Talk:Paul Kenneth Keller

Number of fires
There appears to be some disagreement over the number of fires set. Discussion about this issue is being held on User talk:ScrewYouToo, but it also should probably be discussed here, too. A point to remember: all facts should include verifiable sources, and it is necessary to cite the sources in the article, or, at least, in the "References" section at the bottom of the page. A source cited only in the edit summary is not really cited. --Ericdn (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it appears the only source for the lower number of fires is a Geocities page, I'm going to err on the side of caution and revert to the higher fire number. If anyone can provide verifiable information to warrant a different number, they are very welcome to do so, so long as they provide an appropriate source to back up their edit. --Ericdn (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to The Anome for finally settling this matter! --Ericdn (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul set fires in both King and Snohomish Counties. Rather than be tried in both counties, they chose to only pursue the fires in King County, which numbered 32. It was presumed that a conviction on 32 counts was sufficient to make the case. Paul admitted to all counts and cooperated fully with the prosecution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdxdon (talk • contribs) 19:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Geocities page as source
The reference linked to a Geocities page has been automatically removed by a bot. The reason - Geocities pages are generally not considered to be an appropriate source. Anyone can write anything on a Geocities page. Just because it's written on the internet does not mean it's based in fact or truth. Therefore, another source is necessary in order to support an edit. If the Geocities page links to an actual news source, however, then you can use that actual news source as a reference, assuming you've checked it and can verify that the source actually does exist. --Ericdn (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Convicted of setting 32, admitted to 44 more
I think I can see where the difference arose. According to http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/1994/Mar/11/keller-sentenced-to-99-years-for-fire-deaths/, Keller was convicted of setting 32 fires, and admitted to setting 44 more: which explains both figures: convicted of setting 32 fires, which, combined with the extra 44 fires admitted to, makes 76 fires in total. I've updated the article accordingly, citing the reference given above.

However, regardless of the merits of the argument, "ScrewYouToo" is not an acceptable username, and that account has now been blocked for that reason. -- The Anome (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

He is not an arsonist, he’s a pyromaniac.
This is a common and pervasive misappropriation of the term “arson”. Someone who commits arson does so for the purposes of criminal secondary gain, such as collecting insurance payouts or covering for some other criminal act. Individuals who set fires solely for the purposes of seeking pleasure or the release of anxiety, compulsively or impulsively, are not arsonists, they are pyromaniacs—and their motives and psychological underpinnings are entirely distinct.

The origins of this terminological error are founded in the legal definition of the criminal, actionable act; the crime of setting fires itself, irrespective of motive, is deemed “arson”—so we’re essentially stuck with it from that standpoint.

However, in order to be most accurate in defining the nature of this man’s pathology and in the service of describing him accurately in encyclopedic terms, calling him a serial “arsonist” is incorrect. The article itself is so grounded in this error that I wouldn’t know how to go about revising it without taking it apart entirely, and if he was redefined appropriately as a prolific pyromaniac I’m sure there are many who would object given that he was convicted of arson, and he is widely known by the legal definition.

If anyone has any thoughts on how to revise the article in a way that balances both descriptors I’d enjoy hearing them—but honestly this error is so ensconced in the public discourse that it’s likely too much of a hairball to tackle. Alanrobts (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)