User talk:Lasttimeilooked

I disagree that content for this page has to be about SOLVING the crime to be relevant and 'non-promotional." There are many elements in the article that 'wasn't relevant in helping solve the crime'. That the father, John Lyon, was a well-known radio personality at WMAL, doesn't help solve the crime. Why not edit that out because it promotes WMAL? It was the cold case investigators' interrogation methods that 'solved the crime' and got Lloyd Welch convicted without a body –and those interrogations are only found in this documentary. As a reader interested in the subject--and not anyone who benefits from the promotion of a documentary--I'd want to know what particulars I might find in the documentary that I'm not getting on this Wiki page, as it relates to how the crime was solved. A wiki page is just a container for information on a particular topic, just like a documentary. Had the writers of this article had access to the documentary, perhaps they would have mentioned that the officers stated they're convinced more people were involved. Or that a tooth was found at the search site on Taylor's Mountain--then 'lost' by local police. So maybe the crime WASN'T solved, after all.

I appreciate calling attention to ways that the section can be cleaner and meet citing criteria. But an edit made with the assumption that someone is merely trying to promote a product may have resulted in some unfair removal of reader-relevant content.

Thanks for your response. Lasttimeilooked (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is that the article in question is about the crime. It is not, and should not be, about the documentary. The existence of the documentary should be a side note, without undue wieght. Details about the film, including notes about who was interviewed for the film, are only relevant if those interviews were instrumental in solving the crime. Since there is no evidence that they were, the description of the movie ("containing exclusive interviews with .." and "including footage of the location") strikes me as an attempt to promote the film. That's just how I read it. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I hear your point. The language you quoted does sound 'market-y.' I am trying to say "the video interrogations by police of Welch during the investigation are reproduced within the documentary." The documentary is to the crime as Mark Bowden's book about the crime is to the crime. While I'm content to leave content as is (per your edit), I will assume I am correct in saying that if a feature of the police interrogations relevant to the crime were in the article, and that requires a source, and the only source that is verifiable is in the documentary--then a footnote listing the documentary as a verifiable source is more in keeping with Wikipedia standards. Thank you. Lasttimeilooked (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)