Talk:Charles Whitman: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:56, 1 February 2009 editJwy (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,013 edits →Media distortion section: Some response and further issue with sources.← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:30, 2 February 2009 edit undoVictor9876 (talk \| contribs)1,529 edits →Media distortion section Next edit →
Line 272:		Line 272:

	The sources, however, need work. The referenced lavergne site seems to have problems. Could you take a look? Some others don't seem to be appropriately placed. (John ] ]) 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)		The sources, however, need work. The referenced lavergne site seems to have problems. Could you take a look? Some others don't seem to be appropriately placed. (John ] ]) 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

			:Lavergne has removed his site. Why? He has followers and watches for his critics. In this instance, he knows the truth has finally caught up with him and he removed the evidence. Don't worry, I can retrieve it and replace the links. ] (]) 01:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:30, 2 February 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles Whitman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Charles Whitman was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 29, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
July 17, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 9, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:UTTalk

Template:WPAustin

United States: Texas

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Crime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Template:WPCD-People Talk Archive: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six

I see two people with the title "Fr." in this article. I'm fairly well read, and have never seen this abbreviation for "Father" before, and had to look it up to be sure of its meaning. I'm going to change these to "Father" if nobody objects. - LafinJack 05:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No objection, it seems straightforward to me - but I'm probably the one who used them :) Sherurcij 12:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that a "con" (Confession) or gluttonous pride, two of the "Deadly Sins"?

Discharge type

It seems unlikely that he would have been honorably discharged following imprisonment and demotion. He was more likely generally discharged, I'll check and make sure. Tyrnell (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture reference missing

A Drawn Together episode had Wooldor say "If anyone needs me, I'll be in the clock tower." He then proceeded to eject a bullet from a sniper rifle and walk off screen.

Pop culture reference incorrect

At no point in the Tom Waits song "Down by the Train" is Charles Whitman mentioned. The only shooter mentioned was John Wilkes Booth. I am removing this completely incorrect statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.64.105.177 (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WhitmanTimeCover.jpg

Image:WhitmanTimeCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits re calibre reverted

I edited a minor change and included comment why - 6mm (rifle) is the proper size designation, there is no such thing as 0.35 caliber in that Remington rifle, and when calibers are designated in mm calibers aren't used. Also pistol designated as 0.38 caliber was changed to .38 caliber as there is no leading zero in size designations. Then my edits were anonymously reverted citing vandalism. Does this happen often? Should I edit back? Or just quit? (Style manual "Numbers between minus one and plus one require a leading zero (0.02, not .02); exceptions are performance averages in sports where a leading zero is not commonly used, and commonly used terms such as .22 caliber."(Emphasis added) Pob45552 11:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Brain tumour

If he had a brain tumour, and it was the cause for the behaviour that ended his life (the clock tower shooting), then he should be considered a victim, just like the people he shot and wounded or killed... RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 18:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Whitman didn't succumb to the brain tumor, the police shot him. If he had died from cancer or the effects of the tumor, then he would have been a victim, so to speak. The tumor also wasn't proved to be the source of his actions. It might have played a part in it, but no one knows for sure. That is why the article states that some theorize and speculate about its effect on Whitman. Pinkadelica 04:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephen King's "The Dead Zone" also has a brain tumour victim perform a shooting (assassination attempt) --81.190.121.150 23:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Autopsy? Cremation?

In one part of the article it says Charles' suicide note requested an autopsy. Another part says it asked for cremation. Which one's right? -WarthogDemon 17:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

They're not contradictory, he requested both. An autopsy is performed before the burial/cremation. Sherurcij 18:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

According to http://www.popsubculture.com/pop/bio_project/sub/whitman_letter.pdf (letter written after killing his wife) he requested autopsy.

"After my death I wish that an autopsy would be performed on me to see if there is any visible physical disorder." There was. He had a cancer tumor in the brain that is believed to provoke emotional instability in him. There is no mention of cremation though. (All letters/police reports can be found at http://www.popsubculture.com/pop/bio_project/charles_whitman_docs.html ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.152.55 (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if most of his remains were cremated, but when I worked at Austin State Hospital I delivered people who'd died on wards to the morgue, where I saw Whitman's brain (labeled such) in a jar of formaldehyde as part of a brain collection belonging to Dr. Coleman de Chenar. This was during 1966-1968. Calypsoparakeet (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (delisted)

In order to uphold the quality of Misplaced Pages:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of October 9, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

Ruslik 08:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The reasons:

1) The general lack of inline citations. The article makes a lot of claims without them. I tagged the sections and paragraphs, where they are necessary.

2) Lead is too short.

3) The list of victims should be removed, because there is a separate article, which contains their names. The embedded list actually adds nothing to the article itself. In addition the list does not cite any sources (together with List of Charles Whitman's victims article).

4) 'References in popular culture' subsection is completly uncited and should be IMO moved into a separate article.

Ruslik 08:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Charles Whitman's corpse.png

Image:Charles Whitman's corpse.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 06:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Charles_Whitman&curid=105038&diff=168236754&oldid=168203554

Which was never finished; the suicide note or the autopsy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LafinJack (talk • contribs) 01:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WhitmanLifeTexasSniper.jpg

Image:WhitmanLifeTexasSniper.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WhitmanTimeCover.jpg

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Misleading IQ

The article mentions that Whitman scored 138 in an IQ test at the age of six. It doesn't mention--and most people don't seem to know--that children's IQ scores reflect ability in relation to age group norms. They aren't comparable to adult IQ scores. And the scores of six year olds aren't comparable to those of ten year olds. Children may easily achieve seemingly high IQ scores merely by being a bit ahead of their age group.

I know some people like to obfuscate the fact that low IQs, more than anything else, correlate with criminal behavior. Sometimes these people try to obfuscate it by ascribing genius to mediocre lunatics like Whitman. They do this by using insignificant pieces of information and taking advantage of people's ignorance.

I'd like to remove the bit about IQ, but since it's one of the few cited bits in the article, I won't even try. I'll just leave this here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javas7 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well obfuscate, correlate, or speculate, he was a Marine, he did get a scholarship from the Navy to attend UT, he was admitted to Mechanical Engineering, so I don't see what point you are trying to make. To say he was a lunatic is, I hope you agree, somewhat unscientific and speaks to the repulsive nature of the crime. Besides, many adult 138 IQ's, are held by totally dysfunctional individuals. What about Autistic Savants(?), some of them have IQ's that are immeasurable, does that make them genious'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.203.161 (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Victim Lists

Misplaced Pages:Victim Lists is an attempt by me to create community consensus on the inappropriateness of lists of victims on Misplaced Pages. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Body Count

I read a book that Whitman killed 18 people and wounded 30 people. It also says on the picture of the newspaper in the article that he killed 14 people but only wounded 29. Can anybody confirm the actual body count?--Bending Unit (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Bending Unit

Your confusion is probably because of this, Whitman killed only fourteen people shooting from the tower, however he killed his wife and mother the night before, and he clubbed to death the receptionist and shot several tourists as they arrived at the top of the tower, some of whom died. The newspaper most likely was printed before all of these had come to light, or before some victims finally succumbed to their injuries. His final official toll is the higher number. This should account for the discrepancy. As for the diffrent counts of wounded, all such counts are only estimates, no official number has ever been arrived at. F-451 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture Reference

There was an episode of King of the Hill where Dale was barricaded in a tower while the police were called out, thinking he was a vigilante with a rifle. I cannot recall the title, but it was an obvious throwback to the Charles Whitman incident and should be in the "references to popular culture" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.77.118 (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture references to leading news events are not notable and actually should be swept out of the article. Tempshill (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugly gear lists

There's a list of weapons and a list of gear that are very ugly and out of place in the article. They also aren't very notable. Do I need to know that he had a hammer? I'm removing them. I think they are like a trivia list, and like a trivia list, the important and notable information in them should be integrated into the text of the article instead of made into a list like this. Tempshill (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

THe information of what he brought with him for an extended shoot-out from the tower is relevant and does belong in the article, but definitely does not belong in the prose of the article - hence its need to be in a sidebar. Sherurcij 22:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Sherurcij, the gear list is very relavent because his choice of equipment demonstrates his objectives, his bringing food, water and copiouse amounts of ammo is first-hand evidence that he was prepared for a long shoot-out, while many of the other pieces of equipment show that he prepared for variouse contingencies, though I admit the hammer is odd. It would require an expert to discern which peices of equipment are relavent and which are trivial (such as the hammer.) F-451 (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How about a link with the heading - "List of Whitman's Gear and Weapons" or some other appropriate title? I agree with Tempshill that it is distracting and too long.Detroitnews9 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not - it does not deserve its own article. Sherurcij 01:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Appearance in Novel

In the 2008 novel Discreet Needs the coed main character hides from Whitman's shooting and, more emotionally shaken by the situation than she realizes, has to deal with previously unknown aspects of her character. Calypsoparakeet (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of dead links

Hello, is it OK to remove dead links from the article? Some go nowhere.Detroitnews9 (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We leave them in, for archival purposes - often we can find mirrors of the same information, or it tells us what author to look into to find the necessary confirmation. Sherurcij 05:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

??? How do you archive something that goes nowhere?Detroitnews9 (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears

To be one of the better articles on Misplaced Pages. Its hard to imagine any further improvements Kaltenborn (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Martinez vs. McCoy - who actually killed Whitman?

It seems that Victor9876 and I are on the verge of an edit war over this issue. According to several pieces of evidence I present here, it's ultimately academic:

According to Houston McCoy's own interview on "Deranged", Martinez shot Whitman. Whether or not he fired the fatal shot seems immaterial. Both of them shot him - I would think that Martinez would have hit him at least a couple of times while emptying his revolver - therefore both got official credit for the kill.

If you still aren't convinced, see for yourself at http://www.popsubculture.com/pop/bio_project/sub/whitman_autopsy.pdf. Whitman was shot at least six times - once in the head, four in the chest, once in the arm. Victor9876 seems to think that all of Martinez's pistol shots missed, and that Martinez only connected with the shotgun blast to the arm - the autopsy proves otherwise. Considering the injuries described, I'm sure at least one of the chest wounds could have been fatal in and of itself.

Once again, it doesn't matter - they both shot him, therefore they both killed him. BassPlyr23 (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war aside BassPlyr23, the key word is killed, not shot. That follows further in the article. Most media programs research prior media accounts and rehash old issues even when new information appears. Don't believe me, watch the Presdential Debates and campaign speeches. That being said, you use a link to a source that was proven to be in error by much higher qualified professionals, the small towm pathologist vs. the experts in their fields of Neurology, Pathology, etc. Again, McCoy killed Whitman with his first shotgun blast, the second blast by McCoy wasn't needed, and Martinez did fire and hit Whitman, after the two shotgun blasts by McCoy and taking McCoy's shotgun over to the dead body and firing point blank into Whitman's arm. You can't kill someone twice. That's not bias, that's fact. Accept it, there are references at the bottom that you can read that confirm this.Victor9876 (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

BassPlyr23

I would like to just give my two cents and some insight. First of all I want to applaud your interest and research and obvious knowledge about that horrible day in August. Second you are again completely correct, Martinez should be mentioned. Martinez is a hero along with many of the APD Officers, (Day, McCoy, Crum, Moe, Speed, Conner etc) who should be honored for their heroic acts and sacrifice that day. Martinez was up there and did shoot at Whitman along with Houston McCoy. Is Martinez a hero? Yes. Did he fire upon Whitman? Yes. Did Martinez kill Charles Whitman? No. The autopsy report does show multiple projectile wounds of the head and the chest. These wounds were actually caused by the two shotgun shells that carry pellets (two shells equal more than forty pellets). These pellets shot all over Whitman’s body. These pellets were concentrated mostly in Whitman’s face and head but were found on other parts of the body. These pellets caused those other wounds. Whitman was killed by two shotgun blasts to the head. Houston McCoy fired those shots. Martinez did fire and empty his service revolver but there was no indication (that I’ve seen) that any of those rounds hit Whitman. Martinez did inflict a close contact shotgun blast into Whitman’s arm. This wound was postmortem because Whitman was already expired as a result to the two shotgun wounds to the head. So I agree with you that Martinez should be mentioned because he did fire upon Whitman and he is a hero along with the rest of the heroes that day. Just because he did not kill Whitman, should not take away his heroic actions that August day. The shots that Houston McCoy fired that day caused the death of Charles Whitman. The evidence is there. Is it there for Martinez? I don’t see it.

In addition, Houston McCoy was the only APD officer called before an Austin Grand Jury to give his statement involving the death of Charles Whitman. On that document it states that Charles Whitman was killed by APD Officer Houston McCoy. McCoy had to state his actions that day to the Grand Jury. The Austin Grand Jury found that Houston McCoy was justified in using his service weapon the resulted in the death of Charles Whitman. No other APD police officer was called in to testify, because the Grand Jury found that Charles Whitman died by the hands of APD Police Officer Houston McCoy and Houston McCoy alone.

I do agree with you about Victor9876. I do not agree with how that user is handling things. It seems like he is taking things personally and is resorting to name-calling. He doesn’t speak for all those who feel and know that Houston McCoy fired those fatal shots that day. I’m going by the evidence. This is not about personal relationships or bias. It’s about the evidence. I personally think Martinez is a hero and would never do anything to denounce that man’s actions that day. That goes for all of the August 1 heroes. That being said, I can say with the upmost conviction that Houston McCoy fired those fatal shots. (Carrt81 (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

There is a theme running here based on assumptions and innuendo, that I am biased against Martinez. When I interviewed Martinez he was a gentleman and personable, I had no reason to make judgments or doubt his character. Then I interviewed McCoy. McCoy's account differed. I looked into all of the different media accounts and records available. After careful scrutiny, there were issues that needed to be resolved from both accounts. The primary doubt was that Martinez was being disengenuous, his police report made on August 1, 1966, differed from media accounts he gave. Another issue was that the media, assumed Martinez and Mccoy acted in concert, or planned their encounter, this was not the case. Martinez acted as a lone wolf and pursued Whitman on his own initiative. McCoy and Crum noticed Martinez had gone on his own around the SE corner heading towards the NE corner basically on his hands and knees. McCoy, realizing he would need back up, caught up with Martinez. Neither had made a plan of action nor knew what would be around the corner. The confrontation occurred, Whitman was killed, and Martinez left the scene yelling that he had got Whitman. That got relayed to the APD Chief who released the information to the media. The media announced Martinez as "the" hero. Martinez never mentioned McCoy and allowed the spotlight to shine on him only. This has been his position throughout the years. I find no honor in that from a character perspective. That does not mean he did not act heroically. To each his due. That is why I separated McCoy and Martinez in the first paragraph on the "killed" issue. It has nothing to do with bias or disliking Martinez. I do not respect Martinez for allowing the media to shine their lights on him only when he knew McCoy had fired also. I also do not respect McCoy for not coming forward to the media until the movie, "The Deadly Tower" was released. McCoy has said he doesn't believe in the word hero, because Superman is a hero and only a comic book character. The most damning issue of all in my opinion, is that the APD, in their basement, in a display case, is the shotgun that killed Whitman, the tag reads such with Houston McCoy being the one to fire the fatal shot on Whitman. So after a long legal battle with the City of Austin for McCoy, their own evidence turns on them for fighting McCoy for an earned Award I got for him. The City of Austin and the APD is at fault for this, not me. I am only the messenger, who has been shot by more Texans than Whitman ever could have been, and I mean that metaphorically. So if I seem bitter, I have just reasons. If you want to argue over pedantic terms, tell them to someone else. Do as you like with the article. Everytime I put the facts in, someone comes along with a comic book hero version from some poorly researched newspaper or TV show. Even Bart Simpson made the article as well as Clown Posse. Who knows, maybe in the future a consensus will be reached that Bart Simpson was the man who killed Whitman. I wish him well!Victor9876 (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Guys: REFERENCES. As I said previously, the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. This is a clear high level requirement for Misplaced Pages. We can't just publish what you know, it has be what has been previously, reliably published. I'd like to see the sources that say the initial autopsy report is in error in some way. Who shot Whitman in the chest? Did Houston only shoot him in the head? The autopsy report says that both the head and the chest shots were fatal injuries. According to the report, the lungs had blood and air, the heart was collapsed. Would that have happened if the initial head shots were immediately fatal? It reads as if he took a breath, his heart beat at least once before he died. In any case, this is not the forum to drag in the political fighting, and it certainly isn't the place to bring in personal knowledge not published elsewhere. That can't be sourced. And for the record, Bart Simpson may have been on the page at one time, but it has been removed for quite a while. There are editors who run in to articles everyday to add that the Simpsons or Family Guy or some other cartoon show mentioned the subject. When I see it, I remove it. None of that belongs in these kinds of articles. Finally, don't edit war, and don't get personal. That is not productive and just drags things out. Remember to be calm and discuss the subject, not the editors. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh no! Not you again Wild...! Lol!!! As to the immediately fatal issue, there is no precise determination of that in science. As you know, someone can be clinically dead, yet return to life. The frothy blood, collapsed heart, etc. all have a major flaw in the original autopsy report, the flaw is that Dr. Chenar, the pathologist, performed the autopsy on August 2, 1966, after Whitman's body had been embalmed. The report is totally unreliable from that perspective. That's why the Governor's Report and commission findings, are the most reliable. A person who is hanged, after several minutes, will give the appearance of being dead, but the heart may continue to beat faintly for several more minutes. The first Shotgun blast hit Whitman directly between the eyes with three 00 buck shot and partially destroyed the brain. His body could have had several death reflex actions prior to sliding on the deck. So McCoy's second shot really wasn't needed, and Martinez' shot was not even in a vital organ. I did reference Whitman's death, it's in the article, it's written there.Victor9876 (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Photos in article

I just started looking at this article and I have to say the many photos are very distracting. I do see that there are few up for deletion which I will look into, I've voted already about the newspaper one prior to this posting. I looked at another one up for deletion and so far it looks like it may stay, it's the picture of his dead body. I would like to suggest organizing the pictures that end up staying in the article, that is if there are still a lot of them decided to keep. Some might be resized also so that they don't look so predominant in the article. Also, I would like opinions about the photo that states it's from his trip to Barton that he asked to be developed which has 6 photos in it. I didn't see anything about this in the section where the photo is located, thus I think it too should be removed. Opinions on this? --CrohnieGal 14:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You've been reading my mail Crohnie. Just kidding. I've already reduced the photo's and added others that are relevant. Yes, the 6 pack should go too.Victor9876 (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

When I wrote this I didn't catch that the two of you were actively discussing the photos and what to do with them. Keep up the work, I like it when I see calm considerate conversations. LOL! --CrohnieGal 17:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Has the topic of the appropriatness of having a photo of a dead victim in this article been raised? If not, I'm raising it. 165.189.169.190 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

The intro seems overlong and un-cited. But most immediately, could someone more familiar figure out what to do with the mention of the brain tumor that is assumed to be mentioned already but isn't? (John User:Jwy talk) 04:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Depiction

The plot of the novel Discreet Needs (2008) is set in motion when the heroine, Stellara, is trapped under a hedge by Whitman's gunfire. See review at Amazon and at: http://www.eroticarevealed.com/archives.php?date=2008-11-01&panel_id=4 Calypsoparakeet (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit beyond the scope of what should be contained in pop culture/media/depiction sections. Projects related to this sort of article are really trying to curtail such section content to works specifically about the article subject, not where its subject is used in name, as a take-off plot device, or "alludes" to him. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of including it, but on the assumption that we finally create the much-needed fork Cultural depictions of Charles Whitman, rather than include the list here - I'm getting sick of an attempt to document history getting bogged down by anons arguing over Simpsons and Buffy episodes. Sherurcij 21:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with a separate article. I too am sick of how frequently the Simpsons (or South Park) pops up in an article otherwise unrelated. Those shows did an episode on everything. I don't, on the other hand, support those exhaustive lists on biography articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The box listings

These two lists as they are set up messes up the appearance of the article. They look tacky, sorry. If they need to me in can they at least be set up to the right side under each other so that they don't look like they mess up the article. I think the list of items can be set up in the paragraph in prose rather than the ugly looking boxes. Opinions? --CrohnieGal 12:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the way it was changed is much better. I like it, thanks. Sorry should have hit history quicker before commenting. --CrohnieGal 12:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Media distortion section

This isn't how consensus is determined and article details are worked out, folks. This is an edit war and you all know that. I would suggest you bring it to this talk page for discussion, stop the reverting and if necessary, open a request for comment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

One person inserting and multiple people reverting once shows some consensus toward removal. Some "discussion" went on in the edit summaries. The original editor asked for some time and got it.

My problem with the section still remains, however. The initial section was entirely about the one book, not media distortions and the new additions are original research - the references don't discuss the media distortion, they are examples of media distortions alleged by the editor. An editor's research is not acceptable by well defined Misplaced Pages consensus. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, missed diff 5 above, discussion started here anyway! (John User:Jwy talk) 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked for a few days and got a few hours, all the while dealing with reversals. As to the Original Research...where do you get that from? I made the case about the author leading the reader to believe that Whitman was "Evil" and showed other, more scientific conclusions, from reliable sources. I also showed where A&E's Biography and the History Channel, clearly did no research on their projects about the Tower being the worse mass murder incident in American History. Verify the content and you'll see I am correct. Victor9876 (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sections that break policy do not get a "few days" of coverage, since more than a hundred people read this article every day. Use your userspace, or even this talkpage, to "slowly build up a section", then add it. Sherurcij 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You (Victor) identify instances of what you call media distortion. That is original research. I have only reverted you once, but second Sheruci's suggestion. (John User:Jwy talk) 02:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

For Sherurcij, the Bob Smith/Hitler reference is a strawman argument. The Bible was supposedly inspired by God...and "Evil" is a recurring theme throughout it. In fact, it is a cottage industry in some parts. It has no merit in non-fiction such as biographies (I readily admit, a lot of biographies are written with fiction, but when exposed, eliminated, such as Washington and the Cherry Tree, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy). Victor9876 (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked again. First, I think the section is mis-named. As it reads, its two people that believe Whitman was "evil," and two media outlets that made reporting mistakes. "Distortion" would seem to imply a willful act to deceive. I don't think opinion and mistakes fall into this class. The mistakes might be better in a "legacy" section. Maybe the "evil" discussion belongs there as well.

And I don't see a source for the sentence "The burden to the above theories is that the glioblastoma brain tumor would have killed Whitman within a year, and conceivably contributed to his actions on August 1, 1966, and goes against the Connalley Commission Report of 1966 as reported above." This seems to be a original research by synthesis. The section is saying "Gary Lavergne is wrong." This seems to be your contribution, not coming from sources. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Dictionary - says nothing about a "willful act" on anyones part.

dis⋅tor⋅tion /dɪˈstɔrʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. an act or instance of distorting. 2. the state of being distorted or the relative degree or amount by which something is distorted or distorts. 3. anything that is distorted, as a sound, image, fact, etc. 4. Optics. an aberration of a lens or system of lenses in which the magnification of the object varies with the lateral distance from the axis of the lens.

The sentence that you call OR is ad hominem. If someone found a notable that claimed 1 and 1 are three, would it be synthesis to say the equation is wrong and provide a source? You made the right deduction about the sentences content, therefore, we have consensus. Victor9876 (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Media Coverage Issues" would be a more neutral section title.
If an article suggests something is wrong, it needs to be supported by a source - especially if challenged. Is there no one that has publicly disputed Lavergne?
I can make "the right deduction" about a sentence and still believe it needs to be sourced. Understanding the intent is a key part of reaching consensus.

I plan to provide a rewrite of the section that reflects what I am trying to get across. I am doing a poor job at getting you to understand my issues without taking that time.

The sources, however, need work. The referenced lavergne site seems to have problems. Could you take a look? Some others don't seem to be appropriately placed. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Lavergne has removed his site. Why? He has followers and watches for his critics. In this instance, he knows the truth has finally caught up with him and he removed the evidence. Don't worry, I can retrieve it and replace the links. Victor9876 (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories: