Talk:Gareth Penn/Archive 01

NPOV?
Rce2004: Since you seem to be the creator and primary editor of this particular entry, this post is directed to you (and naturally, to any other interested editors).

As a person who is both fascinated by the Zodiac murders case and very much intrigued by the “radian theory,” as it has come to be known, I must say that I am glad to see that an entry has been created for Gareth Penn. (I am a true crime buff and a published author; my first book has a chapter devoted to the Zodiac murders in which I gave a great deal of space to a detailed discussion of the radian theory. In my mind, that particular area of the Zodiac case is perhaps the most fascinating of all and, may in fact be one of the most important clues ever uncovered by amateur investigators).

With that said, I must also point out that the neutral point of view of this particular entry is highly debatable! There are many entries and statements that tend to accept all that Penn has ever said and done as far as the Zodiac case is concerned, while offering almost nothing in the way of contrasting points of view. As such, it is my opinion that the neutrality of the entry needs to be subjected to some major revision in many key areas. (See: WP:NPOV).

I believe that I am qualified to offer some pointers concerning how to rewrite parts of this article in order to reflect a neutral perspective, if you or anyone else would be interested in hearing and discussing my ideas. Thanks.

-- Labyrinth13 20:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Problematic Issues Addressed
User Labyrinth13 makes an excellent point and it is one we failed to communicate. Gareth Penn's prolific non-Zodiac writings are clear and precise. With the possible exception of the "radian theory," his Zodiac work stands out for precisely the opposite reason -- its arcane convolution. The Zodiac ciphers have a similar quality. One cipher was deciphered. The others have never been deciphered, most probably because they are nothing but jibberish, deliberate attempts to mislead investigators into wasting time and resources.

Why Penn -- the linguist son of an Army cryptographer with a clearly rich cultural background -- would choose to focus on mathematical models of the Zodiac's writings is also a mystery. Zodiac's main focus was not math, but linguistic and cultural allusion, making his many communiques a seeming feast for anyone with such interests.

-- Rce2004 20 February 2007

References section format
I have reformatted the "References" section of this entry in order to make it comply with Wikipedia standards requiring inline citation, as outlined in the Manual_of_Style.

I also added the first two inline cites in the "Please RUSH to Editor" section that can serve as an example for future editors. Thanks. Labyrinth13 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Increasingly fascinating reference
Thanks to Labyrinth13 for helping make this an increasingly fascinating reference. It almost rivals the Zodiac Killer entry for details and references.

-- Rce2004 28 February 2007


 * No problem. But it must be pointed out that there are way too many statements made within the body of this article that have no source citation, a fact that will cause other editors who come here to challenge this entry as being less “encyclopedic” and more of a “vanity” piece.  Accordingly, I would suggest that research be done in order to provide direct references for all statements made (particularly entries such as “In all probability, Penn served in Vietnam” and “Zodiac victim Cheri Jo Bates was also last seen with a young man, about 25 years of age, wearing a beard.” Those types of entries will, in all likelihood, be vigorously challenged by other editors because they have no cited source). An important idea to keep in mind can be found here: WP:NOT


 * It is also important to change all of the website links within the body of the article to inline cites wherever possible, so that they will appear in the new "References" section. And I must point out that it is frowned upon to link directly to any products for sale, such as the link to a book for sale on Amazon.com that I removed today.


 * I have started from the top and begun to reformat linked text as inline cites. I would appreciate it if someone else could lend a hand with this chore, if so inclined.

-- Labyrinth13

Copyediting
The categories were wrong. Penn is not an unidentified serial killer, nor a egular serial killer, nor does he belong in the decade categories. I removed those and put him in "Crime Writers". WP is not a collection of meanignless info, so I removed the letters to the editor. They are copyvio, and add nothing of valus that is not OR. As per WP:NOT a list of links, I shortened up his Ecphorizer contributions ot a main link to Ecphorizer alone. The aptents don't appear noteworthy; I have removed them.

In short, this article is far too speculative for its own good, and needs to be rewritten by someone not trying to cast aspersions or prove a point. MSJapan 02:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

MSJapan: I appreciate your editing and concern, but the officious (and presumptuous) note at the end leaves a bad taste.

As per the Talk guidelines:

1) "The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration."

2) "Assume good faith and treat the other person in the discussion as a fellow editor."

3) "Being friendly is a great help."

4) "Be positive: Article talk pages should be used for ways to improve an article, not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article."

5) "The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it."

6) "The talk page can be used to store material from the article which has been removed because it is not verified, so that time can be given for references to be found."

7) "Discuss edits."

8) "Make proposals."

Labyrinth13 and I have been engaging in this way to improve this article, as you should be able to tell from the history page. Rce2004 19:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Restored some deleted references
Mistakenly listed as US Patents, a list of US Copyrights directly related to the Zodiac case is restored, along with a reference. Penn did not write as "George Oakes" in the Mensa Ecphorizer, but as Gareth Penn. Better link provided to those works (scroll down at link).

Rce2004 20:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Note from journalist Alan Cabal
Congratulations on an excellent article. Your essay on Penn is as thorough a piece as one could wish for. Your description of my "non-encounter" with him is fine. If I ever get around to settling down and unpacking my files, I'll forward the response I got from William S. Burroughs on the subject of Penn and his theories.

Alan Cabal 3/6/07


 * Hi Alan: Curt Rowlett a.k.a. Labyrinth13 here (begin name-dropping of Jake Wark as a mutual acquaintance to give you some perspective on who is responding). Thanks for verifying what we have written so far re your involvement with Penn.  It is always nice to have a solid source on record.  Really, the mighty Bill Burroughs had musings on Penn?  That will be worth waiting for!  Please keep us in the loop on that one.

-- Labyrinth13 21:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Note on OPORD/Farmer
It may be considered a matter of opinion, but even the slightest browsing of the OPORD message boards reveals that Farmer has as strong an obsession with Penn as he alleges Penn has with Zodiac, and equally reveals a degree of speculative analysis and intepretation which I don't think deserved to be left neutral in this article. Some of it is quite literally loony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.86.175 (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is indeed a matter of opinion -- your opinion, in this case -- and while I agree with you that some of the analysis is not up to snuff, it's not the place of Wikipedia to editorialize on facts about entries. The fact is that Farmer made the accusations and those accusations have been widely reported.  Numerous links to his work are provided in the entry and readers can judge for themselves without Wiki editors making derogatory comments about the work in entries.  Comments like that should be left to the talk section.

-- Bankscover (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Oddly" seems unencyclopedic
"Oddly, O’Hare never sued Penn for libel."

Use of the word "oddly" infers, at least to me, an opinion as to the reason why he has not sued Penn, namely that he is the Zodiac. Does anyone else think it would be better if this were cited to someone who has gone on the record saying that it is in fact odd for someone in O'Hare's position to not sue? If it can't be cited I would suggest it be changed slightly and moved down to where Penn expresses his opinion about the possibility of being sued:

"Penn later told San Francisco Chronicle writer Sandra Konte that he was not worried about possible lawsuits. “My suspect knows I’m right.” To date O'Hare has not sued Penn for libel. Truckerbomb (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)