Talk:Arthur Leigh Allen/Archive 1

Never Charged section
I originally added this to the main article, thinking I was looking at the Talk page:


 * It's important to recognize the difference between "being cleared" and "not implicated". The police searched Allen's house three times and subjected him to multiple tests on multiple occasions (polygraph, fingerprint, handwriting, DNA).  That indicates they suspected him strongly, and continued to suspect him up to 2002

, and have yet to announce he's cleared of suspicion. The police might know something we don't, or they might not want to admit they were wrong, but all indicators are that he's still on their list. Note SFPD Inspector Kelly Carroll's response here:. He doesn't actually say Allen was cleared when directly asked. Jimbonator 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since he's dead, the police have no obligation to announce he's been "cleared." I don't know what "list" you're referencing but I certainly don't think any police department is seriously investigating Allen as the Zodiac. Considering the fingerprint evidence in the case, it's very far-fetched to consider Allen was the Zodiac. And that's before one even considers all of the other physical evidence that points to the man's innocence.--TL36 (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This section should incorporate more sources and reflect what's been said, rather than pass on a POV about Allen's guilt or innocence. NPOV is going to be vitally important for this entry, as every Zodiac researcher has a strong opinion on Allen's role in the killings. Jimbonator 01:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Concerning your statement, "every Zodiac researcher has a strong opinion on Allen's role in the killings," I'd be interested in knowing the names of any serious Zodiac researcher that thinks Allen is guilty and isn't connected to the movie Zodiac or Robert Graysmith. I doubt even Vallejo PD's George Bawart still thought Allen was guilty at the time of his death last month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.175.211 (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Lack of sources
The article lists no sources at all in the entire section that claims Cheney had a motive for lying.


 * (please sign your comments by adding ~ after them). there are several ways of dealing with unsourced material. you can comment on it in 'discussion' to bring it to people's attention (as you did), which is a good first step. better though is to simply add the tag
 * to the top of the section. this will tag it as unreferenced, which alerts all readers that the section is problematic; they can then go out and find references to add the appropriate citations, or if the material remains challenged, an editor may simply remove it. since sections can vary in length from a single sentence to many many paragraphs, the decision to remove the material is one of good discretion, balancing WP:BOLD with the interest in building consensus. these comments brought to you by one strong cup of coffee. Anastrophe 17:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems absurd to me that this article is unreferenced, as I wrote the original article, and gave it 7 refs or so. It is still where I posted it for the Zodiac Killer editors to read, in my sandbox. I suggest somebody go there and add the refs. I have no interest in doing it myself, but will leave thwe article there for the next few days so that another can use the refs. ]I have tagged it as totally unreferenced, and be aware that it is fair game to be deleted if no refs are forthcoming. Jeffpw 10:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems absurd to me that this article is unreferenced, as I wrote the original article, and gave it 7 refs or so. It is still where I posted it for the Zodiac Killer editors to read, in my sandbox. I suggest somebody go there and add the refs. I have no interest in doing it myself, but will leave thwe article there for the next few days so that another can use the refs. ]I have tagged it as totally unreferenced, and be aware that it is fair game to be deleted if no refs are forthcoming. Jeffpw 10:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe
Maybe Zodiac killing wasn't one man job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brancina (talk • contribs) 22:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of maybes. I just finished watching 'Zodiac' and can understand how this killer (or killers) can take a life in more than one way.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.81.124 (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

--Evidence?-- Here is a website that has many items in which one man figured out the 'My Name Is' cipher it does not state his name but rather ZODIACZODIAC. Here is the sight it also shows how Arthur Leigh Allen confessed to being the Zodiac in it. http://www.opordanalytical.com/articles/Zodiac.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.147.42 (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't and even the author of this web page, Christopher Farmer, has concluded "After further investigation, I have concluded that Arthur Leigh Allen was not the Zodiac Killer." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.175.211 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Expaination of my reverts
I've been asked why I am reverting this at my talk page. Well, I am not seeing these witnesses anywhere in the two references that are provided. Am I missing something? There need to be a reliable source that is verifiable. If I am missing something, please point it out, thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

dishonorably discharge
Can somebody please tell just why he was dishonorably discharged, because currently it does not tell why. - It&#39;s for the Lutz (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. It was indecency with a woman who was then daughter of the naval commander commanding Allen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talk • contribs) 15:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is Robert Graysmith's opinion a lead fact in this article?
Is this standard practice for Wikipedia? If I go to the article on Ohm's Law will I see Joan River's opinion on it?--Skintigh (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)