Talk:Ted Gunderson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

This page is one of several related pages that have been extensively vandalized by the sockpuppets of Anne Teedham. This person was banned in March but managed to keep another sockpuppet active. Winksatfriend (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)winksatfriend[reply]

"the sockpuppets of Anne Teedham".
Wasn't that an "ABC Tuesday night movie" melodrama in the '70's? (sorry, could not resist) Batvette (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity[edit]

Are these two sentences dependent upon one another?

  • "In 1982, Gunderson joined the search for missing child Johnny Gosch.
  • "In 1990, Gunderson excavated the site of the McMartin Preschool, claiming to have uncovered secret tunnels."

Should they be read: "In 1982, Gunderson joined the search for missing child Johnny Gosch; and in 1990, he [meaning Gunderson] excavated the site of the McMartin Preschool, claiming to have uncovered secret tunnels." The problem here is in the word he (because of the Gosch entry). If they are written this way (without separate paragraphing), they are confusing: "In 1982, Gunderson joined the search for missing child Johnny Gosch. In 1990, he [who? Gosch or Gunderson?] excavated the site of the McMartin Preschool, claiming to have uncovered secret tunnels." Hag2 (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is completely obvious that the "he" is Gunderson - the first sentence is about the activities of Gunderson, and the second sentence is about the activities of Gunderson - the subject of this article. 24.196.88.159 (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is with the statement, "It is not yet clear whether there is physical evidence of Stoeckley at the crime scene"? It's been almost 40 years since these crimes were committed - there is no physical evidence of her at the scene - fingerprints, hair, nothing. Why the big qualification of that? Other qualifications, too - "she might have made statements saying she wasn't involved"? It is documented and I'll be happy to find and reference the many different statements she made - "I wasn't involved"; "I was on drugs and have no recollection of where I was." but I don't want to add a lot of info on Stoeckley in this article, when it seems more appropriate to point to the article on Jeffrey MacDonald 24.196.88.159 (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General cleanup[edit]

Cases that do not have mainstream references do not qualify as notable, I've removed the citations. Editors who want to reinsert the material are welcome to do so, but please find proper references.

Not all FBI field offices have history listings, I'm going to need to search other databases for some of the work history references. I expect this will be a time consuming process, any suggestions are welcome.

If the conspiracy theorist reference is reinserted, I will be requesting formal arbitration. Asserting that Mr. Gunderson is only noteworthy as a conspiracy theorist is POV and doesn't belong here.Winksatfriend (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2010 (UT

_________________________

Of course it belongs here, as it does with all others such as Aaron Russo. He isnt a "theorist" considering he spent 27 years in the FBI and has seen this corruption firsthand so why dont you quit trying to stop the spread of knowledge you ignorant clown. (unsigned?)

_________________________

Gundersen is notable for espousing numerous theories that are considered conspiracy theories (e.g., Sonny Bono was murdered by the Government, high level government officials are involved in child kidnapping and sex abuse rings, the Oklahoma city bombing was done by the Government, just to name a few). Wikipedia contains a definition of "conspiracy theory" - many of Gunderson's beliefs qualify as such, making him a conspriacy theorist. 165.189.169.138 (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...so why dont you quit trying to stop the spread of knowledge you ignorant clown."
Good choice of phrasing, 165.189.169.138, I commend you for your insight. User:Winksatfriend and Desertfae (talk) are on a mission throughout Wikipedia to distort a great deal of factual information . An investigation by Administrators into their spread of disruption and nonsense is long overdue. 24.49.38.184 (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the unsigned "ignorant clown" statment is not the same as the author of the paragraph subsequent to that statement. 75.134.18.16 (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear line between conspiracy theories and valid points. This allows plenty of room for debate, and usually these debates lead nowhere, never giving a chance for agreement. In the end, whoever gets bored last decides what is what. If you don't want to waste a year on this, I suggest you forget about this sooner rather than later. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Ted Gunderson has no professional witness of any corruption "firsthand". In fact he has described, of what he saw during his career, "Well if there was any corruption in the FBI I didn't see any of it. In fact we had a fine organization". I can find a source on this if you like, but before I do that research you can produce the testimony he would have provided about seeing corruption firsthand. Ted's own site has all the trappings of conspiracy theory, in fact it appears as if he wishes it that way.Batvette (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questia.com has 2 scholar books mentioning a notable role in conspiracy theories, I cited them. And 1 book saying he invited people with far-right and extremist views to his WWCR radio show[1] (registration required). Questia.com and highbeam.com have a few news articles where his conspiracy views are mentioned, like his claim that the US government was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing, that the bomb was very sophisticated and only 10 persons in the country knew how to build one The Christian Science Monitor Daily News (Los Angeles, CA) or that the bomber was innocent and had been framedWashington Post. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Established wikipedia editors can request 1-year free subscriptions in Wikipedia:Questia and Wikipedia:HighBeam. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

Where is the criticism section? This article makes it look like Gunderson is a reputable figure, when in fact he is a far-fringe kook who has made numerous false claims about Satanic ritual abuse, cults, government conspiracy theories about concentration camps, guillotines, chemtrails, and so forth. He has been a supporter of the absurd mind control claims of Cathy O'Brien. The Southern Poverty Law Center is one source of criticism: Mais o que faz dele, um louco? A final, se não compreendemos uma pessoa, tratamo-la como louca? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.162.224.7 (talk) 05:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2001/summer/false-patriots?page=0,4

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/summer/meet-the-patriots?page=0,1

Lippard (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to add one when you have time. Though it should not be written as criticism, just facts about the man that are sourced properly. DreamGuy (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds pretty reputable to me 76.119.219.135 (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For those interested, a man called Stew Webb in the most recent Project Camelot interview levels the most severe condemnation and accusations about activities which Ted Gunderson has been part of. It's not a reliable source by a long shot, but people investigating Gunderson and his own claims should appraise themselves of these claims. __meco (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why the need to rely on hearsay re the WTC and OKC bombings? The video evidence is online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5F1Y6cGRXEs http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NWwrEEP8EBk Rwinkel (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

Apparantly someone added a claim he has passed away. I don't doubt it as I know of his cancer, but some sourcing may be appropriate. The section on resting place is very touching but obviously not encyclopedic. We'll wait for St. Peter's verdict, if any of his critics end up being right someone's compass was upside down. I will say that often the best way to ensure someone is not overly disrespected, is to not invite it with ridiculous accolades which cause reprisals. Rest in Peace, Ted, you were quite a character who won't soon be forgotten- that's for sure. Batvette (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source provided for his death is now a dead link. If anyone can provide a reliable source stating that he's died, they should add it to the article; otherwise, we have to assume he's still alive and continue treating this article as a BLP. Robofish (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has added this ridiculous claim: "It's been often speculated that weaponized cancer is what killed him.[1]" Since the quoted link is dead (and appears to be irrelevant) I have edited appropriately.Benvenuto (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ted Gunderson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 09:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FBI file and career[edit]

I synthesized the FBI file on Ted Gunderson into an article that covers his career and some of his post-FBI activities. I think it's a useful secondary source (with the full FBI file available for verification) but since I wrote it, it doesn't seem right for me to use it to add to this Wikipedia entry. Ted Gunderson: From COINTELPRO Planner to Conspiracy Theorist There's a link to the FBI file (released through FOIA) on Gunderson the article page for him. TheMikeBest (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ted Gunderson. 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) 16:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

Reference to his death doesn't actually lead to the news article. EmGaGa (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"unreliable sources"[edit]

Wikipedia lists unreliable sources as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources

Nowhere does it say, that testimony from someone is unreliable. The "unreliable sources" are used inappropriately, because the material is statements from Gunderson and his doctor.

These tags should be removed. Joeyjoejoejowowski (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding, that quotations are considered "reliable sources", and a video interview is about as reliable as quotes can be.

"Quotations Shortcut WP:RS/QUOTE Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Quotations The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." Joeyjoejoejowowski (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says:

"Self-published and __questionable sources may be used as sources__ of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

There you have it! The quoted statements are valid and reliable! Stop vandalizing this page. Joeyjoejoejowowski (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes are not WP:VANDALISM; please stop referring to them as such -- it's not conducive to cooperative editing. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 13:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced or contentious material should be removed immediately[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Removal_of_Uncited_Material

"The policy on biographies of living persons make it clear that content in biographical articles, or biographic material in other articles, is to be held to the absolute highest standards of verifiability. _In general, contentious material in such articles that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately_"

The consensus is clear.

All contentious and/or unsourced material on this page should be removed. Wikipedia says the content is to be removed immediate. Joeyjoejoejowowski (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The polcy only applies to living persons. Gunderson has been dead for nearly a decade. Having looked through the changes, many are ok, but a lot of the statements that are just sourced to youtube interviews of people should be removed, as they lack secondary coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You just deleted nearly half of the wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_of_primary_sources_in_Wikipedia In the exceptions to this, it says: "Summaries and descriptions of primary sources in articles about themselves" Joeyjoejoejowowski (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are undue without other reliable sources having given commentary on them, see WP:PRIMARY. If you can find reliable sources that discuss his conspiracy claims, then add them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://casetext.com/case/labella-v-fed-bureau-of-investigation%7Caccess-date=2020-06-12%7Cwebsite=casetext.com

That is straight from a court website, of am affidavit from Gunderson himself. I fail to see why it should be removed. Joeyjoejoejowowski (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the content of Joeyjoejoejowowski (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In the court case of Labella v. FBI (2012)" Joeyjoejoejowowski (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

an affidavit is literally the definition of a primary source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be a self published primary source?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement" Joeyjoejoejowowski (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unsourced. Why are you whitewashing Gunderson's long history of conspiracist nonsense? Guy (help! - typo?) 11:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The claims are properly sourced now, thanks for that. There was no intent to whitewash, at the time I removed the claims they had no reliable secondary sourcing, and usually conspiracy claims by article subjects are removed if they have no reliable sources demonstrating their significance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia, no criticism of you, my friend - I was looking at [2], which is pretty much 100% the SPA. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit strange: suggesting that apparently improperly sourced material be removed yet inserting new material supported by dubious sources like YouTube... —PaleoNeonate – 15:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: for the arsenic poisoning claim it appears to also be a conspiracy theory that would require mentions in reliable secondary independent sources for inclusion. If arsenic was really involved a critical source would likely report on its likely origin, like contaminated water or occupational, etc. If the doses were purposely calculated to be accumulative and eventually lethal, it would also normally kill before a life-threatening cancer develops. I only had to look at part of one video to see that it promoted other outlandish conspiracy theories like that "smart" electricity meters murder. —PaleoNeonate – 16:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the claims of arsenic poisoning are undue without reliable secondary sourcing, which is why I removed them in the first place. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commendable, —PaleoNeonate – 16:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"slave auctions statements" is by Paul Bonacci, not by Gunderson[edit]

Either someone editing this page cannot read, or they are intentionally misquoting information from their questionable references.

Wikipedia currently says: "He also claimed that a "slave auction" in which children were sold by Saudi Arabian agents to men had been held in Las Vegas"

The cited skeptical inquirer article (wrote by a college student) on page 4, says this is a quote from Paul Bonacci and not Gunderson. Paul also did not say it was Saudi men, but instead it was men wearing turbines. In Paul's testimony, he mentioned the child auction was held at a rural area outside of Las Vegas and not at/inside Las Vegas.

This article is not reliable or even quoting things correctly. Then Wikipedia further changes this information by leaving out Bonacci as the source. These mistakes should be removed.

Why even rely on this trash article wrote by a college student? Why not quote Gunderson talking at a conference (which this article uses as it's source)? Lots of sources for Gunderson at conferences, and primary sources are A-OK to quote on Wikipedia articles about the person who said it. YeshuaAdoni (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Art Bell lawsuit and settlement[edit]

For historical reference:

Art Bell filed a lawsuit against Gunderson because of accusations made by a guest on Gunderson's radio program, but Gunderson himself made no accusation against Art. Because of the incident Art 'retired' from radio, but two weeks later he came out of retirement and returned to radio.

The lawsuit was later settled after it was revealed the Gunderson's guest was not speaking of Art, but about Art Bell's son who was the victim of sexual abuse.

In other words: "Gunderson got sued for a misunderstanding about what a guest said; nothing happened as a result." YeshuaAdoni (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Gunderson&oldid=1195558631"