homicides. I would suggest that alternative diagnoses be given more weight than they currently are in this article especially as the argument for psychopathy in the provided source doesn’t seem strong enough to warrant the emphasis.--2604:2000:C583:900:A845:A57:ADF6:A1B5 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

We go by what RS's state - and there several citations.104.169.43.46 (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm no psychology major, but I've never heard anyone claim that psychopaths don't experience suicidal ideation before and I don't see any reason why somebody would believe that. As to his murder spree being emotionally-motivated; again, I don't see any evidence of that. While some have speculated that he started killing women out of anger after Stephanie Brooks left him, Bundy always denied that, and many believe that he started killing long before then. Bundy claimed to have fantasized about killing and torturing women from a young age. He was obviously very manipulative, never showed an ounce of remorse for his crimes, chose to act as his own lawyer because he was overconfident in his abilities, was a pathological liar, and tried to bribe his victims families into campaigning against his death sentence in exchange for telling them where their loved ones' bodies were. Sounds like typical sociopath/psychopath behaviour to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.108.30.202 (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not his breakup influenced his route it would seem he killed primarily for pleasure, sexual or otherwise, but although this is a strong emotional basis I guess it could be argued that as his homicides were conducted in service of receiving this pleasure, they were instrumental in that respect.--2604:2000:C583:900:A468:EA2:C0AA:587D (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Bundy's Law Contributions

I think it may be important to include Bundy’s contributions to the law and what plans he had for the system after being inside of it personally. I’m thinking of putting this in the article, but feel free to let me know if it seems tedious or irrelevant. The piece I want to insert is as follows: “Bundy joked with local newsmen that after the eight weeks he had been held in Salt Lake City’s jail system that before being released on bail, he had a beneficial experience for studying the law, thus giving him new insights for improving the criminal justice system. His first order of action was to focus on addressing the bail‐bond system and improving it. Before behind bars, he was a very well known Republican, as well as the assistant director of the Seattle Crime Prevention Advisory Commission (this title was given to him the same year all the killings started). During his time at this position, he even wrote a rape‐prevention pamphlet for women.” Again, please provide input as seen fit. Thanks!

Oliepandolie (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Oliepandolie

Provide some Reliable Sources for this view.104.169.43.46 (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2019

Please change, "In October 1982, Boone gave birth to a daughter and named Bundy as the father." to, In October 1981[1][2], Boone gave birth to a daughter and named Bundy as the father. Needs to be changed because local newspapers say she was pregnant in early 1981, she wouldn't carry a child from early 1981 to Fall 1982. Drish21 (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Courtroom Wife Fades Out Of Sight, Not A Recent Visitor". Orlando Sentinel. The Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved 24 January 2019.
  2. ^ "Bundy's wife is pregnant - but she refuses to kiss, tell". Google News. The Deseret News. Retrieved 24 January 2019.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019

https;//youtube.com/c/nathanrudy Narwhale1776 (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2019

Add this citation for Jane's Addiction song "Ted Just Admit it": https://janesaddiction.org/songs/janes-addiction/ted-just-admit-it/

Alternatively you can use this citation: https://www.kerrang.com/features/the-50-most-evil-songs-ever/ (see #24) 2601:643:8005:8140:BC04:B58D:2D13:28C8 (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

*I am inclined to reject this request, as the songs(?) are disgusting and add nothing of value to the article - but will await other editors comments. David J Johnson (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Offending material deleted from article page. David J Johnson (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Not done Songs are of questionable task and had nothing to value of article. David J Johnson (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2019

As of November 2018, the patella bone has now been confirmed as Debra Kent's through DNA testing. Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/a11aic/debra_kent_missing_since_1974_remains_identified/

Therefore, change "November 8: Debra Jean Kent (17): Vanished after leaving a school play in Bountiful, Utah; body left (according to Bundy) near Fairview, Utah, 100 miles (160 km) south of Bountiful; minimal skeletal remains (one patella) found, but never positively identified as Kent's[354]".

to:

"November 8: Debra Jean Kent (17): Vanished after leaving a school play in Bountiful, Utah; body left (according to Bundy) near Fairview, Utah, 100 miles (160 km) south of Bountiful; minimal skeletal remains (one patella) found, not positively confirmed as Kent's until DNA testing in 2018". 218.214.182.168 (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate Picture

The main picture is not Ted Bundy... it's a naked woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.73.176 (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2019

The pornographic image currently in the photo space of the bio panel on the right isn't a photo of Ted Bundy. Aelvie (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done the pornographic version of the image has been removed DannyS712 (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

nothing in Reliable Sources about Colorado's negligence?

I would have thought that the Florida victims' families would have sued the state of Colorado for damages - he got loose - twice - while incarcerated there and was able to make his way to Florida to commit at least four more murders. Does any book discuss this or why Colorado might have immunity? 104.169.45.151 (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Immunity? They don't have responsibility for the actions that he committed. That doesn't happen unless someone working for the state wantonly assists in his escape and that didn't happen. Prisons/jails/states are not responsible for actions committed by escapees. Here are some legal precedents for you to read.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

More links in "See Also"

Shouldn't there be some more links of WP articles of murderers/kidnappers/criminals etc. in the "See Also" section of the page? Please consider adding some, which will enable the readers to further read some more articles on such people. Thanks! Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2019

As of November 2018, the patella bone has now been confirmed as Debra Kent's through DNA testing. Link: http://charleyproject.org/case/debra-jean-kent

Therefore, change "November 8: Debra Jean Kent (17): Vanished after leaving a school play in Bountiful, Utah; body left (according to Bundy) near Fairview, Utah, 100 miles (160 km) south of Bountiful; minimal skeletal remains (one patella) found, but never positively identified as Kent's[354]".

to:

"November 8: Debra Jean Kent (17): Vanished after leaving a school play in Bountiful, Utah; body left (according to Bundy) near Fairview, Utah, 100 miles (160 km) south of Bountiful; minimal skeletal remains (one patella) found, not positively confirmed as Kent's until DNA testing in 2018". 168.39.180.26 (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. charleyproject.org doesn't meet WP:RS. It is the only source I can find reporting on this other than a reddit post that links to the same article. Please find a reliable source for this before making another request.  DiscantX 01:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is an article from a local news agency: https://www.ksl.com/article/46509150/dna-testing-helped-police-confirm-missing-utah-teen-was-killed-by-ted-bundy2601:680:8001:BCE1:694E:232B:47E9:C01F (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Article says "minimal skeletal remains (one patella) found, were eventually in 2015 positively identified by DNA as Kent's". Closed request. NiciVampireHeart 19:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect: He never accepted responsibility for any of them

The article reads: "While he eventually confessed to 30 murders, he never accepted responsibility for any of them." However, in the Dobson interview he indicated: "I take full responsibility for whatever I've done." See 17:00: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubVGWyhG0E0. Please consider rewording the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1000Faces (talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Bundy's Polaroiads

Contradiction:

"Bundy later said that searchers missed a collection of Polaroid photographs of his victims; he destroyed the photographs after he was released" note: 155 [Nelson, Polly (1994). Defending the Devil: My Story as Ted Bundy's Last Lawyer. New York: William Morrow. ISBN 978-0-688-10823-6.]

versus

"Polaroid photographs of Bundy's victims have been found throughout the years." note: 402 [Keller, Robert. Bundy: Portrait of a Serial Killer: The Shocking True Story of Ted Bundy. Robert Keller. ISBN 9781548730673. Retrieved July 2, 2018.]

If they were destroyed, they couldn't have been found over the years. I cannot find the reference in Keller. A page and location is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raduffus (talk • contribs) 18:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Father

His father was named Johnny Culpepper Bundy. Beautifulmomma87 (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Per the article, that's his adoptive father. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Diane Edwards

Another [source] reports that the woman commonly known as "Stephanie Brooks" was in fact named Diane Edwards. This makes two, after the Ted Bundy Netflix documentary. It is long past the time where we stopped using the pseudonym. Given the fact that Wikipedia does not use a pseudonym for Kloepfer or for Bundy's living victims, the genericness of Diane Edwards' name, or the fact that for all we know she might no longer be alive, we should use her real name.

Here's [another] source, and here's [another]. Probably the Al Carlisle book would be a source as well.

Sincerely, Vidor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:C500:4E57:F0EB:FAB0:1A13:630A (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2019

I have a question about Ted Bundy's time at University and particularly in law school. How did Ted Bundy pay for tuition? Was he in student loan debt? Its a weird question but I find his ability to vacation with only working minimum wage jobs intriguing. Andradejf 18:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Andradejf 18:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

 Note: This template is not for requesting additional information/general discussion. It is used to make a specific request for an edit to be made for the article. NiciVampireHeart 19:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Law School

The body of the article states that Bundy attended UPS Law School but the link is to the Seattle University School of Law. Seattle University acquired UPS Law School in 1993. 64.119.7.169 (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2019

Ted Bundy is one of the most sickest guys going. 10/10 would rate as my best serial killer! defiently a ladies man. 195.195.248.132 (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

☒N Not done and not likely to be done - Not encyclopedic ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2019

his father name is Johnnie Culpepper Bundy 1921-2007 Yungchoi37 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lisa Levy (artist) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Clarification needed on religious conversion

I don't want to add what in my case would be original research to the article, but the information that Bundy was baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "in August or September" of 1975 needs clarification. Since Bundy was arrested on 16 August 1975 and jailed without bail until his conviction, 15 August is the latest possible date his baptism could have occurred. Mormons baptize by immersion, which requires a baptismal font, swimming pool, or open body of water, none of which would have been available to him in jail. On top of that, Church policy, then as now, prohibits the baptism of anyone charged with a serious crime until and unless the person is acquitted. The sources that say September have to be in error. Meservy (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

College girlfriend's name is incorrect

Hi! Has anyone else noticed that this article calls Ted's college girlfriend, who he was obsessed with and chose his victims based on, "Stephanie"? Her name was Diane, so I'm confused why this page calls her Stephanie... is that just a pseudonym or an error? :) Thank you! Acampbell4 (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It is a pseudonym, as is Leslie Holland etc. Check reference number 35 for clarification, in addition to the sentence explanation at the first instance of mention of the pseudonym. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2020

All the cases in the 1974 section under the Utah Colorado Idaho section are in Utah, makes sense to take out the other two states 104.195.218.9 (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: On September 2, he raped and strangled a still-unidentified hitchhiker in Idaho" as well as "In 1975, Bundy shifted much of his criminal activity eastward, from his base in Utah to Colorado" and discussing Snowmass Village, Colorado. Current title is proper DannyS712 (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Another victim

I watched a documentary recently that named another victim of Bundy's, named Rhonda Stapley. She wrote a self-published book about her experience, although she did not speak of it for decades, nor did she ever contact authorities about it, despite the sheer number of victims and publicity of him. == Lizabetha (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

We would need a reliable, secondary source for this information and certainly not a self-published book - which rates as WP:OR. Inclusion of this "story" could start a rush of similar claims. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Changing Stephanie Brooks

I was thinking we should change the name of Bundy's first girlfriend from the pseudonym Stephanie Brooks to [redacted]. Seemingly all other online resources are using the name Diane Edwards; a simple Google search of 'Ted Bundy Stephanie Brooks' illustrates that. Additionally, the Seattle Police Department records identify her as [redacted]. Would this change be acceptable? Lovepopp (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No. The reader learns nothing from this. See WP:BLPPRIVACY. EEng 06:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, I suppose. Her real name is already all over the Netflix docuseries and the rest of the internet though, so the redacting hardly seems necessary. Lovepopp (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
But we don't need to add to that notoreity, especially since, like I said, it adds zero to the reader's understanding of the subject. EEng 13:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Bundy's first escape

Hey, just wondering if it's worth adding some more detail to his first escape. Although it states that the maps in the car indicated the escape was pre-planned, Bundy himself admitted on tape that he had done many things to prepare for escape. For example, jumping off his bunk to strengthen his legs for impact, mentally measuring the distance he had to travel to escape, then walking/running that distance in his cell, and he practiced how quickly he could change his clothes.

I just think adding this in would add more depth to who he was, plus it's very interesting.

Space-daddy29 (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Naval records

I removed the line "...but investigators found no record of anyone by that name [Jack Worthington] in Navy or Merchant Marine archives". This is mentioned in only one source and not even a major source. The idea that there are no records of a "Jack Worthington" in navy records can be refuted by a google search: see this for example. There are more. LittleJerry (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I will not argue this point any further - but I do not see any reference to "old money" or combat service in the cited sources, nor do I see why it is relevant - especially since we do not know whether the man whose obituary you referenced is in fact the "sailor" that Louise may have been talking about. According to Ann Rule, she wasn't even certain that that was his name. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The obituary was simply to show that there were people named Jack Worthington in the Navy and so the claim that "...investigators found no record of anyone by that name in Navy or Merchant Marine archives" is dubious. I was not claiming that the man was the sailor. Also Page 56 of Michaud & Aynesworth 1999 states "...Her story has always been... she was seduced by Jack Worthington, a rakish veteran of the recent war, who hinted to her of an old money pedigree." LittleJerry (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Googling an obituary amounts to WP:OR -- and I don't think we should be publishing something he might have "hinted to" as if it were established fact, especially when it is contradicted by another cited source -- but again, the point is not worth arguing (or edit warring) over, so I will leave it as is. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

I disagree when ted bundy got arrested 94.202.76.161 (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Ferien (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

A minor discovery

I am unable to edit semi-protected articles at the moment due to the 'new-ness' of my account, so I hope a post in this 'talk' section will bring this potential edit to light. I was viewing the film "Black Christmas" (1974) (a classic horror movie) and @ 20:00 in the movie the name 'Chris Hagen' is stated as the person a father's daughter was last seen with. At this point in the film it has already been established that the particular daughter in question perished at least a night prior. One might recognize the name 'Chris Hagen'..

I would point out that Bundy did not begin using that pseudonym until he got to Florida in 1978 -- 4 years after that film was made. I cannot see how this bit of film trivia could be associated with Bundy, even if you had a reliable source saying so, which you apparently do not.DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, please sign your posts.DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2021

Victim Denise Marie Naslund was 18-years-old when she was killed, not 19.

DOB: Oct 10,1955 Died: Jul 14,1974 Tripwire1974 (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terasail II[✉️] 00:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

you have some spelling mistakes i need to correct Elfishmoss612 (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2021

"sawed a hole about one square foot (0.093 m2). Although mathematically correct, 0.093 m2 is useless as a descriptor to a metric user. "Approx. 30 x 30 cm" would make more sense. 78.229.192.33 (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. We'd rather not be inaccurate. One square foot does not mean square hole. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Safeway store

In the section about his possible involvement in the attack on Lisa E. Wick and Lonnie Ree Trumbull, this article claims that he was working at a nearby Safeway store. This is incorrect. https://oddstops.com/location.php?id=58 Bundy did not start working at the supermarket until nearly 2 years after the attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.131.66 (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2022

Change

Jacksonville Police Department's Chief of Detectives

to

Jacksonville Police Department's Chief of Detectives

Are the italics in this line meaningful? It's distracting. It can't be the title of a movie or show in this context. Slix00 (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 04:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Diane Edwards

I saw in the archives that this has been raised before, but there was no resolution to the issue so I thought I'd mention it again.

In the Netflix documentary series Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, Ted's early college girlfriend Diane Edwards is mentioned (with her real name; I can see in this article she's referred to by the pseudonym of Stephanie Brooks).

I was wondering why the article continues to use a pseudonym when her real name is publicised in the documentary?

--Wannabemodel (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead picture change

I think either File:Bundy FLA 8179.jpeg or File:Ted Bundy mug shot.jpg would make a better lead image. Mugshots make more sense for people known as criminals. LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

some minor mistakes

article says "before his execution in 1989, he confessed to 30 homicides that he committed in seven states between 1974 and 1978". His earliest documented homicides were committed in 1974 but he actually confessed to Hagmaier he committed murders in between 1973 and 1978. you can listen original confession tape.

article also says "February 1: Lynda Ann Healy (21): Bludgeoned while asleep and abducted;[74] skull and mandible recovered at Taylor Mountain site" Linda Healy's only mandible found not skull. Keppel's himself also said that too. you can watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2P5NkrUGlE

there are also additional information about DNA tests on victim's bones and it can be add to article.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebele (talk • contribs) 12:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

In the 11th paragraph in the section Oregon, Washington homicides of Bundy, it says that the skeletal remains of both Ott and Naslund were found in September 1974. However, in the Victims>1974>Oregon, Washington, it says both their remains were recovered in 1975. One of those sections, which I presume is the latter of the two, is not correct. Please revise to 1974 under the Victims' section for when the remains were recovered for Ott and Naslund.

Done. I have edited the section about Healy. I've also fixed the typo on Ott and Naslund. Declantwocans (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=v-M9EAAAQBAJ&pg=PT120&lpg=PT120&dq=lynda+ann+healy+bones+discovered&source=bl&ots=w1QIaYe_Op&sig=ACfU3U3r9-S4S0XPmBb6JJMGjthR0g9WLg&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjj4nGl635AhUMS8AKHcPCCagQ6AF6BAgjEAM#v=onepage&q&f=false

Bite mark

I'm not sure how to source YouTube links, but the police officer in this courtroom video testifies at 3:03 that one of the wounds Levy suffered was a bite mark and that it was located on her right breast. I added that in because it's more specific than how the section was originally worded. Sorry that I wasn't able to source this on the article itself, but hope that rewording is fine. Hmm1994 (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of Political Affiliation

What is the relevance of including Bundy's political affiliation in his bio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.206.4.66 (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Bizarre. Removed. Conan The Librarian (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Daughter's date of birth

Was his daughter, Rose born in 1981 or 1982? A cursory Google search would suggest the latter date is the more commonly-reported of the two. It's important we get this kind of information right. Hmm1994 (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hmm1994: Contemporary newspaper reports say October 1981. —Muzilon (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Add alma mater?

Why is this not in the info box? FinnSoThin (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Sunshine thanks

Sunshine is there anyway you can do it at night and we will get a new car and get the kids off to you and your dad wants you know how long he wants me at home 12.190.236.28 (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2022

Your information on Molly is incorrect. He never abused her, sexually or physically beat her. You need to watch the documentary with Liz and Molly both and make sure you are documenting correct information from reliable sources. 66.186.231.170 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Currently cited sources quote Molly as describing the acts we currently listed in the article. We could perhaps clarify on the "hitting her in the face and knocking her down" bits as the first thought that evokes is Bundy hitting her while what she wrote less clear:

"There were other times over the years that Molly questioned his motives—like when she was hit in the face with a football or knocked to the ground while they were walking—but Bundy always denied any intentional wrongdoing and claimed the incidents had been an accident."Each time, I felt he had done it on purpose, but I chose to believe his explanations for why I was wrong," she writes."

Not sure what documentary you're referring to. Cannolis (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2022

Change: Keppel published a detailed documentation of the Green River interviews,[273] To: Keppel, and later Reichert, published detailed accounts of the Bundy interviews in their respective books about the Green River Killer case. 63.239.193.130 (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ([273] appears to be Keppel's publication itself.) 3mi1y (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Motive

May we please add "necrophilia" & "rape" as motives, since Bundy did do necrophilia & rape. Monkeylady999 (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2022

Taylor Mountain is not in California. The remains of the victims on Taylor Mountain were in Washington state. The victim list has California listed. 2601:18F:E81:6380:AC82:391E:A3FD:16E3 (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done SpinningCeres 04:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Cheryl Thomas abduction date is incorrect in the chart

Cheryl Thomas was attacked the same night/morning (January 15) as the 4 Chi Omega sorority sisters. The chart should be updated with the correct date. 2600:1700:1E18:7B40:CE4:C18D:C889:2D0C (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
"Abduction" date doesn't seem right to me. Thomas wasn't kidnapped and neither were any of the sorority sisters. They were attacked but there was no secondary crime scene. Hmm1994 (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Citation 404 brings up a security error when the link is clicked

Just to let people know, it's obviously not a good link for citation. Phil of rel (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Archive link at that citation works fine. Maybe the title should be de-linked? 47.137.179.4 (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 373077CH (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Writer444.

— Assignment last updated by WikiEdit7205 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't there a mugshot photo of Bundy in the infobox?

Most serial killers have mugshots in their infobox. For example, David Berkowitz, Dennis Rader, Edmund Kemper, Richard Ramirez, Jeffrey Dahmer, Gary Ridgway, or Luis Garavito. Why is Ted Bundy an exception? Several mugshot of bundy are available on wikipedia. For example: File:Ted Bundy mug shot.jpg File:Bundy FLA 8179.jpeg

What are your opinions? Do you support replacing the current infobox image with one of these?

(PS:Sorry if I made any grammar mistakes) Netpartizán (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggested this too. I suppose the current one is the most iconic image of him. LittleJerry (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Attack method

I object to this edit; my change has been reverted, so let’s discuss.

SergeWoodzing explained that Bundy's victims being "bludgeoned" as they slept is relevant information to include in the lead section. I would counter that many of them were bludgeoned, strangled and/or sexually assaulted. The term “attacked” can refer to all three methods of assault, but the specific mention of bludgeoning negates the other two and should be removed. Hmm1994 (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

OK "bludgeoned, strangled and/or sexually assaulted" it is then. Though I now see that "bludgeoned" is mentioned twice in the lead. In excess perhaps. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
SergeWoodzing - Sorry for acting rashly; in any case, I fixed that problem you described and added a fourth method, one I had neglected to mention. Hmm1994 (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Good! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Probable First Victim: Tumwater Hitchhiker

Probable First Victim Tumwater? Over time Bundy gave multiple dates and locations as to when and where he committed his first murder. There are also several pre-1974 that have been speculated to having been committed by him, many of these cases have since been solved, in the open cases, Bundy’s involvement has been debunked or been demonstrated to be highly unlikely.

However during Bundy’s 30 last minute confessions he admitted to killing a young hitchhiker in Tumwater,Washington during May of 1973. After playing games about his early crimes for so long, he finally admitted that this hitchhiker was his 1st victim. The confession is considered highly credible and is backed up by gas receipts, he’d visited Tunwater many times around the time of the murder.

I see that the article largely glosses over this murder despite its important role in Bundy’s spree. I believe that the Tumwater Hitchhiker should be mentioned in the article and to also change his beginning date as a killer be pushed back to May of 1973 instead of early 1990

I know this girl has never been identified but if we’re going to mention the Boise Hitchhiker who is also unidentified, than we definitely should make note of his pre-execution confession to what is his most probable 1st murder and the earliest crime from his death row confessions. This needs attention in the article. GladeMist (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Gerard Schaefer

This is the second time I had to remove mention of Gerard Schaefer. He is not a reliable source nor is he mention in Bundy biographies. So DoodleGiggly, please stop adding him. LittleJerry (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay! DoodleGiggly (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

1968 Republican National Convention

Contrary to the article text, apparently taken from Larsen, Ted Bundy was NOT a delegate at the 1968 Republican National Convention. There is no Bundy delegate or alternate for Washington State in the published proceedings of the convention.

In any case, it was unlikely. National convention delegate spots typically go to longtime, popular party stalwarts, not to young, unknown volunteers like Bundy. Presumably he attended the convention as part of the Rockefeller campaign apparatus, not as a voting delegate.

I have removed the words "as a Rockefeller delegate". Kestenbaum (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Grammatical/language corrections

There are at least three instances where #-years-old is used: In Childhood (’ When he was 18-years-old, the details of the incidents were…’), in University years (’Bundy became a father figure to Kloepfer's daughter Molly, who was 3-years-old when he started dating her mother;…) and in First murders (’Bundy's earliest documented homicides were committed in 1974, when he was 27-years-old.’). This should be ’18 years old,’ ’3 years old’ and ’27 years old’ instead. I can’t edit the article, which is very good, but I suggest these errors be corrected. 151.177.73.209 (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2024

In the section discussing Bundy’s Florida murders, the sentence about Cheryl Thomas’ injuries ending her dance career is incorrect. While the injuries to her equilibrium were substantial, she discusses in an interview with Nancy Grace that she was able to relearn ballet with the damage to her equilibrium despite having to start from the beginning. She graduated from Texas Christian University with a degree in Ballet and eventually taught the blind and visually impaired ballet. While she may not have had the career she hoped for, she did have a dance career and used her situation to help the less fortunate. I sincerely hope that the sentence is revised to more accurately reflect Cheryl’s survivor mentality and that she did in fact have a career in dance. You can watch Cheryl Thomas’ interview with Nancy Grace here: https://nation.foxnews.com/surviving-bundy-with-nancy-grace/ 72.230.129.190 (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. SSSB (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Addition to 12.3 Music

The song "What turns you on" by the band Cassandra Complex. Lyrics start with: "My name is Ted Bundy I was a really nice guy. Till I discovered girls. Discovered they should die."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.45.206.63 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Arrest

Ted bundy was arrested three times during his murder spree but only his first arrest date only exist so I need to add the two other arrests of Bundy 41.33.88.71 (talk) 07:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2024

add correct and vital information 41.33.88.71 (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Irltoad (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2024 (2)

Ted bundy was arrested three times during his murder spree but only his first arrest date only exist so I need to add the two other arrests of Bundy 41.33.88.71 (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, please do not add multiple requests for the same thing. It needlessly clogs up the talk page and does not make it more likely that someone will respond. Thank you. Irltoad (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2024 (3)

Ted bundy was arrested three times during his murder spree but only his first arrest date only exist so I need to add the two other arrests of Bundy 196.157.32.177 (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I have provided an answer to this in the section above. This is, by my count, your fourth or fifth identical edit request in a short timeframe and constitutes disruptive editing, which if persistent can result in being blocked. Please refrain from continuing to do so. Irltoad (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Bundy/Archive_6&oldid=1226081735"