Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:30, 18 February 2009

	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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts 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 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

Abbreviation

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)

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.

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 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.

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 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

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 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)

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=4Calypsoparakeet (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 you feel more comfortable with this title - change it - I have no objection.

• 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?

Rosa Eberly, a former professor who taught a course at UT on public memory and rhetoric. I can not find a suitable source, but Lavergne in his linked, "Why did he do it" page mentions her.

Lack of a source may indicate its not really that notable. (John User:Jwy talk) 08:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• 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.

Then ask for others to comment. The "Sum of Human Knowledge" is hampered if it takes a source - when common sense and consensus can provide the same end.

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.

No, you are appealing to Rules, Guidelines and Policies. I agree they can be helpful, but not when common sense over rides it. Victor9876 (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As I still don't believe I have gotten across what I am trying to do, here is my re-write anyway. I tried to reconstruct your paragraphs from the sources without what I consider to be OR. I leave it here for your comments before I move it to the main page. And please be explicit: What piece of common sense are you referring to in this case? Clarify this question for me - the terms piece and common are distint and in contrast to each other.

Discussion of Whitman's Motivation

The Conally report indicates that the tumor might have contributed to Whitman's actions. In his 1997 book "A Sniper In The Tower," Gary Lavergne dismisses these and Whitman's personal issues as sufficient causes, arguing he was in control of his actions and concluding he could not have successfully pleaded insanity had he lived. In Lavergne's opinion, Whitman would have been found guilty of murder with malice and sentenced to death (only to be reprieved as a result of the Supreme Court's Furman v Georgia decision had he lived that long). Frank Rich, of the New York Times, in 1999, acknowledging Lavergne, names the triggering element beyond these contributing factors "for lack of another word, evil."

The extent of the massacre has brought several media outlets to declare it the "worst mass murder" and "the worst simultaneous mass-killing" to that point in American history, although it had been surpassed in number killed by the Bath School Disaster of 1927.

1. Gary M. Lavergne (August 1, 2006). "Charles Whitman: Why did he do it?". Retrieved February 2, 2009.
2. Frank Rich (September 25, 1999). "Journal; The Long Shadow of the Texas Sniper". New York Times.
3. http://www.amazon.com/Sniper-Tower-Charles-Whitman-Murders/dp/1574410296
4. http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=68860

(John User:Jwy talk) 08:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

These changes still would need work. I appreciate your concerns. Victor9876 (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made adjustments based on what you said. But I don't know what to do with My reading of Rich's article, has him purposely using the term evil, as he had discussed with Lavergne prior to writing the article. To me it doesn't change what we might report on it. And the sources don't support "since 1966 to the present day."

And I also am returning to notability. How big a tempest was this anyway? There doesn't seem to be much brewhaha about it, or am I missing something.

And re: the source you just added. Usually WP prefers secondary sources. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My interpolations were meant to adjust the re-write, not be verbally inclusive. If the New York Times is not notable...who is? Brewhaha or not, it is a part of Lavergnes pride of endorsements. If you are referring to the source "The Governor's Commission Report of 1966" as the added source, since when has a "smoking gun" been considered a secondary source? That report shows the errors of Lavergnes research, and the culpability of the University of Texas, as not honoring the recommendations within it.--Victor9876 (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I understood our interpolations as comments and have made the changes I think they suggest. I just didn't know how to react to that one interpolation. How would that change what I wrote? By Brewhaha I meant any substantial discussion in the media/press. Without it, we don't have the notability required for inclusion here. In fact, the discrediting of the pride of endorsements seems to be the focus, which seems more carrying on a campaign of some sort.

And I agree, you provided a primary source. But secondary sources are much preferred here. And this is not the forum to establish a smoking gun, only to report its establishment from another source. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The primary source is ipso facto. Secondary sources are interpretation. I didn't write, nor post the article by Frank Rich on Lavergne's website. I also take issue with James Fox, the most quoted criminologist in the "Business" today.--Victor9876 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You are convincing me the section should go away. Please see WP:PRIMARY and the other links I have provided. It doesn't matter who you take issue with for the article. We are here to report what has been interpreted, minimizing our contribution. (John User:Jwy talk) 02:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind running that little theory and interpretation of WP rules by Jimbo Wales!? You apparently have a different view than the "sum of all human knowledge". Gary Lavergne is the only person to write a book about Charles Whitman. He is wrong on most of his views and even mis-states what the "smoking gun" reports on Whitman. The book was a vehicle to a job at the University of Texas. I have shown, through sources, his errors and blatant mis-characterizations of Whitman. But you Jwy, have decided that your interpretations of the rules are best for everyone. You are entitled to your "opinions" of the rules and policies; however, if WP is just a vehicle of robotic reactions by uninformed individuals who can copy and paste from "sources" who think they know something about a particular subject or issue, then you should find another subject to "contribute" on, because I am of the opinion that you are the one who is carrying on a campaign.--Victor9876 (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't have to go that far up the chain, I hope. When I am back from vacation I'll request 3rd party input. Feel free to follow up there if you like. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:08, 10 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 User:Jwy talk) 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am also concerned you are using a source you seem to have such control over as you indicate here. (John User:Jwy talk) 08:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Jwy's proposed rewrite of the title and section has far more merit from the standpoints of both neutrality and pertinence.

• The current wording is anything but neutral: 1) "Media Distortion" is blatant POV wrt Lavergne and Rich. 2) Most of the material about Lavergne (who is not the subject of the article) is ad hominem attack based on synthesis. 3) "The burden to the above..." is undisguised synthesis.
• The material covered in Jwy's proposed rewrite is much more pertinent to the subject of the article. I personally believe his proposed "The extent of the massacre..." sentence still puts undue emphasis on the matter, but there's no compelling reason to exclude it. I'm not sure where it would belong, since "Depictions" appears to be more of a trivia section than substantive discussion. arimareiji (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To borrow a term used by Jwy on several occasions - I "smell" a cabal. However, I will re-address the above again. Wp's Primary Sources: "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source."

WP's Secondary Sources: "Our policy: Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims so long as they have been published by a reliable secondary source."

Lavergne's book fits the above policy. The secondary source came from and supports the "synthesis" via the Frank Rich article endorsing the book, as well as Lavergne's published answer to his critics, "Why Did He Do It?" - all cited, sourced and referenced. Lavergne wrote the book about the subject (Whitman) exclusively. The "burden" issue is also analytic, sythetic and explanatory via sources and references.

You will find above this exchange a suggestion to Jwy to change the title to the section if he so desired. As an editor, I am subject to the faults of all editors without intending harm and offense. I also reached out to Jwy on his talk page prior to all of this rankor and discord. Whatever is best for the article, is fine by me, just don't expect that a roll over will occur if something is changed and not suppoted by the facts. I have conscientiously edited the article from NPOV and no OR policies. I feel the section should stand as is, however, before a major redraft is undertaken, a peer review and suggestions tag should be placed for the whole community to participate.--Victor9876 (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Lavergne as a secondary source isn't the problem. The problem is that:

1. We're not allowed to set ourselves up as a tertiary source to interpret Lavergne. Among other examples, "Gary Lavergne... advances a lot of arguments about Whitman that breaks down to the non-scientific term "Evil"", "totally dismissed the tumor, etc", and "discredits those who disagree with him, while explaining" fall well astray of this.
2. Synthesis is forbidden, one particularly notable example being "The burden to the above theories is that the glioblastoma..." Before you disagree, you might want to read the link provided to WP's policy on synthesis. That sentence is nearly a textbook example.
3. Last but not least, most of the section falls afoul of keeping an impartial tone in characterizing the sources. There are several examples of this, the most egregious being the section title. arimareiji (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WP's Tertiary Sources:

Our policy: Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources describes the criteria for assessing the reliability of sources.--Victor9876 (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

cabal: no. I posted a request at WP:3O in part inspired by this edit. I have not been in contact with Arimareiji otherwise. WP:3O is a low key step one in the community process. If you think it necessary, we can continue up the line.

Why didn't you post a tag to alert everyone so that we could anticipate another voice. All of this acrimony might have been prevented. I was wondering why you kept in the background.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

content: quoting Victor9876 above:

I do not use POV without references, nor do I OR, except where the references and sources blatantly call for it. --Victor9876 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This is where I have a problem. Non-neutral POV, with or without references, is not desired. Just because it has a reference does not mean it is neutral. And if references and sources blatantly call for a conclusion, others should see it as easily. My paragraph above is what I could create without OR from your sources. There is apparantly something further you think is missing that I didn't find. And because of possible conflict of interest (it appears you are close to some of the players in this drama), the bar for verifiability is higher. I suggest the section be removed until a good reference for your conclusions can be provided. Again, isn't there anyone notably on record out there with your specific point of view on this? (John User:Jwy talk) 21:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Enough! I'll post a tag request that will hopefully end all of this mental masterbation.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

From the little I've seen in poking around to learn about Lavergne, I think he's worth keeping. But I don't think he's worth keeping in a format that arguably only exists to denigrate him. arimareiji (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Denigrate is your characterization, exposing errors in his research and writing for a Univerisity Press to denigrate the article subject is mine.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain Aimaeiji, how your edit here ] got posted by my account? Jwy posted the link to my talk page, I know nothing about it, or how my account posted your content.--Victor9876 (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The link you use is my edit to restore what happened in the previous edit previous-but-one edit (my mistake) (John User:Jwy talk) 23:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC). It seems no one intended to make that change, so now that it is corrected, let's move on. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Victor - if you're referring to this, it appears to be only the latest example of a series of incidents where you edit my comments. It's not any more "funny" than the first one was. As John / Jwy (I don't know which form of address you prefer) said, moving on... arimareiji (talk)

I never touched your edit and I'm not laughing! I'm referring to the link I sent you with your name at the helm.Victor9876 (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

John works. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you post a tag to alert everyone so that we could anticipate another voice. All of this acrimony might have been prevented. I was wondering why you kept in the background.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No tag, but I did mention it. I had not used that forum before and was unaware how long it would take or how obvious it would be as it happened. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Enough! I'll post a tag request that will hopefully end all of this mental masterbation.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil. A direct response to my concerns would be more productive. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to be civil Jwy when you exercise feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb". You started this discussion, belittled yourself on occasion as not wanting to offend, then throw rules and policies that show a clear understanding of the issues from your own perspective, you re-issue the same questions that have already been hashed and ask for forgiveness for not clearly stating your position. Then you feign ignorance on a policy and bring in an outside source that mimics you to a tee. You are not advancing your position on a rewrite anymore and reverting to pedantic rule citations ad nauseum. You are gaming the system with another editor for who knows why! You say the section needs this and then you say you are convinced it should go. Once you have pushed the envelope to incivility, you request civility. That is passive-aggressive role playing and you know it. Now, rewrite the section, and submit it in a "New Section" for everyone's review and stop this game playing. Does this address your concerns?--Victor9876 (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I truly do not want to offend. I have found this process difficult and it takes some effort at times not to react out of frustration, so I take my time, try to focus on the issues and may sound forced. So I might be feigning calmness, but I don't believe I feign ignorance. Yes, I know some policy. No, I don't know them all. The key issue, as I see it, is whether or not I am interpreting the rules in too draconian away. I don't think so. A third party doesn't think so. If you could supply the reference for your conclusion, we would not have an issue. But since we do not have a reference, we have to talk "rules" interpretation. It looks like we need more parties to look at it?

As to my change of heart about whether it belonged: your original seemed reasonably notable. But when I took away what I believe to be OR, it turned out not to be all that notable.

As for rewriting the section, I've done that. What further needs to be done with it in your view?

Replace the section with your version. The details can be worked out later.Victor9876 (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you didn't, I will tag the section. And I'm going to back off for a day or so. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Citation for psychological theory?

The article makes tacit appeals to social psychological theories about parental role models, behavioural schemas, etc. I'm no psychologist, but it seems to me that without citation this amounts to speculation and also original research. I won't take it out, but whoever put it in should at least cite it, and other readers and editors should be aware that the article is now presenting controversial theory as established factCthulhu1234 (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the lead-in? It doesn't require sources if so. If not, be specific.--Victor9876 (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"The development stages of Whitman were erratic, and privately, he developed values that echoed both his father's domineering personality while trying to incorporate the nurturing values of the mother. Eventually, through the course of time and acquisition, Whitman would form a schema that caused him confusion and frustration that affected his own values, which intersected the varying differences of the mother and father." This is psychobabble, and it's not even sourced. It could have been written by a 12 year old with a psychology textbook. Whether a citation is "required" or not in this case, it detracts from the quality of the article. Cthulhu1234 (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Charles Joseph Whitman was a killer--nothing more. This article is nothing but a list of excuses for the murder of a lot of innocent people. It is an insult to his victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.63.88 (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Third Outside opinion

(The following quotes can be found in this diff.)

• "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." (Victor9876)
• "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)

I'm disturbed by these - if you've been writing articles outside Misplaced Pages from one of two contrasting POVs, you have a major conflict of interest.

• "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." (Victor9876)

This demonstrates a level of conflict of interest that borders on disqualifying.

• "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." (Victor9876)

As above, and your apparent belief that you're on a crusade for justice makes me question whether it's possible for you to edit this article neutrally.

Victor 9876 - your apparent expertise on matters concerning Charles Whitman should not disqualify you; it appears that there have been occasions where you've made positive suggestions other editors have followed. But at the very least, due to your heavy conflict of interest, you should be listening to other editors rather than edit-warring against them. Whether or not you should be topic-banned from this article is not my decision to make, a fact which I am glad for. But if you continue at this rate, I'm afraid it will be inevitable. I'd rather that it never come to that, which is why I'm trying to warn you before it does. Sorry, but that's how I see it.
Jwy et al - please give Victor a chance to back down and return to an advisory/discussion role as well as making noncontroversial edits. He apparently has quite a bit of expertise on this topic, and it would be shameful for that to needlessly go to waste. But if he doesn't, I'm afraid the next step will be the formal dispute resolution process.
(For future reference, WP:3O is supposed to be for two-editor conflicts only. I took this one anyway because I hope that everyone can calm down and make peace, instead of upping the ante until it winds up in DR.) arimareiji (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

::Thank you Arimareiji for your input. The above are of course, out of context and the whole not there, but to answer your concern about writing articles outside of WP, that is not the case. The "two contrasting POV's" issue you speak of, needs clarification for a further comment.--Victor9876 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

::How so? It is not in the article and only a part of a talk page discourse.--Victor9876 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

::I have written approximately 70% of the article as DetroitNews9 and Victor9876. I could not recover the password for DetroitNews9 and resumed under Victor9876. As to a crusade, as echoed in an exchange with Jwy and myself, I defer to a quote from Jonathon Swift - “Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late: the jest is over, and the tale has had its effect.” There are many inclusions I could put in the article, but there are no sources or references to do so. Also, there are many inclusions that are false with references and sources, that I can not dis-prove.--Victor9876 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

::So what you are saying is - you would ban me yourself, if you could, based on my edit-warring but not others edit-warring. I hope that is a wrong observation of mine.--Victor9876 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

::To et al: show me overwhelming evidence that I am wrong and I will gladly comply with any and all suggestions. I am not here to war with anyone. Controversial edits are healthy and add to the vigor of the discussion and allow an understanding of all concerns. Rules, Policies and OR aside, there are agreements that can be made without resorting to a quasi-censorship because some issue has nasal issues with others. (Rub a little Vic's salve under the nose and re-iterate a position.)--Victor9876 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks again Arimareiji, please understand, I appreciate your concerns, however, I do not use POV without references, nor do I OR, except where the references and sources blatantly call for it. I hope this address's everyone's concerns.--Victor9876 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

/*Who is the killer here?*/

It isn't the media, the university of Texas, Frank Rich and Gary Lavergne... Why is that stuff in there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.63.88 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason it - the stuff - is in the article is because the media shapes public opinion, as well as Lavergne's book "A Sniper In The Tower", and Frank Rich (among other high profile journalists) endorse the errors of the media and book. All of the issues in the article are subject (Whitman) related, documented, sourced and referenced. All within WP's policies.--Victor9876 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Victor9876, I'll thank you not to intermingle our comments in the future.
• Likewise, I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I find your level of conflict of interest in the matter to be disturbing, and your inability to recognize it as such even more disturbing. As I said, you appear to have quite a bit of expertise on this topic, and it would be shameful for that to needlessly go to waste. If you can back down and stop trying to override multiple editors, you can be a big asset to keeping this article good.
• If instead you continue down the path of being a lone crusader for justice, rather than working together, then yes - you being topic-banned in the future seems likely. But no, I do not wish to see that happen. arimareiji (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, no problem!

Have the right words come out of your mouth, so a better understanding can be had! I don't understand your interpretation of COI, where is the COI? You've mentioned all of this before.

Alright, how many crusader's are needed by WP policies? And PLEASE, what the hell is justice!?! You have yet to point to any wrong doing on my part. As far as working together, I have requested the same, so what's your point?--Victor9876 (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Humor can be invaluable in defusing stressful situations. But it's not funny to respond to "I'll thank you not to intermingle our comments in the future" by saying "You're welcome, no problem!" and doing it again. Nor is it funny to respond to "Likewise, I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth" with "Have the right words come out of your mouth". If you want to get into trouble for disregarding WP:CIVIL, there are faster ways to do it.

1. Edit-warring against multiple editors is disruptive. Whether or not you "have requested ", your actions belie it.
2. Rewriting the article to denigrate opinions that don't match your "work" (journalistic or otherwise) to get McCoy the recognition he deserves: That demonstrates inability to be neutral due to conflict of interest, whether you acknowledge it or not.
3. Whether you have written "70%", 100%, or 1% of this article, you do not own it and you are not entitled to drive other editors away. We all irrevocably agree to release our contributions under the terms of the GFDL, like it says at the bottom of the edit screen. arimareiji (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

At least you recognized the humor of the situation. After that, you go on a rhetorical and metaphorical rampage with accusations and innuendos that are just not true! 1.) I have not sought to "drive" away any editors. 2.) I am not a liar as you suggest with the term "belie", would you like it if I called you "disengenuous"? 3.) You have no idea about what you are talking about in the "Rewriting the article to denigrate opinions...to get McCoy the recognition he deserves:". You are acknowledging that he deserves recognition, then faulting me as being non-neutral and COI!?!?!? How ironic!!! Wildhartlivie and I discussed the article needing a WP lead-in. After very careful analysis of how to word the lead-in, I wrote it based on the information already in the article that would support it. 4.) At this stage, seeing as to how you have contributed nothing to the article, and only came in to render your third opinion philia, I suggest you address your actions and motives (whatever they are), to anyone else that may care.Victor9876 (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

At this stage, seeing as to how you've blatantly ignored ("to anyone else that may care", I believe your words were) my unwanted opinion on how to stay engaged in this article without falling afoul of CoI, I suggest that you be mindful to not fall afoul of WP:3RR. I certainly don't encourage you to edit-war against multiple editors, but keep in mind the limitations you have in doing so. If they concertedly revert to the consensus version rather than your version, you can't win. I truly don't want to see you topic-banned, or banned in any other fashion - and trying to out-revert multiple editors would be a fast way to get there. arimareiji (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And when the reversions start, as you are instructing others to do, you will be reported. Of all the foul things an editor can suggest, yours is the worst. To induce or encourage others to break WP rules is the lowest form an editor can take.Victor9876 (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that if/when you get burned for 3RR, you're going to tell them I made you do it? That'll be a hard case to make, since you've been flirting with 3RR for long before this was posted on WP:3O. arimareiji (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You have serious mental issues - seek help immediately. Please.Victor9876 (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

break

Folks, this is going nowhere and deteriorating fast. How about taking a deep breath and back up to trying to actually discuss the section under dispute. Victor's involvement with talking to a couple of the actors in these events doesn't actually represent a journalistic endeavor, and he is not involved with either of the men at this point. His tangential involvement with the case, which, after I discussed it with Victor, convinced me that it was not a conflict of interest. Yes, he has a large amount of knowledge about this case, and that is a benefit to keeping facts straight. Yes, he can be a bit of a pain sometimes, but his intentions for the article are honorable. I'm wondering why this WP:3O seems to be more directed at his perceived behavior (which, Victor, you know can be a little contentious-feeling at times), than at the section under question. Deep breaths, guys. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's more than being "a pain" to be grossly uncivil, as you just saw - and as I'm sure you've seen before. Pretending "tee hee, it's funny" about remarks like the ones immediately above doesn't excuse it. arimareiji (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just checking - you seriously think it's "not a conflict of interest" to make statements like "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." and "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." when these are about the topics the article addresses? arimareiji (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If you will check the Houston McCoy, City of Austin, Texas, and Austin Police Department pages, you will see that I do not edit there. That would be COI.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That's some pretty amazing logic you got there, pardner. Unless you edit one of those three pages, you can't have a CoI. Gotcha. arimareiji (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see we finally agree.--Victor9876 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Whaddya know, guess you do have a sense of genuine humor after all. arimareiji (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep! I only use lol when I'm not sure of myself!--Victor9876 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What I see is someone who helped another person with an employment issue get it straightened out. That in turn sparked his interest in the Whitman case. What I see here is that he has then used what he learned from his interest in the Whitman case to add a lot of content to this particular page. And yes, I think that avoiding the pages where he had a modicum of involvement with the subject is trying to avoid COI. I also see that this childish back and forth continues to deteriorate and again, I'd recommend everyone take a step back, a deep breath and slow down. I thought that responding to WP:3O involved working on the content that was under dispute. All I'm currently seeing is a pissing contest. Are you actually here to help with a third opinion on content or to chastise an editor? Can you actually point to anything that was added to the article itself that has skewed the facts of the article in some way to benefit this editor or paint something in an inappropriate light? I was under the impression that the content dispute was about something else entirely. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:3O is about providing a third opinion between two editors who are resolved to disagree, not mediation and not to work on the article. I saw an editor who has a history of fighting with multiple editors, so I should have explicitly noted I was not speaking in the capacity of a "third opinion" - you can't be a third opinion when you're the fifth or sixth to see the same thing. Your familiarity with the page may have made it less obvious - sometimes it takes an outsider, or a new editor, to notice a pattern that builds over time. If you review the recent history, I believe you'll see the same pattern of advocacy rather than neutral editing. arimareiji (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Media Distortion

I'm sure the New York Times doesn't think they distorted the story. That section is opinion and shouldn't be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.1.29 (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! You're from Atlanta, home of CNN, so your opinion doesn't count. lol!--Victor9876 (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding "lol!" does not make your rude dismissal of another editor's opinion more palatable, nor does it make it funny. I'd suggest that you strike it. Note to IP editor - we're not all like this, I promise. arimareiji (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, you take yourself too seriously. Get help!Victor9876 (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've twice warned you to stop refactoring my comments. You're not being funny by doing so. arimareiji (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Make some comments that have elements of "fact" to them, and it won't be necessary to refactor them.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted, you assert the right to refactor anyone's comments you don't like don't think have "elements of 'fact' to them". arimareiji (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Last I looked, that's what editing is.--Victor9876 (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Texas articles
• Unknown-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Crime-related articles
• Top-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• High-importance Crime-related articles
• B-Class biography articles
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• WikiProject Biography articles