Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:15, 29 August 2015

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

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 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. Journalism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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. Virginia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia Low This article has been rated as Low-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. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Assassination

This article should entitled "Assassination of Alison Ward and Adam Ward". Both were public figures and were killed in an extremely public setting. 147.153.84.5 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Assassination is a word used to describe the murder of a prominent political figure or ruler. As tragic as these deaths are, they were not assassinated; they were murdered. --SpyMagician (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages defines "Assassination" as "the murder of a prominent person, often but not always a political leader or ruler, usually for political reasons or payment." The definition goes to say that "n assassination may be prompted by religious, political, or military motives; it is an act that may be done for financial gain, to avenge a grievance, from a desire to acquire fame or notoriety, or because of a military, security or insurgent group's command to carry out the homicide." This event more than satisfies the requirements of that definition. 147.153.84.5 (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Murder is plenty clear here.Juneau Mike (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Murder is the correct term. What happened does not meet the definition of an assassination. 98.67.185.209 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We should only begin to entertain using the term "assassination" when our sources do. --207.108.42.250 (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

“…when our sources do.” Exactly. Some loonball ex-coworker killing someone over a complaint to HR—sounds like that is truly the “reason/rationalle” for this horror—should not be elevated to level of assassin. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Should the "assassination" page be changed to preclude instances such as this then? Should the Misplaced Pages definition not include: "it is an act that may be done for financial gain, to avenge a grievance, from a desire to acquire fame or notoriety" if such killings are not to be classified as "assassination"? 147.153.84.5 (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, please reread what @207.108.42.250 has said; emphasis is mine: “We should only begin to entertain using the term "assassination" when our sources do.” Misplaced Pages is not a news source or comentator but a content aggregator that adheres to a neutral point of view. Your desire to characterize this as an “assassination” is baseless and based on what can be considered original research. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Just curious, but how many sources would it take? The newsroom here is distraught over the assassination of two beloved coworkers., and Flanagan recorded the assassination on his cell phone then posted it on his Facebook page. are two that already refer to it as an assassination. grifterlake (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with grifterlake.

Well now people are using the word “assassination.” So there is a valid argument to be made… NOW! It wasn’t before. --SpyMagician (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 26 August 2015

It has been proposed in this section that Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward be renamed and moved to Moneta, Virginia shooting. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward → Moneta, Virginia shooting – Current title is overly long as well as insufficient. There was a third victim in the shooting. Also, the names of the murdered are not notable enough. Crumpled Fire (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support, for reasons specified above.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Changing my vote to Wait, as others have.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as above. Safiel (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Undecided & wait Withdrawing my support and changing to undecided. Safiel (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support, same as above. 147.153.84.5 (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Move to Virginia news crew killings. Or Virginia journalists killings. Agree that the murdered are not notable enough, but neither is the exact location in Virginia which is hardly mentioned or flashed in the news.--RioHondo (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Wait There may indeed be a better name here, but let's allow the dust to settle in the next day or so before acting.Juneau Mike (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

But there is a third victim. That victim is relevant to the shooting, and is not covered by the existing title.Crumpled Fire (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, I'm not saying there is no better name for this article. I just believe it is too early to know all the facts, and therefore too soon to rename it at this point. Thanks.Juneau Mike (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Move to Virginia news crew killings, per RioHondo's reasoning. Harmonicsonic 17:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Move to "2015 Virginia shootings" - The title "2015 Virginia shootings" (or "August 2015 Virginia shootings") is one that people are likely to search for, and "Virginia shootings" already refers to Virginia Tech shootings. I think that people might not know in which city the shootings took place. The word murder should only be used following a conviction or appropriate plea. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2015

(UTC)

• Wait - Agree with @Michaelh2001:. Calling this the Moneta, Virginia shooting has the potential to unfairly scar the Moneta community without it having anything to do with Moneta or its environment since this was familiar crime. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Wait- I named it after the victims because I felt naming it after the victims felt less vague. Naming it after a town I feel makes it sound like a huge mass shooting, which it wasn't. I'm okay with naming it something else, like perhaps after the name of the strip mall where it occured, but I feel like naming it after the town makes it sound bigger in size than it was. And yes I know the reporters aren't as famous as Rachel Maddow or whatever but I feel people are going to remember their names after this. Benbuff91 14:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Wait for now, or tentatively, move to "2015 Virginia shooting"; I agree the name of the town hasn't featured in the reporting at all. Most people will only know it happened in Virginia. But again, there's no hurry, and we can wait at least a few days to decide. —Torchiest _edits 20:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Wait I came here by searching for the victim's names. I wouldn't have thought about 2015 Virginia shootings. The names seem to be the more direct association in the media. Keep the article as "Murder of". I'd wait to see what the stats are for what people are searching for. JackTheVicar (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Move to something simple, encapsulating where, when and what. "2015 Virginia news shootings" sounds about right. The current one is wordy and ignores half of the shootings. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, August 26, 2015 (UTC)
• Move to "2015 Virginia shootings" . Of all the titles proposed thus far, this seems to be the most encyclopedic and the one which most broadly covers the subject. The use of "Murders" or "Killings" in the title overlooks the fact that one of the shooting victims was not killed. Per Fuzheado, the use of the name of the town - which is not widely known to the world at large - in the title has the potential to unfairly "scar" the community. Per Benbuff91, doing so also has the potential to mislead the reader into thinking it was a large-scale mass shooting. And, as others have pointed out, it is the term most likely to be used in web searches.--JayJasper (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"TV shootings" is used in many headlines and most leads, moreso than "journalist" or "news", but something to that effect should certainly factor in. There's broad, and there's too broad. The news aspect is the hook that makes this newsworthy and possibly encyclopedic, rather than just another Virginia shooting. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This incident has little to do with the location of where it happened and, frankly, I don't think many people will even know where Moneta is. The notoriety of this incident is based on the killings, and I think it is fitting that the title reflects that. I agree with consensus that waiting is a good idea though^^. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Move to "WDBJ live shootings" or something like that, I think what makes it notable is the fact that it happened on live TV, I searched for "virginia live shootings wikipedia" to get here since I didn't know the name of the news station. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Wait I’m not too sure what the best naming format is at this point. For example, there is a Wiki page on the Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt which seem to follow the same tragic events this shooting did. Knowing that, should this page then be renamed the “Vester Lee Flanagan II shootings” or something similar? It seems there is no clean way to name this kind of article without tainting the innocent or elevating the murderers. Is there any consistent Wiki policy on the naming of such events? I mean look at the 2011 Norway attacks and such. This is all a mess. But a mess that should be discussed. --SpyMagician (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Wait but it will eventually need to be renamed as an event which I don't has settled out yet. The shooting includes a victim not in the title and has lengthy information about motive, car chase, suicide, social media, etc, etc. The two people in the title are not particularly notable and we don't list victims like that. The South Carolina church shooting, for example, doesn't have the victims listed. --DHeyward (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Two shooting victims are excluded. There's a tendency in news (maybe normal society) to give more weight to the hapless victims than the cowardly heel, but in reality, a three-death event is 50% more significant than a two, even before considering all that other stuff that isn't directly about murder. We should all try to remember that, I think, not you in particular. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

• WDBJ live shootings I think is the best title. Cla68 (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• 2015 WDBJ shooting - "live" is descriptive, but not really relevant, unless the station has had "non-live" shootings (which they have not). The station callsign is a definite descriptor without wider implication, and that should be sufficient differentiation. I would also add that we are always way too quick to jump on these things and create articles, which is why NOTNEWS is cited so often. MSJapan (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• 2015 WDBJ shooting - knowing American gun politics, there will likely be other shootings/mass murders in Virginia this year. -- Callinus (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - If there are no more mass shootings in Virginia within the next 4.5 days, then we can probably get away with naming this incident "August 2015 Virginia shooting". I don't think that more people will remember the state in which it occurred than will remember the city or television station. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"August 2015 Virginia shooting" seems too time specific, I looked through many other similar events' titles and couldn't find one that uses the month it happened. I also couldn't find a title that uses just the state name. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - We have an article for 2014 Las Vegas shootings, therefore, we can probably have an article entitled "2015 Virginia shootings", as the population of Virginia is only about 4 times that of the Las Vegas Valley. With that said, we can cross the bridge of adding the month if it comes to that. We can add redirects for other titles if needed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's still not named "2014 Las Vegas Valley shootings" and that's still not a state name. It seems like most events like this use the city name or another more specific place(like a school). And the population of the place also doesn't seem to have any affect on previous articles, 2015 Houston shooting: Houston est population - 2 million, 2015 Tyrone shooting: maybe a couple hundred folks in Tyrone?, though I'm not sure what you meant by that. On adding August, most events on Misplaced Pages seem to use just the year. I don't know of any articles that use the year and month to describe an event. And I suggested a different name since most users so far haven't decided or are against using the city name. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - If we must use a city name, then "2015 Roanoke shooting(s)" would be the best bet. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Keep the title. 98.67.185.209 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There we go again, hot from the press, full of emotion, can't/don't wanna wait a minute! WP:NOTNEWS, people... We have Wikinews for this stuff. Any estimation that this will have lasting influence requires a fully functional crystal ball. This should be redirected to the the appropriate section in the article on the station, WDBJ, where the few details that are relevant/known at this moment can be merged. In the unlikely case that this shootings attains lasting notability, the article can again be split off. --Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This post violates talk page rules about being polite and welcoming, "There we go again, hot from the press, full of emotion, can't/don't wanna wait a minute!" Two reporters were murdered on air, a third injured. And the suggestion is no lasting notability? Wow, take a breath.Juneau Mike (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, lasting notability is highly doubtful. Unfortunately, shootings are a dime in a dozen and that this one happened to be live on air does not really change anything to that. A short section in the article on the station is all that is warranted at this point (and should be written once all details are known). I realize that you don't like hearing this, but that is no reason to remove comments from another editor. The merge proposal stands and if you oppose that, then please give your policy-based arguments here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed your comments because they are snarky, impolite and unwelcoming. Enough said. And keep your snarky comments off of my Talk Page.Juneau Mike (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Lasting notability is perhaps highly likely in this case (sad to say), for the simple reason that, unlike other shootings, this one has a gunman very deliberatly making certain that: (1) his murder will be broadcast live [note how he *waits* to open fire, until the news camera is aimed at the reporter) AND (2) he makes sure to immediately post his own "first-person-shooter" perspective video of the same event, to his social media. Hopefully this won't inspire copycats (very scary thought). Have there been any other cases where a shooter combined the "doing it in a live newscast" with the "posting his own FPS perspective"? I can't think of any previous murder cases where both types of clear videos were inflicted on we the public, at the same time. 71.190.6.66 (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Those are details of this case that may or may not lead to lasting notability. More likely, few people will remember this in just a couple of months. That's why an encyclopedia waits and only includes a subject when it is certain that it should be included. --Randykitty (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I very much highly doubt that people are going to magically forget about a double homicide broadcast on television. It will certainly fade to the background of public consciousness, but this is still a notable event.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I also wonder if anyone who's uttered "We have Wikinews for that!" has taken a look at Wikinews at all in the last few years. On any given day it has a half dozen folks active and a queue of stale articles in progress. We need to retire the trope that a Wikinews article is the rightful heir to a well written and valid Misplaced Pages article. It's not. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If all the people inappropriately adding stuff about (very) recent events would go over to Wikinews where that stuff belongs, things would be very different, I'm sure. This whole article, for example, could be posted there in its entirety. And indeed "a Wikinews article is the rightful heir to a well written and valid Misplaced Pages article" is incorrect. It should be the other way around: a well written Wikinews article could, in the fullness of time, result in a valid WP article. And I am saddened that an admin throws policy like NOTNEWS aside so easily. --Randykitty (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not brushing it aside so easily, @Randykitty: - I was debating Wikinews at the start when it was proposed in 2004 and I've given a lot of thought since then and gave my views to Harvard's NiemanLab here: . -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

How is something like this not notable? How often are reporters killed on live television in the United States? How often are reporters killed period in the United States? To me this wasn't just "another shooting", it was a notable event in television history. Not to mention the public outcry I've seen over this, and the huge news coverage that's been ongoing since early this morning, certainly make this feel like one of this year's biggest news stories. Benbuff91 14:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm glad that you are sure that nothing worse will happen this year. Anyway, forget the merge proposal, even though it would be the correct thing to do. In the feeding frenzy here, rational thinking is not wanted. --Randykitty (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I never said I don't think anything worse will happen, hell worse things already HAVE happened this year, but that doesn't mean this isn't a notable event. What is it with you? I agree the some of the other posters, you're just here to give people your unwarrented attitude while adding nothing to the conversation. What even would be a notable event for you? Nothing like this has ever happened here in the US like this. Benbuff91 18:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC).

This still is not so notable. Simply b/c two unknown television journalists were killed does not make it notable. Of course to the media it is highly notable. They cover their own. I've never heard of this station or these people before today's events. It is hardly necessary in an encyclopedia. This is not a newspaper. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Had you heard about Sandy Hook Elementary before the shooting or any of the children? Had you heard about that specific theater in Aurora, Colorado before the shooting? Had you heard about Columbine High School or any of the students there? What you're saying makes no sense, and as mentioned, this story does not meet any of the negative criteria of WP:NOTNEWS. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't even know those places existed until the mainstream coverage made them notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, in an event that dwarfs, to a mainstream group, the places themselves. Thus it makes more sense for there to be an article on the event, instead of taking the lazy route and stuffing it into a stub about the places itself.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how any of the four criteria in WP:NOTNEWS apply here:

1. This isn't first-hand journalistic reporting by WP editors; instead it uses standard third party sources.
2. This is not about a routine event, but rather a highly unique one that easily passes WP:GNG already.
3. This isn't necessarily about the individuals involved, but about the events they were involved in.
4. This has nothing to do with the trifling activities of a celebrity.

—Torchiest _edits 20:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Two people murdered on live television will remain a notable event. To echo others, it's irrelevant that the people involved were unknown. Lee Harvey Oswald was unknown too, so I guess we should scrap his article or merge it with JFK's, if previous fame is a criteria. However, I'm not sure I'm 100% in agreement with this event (and every notable tragedy) having its own encyclopedia article either. I'm certainly not comfortable with minute detail about current events appearing in articles, but I guess this is how you organize what is important and what is not. Articles being composed as events are unfolding need to be reviewed and edited for clarity and length when the heat passes and the original editors are no longer interested. Just my twopenneth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.25.183 (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

An admin acting like some snarky teenager? Awesome image for wikipedia that is...(referring to the creator of this thread)--86.135.159.178 (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI - There have been over 30,000 page views of this article in less than 24 hours. To me, that says that it would be a significant disservice to WP users to get rid of it. KConWiki (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Google trends shows that there have been more than 10 million searches about the shooting. That's significant as it is the highest number the counter can show. It's front page news on every news site. It completely overshadowed the James Holmes conviction and wiped all the Trump and Ashley Madison stuff out of the public mind for now. So yeah, it's pretty notable. --GeicoHen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on times Parker and Flanagan were at the station needed

As of 26 Aug, the page has:

joined WDBJ in 2014
WDBJ announced their hiring of Flanagan ... on April 19, 2012. WDBJ dismissed him less than a year later
Flanagan filed an EEOC complaint against WDBJ, again alleging racial discrimination; he allegedly named Parker in his complaint

It looks as if Flanagan was out in 2013, so how could he complain about Parker who joined in 2014? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.64.35 (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/a-look-at-the-lives-of-wdbj7s-alison-parker-and-adam-ward/34929588 "And both of them were worked as interns here at WDBJ7 before they signed on as employees. Alison worked at a station in Jacksonville, North Carolina, before she returned to WDBJ7 in 2014." -12.180.133.18 (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And I know LinkedIn can't be used as a source but her own page says she interned at WDBJ7 from May 2012 – August 2012. https://www.linkedin.com/in/aparker91

• "She joined WDBJ last year after completing a summer internship as a news reporter in 2012." http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/26/us/virginia-shooting-wdbj/ -12.180.133.18 (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added this internship to the "Victims" section. -12.180.133.18 (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Flanagan's accusations

• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/shot-live-tv-news-broadcast-virginia-article-1.2337586 "Alison made racist comments," Flanagan, who is black, tweeted.
• http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/26/alleged-va-shooter-had-history-workplace-racism-complaints/32404967/ Flanagan, who used the on-air name "Bryce Williams," went on his Twitter account within hours of the shooting to accuse one of his victims, WDBJ reporter Alison Parker, of making "racist comments," and asked rhetorically: "They hired her after that???" He charged that the other victim, cameraman Adam Ward, had filed a complaint with the station's human resources office "after working with me one time!!!"
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11826100/Bryce-Williams-profile-of-Virginia-news-gunman.html On his Twitter account, which has since been suspended, he wrote after the shooting that "Alison made racist comments" and "Adam went to (human resources) on me after working with me one time!!!"

-12.180.133.18 (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

How Did the Shooter Find the Victims?

I realize this teeters on an original research concept, but from all of the reports I have read so far, none explain how the shooter found the victims? I mean he was no longer a part of the station, right? Did he follow them from the station? The video where he just casually walks up to them seems odd. I’m not hunting for conspiracy theories here. But does any news source explain how this guy found the exact two people he wanted to shoot like this? --SpyMagician (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"Join me weekday mornings from 5-7!" narrows that much down. Newsvans are typically distinctive and eye-catching vehicles. The story so far suggests he was obsessed enough to follow it from the station, but just happening across it may have given him the final kick. In either case, TV reporters are easy to find by design. Fair question, but perhaps other reporters just find it too obvious to answer. Some blogger may inquire, though, and some blogs are reliable. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of continuing speculation, I would respond that there is very little concrete evidence that these even are "the exact two people he wanted to shoot" per se. It could have very easily been that they were simply the ones who happened to be there, considering that (AFAIK) the bulk of the reasons he gave for shooting these individuals came after the shooting itself, not before it. He could have just wanted to shoot people from that station, they happened to be there, and he came up with the supposed reasons for choosing them specifically post facto, which would explain why the accusations he makes of them specifically are pretty vague and unsupported. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

“It could have very easily been that they were simply the ones who happened to be there…” Pretty much my thoughts at this point. But it would still be nice to hear some official report providing some pre-shooting timeline. --SpyMagician (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of vague and unsupported, Infowars is as convinced as it ever was (and Reddit Conspiracy is half-sure) that this was an inside job, designed to "take our guns". I wouldn't be surprised in the least if some say Vester "Professional Name" Flanagan II simply told the drone to track her phone's GPS from the Pentagon, while Obama sipped brandy and stroked his cat in an evil armchair behind him.

Seriously though, official investigation reports take time. In the meantime, as always, we can either wait or trust social media and anonymous CNN sources for the "latest developments". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

Who cares what Infowars has to say? It's not a legitimate news site. They make up stories all the time and claim everything is a false flag. It's a conspiracy site run by profiter of conspiracies. Benbuff91 23:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Still popular, though, or they wouldn't profit. And when theories get popular, mainstream sources generally outline, scoff at and debunk them later. And thus they get more popular, until we have articles on them. This vague theory may one day be the backbone of one of those, so figured I'd note it with a "seriously though" caveat. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

@SpyMagician: --DHeyward (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The broadcast from the Smith Mountain Lake started long before the shooting and there was at least one segment done inside by Parker prior to sunrise. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7iFRdcNT1QgJ:www.wdbj7.com/video/leaders-planning-smls-50th-anniversary-celebration/34922338+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us . The time stamp on the video is 5:43a.m. It is not the shooting. I suspect they also promo'd the event. --DHeyward (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward fair enough. Still falls under original research. Would like to see if the issue of stalking a specific group of co-workers or randomness comes to light in the future as the dust settles. --SpyMagician (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't advocating adding it to the article but wasn't hard to find out she was there and that was after all the video had been taken down. These morning shows are pretty canned with the same feature segment reporter doing multiple shots at the same site. People want their traffic, weather, news at the same time every day. I don't think it's coincidence the segments were an hour apart (there may have even been another one but an hour is plenty of time to get there). It wouldn't require stalking, following or any detective work. There's a lot of them, too, that will be a bit on edge for a while wondering what psychopath is out there with a grudge. --DHeyward (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Has someone who works in the media, you're right: these morning shows usually send a reporter and cameraman out to one location where they spend the whole show. That video is actually harder to watch than the shooting one when you think that the reporter and the photographer only had an hour to live and the Chamber of Commerce person would be shot too. For all we know the killer might have been sitting in a car 50 feet away waiting. Frightening. By the way, it's very possible the link posted above might be "exclusive" to us as I haven't seen the "hour before" clip show up on TV or YouTube yet. Not arguing in favor of posting it, just noting. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe I have found a fairly massive clue as to how he was able to stalk his co-workers: His apartment was literally 500 yards from the station | according to this Daily Mirror article. That is literally about 2-3 blocks walking distance. --SpyMagician (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of where Flanagan lived, he could have hung around outside the TV station, eg sitting in a parked car, until his victims turned up. He then had to know that they were doing a live interview at Bridgewater Plaza. We may never know how he stalked his victims to Bridgewater Plaza, but somehow he did.--♦IanMacM♦ 06:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Birth date of perpetrator

I don't know how it was determined that the birth date of the shooter was January 19, 1974 as described currently in the article. I can't find any particular news source which states this as the case. I did, however, find a Vester Flanagan listed in the California Birth Index website (which I believe to be a reliable website for California birth records) and I did find someone who I think is the perpetrator in question listed there (http://www.californiabirthindex.org/birth/vester_l_flanagan_born_1973_11921659). I will go ahead and change his birth date to October 8, 1973. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogoodnamesleft426 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Horrible news but not for wikipedia

Horrible news. I agree.

Encyclopedia material? No.

I believe Alison Parker, Adam Ward, and Bryson Williams should be redirected to the article on the TV station and a blurb that they died after being shot (at least the first two). Is this event so profound that it becomes encyclopedic? No.

And I am a person who is very liberal about wanting there to be articles on everything.

Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This was a major news story, not to mention one of the few instances of an American news reporter being murdered on live televsion. If this was a common occurance I'd agree with you but this is a very layered, very notable event and has an impact. Thousands, perhaps millions of people have seen this footage now. It will be talked about for a long time when it comes to issues of racism and gun violence in the United States. I just think events like these make people uncomfortable and they think they don't need to be written about for some silly reason or another. I believe this is an event that needs to be known and remembered. Benbuff91 21:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it even one of the few instances, or just the one? If there were others, they should go in the See Also. See Alsos on recent events make me uncomfortable with their stretching for relevance. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

You are right, it may be the only time this has happened. Christine Chubbuck is really the only similar incident that jumps to mind. The fact that hers was a suicide makes it substantially different of course, but it is the only other instance I can think of where a reporter dies during a live broadcast, and it is a good example of why this event is notable enough to merit an article UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSOR - it is not possible to gain consensus for which material should be published and which should be left out - in the absence of any 100% universal agreement on what material to include, the policy that Misplaced Pages is not censored means that individual readers are left to decide what they want to read. See this

Wikimedia Projects serve the Information Needs of Individuals, Not Groups "it is important to note as essential the principle that Wikimedia projects exist to serve individuals, as individuals, in their full autonomy, and consequently, the projects, as a general rule, do not and should not consider as legitimate censorious demands by institutions, of any kind, political, commercial or voluntary claiming to represent those individuals, or making demands, which, in the community’s opinion, represent only their own interests"

-- Callinus (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This shooting easily meets WP:GNG. It is like suggesting that the Charleston church shooting‎ should be mentioned only at the article about the church.--♦IanMacM♦ 05:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories

Because the shooter stated that race was a factor in his decision to go on a mass murder spree and that he was avenging the Charleston Church Shooting, I'm adding the following categories to the article: Hate crimes, Anti-white racism, and Racially motivated violence in the United States. Cla68 (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Not in disagreement, but there are delusional “revenge” aspects to this murder that seem similar to the 2014 killings of NYPD officers Bed–Stuy, Brooklyn. I believe aspects of the way that article was handled might be useful for this article as well. --SpyMagician (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Murders filmed from POV of perpetrators and victims

Have there been any other murders out there that were filmed from the point of view of both the perp and one of the victims? — Rickyrab. 02:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Great question. I imagine that would be a pretty tall order. But, I have no idea. I think the closest we'd see might be something along the lines of (a) the killer recording his murder, while (b) video from the victim's perspective is caught by perhaps CCTV or security camera or such. That's my guess. If you think about it, how often is a killer going after a victim that just happens to be recording a video at the time? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a great question. When I watched the initial video from the shooter’s POV (cellphone camera) I was—and still am—stunned. But honestly drone attacks are the closest thing I can think of. The nature of these attacks all point to the vanity/paranoia of the shooter; a failed career as a model/TV personality, making sure to post video of his attack as if it were no big deal. Psych majors might have a field day with this nutjob. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Toulouse and Montauban shootings

  He allegedly bought the GoPro video camera which he used to film the attacks, from a Fnac store in Geneva

• Porte de Vincennes siege

  Coulibaly recorded seven minutes of his attack using a GoPro camera attached his torso, and emailed a copy of the footage using a computer at the supermarket. The video included the deaths of three of the victims

There's frequent helmet camera footage going years back used by military forces. -- Callinus (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that was not the question. The question was asking if there were other reciprocal filming situations; two-sided filming, not just one-sided filming. In other words, the same event (death/murder) being filmed by the murderer and simultaneously being filmed by the victim. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as one-sided filming (i.e., the killer making a video of his murder as he does it), that happens all the time. Think of ISIS, for example. They film everything. Many other sick and twisted serial killers have been known to video or film their murders. The "one-sided" filming situation is nothing new at all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There's a number of videos from the Syrian Civil War where forces on both sides have units filming, and the side that gets overrun has their cameras dropped or their cameramen killed, then propaganda teams put together films of their units advancing, along with film by the other team's camera of their soldiers dying. There are film clips that have two snipers being filmed, one shoots, the other is filmed dying by being hit by sniper fire. -- Callinus (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Mazen al-Tumeizi was killed by a US army helicopter on the job. Not 100% sure the helicopter had a camera, but likely some sort of "imaging apparatus" or whatever. I vaguely recall a VICE documentary with a cell phone clip of a drone strike in Pakistan. That's not quite murder, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

Vester Flanagan / football player

FYI - TMZ is reporting that the Flanagan II's father was a football player in the early 60s. His name appeared in several articles, and I redlinked those as Vester Flanagan (American football), if that becomes useful as this article evolves (assuming that the assertion that they are father and son is accurate). KConWiki (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

TMZ is great at half-truths, that's for sure. Drafted by the NFL, but doesn't seem to have played. Better headline than "college football player", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

Should such stories get the free publicity on Misplaced Pages?

My view is that such tragedies should not be publicized if there is any evidence that publicity was one of the objectives of the perpetrator. I already feel that there is some evidence in this case, and ALL such publicity-motivated or even possibly publicity-motivated crimes should be de-publicized as a matter of public policy. I'm not saying they should be censored, but they should NOT be featured news. In this case, the Misplaced Pages link was already picked up by Google News, where it appears near the bottom of what is currently the top story. Of course this murderer cannot "benefit" from the publicity, since he is already dead, but my concern is with a copycat, even if his goal is merely to get his 15 minutes of Warholian fame on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps there should be a flag for "possible publicity-motivated news story that should be delayed until true newsworthiness is assessed" or something? Create the doubt in some perpetrators' minds? (Yes, of course it is crazy to worry about the motivations of crazy people, but...) Shanen (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Umm, WP is actually the smallest article of practically every news organization that is covering it. Virtually all workplace shootings in the U.S. are covered nationally regardless of whether there is a fatality or who the victims are. Covering it isn't the problem, it's the advocacy that comes later. Keeping this to a single article is the best WP can do. Already there are reports and statements by persons that agendaneer these incidents and we'll see stories on bullying, gun control, racism, harassment, mental health, LGBT discrimination, roles of social media and a plethora of other tangentially related items. The best WP can do is not be exploited as a platform for that and stick to the facts of this event. --DHeyward (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, you're talking in public about not talking about something in public. The Streisand effect will eat any genuine attempt at retraction alive at this point. Even if we could turn it back now, copycats will still have every other crime they've ever heard about in the news to copy. There's not enough black marker in the world to stop every seed from sprouting. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:06, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

It is generally good to wait a few days, though, just to see what we're dealing with before we start influencing perceptions of the same thing. But that's never been the way Wikipedians work, so that's that. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

“…the Misplaced Pages link was already picked up by Google News…” Yes, because Misplaced Pages is considered a strong source of compiled information about current events. How is it not newsworthy to report on the death of news reporters on live TV that were also videotaped by the shooter and posted to social media. Also you will never prevent copycat attacks by preventing the core event did not happen. This is not the first murder of a human being to be reported in the world—let alone Misplaced Pages—so the idea that somehow pretending this didn’t exist now would not help anyone for any reason. This is tragic and news. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSOR - it is not possible to gain consensus for which material should be published and which should be left out - in the absence of any 100% universal agreement on what material to include, the policy that Misplaced Pages is not censored means that individual readers are left to decide what they want to read. See this

Wikimedia Projects serve the Information Needs of Individuals, Not Groups "it is important to note as essential the principle that Wikimedia projects exist to serve individuals, as individuals, in their full autonomy, and consequently, the projects, as a general rule, do not and should not consider as legitimate censorious demands by institutions, of any kind, political, commercial or voluntary claiming to represent those individuals, or making demands, which, in the community’s opinion, represent only their own interests"

-- Callinus (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't it say shootings instead of murders?

Just like all the other articles on shootings. Sandenig (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. In this case especially, given that one of the shooting victims didn't die, so "murders" is not fully accurate.--JayJasper (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

And the third dead victim wasn't murdered. By the move request, it seems "shootings" or "shooting" is going to win out, but the first bit's still up in the air. Maybe a partial move isn't controversial, for now? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

Agree as well. But as you can see from the discussion about moving/renaming there is a lot of inconsistency as to how Misplaced Pages would handle the title description of such a tragic event. It might be worth it to add this opinion to that comment discussion. --SpyMagician (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

WDBJ article

For some reason the WDBJ article doesn't mention that Flanagan was a former reporter there who went by the name Bryce Williams. Maybe someone with editing privileges can address the omission. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point, @68.146.52.234. I have that detail to the WDBJ article. Unsure why you state “Maybe someone with editing privilege…” when there is no reason—at least from what I can see—that you could have not made that edit yourself. --SpyMagician (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is "locked", right? Maybe that editor thought the other article also would be locked and inaccessible. Perhaps? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Does this count as OR?

I noticed while looking at the video fro his POV that the reason he puts his gun away momentarily is because Ward was filming over the balcony, and he was waiting for the camera to be back on Parker before he opened fire. I think that could be wored in there in some way. 86.136.141.205 (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is original research so no, it should not be added. There is no way to assume or understand why at that moment the shooter did what he did or seemingly delayed his actions. --SpyMagician (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is correct. Flanagan had ample opportunity to fire the gun on approaching the victims, but waited until the camera panned round so that it would be caught on camera. However, this would need a reliable source rather than a WP:PRIMARY interpretation of the phone video.--♦IanMacM♦ 05:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's OR if we're relying on the video but I'm sure a source could be found if we wanted, my own local TV news here in NZ said that. Nil Einne (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A quick search found Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Of those two sources, New Zealand report states the best summary of what is seen; the key word is appears, “It appears the shooter then waits for Ward to pan his camera back to focus on reporter Alison Parker before opening fire.” You really cannot assume to know or understand the logic of the delay. For all you know simply the fact the camera panned back to the reporter caused the shooter to act simply because the victim would then be looking at him, see the gun and then he would have to act. Remember: Everyone was quite oblivious to the shooter’s presence until the camera panned back and the reporter was facing the shooter. There’s no definitive way to assume he was simply waiting to ensure the victim was in camera frame before acting. --SpyMagician (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We'll never know for sure because Flanagan is dead, but a sicko would have been disappointed if all that had happened is that the shots had been heard off camera while the cameraman was filming over the balcony. It is pretty clear from the phone video of the incident that Flanagan waits so that he can avoid this and ensures that the moment of the shooting is captured on live broadcast TV.--♦IanMacM♦ 06:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

First you say this, “We'll never know for sure…” but then say this “It is pretty clear from the phone video of the incident that Flanagan waits so that he can avoid this and ensures that the moment of the shooting is captured on live broadcast TV.” Nope to the second assertion; it is not “pretty clear” at all. There is simply 100% no way to understand why the delay in shooting happened. Like I say, there is an equal chance he delayed until he had no choice because one of his victims was looking straight at him. --SpyMagician (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We'll never get a first hand account from Flanagan explaining why he lowered the gun despite having an easy view of Alison Parker at the time. The logical explanation offered by some reliable sources is that he was waiting to ensure that the incident was captured on live television.--♦IanMacM♦ 06:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• The Chicago Tribune says "He points the gun at Parker and then at Ward, but he waits patiently to shoot until he knows that Parker is on camera, so she will be gunned down on air." The first time that the gun is pointed at Parker with a clear view from only a few feet away happens at 19 seconds into the phone video; the gun is lowered out of view of the phone camera and does not appear again until 41 seconds into the video, and this time Parker is shot. There is sufficient reliable sourcing to say that this is the logical reason for the 20 second delay.--♦IanMacM♦ 07:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

Can someone clarify the sequence? I thought I read that the cameraman was shot first. But when I watched the killer's POV film, that can't seem right. Does anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The killer shoots at Alison Parker first. The cameraman falls to the ground, presumably when he is hit.--♦IanMacM♦ 07:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Doesn't the whole incident seem quite surreal and bizarre? He (the killer) is standing literally only inches from them. And no one knows he is there? All three victims seem completely oblivious of his presence. How can that be? I mean, he was literally a few inches from the cameraman. Also, they didn't hear him walking closer and closer, as he was approaching them? It seemed like a very quiet, serene, peaceful early morning. Any explanations? The only one I can think of is that all three were totally "absorbed" in their work (the interview). But even that seems not quite right. To me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It is WP:OR of course, but Parker, Ward and Gardner all seem preoccupied by the ongoing interview and do not give any attention to Flanagan. If they do see him out of the corner of their eye, he may have been regarded as as a bystander with a camera phone. He is silent, apart from muttering "bitch" at 18 seconds into the phone video. He does not run up to them shouting and swearing, which would have set off alarm bells.--♦IanMacM♦ 15:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, who knows? Apparently, they did not see him. It's just very odd is all that I am saying. Yes, he had a camera phone, but he also had a pointed gun in his outstretched hand. And, when someone invades my personal space by literally one or two inches, I notice it. And I turn around to see. Maybe the cameraman was deeply absorbed in his work at that moment. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

United States

The words "United States" need to appear, in full, in the lede, and in the infobox. Misplaced Pages is an international project, and not all of our readers know where Virginia is, not even what "US" stands for. Will whoever keeps removing those words please desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I've re-added it to the lede. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Anybody in the English-speaking world who doesn't know that Virginia is in the United States is probably not informed enough to understand anything on wikipedia. Rycherr (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

African American/Homosexual Man

Would someone with editing privileges please remove the blatantly-biased "He was an African American, homosexual man" from the article? This is a neutrality issue, as well as an accuracy issue. The comment is sourced to Breitbart, which is well known for not being accurate in its reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rycherr (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

He was African American and homosexual, and this was a factor in the case, Washington Post article. Breitbart as a source may not be to everyone's tastes, so it was changed--♦IanMacM♦ 14:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

How was this "a factor" in this case? Direct quote requested. The info was added by an anon and needs to be deleted. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

He made several comments after the killings related to race and his supposed "sexual harassment". In fact, if he were alive and were arrested he probably would be charged with a hate crime at this juncture. 97.83.235.208 (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A search of the WaPost article given as a reference brings up nothing at all related to "sex" or "sexual" or "homosexual" or "gay." Removed. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was a factor in the case. Many sources have reported this. The killer stated that he was discriminated against as a black man and as a homosexual. I have seen this in many sources. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Flanagan, rightly or wrongly, believed that he had been victimized for being black and gay. He says this in his faxed suicide note. It would not be worth mentioning that he was black or gay if he had not brought up these things himself as part of the motive.--♦IanMacM♦ 15:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Quote: In a lengthy manifesto he sent to ABC News after the killings, Flanagan said he was bullied at work because he was black and gay. Source: . Since he stated this in his manifesto, this info is in many reliable sources. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post article saying that he was gay and considered himself "shunned" is here.--♦IanMacM♦ 15:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Then it should be addressed in context of the prose of the piece, which is done in paragraph six. A declarative sentence, "He was an African American, homosexual man," is not Misplaced Pages's style and puts WP:UNDUE weight on this as the second sentence of the bio section. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree on this, the previous wording was clumsy.--♦IanMacM♦ 15:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it reads a lot better now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Vester Flanagan Sr. as dean at SFSU? Probably not

The line that says "Vester Flanagan, Sr., a one-time dean at San Francisco State University" is something that is very likely wrong, but a reliable source says it's true. This is a good example of Misplaced Pages as a victim of garbage in/garbage out. This one line from Washington Post reporting is sourced to a neighbor, Roxane Barker, quoted in this piece . However, some Google searching shows that a Vester Flanagan was "director of operations" at City College of San Francisco and not a dean at SFSU.

• City College of San Francisco, Board of Trustees minutes here: - "President Berg commended Vester Flanagan for all of his efforts and congratulated him on his retirement. Mr. Vester Flanagan, Director of Operations, thanked the Board and prior Board’s for all of their support."
• The Guardsman, City College of San Francisco school newspaper here: - "Vester Flanagan, director of operations, said the administration has been concerned about El Niño, which meteorologists say may bring the strongest storms in 150 years to the Bay area this winter. Flanagan, who has been at City College since the mid-60s, said his experience tells him that wind, not rain, is the biggest potential problem."

It is fairly common for folks to get university, college, state, city all mixed up, even within academia. It's perhaps even more complex in the SF area where the name permutations are especially confusing. It's unclear what our best practice is here without venturing into WP:NOR. Perhaps keep it in there, but put a caveat. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I added a disputed-inline tag to that sentence in the article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It’s fair to say people get confused about who is what at a University. Heck, the main source of all of this is a neighbor. Have you ever tried to explain in one sentence your job to any neighbor? You tend to simplify and might even exaggerate/simplify depending on who you are talking to. In this case, I would like to add that the detail of Vester Lee Flanagan’s parents lives is irrelevant at best. Vester Lee Flanagan was a lone loon and whatever his parents did or did not do holds no bearing to the actions he committed. --SpyMagician (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Race

If wikipedia, is going to note that Vester Lee was an "African-American journalist" then they need to update that Alison Parker was a "Caucasian 24-year-old news reporter" and Adam Ward was a "Caucasian 27-year-old photojournalist" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.31.155.202 (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

See the section Talk:Murders_of_Alison_Parker_and_Adam_Ward#African_American.2FHomosexual_Man above. It wouldn't be worth mentioning if he had not claimed discrimination while working at WDBJ, and as a motive in his faxed suicide note.--♦IanMacM♦ 16:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That's fine but I'm talking about the opening sentences next to the picture. Just say he was a journalist. With the photo right there, clearly we can see he's African-American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.31.155.202 (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, this was removed.--♦IanMacM♦ 16:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It can be put in here, when the first mention of discrimination is brought up. : "After losing his job in March 2000, Flanagan, who is African-American, filed a civil lawsuit against WTWC alleging racial discrimination." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.31.155.202 (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Done.--♦IanMacM♦ 16:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No mention of race even though he specifically stated he wanted to begin a race war.http://abcnews.go.com/US/shooting-alleged-gunman-details-grievances-suicide-notes/story?id=33336339

Is Category:Black supremacy relevant to this article, in light of the information available to date? Also, I was thinking of adding Category:Terrorism in the United States Ceannlann gorm (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Neither is suitable unless various reliable sources have made the connection, which they have not. Black Supremacy is not what Flanagan's rambling suicide fax is about, while terrorism is also unsuitable for the same reason. Categories should be clearly sourced by material within the article, otherwise they are are inaccurate and a form of WP:OR.--♦IanMacM♦ 21:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

The article should in some way mention the controversy among various news outlets to publish the shooter's footage, especially on the covers of their papers. 69.73.10.197 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Done I am British and have to apologize for some of the tasteless coverage in the British tabloids today.--♦IanMacM♦ 16:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm a native of New York, and I'm none too proud of the New York Daily News or New York Post. Ever, but especially in this instance. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness background edited out?

This article came up in a Google search in which the result quoted the article as containing "He was raised as a Jehovah's Witness by his mother, a public school teacher." Wondering if some busybody has edited this out because it does not seem to be in the article any longer. Tim Riches, Mississauga, Ontario (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

BBC News says that he was raised as a Jehovah's Witness here. If true, it doesn't seem to have played a part in his real or imagined grievances that led to the shooting, unlike the references about him being black and gay. Saying that he was raised as a Jehovah's Witness is extraneous detail unless it played some part in the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ 17:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

actuslly, he specifically said that jehova was the one who instructed him to kill parker.97.83.235.208 (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct, according to this ABC news report he says Jehovah spoke to him. But is the claim of an unstable murderer. By that logic we should blame dogs for the Son of Sam murders because dogs spoke to David Berkowitz, right? The only way his faith would play any role in this case is if somehow—for example—fellow Jehovah's Witnesses inspired this idiot to act in violence. There is no indication that happened. His faith is meaningless in this context. He could have been Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or anything else for all it matters and would have said, “Jesus spoke to me…” to the same results. That aspect is nonsense without a deeper real-world connection. --SpyMagician (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We have no idea of the meaningfulness of his religion in his life or in this last bloody chapter of his existence. We only know what his religion was, and what he said told him to carry out his attack. I certainly don't believe anything this guy had to say about his religion -- or anything else. Sadly, what i believe is completely irrelevant.97.83.235.208 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The earlier content was this

He was raised as a Jehovah's Witness by his mother, a public school teacher

theroot.com "Earlier tweets from the Bryce Williams account claim that he was a nonpracticing Jehovah's Witness"

ABC news "He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act"

Note that The Guardian has memos on his workplace telling him to seek medical help. It's not known if there was any psychiatric diagnosis. -- Callinus (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tim Riches, Mississauga, Ontario: I have no knowledge of that specific edit, but the “some busybody” insult is unnecessary and unwarranted. The fact that he—or anyone on any article—is a Jehovah’s Witness holds little bearing to the tragedy that is outlined in this article at best and at worst taints all Jehovah’s Witnesses as somehow being complicit in this sick man’s actions. If it was in the article originally during the flurry of edits during the first 24 hours of this story unravelling, that is a fair mistake. But at this point, I don’t believe that fact is needed, necessary or worth highlighting. --SpyMagician (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. But if someone came here just to edit out that detail, they would indeed qualify for the label. It is not unheard of, and one of the most highly edited Wikis is the JW page. Tim Riches, Mississauga, Ontario (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

According to this and other sources, he says that "Jehovah spoke to him after the Charleston shooting, telling him to act." Personally I think it is unlikely that Jehovah gives this type of instruction, but it may be worth mentioning in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ 17:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"unlikely that Jehovah gives this type of instruction" - if there's a source saying that he heard voices in his head then it's likely that there will be an RS linking Auditory hallucination to Schizophrenia - note that this isn't a normal part of mainstream religious experience and is widely recognised as a sign of mental illness. -- Callinus (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If he considered himself a Jehovah's witness, and RS quote him as saying Jehovah was part of his reasoning, then it merits inclusion. To remove that fact because you do not feel that it reflects well on Jehovah's Witnesses is (a) only your own interpretation, and (b) a pretty clear breach of WP:NOTCENSORED as your are removing pertinent information so as to not offend a group of people. Whether his beliefs were ACTUALLY a motivating factor is not up for us to decide or speculate on, but he stated that they were, this is covered by reliable sources, and that is enough to include it. We do not get to say that his relationship with the Jehovah's Witnesses is not important just because we feel that would reflect badly on them. If HE said it was important to him, it gets included. We do not delete the religious statements and backgrounds of other people who's actions we do not feel are indicative of their stated religion. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This information should be included. If it's not, readers who don't know the connection between the use of "Jehovah" and the Jehovah's Witnesses organization may be unclear as to why that name was used. The linked article, Jehovah, does not make the connection immediately clear. Readers who do know will want to know whether or not he was associated with the organization in any way. As much as is known from RS can then be said. The incident with the wooden cross (Jehovah's Witnesses don't use the cross as a symbol) could bear some explanation if RS have caught onto it. I don't think mentioning the organization will offend or imply a connection. It provides context for the quotation, and it is necessary to do this even if he left the organization long before. Perhaps replace Jehovah with ] (that is, Jehovah), if a minimal change is desirable. Roches (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Father's job

I am seeing no source that specifies the father had a job anywhere else. Where is this coming from? Versus001 (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be coming from this Daily Mail piece. --SpyMagician (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the last time I used a Daily Mail piece for a source for this article, it was removed on the basis that Daily Mail wasn't a reliable source. Second of all, even if Daily Mail were allowed in, I'm still not seeing anything about Flanagan Sr. was the director of operations at the City College of San Francisco. Versus001 (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Daily Mail often has the best (and most) pictures. That's the extent of their usefulness, for anyone who gives a damn about how they see the outside world. I'd advise against even reading the photo captions. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

@Versus001: From the Post: “Barker said Vester Flanagan Sr. at one point was a dean at San Francisco State University. His wife, Betty, was a schoolteacher, according to an online obituary.” And Barker refers to “Roxane Barker, 54, lived across the street…” So this all seems unreliable and gossip if not verified elsewhere. --SpyMagician (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

See the above section on this. The only source for "dean" at SFSU was a neighbor. And it seems wrong, because all factual evidence (but it's original research) points to him being director of operations at City College of San Francisco. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? I'm not seeing it anywhere online. Versus001 (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you see the section above? -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Serious error in Perpetrator section

In the Perpetrator section it states that he worked for Pacific Gas & Electric in Greenville, North Carolina. Pacific Gas and Electric IS a West Coast utility provider that operates and provides gas and electric service products ONLY in the State of California. Accordingly I'm going to remove this information. YborCityJohn (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that some of this comes from his self-penned LinkedIn profile; the article should make this clear. The LinkedIn profile was here, but it has been removed and I can't find an archived version.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

editors should not be using his profile in such a way if that's the case. without a corroborating reliable source any other materials that appear to be from there should likewise be removed.97.83.235.208 (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There isn't a problem as long as it is stated as such. Here in The Guardian it says that he worked as a customer service representative in the fraud investigations unit at the Bank of America, but it does say that it comes from his LinkedIn profile.--♦IanMacM♦ 20:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, but the Guardian article clearly specified that. I don't know if it changed anything when I looked away, but that's what I read from it, and I didn't see a source. Versus001 (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Media Controlled Suicide Note?

I heard a CNN news anchor say that she saw a related video "so you(the audience) don't have to". That strikes me as paternalistic arrogance. I've also heard on CNN many anchors saying they've read the entire 23 page fax and go on to relay selected excerpts to the viewers. Are we in a world where media people get access to news that the public does not? Am I missing something by wondering about this selective reporting? We have the Unabomber manifesto] for our Readers, what's going on ? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This has always been the way it works. There are only so many hours in a day to fill, and since (most) viewers don't watch the full 24, CNN has to repeat itself and stick with what's trendy, lest someone surf by and not see the big red "Developing Story" box. Entire stories are lost to this strategy, not just pieces of them.

It's also commercial television, first and foremost. Likely a sponsor (or several) doesn't want to associate its brand with murder videos. For all its scary stories about death, American TV has always been shy about showing it. Videos are clipped, euphemisms are used, battlefield map graphics replace footage. People fear what they don't understand, so keeping death in the dark allows the station to fill in our blanks with stuff that suits the narrative. CNN says sponsors don't make the news decisions, but omit any mention about how sponsor money talks (or doesn't talk). Is it still mainly insurance and cash for gold ads there? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

The Unabomber went on a 17 year spree of anonymous/unsolvable bombings from 1978 to 1995 without detection. He sent the manifesto to the The Washington Post and the New York Times with the following terms: “The author threatened to send a bomb to an unspecified destination “with intent to kill” unless one of the newspapers published this manuscript. The Attorney General and the Director of the FBI recommended publication.” Meaning the publication of the Unabomber manifesto was not done as a journalistic endeavor, but rather as a way to avert another tragedy from a known—and unstoppable—terrorist. As The Washington Post clearly states, “The manifesto appeared in The Washington Post as an eight-page supplement that was not part of the news sections.”

In contrast the shooter in this case was a mentally ill idiot who simply faxed rambling pages of nonsense to news outlets after he had already committed a crime and—according to what we know—did not threaten to do more harm based on a publication avoiding publishing his screed. Which means in this case, the shooter was a schmuck seeking attention. To publish the raw contents of his rambling fax would only elevate him and give him respect he does not deserve. In the case of the Unabomber, the publication of the manifesto was done to avert tragedy, was done under the guidance of the FBI and was clearly presented as not a part of the “news” section of the publication. There is no news value to the raw fax from what I can see other than he sent it. --SpyMagician (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I agree in principal, I have to ask, do you feel now that the Unabomber is no longer a threat there is some moral obligation to remove his manifesto from the public record? Unfortunately I think it boils down to a "If they wanted this information read, then he wins if it gets out there and we win by not allowing anyone to read it", but I think that that attitude greatly hinders our ability to understand what motivates people to commit such crimes. Just because someone is crazy, it doesn't mean that the reasons why they themselves believe they did what they did had no significance. To hold that nothing can be gained from the careful analysis and scrutiny of someone's stated aims and beliefs seems to be to be a rather naive, and somewhat moralistic, stance. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the difference between a terrorist and a terrifying killer, in case that "issue" arises for this one, too. Violence and demands. So far, this talk page is clean of that (possibly because gun violence is now "officially" distinct from terrorism), but if it comes up, I'll point them to your post. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

What @SpyMagician: said: "To publish the raw contents of his rambling fax would only elevate him and give him respect he does not deserve." News organizations have largely resisted releasing these types of manifestos or video messages in full, based on the principles of responsible speech. Journalists need to balance the public's interest and need to know versus the moral hazard of encouraging the next unhinged individual to get worldwide amplification of their message through the news media. Where is the line between "censorship" and "responsible speech?" It's not so clear. But you have to see there is a difficult equilibrium that has to be struck. A blanket policy of all information needs to be free all the time is too simplistic in cases like these. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@UnequivocalAmbivalence “I have to ask, do you feel now that the Unabomber is no longer a threat there is some moral obligation to remove his manifesto from the public record?” Specifically to this point, that is quite possibly the stupidest free-speech debate point I have ever heard. The Unabomber’s manifesto has already been printed. It is already a part of the public record. You cannot “remove” it anymore; it’s out there in it’s original form as well as copied versions from those original versions. To even attempt to remove it at this point decades later would only add more validity/weight to the importance of the manifesto by creating some conspiracy theory buzz; “Why get rid of it now? What is so important about it?” Also journalism has very little to do with just dumping raw source material on the public.

By nature journalism is a process of digesting facts and then reconstituting them into a format that is more easily digestible by the general public. Case in point: Many government records are free and easily accessible by the general public. But have you ever done your own taxes in the U.S.? The stuff can be incomprehensible even to the most intelligent of us. Journalists report the news; they do not just dump raw material. This case, I cannot conceive of anything in the rambling writings of a crazed murderer that the general public would benefit from. So having news agencies read it themselves and then pass along the best bits is the best way to go. And FWIW, the nutjob shooter clearly knew how to use the Internet, right? If he really wanted this junk read by the whole word he could have just uploaded his screed—maybe even in PDF format—to any number of online file sharing sites. So I have no worries about the content of this pile of junk being “suppressed” in any way. I am more concerned about paranoid conspiracy theorists applying far more depth to this shooters actions than need be. At the end of the day there is no complexity to this loons actions; and that is what needs to be at the forefront. Not the details of a rambling, hate mongering, justification seeking murderer’s logic where everyone else is blamed but himself. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Selective Reporting of the Note's Contents

I heard a brief reference on TV about a part of the suicide note referencing a "mental illness" history in his family. I found it frustrating to hear that without being able to see the context of that reference. The issue for me is not whether or not the suicide note should be available to the public but whether it should be cherry picked over by big media people and fed to the rest of us at their discretion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"“My issues arised after I was attacked by white females!! And black males!! ... most of my haters have been from these two groups. I have a right to be outraged!!!”

This quote, from Vester Flanagan, is taken from a recent New York Times article. Why is Misplaced Pages systematically suppressing the hate-crime aspect of this shooting? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/us/vester-lee-flanagan-grievances-homicidal-explosion.html 71.45.150.48 (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Because the shooter was a lunatic and lashing out at everyone and even claims that Jehovah told him to carry out these horrible murders. This is a “hate” crime in a sense that this guy was filled with hate. This was not a targeted attack just against “…white females!! And black males!”; it was just blind rage. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

So he said Jehovah told him to do it. Big deal, just sounds like he was religious, not insane. The Westboro Baptist church says "God hates Fags", do you deem them to be insane as well, and not indulging in hateful activity?

Flanagan stenciled the bullets he used with the names of the Charleston shooting victims. And was open in his desire to ignite a race war.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shooting-alleged-gunman-details-grievances-suicide-notes/story?id=33336339

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gunman-vester-flanagan-said-he-acted-in-response-to-charleston-church-shooting-10473642.html

Compare with the Misplaced Pages coverage of the Charleston shootings. The first paragraph has the words "race war", the second paragraph is about hate crimes and Roof's confederate leanings. Misplaced Pages's neutrality is being damaged by not having Flanagan's stated reasons more prominently mentioned in this article.

71.45.150.48 (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You can’t even sign your posts and you cannot even figure out how to properly add these details on your own, so please bark up another tree. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I made some valid and reasonable arguments. I'm still waiting to hear some valid and reasonable response that addresses why this article is blaringly silent on some uncomfortable (to certain people) aspects of this crime. Every other mass shooting is used to shine a spotlight on the sick minds of the perpetrators and their misguided ideologies, but I only hear crickets chirping on this one. 04:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I hear a guy on a soapbox, loud and clear. YouTube or Reddit could use another voice like yours. That's not even to say you're wrong, you're just in the wrong place. Instead of ranting about suppression and crickets, propose something for the article. Do you just want the words "hate crime" thrown into the lead? "Race war"? Should we blockquote that quote? Where's the beef? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

• SpyMagician, that is a rather dumb response; kindly lay off the personal attacks. IP, settle down. There is no systematic suppression. Whether this was or was not a hate crime can not be based on the killer's own rants (please don't call it a "manifesto"), nor should it be based on an editor's say-so ("it was just blind rage")--the IP's question needs to be taken seriously and it is, farther below. InedibleHulk, you also, please lay off the personal attacks. Also, InedibleHulk, can you please remove the wikilinking around the dates in your signature? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No can do on the signature, and I didn't attack anyone. I told someone what a talk page was for, trying to help make this a proper request. Can't start to find consensus until something specific is proposed. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

Well, you got a really stupid signature then. And "I hear a guy on a soapbox, loud and clear. YouTube or Reddit could use another voice like yours"--that's a personal attack. The IP knows very well where they are: on the talk page, discussing article content. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And not at all about how Misplaced Pages is censoring "the truth", eh? What do either of those Baptist churches have to do with anything? A little off-topic noise isn't bad, but when it's the overwhelming majority, that's a soapbox. And YouTube and Reddit are better suited to that. Talking about dumb responses and stupid signatures isn't getting any us any closer to improving the article, or understanding how the OP wants to change it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Kind of stunning how you are at one moment asking me to lay off perceived personal attacks and then the next directly requesting another user change their signature for what valid reason? Look, my response to 71.45.150.48 was based on the fact this IP user posed four comments in a row and is clearly looking to “hate harvest” his own pile of nonsense including accusing Misplaced Pages of potentially suppressing an anti-white “hate crime.” Such nonsense. People who have valid points make them. In the case of a tragic article like this, I don’t think anyone has time to deal with wingnuts popping out of nowhere claiming this/that/other about the supposed “real story” behind these actions. There is no depth here and there is no conspiracy. So please, back off. All of you. --SpyMagician (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

SpyMagician, you're kind of inexperienced, so I suppose you're not familiar with WP:DATELINK. It's alright, as long as you understand that (as an admin) I am perfectly in my right for someone to stick to guidelines. WP:SIGNATURE suggests we not clutter signatures with stuff, and this is clutter. I asked him nicely. You said that someone shouldn't be talking here if they couldn't even sign their messages--that's a personal attack. I'll be glad to post a template on your talk page, if you need me to. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The main coverage in media characterizes this as a case of workplace violence by someone with issues against just about everybody they encountered, but especially with that particular videographer and perhaps the reporter. This article describes the shooter as an "injustice collector" , rather like his role model Seung-Hui Cho who was similarly mad at everybody, and who prepared a media package blaming everybody. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Fun Fact: After the typical person kills someone, especially for the first time, guilt kicks in hard and cognitive dissonance creates all sorts of far-fetched reasons to make it go away. Especially when they precede a suicide, these perfectly natural defense mechanisms can look surprisingly like the ramblings of a lunatic, and probably don't reflect the mindset of the person they were before shit got real. Justifications after 6:46 should be taken with a grain of salt, horse's mouth or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:46, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

What everyone else said. Flanagan was a classic grudge farmer who tried hard to be offended by everything and everyone around him. Official discrimination bodies found no evidence to back up his complaints. The article should not play into Flanagan's hands by implying otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ 05:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Idiomatically speaking, things are pried from, not played into, cold, dead hands. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:17, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

He does openly state that his crime was motivated by hate, like Eliot Rodgers, so the Hate Crime category is appropriate for this article. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That's some dandy logic, but it's up to an authoritative source to make the same jump before it's appropriate. They decide, we report. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

You mean the shooter's manifesto isn't authoritative enough for you? It is for me. I'll take Mr. Bryce's word for it and classify his act as a hate crime. You would rather take someone else's word over his? Cla68 (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's not. It's a primary source from a broken man broadly accused of making stuff up since 2000. Herbert Mullin killed 13 people to save thousands from an earthquake, but he's not in Category:Earthquake and seismic risk mitigation. David Berkowitz isn't in Category:Human–animal linguistic communication despite the conversations with that dog allegedly causing 13 attacks. Best to leave determining criminal matters to people who are paid and trained to do so, not strongly biased killers.

And even if he somehow counts as a reliable source, his word was just "hate", not "hate crime". You putting two and two together is the original research problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

There has been a tendency for some commentators on the Internet and talk radio to try to portray Flanagan as a mirror of Dylann Roof, which the OP seems to be echoing. With respect to Flanagan, most sources have consistently drawn a distinction between motivation (rage against nearly everybody and particularly against co-workers) and justification (racial and sexual-preference discrimination), or to put it more broadly, grudge-farming. Roof's motivation and justification coincide, which is not the case here, at least as the main emphasis of reporting stands at the moment. I don't see a problem with reporting his justification, but we should not confuse it with or portray it as motivation. Acroterion (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

We will also never get the same kind of objective reporting as this is workplace violence fostered in journalism culture. It would require a level of introspection that the press is simply ill-equipped to deal with. This happens rather frequently though usually without as much trauma. They won't rub salt into wounds of colleagues, management, editors, owners, etc. Consequently, the focus of the coverage will always be what is wrong with Flanagan rather than what kind of environment pushed a gay, black man to kill two of his coworkers. Even the Charleston shootings led journalists to probe culture that displayed the confederate flag. Any other industry or company would be facing a lot more scrutiny of environment in addition to the scrutiny of the shooter. For example, what type of counseling did the station offer him? What kind anti-bullying/anti-harassment training did they have? After having him removed by police what other security precautions did they take? - They aren't equipped to ask those questions in an industry where networking and personal reqlationships exist so we will never see anything more than "deranged former employee." And there's nothing for Misplaced Pages to do about it as we rely on that coverage. --DHeyward (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's already in the article (not as a quote) and has been since the day of the shooting. I added it. It's a single point, though, not the only point. --DHeyward (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Taking the shooter's word for it seems unwise considering that he planned to murder people in a way that would attract the greatest amount of attention. A lot of theories, opinions and possible connections will appear even in reliable sources. When everybody is covering a story, there is a need to stand out by presenting something different from what's already been said. So, present the story as a comparison with other murders, look at it from the hate crime angle, link it to Colin Ferguson or the Ferguson unrest, and so on. It's necessary to sell the story. This article should contain what the news outlets are presenting with approximate unanimity.

For reference, under the law of Virginia, the appropriate charge would have been capital murder because more than one person was killed; the sentence is death or imprisonment for life. Virginia hate crime laws might apply to hate crimes against white people, but the state has no additional protection for anyone who is the victim of a crime just because they are heterosexual. Roches (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hate crime against heterosexual category

I notice that we have a category for hate crimes against LGBT, but not vice versa. The shooter's manifesto in this case mentions that he was lashing out at his straight co-workers because he felt they were persecuting him as a gay man. So, we probably should have it categorized as a hate crime against heterosexual people. Cla68 (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories should be uncontroversial and sourced within the article. The motive seems to have been a grudge caused by Flanagan's general wackiness rather than hatred of white people or heterosexuals.--♦IanMacM♦ 07:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no proof he was lashing out at them because they were straight. It was more he was lashing out at them because he felt discriminated against as a gay man, not because of his hate of straight people. Also keep in mind LGBT on straight violence is extremely rare and hardly needing of it's own category. Benbuff91 13:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Cla68 seriously suggesting that heterosexuals have a hate crime category? The fact that heterosexuals aren't a protected minority class excludes them from hate crime legislation. *face palm* --Cagepanes (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be interesting. I doubt reliable sources exist on the subject, but if they did you might have something. If not, you don't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Really? Please read Hate crime before supporting this ridiculous suggestion. --Cagepanes (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah not sure, they don't appear to have read the article they linked. Arkon (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Page incorrectly states reporter Alison did not see shooter Vester in the Flannigan point of view clip. It is clear 18 seconds into the video she gives him a quick glance, just before he calls her a bitch and raises the gun. Nhg10736 (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This is WP:OR because the media has not discussed the phone video in great detail. It is correct that Alison Parker appears to give the gunman a very quick glance at the 18 second mark, but it was not enough for her to see that it was Flanagan, or that he had a gun. I think that the wording in the article is broadly accurate, but other comments are welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ 10:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of stolen pictures

The pictures of the people are not rare so they shouldn't be stolen and be in the article. The freeze frame of the actual gun or shooting may be a rare exception, but that is not here. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Stolen" is looking for drama. They both have a properly written WP:NFCC template.--♦IanMacM♦ 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Anyways, I have uploaded smaller versions of both images to ensure WP:NFCC guidelines are followed correctly. I still believe that both of these images are within fair use guidelines. An admin can delete the previous larger versions as they are no longer in use.--♦IanMacM♦ 15:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• They cannot be in the info box. They can be inline with the text that describes the picture (i.e. official photo from their employer in the section about their employment.) NFCC rules are pretty clear and this is well settled. Also, it's more likely that a free image will be made available if people don't see one in the infobox. There are many photos of all parties.. --DHeyward (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay so put the picture in with their biographies. I feel it weirdly wrong for there to be a picture of Flanagan but not the victims. Benbuff91 13:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This needs a consensus, otherwise we are going to end up with edit wars and no pictures in the article at all, which would be a pity. Would anyone object to having the images as long as they were not in the infoboxes?--♦IanMacM♦ 18:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed both, and no, it doesn't need consensus. Infobox fair use fails our NFCC policy. It's the reason the Caitlyn Jenner infobox isn't the NFCC "fair use" Vanity fair cover. That article has a few NFCC pictures but the infobox, per policy, is free. --DHeyward (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This has happened before in articles about mass shootings and people have argued that a free image might be found. In practice, this rarely happens. I would argue in favour of removing the images only if an extensive search for free images of the same content had failed. Again, does anyone object to having the images outside the infoboxes?--♦IanMacM♦ 18:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. Benbuff91 14:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Prior discussion is not relevant as this is policy. Those images have context as the official station released images and they need to accompany the contextual description in the article regardless of whether a free image will be available. See WP:Non-free content#UUI. The image is released by the studio. The only appropriate place for that image is in the section where their employment is discussed. Depicting the person using fair use without context is not allowed, whence why wwe don't put them in infoboxes. They can go in the article but in the section where the source of the image gives it context. Note that it is the picture that is copyrighted, not the subject of the picture. It's the same rtionale as why we can't crop a rose out of a record album art and use it to depict a rose. The album art is what's protetcted, not what's depicted. Without context, these images cannot be used and the infobox doesn't provide context on the copyrighted image, it provides context on the subjects depicted in the image. --DHeyward (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, how about this as an image of Flanagan? It is more contextual, as it shows him, his Twitter profile, and the words "I filmed the shooting see Facebook" which is the most notable part of the case. TBH, I never really liked the infobox image of Flanagan with him grinning.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

there is no free images of these people, there will never be a free image of them because they are all dead. the images are copyrighted that's why it is used as "non free fair use" to identify the people involved. these people are no celebrities they are all local journalists I seriously doubt we will ever find a free image of them. these images are from their news station and are used through out the media to identify them so they are appropriate to use here. Redsky89 (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Never" is hard to prove, as one may turn up. Also, I agree that non-free images need sufficient context in the surrounding text to meet WP:NFCC#8. Infoboxes are not the best place for non-free images and they usually get removed at some point.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Media delays

Re this edit: I'm not sure if this has a great deal of WP:10YT notability; these delays have not picked up widespread media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ 16:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I was the editor who made the edits. I think it's worth noting, just to give people the idea of the zeitgeist at the time. We have a similar section about the entertainment's impact after the 2012 Aurora Shooting and we have a section in Modern Displays of the Confederate Flag about the reaction to the 2015 Charleston Shooting, which covers similar media events. I might agree that putting the section where it was may of been the wrong spot, but I do think it might be useful to have a "media reaction" or something of that nature. --Deathawk (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No doubt many TV shows were canceled or rescheduled after the Assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963, but it is not considered notable to list in detail what they were today. After a tragic event like the deaths of Parker and Ward, it is also slightly disrespectful to list U.S. TV shows and advertisements that were pulled. There would need to be major and lasting notability to do this, which the sourcing given did not provide. Also, please bear in mind that this shooting received worldwide media coverage, and most people outside the U.S. will not care about the media delays within the U.S.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: When you say, "it is also slightly disrespectful to list U.S. TV shows and advertisements that were pulled," it makes no sense to me. How is it disrespectful to say that shows were pulled? The shows were pulled to be sensitive to the public and to show respect to the victims and family. And 10 years from know, I think it'd be of immense value to sociologists or anyone interested in our mainstream pop culture and how this generation of folks reacted to this. I think @Deathawk: edits were just fine. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It is giving the impression that this was a major part of the shooting when it is not. Perhaps disrespectful is not the best word, but it is bordering on WP:POPCULTURE trivia on the basis of the sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ 20:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Perpetrator article split

I propose that the perpetrator section be parsed down and Williams' background be moved to an article about him specifically. He's worked at a number of news stations, modeled, and acted in some small bits. With a background in the public eye, there should be enough to split the article, and that section is too long. Much of the info doesn't even provide context for the shooting, ie: where he went to school, etc. Thoughts? --Cagepanes (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No, pare down his section. A lot is irrelevant. He doesn't need to be immortalized. When these nutcases start referencing each other, the less irrelevant details the better. I don't particularly care about his odd jobs, parents, upbringing, etc, etc. More harm than good comes from this. I really don't want the next one citing the make model and caliber of gun that they got from WP as the reason they picked it. Nor do I want some revenge nutcase finding his middle school and think he's solving a future problem. Get rid of the cruft. --DHeyward (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

But if there's enough coverage on him, and he's been in the news world, shouldn't he be getting his own article rather than us just paring this one? --Cagepanes (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

He's in the news solely because of the shooting. The fact that he didn't have a Misplaced Pages page before shows that he wasn't considered notable by Misplaced Pages standards before and that doesn't change just because he shot up a place. Furthermore people looking up info on him aren't interested in his career, they're interested in why he committed the crime. --Deathawk (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Crime-related articles
• High-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class Journalism articles
• Mid-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Start-Class Virginia articles
• Low-importance Virginia articles
• WikiProject Virginia articles
• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Requested moves