Talk:Chicago Tylenol murders

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicago Tylenol murders. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111030094338/http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/18703672/detail.html to http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/18703672/detail.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC) [reply ]

"Vanishingly rare" gives the impression that poisoned Halloween candy once was common. The belief has always been from rumors with no documented cases of poisoned candy given to trick or treaters. Accurate terms would be "a non-existant fear" or "extreemely rare" since using just "rare" also implies that this crime still happens. Colonial Computer 06:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22yearswothanks (talk • contribs)

I went looking for some sources to add details to the incidents section, and I made a few changes I wanted to flag: First, while the PBS source says Theresa Janus was 19, both CBS and the Chicago Tribune say she was 20—the Chicago Tribune also lists her full birthdate, which would have made her 20 at the time. As such, I changed that fact. Also: I looked at The New York Times article that was used to support the claim about using loudspeakers, and I couldn't find that claim made, so I removed it, although the source is still in the article.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I just want to flag that I've actively considered WP:BLPCrime and the identification of the two primary suspects in this case. I think that their identification is warranted: Lewis because he was convicted of an offense in direct relation to this event. Arnold because he has been deceased for 14 years and was, in a (concededly tangentially) related event, convicted of murder. I'm not saying that I've arrived at the absolute correct decision, but in case anyone else has the same spark of concern that I did, I wanted to memorialize my thoughts on the issue.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello! I was told through a Wikipedia course to leave some of my feedback in this section, in regards to evaluating the article. This section primarily revolves around Sources & References used.

There’s a decent amount of facts that are backed up by news articles, which somewhat unnerves me. However, the case in itself did heavily revolve around media attraction, and widespread panic- which does give a reason as to why most of this information would be publicized on the news. Information from the relatives of the victims are entirely vague and lacking. Thankfully some sources do come from sources outside of news publications, as some source from the police when it comes to investigation matters, or some are based from scientific articles when the topic is associated with general chemistry or the chemical content of afflicted Tylenol capsules. I believe that even if there are a lot of references sourced from media, they’re diligently and reasonably used- and the article isn’t solely reliant on such. I found a modern academic journal that goes over the case that hadn’t been included in the Wikipedia article, which would be good to cite from.

Maria João S. Oliveira, Chicago Tylenol Murders: Information and mindfulness, Safety Science, Volume 165, 2023, 106190, ISSN 0925-7535, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106190.(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753523001327)

I’ve also clicked a good handful of links, being towards other Wikipedia articles and cites sources, and both appear to work perfectly. Anything that has been taken off the internet has thankfully been archived.--Lorrriana (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Why are we using a 2014 picture of Tylenol caplets instead of a 1980’s picture of Tylenol capsules? It seems that readers would benefit from a realistic picture instead of a misleading picture. Dave Dial (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• B-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles
• B-Class Serial killer-related articles
• Mid-importance Serial killer-related articles
• Serial Killer task force
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• B-Class Death articles
• High-importance Death articles
• B-Class pharmacology articles
• Mid-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles
• B-Class Chicago articles
• Mid-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• B-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• B-Class United States History articles
• Mid-importance United States History articles
• WikiProject United States History articles
• WikiProject United States articles

• Noindexed pages