Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:52, 23 February 2009

	Charles Whitman was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 29, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 17, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 9, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

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

Template:UTTalk Template:WPAustin United States: Texas This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. Template:WPCD-People

Archives

Archive 1

Introduction

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

Depiction

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

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

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

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

The box listings

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

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

Media distortion section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "Media Coverage Issues" would be a more neutral section title.

If you feel more comfortable with this title - change it - I have no objection.

• If an article suggests something is wrong, it needs to be supported by a source - especially if challenged. Is there no one that has publicly disputed Lavergne?

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

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

• I can make "the right deduction" about a sentence and still believe it needs to be sourced. Understanding the intent is a key part of reaching consensus.

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

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

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

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

Discussion of Whitman's Motivation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP's Tertiary Sources:

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

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

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

content: quoting Victor9876 above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you want to file a Request for Comment to bring in more fresh eyes, by policy you're always welcome to do so and I would wholeheartedly endorse it. As the old saying goes, "Many hands make light work." If I misunderstood and you're upset at the idea of more fresh eyes on the article, I'm afraid it's neither desirable nor possible to make any article an exclusive club. arimareiji (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing you, you're apparently afraid a lot. Let Jwy answer on his own.Victor9876 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer what? "Insult insult mock stop quoting policy la la la insult mock insult stop quoting rules insult chutzpah chutzpah demand demand, does this answer your concerns?" doesn't seem like much of a question. arimareiji (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Chutzpah!? Here, ] a, why don't you deal with what you know? I've reviewed a lot of your chatter in the "Self-Hating Jew" article, and it appears you have a great influence there. Once you are done there, you can move over to the Prophet Mohammad article, and educate the Muslims on the errors of their ways. You'll be a world peace maker, and revered around the world. This little article is way below your intellect and really not worthy of your wisdom. Go in Peace! Shalom!--Victor9876 (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Citation for psychological theory?

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

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

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

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

Third Outside opinion

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

• "When I interviewed Martinez he was a gentleman and personable, I had no reason to make judgments or doubt his character. Then I interviewed McCoy. McCoy's account differed." (Victor9876)
• "Lavergne has removed his site. Why? He has followers and watches for his critics. In this instance, he knows the truth has finally caught up with him and he removed the evidence. Don't worry, I can retrieve it and replace the links." (Victor9876)

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

• "So after a long legal battle with the City of Austin for McCoy, their own evidence turns on them for fighting McCoy for an earned Award I got for him." (Victor9876)

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

• "The City of Austin and the APD is at fault for this, not me. I am only the messenger, who has been shot by more Texans than Whitman ever could have been, and I mean that metaphorically. So if I seem bitter, I have just reasons." (Victor9876)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/*Who is the killer here?*/

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

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

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

You're welcome, no problem!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

break

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

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

Just checking - you seriously think it's "not a conflict of interest" to make statements like "So after a long legal battle with the City of Austin for McCoy, their own evidence turns on them for fighting McCoy for an earned Award I got for him." and "The City of Austin and the APD is at fault for this, not me. I am only the messenger, who has been shot by more Texans than Whitman ever could have been, and I mean that metaphorically. So if I seem bitter, I have just reasons." when these are about the topics the article addresses? arimareiji (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media Distortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to content

Template:RFCbio

This is the current state of one section of the article:

"A SNIPER IN THE TOWER"

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (February 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Gary Lavergne , in his 1997 book "A Sniper In The Tower", advances a lot of arguments about Whitman that breaks down to the non-scientific term "Evil", as to what and who Whitman was. Lavergne totally dismissed the tumor, the amphetamine abuse, the sleep deprivation and the personal issues Whitman was under at the time. As a response to criticism of the book, Lavergne published a page on his website called "Charles Whitman - Why Did He Do It?". The response also ran in the Austin American Statesman on August 1, 2006, the fortieth anniversary of the event. In the response by Lavergne he discredits those who disagree with him, while explaining that Whitman would be dead today and buried at Pecker Hill Burial grounds near Huntsville, Texas if the Death Penalty hadn't been abated a few years later in 1972, or that Whitman would be in prison today, serving a life sentence. Frank Rich, of the New York Times, in 1999, wrote an article in the Times praising the book, also charging Whitman as "Evil".

The facts are that the glioblastoma brain tumor would have killed Whitman within a year, and conceivably contributed to his actions on August 1, 1966, and goes against the Connalley Commission Report of 1966 as reported above.(see pgs. 10-11)

Prior to the Tower, Andrew Kehoe of Bath, Michigan in 1927, killed 45 people and injured 58. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7-12 years of age). Lavergne and other media publications have for years called the tower tragedy, "The Worst Mass Murder In American History".

1. http://www.garylavergne.com/
2. http://www.garylavergne.com/whitman-why.htm
3. http://www.garylavergne.com/Rich.htm
4. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1156220-overview
5. http://alt.cimedia.com/statesman/specialreports/whitman/findings.pdf

I believe it shows massive problems with WP:UNDUE wrt Lavergne rather than his book on Whitman, WP:Attack_page against Lavergne, WP:SYNTHESIS wrt "The facts are...", and WP:OR by setting itself up as a tertiary source to analyze Lavergne.

The following was proposed by another editor, and I concur that it would be an improvement (although I personally think "The extent of..." does not belong in this section; IMO the only reason for its original inclusion was as a rationale to justify the previous title of "Media distortion" for the section.):

Discussion of Whitman's Motivation

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

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

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

Your opinions on this and/or suggested modifications would be invaluable. arimareiji (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

This points to the key concerns I have in the case. Thanks. I will defer any further comments until we get more outside opinions. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You have done a good job on reducing the section Jwy and only a few suggestions are in order. 1.) You only use the tumor in the opening sentence - the word "these" in the second sentence needs to be changed to "this" since the example is singular and not plural. 2.) In regards to the tumor, the original autopsy by Dr. Chenar, characterized the tumor as an astrocytoma and not significant to the event. The Conally Commission, after reviewing the slides and brain matter after retrieving the brain for a thorough re-examination, found it to be a highly cancerous glioblastoma multi-forme, and "conceivably" could have contributedto his actions that day. ] Scroll down this source, and you will find a reference to the mortality rate of this type of tumor, as a one year median to death as of 2004. In 1966, medical advances were not to todays standards, nor the level of treatment options. This should be considered in the section, and even if the motality standards today are three years, Lavergne's assessment in 2006, could never have happened. 3.) As I wrote in the lead-in, there was no single "triggering" event. It was an accumulative issue. 4.) Another suggestion after re-reading your proposal, if you were to reverse the paragraphs and re-title the section to a consensus, I think the section would be fine.Victor9876 (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Since your objections have been the chief reason this RfC was needed, Victor, could you please clarify the exact wording changes you propose? arimareiji (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To Jwy, if you need any clarification, please feel free to ask me.Victor9876 (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking he did. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion was, since it seems relevant that the glioblastoma would have been fatal, that simple fact would nullify the assertions that Lavergne made. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be true if all the assertions Lavergne made were predicated on the assumption "because he would have lived more than a year." I don't believe they are. arimareiji (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not back to content

Since your objections have been the chief reason this RfC was needed, Victor, could you please clarify the exact wording changes you propose? arimareiji (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To Jwy, if you need any clarification, please feel free to ask me.Victor9876 (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking he did. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think you have a case for your terribly clever insinuation, feel free to waste time taking it to WP:SPI... elsewise it might be better to put a sock in it. Figuratively speaking. arimareiji (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion Wildhart, would be to report this guy for uncivil conduct re-re-re-re-peatedly. The etiqette page should show his propensity to deliberately antagonize a situation and Always have the last word, several times. Even BMW warned him to drop it, and here he is again.Victor9876 (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion, immediately, is that arimareiji explain the accusation he's just made or I will take it back to the etiquette board. Are you implying that I am a sock puppet of Victor's? If so, then just say so, take it to WP:SPI and have fun. In fact, I suggest that you do. And then I expect that you issue a wholehearted apology. I am not a sock puppet, I have made no accusations of sock puppetry regarding anyone on this page and arimareiji's post above is beyond bad faith, it is uncivil and contentious and is absolutely not acceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the most sadly-amusing thing I've read in a long time. I ask a question of Victor. Victor says he'll answer questions John asks. You assert "I'm thinking he did. :)"

I tell you to take your insinuations to WP:SPI or drop them. Victor suggests repeatedly reporting me, and you come up with a rationale... that I just accused you of being a sockpuppet. arimareiji (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked to explain your highly contentious and assaultive comment to me, and if I recall, you were also admonished to be civil. Again, either explain your sudden and unprovoked attack on me, or it will be taken to AN/I. If you were not accusing me of sock puppetry, then do bother to explain clearly what you meant, because you are not making yourself clear. I responded to Victor's statement by telling him that Jwy just did ask for clarification. What is wrong with you that you cannot respond in a civil manner? How about you quit being cryptic and explain your attack. For the record, I don't make insinuations, if I suspect someone of violating a policy, I am not afraid to say so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

John said earlier, "This points to the key concerns I have in the case. Thanks. I will defer any further comments until we get more outside opinions."

That's not a request for clarification by any stretch of the imagination.

On the other hand, I (not John) had just asked for clarification. Victor responded to my question by saying he would answer questions from John. You asserted that John "did" ask for clarification. WP:DUCK, you're insinuating I'm a sock of John.

It takes a lot of chutzpah to claim that my asking you to stop doing so is a "highly contentious and assaultive comment". arimareiji (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL!!!! Talk about not assuming good faith regarding this talk page discussion. I misread who asked for the clarification and when I saw Victor's response, I was only trying to remind him not to be difficult. That is exactly what happened. On the other hand, you immediately assumed I was making a - what did you call it? - "clever insinuation" about sock puppetry. Since you posted what, yes indeed, was a highly contentious and assaultive comment (ref: telling me to put a sock in it), that was indented under my comment that the glioblastoma would be relevant, your comment was bizarre and certainly seemed to me that you were accusing me of being a sock of Victor's. To assume I was subtlely implying something sinister seems kind of paranoid to me. Maybe it's time for you to once again, try assuming good faith and not fly off the handle to fire off such a response. It would most conducive to getting along if you had just asked what I meant instead of immediately assuming the worst. And again, for the record, if I suspect someone of being a sock puppet, I don't couch it as a "clever insinuation", I flatly say so. I've been around here a long time, I've seen Jwy a lot and I would never confuse his postings with yours intentionally. I've never seen him be assaultive in his dealings with anyone. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So... you would never confuse John with me. Except that you did. And told me to take back my "highly contentious and assaultive comment" to tell you to stop insinuating I'm a sock, which was a terrible "sudden and unprovoked attack."

And this had nothing to do with Victor's immediately-preceding "My suggestion Wildhart, would be to report this guy for uncivil conduct re-re-re-re-peatedly. The etiqette page should show his propensity to deliberately antagonize a situation and Always have the last word, several times." Got it. arimareiji (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No, dude. I said "I would never confuse his postings with yours intentionally." As I said, you seem incapable of assuming good faith in regard to this page and honestly, I'm tired of responding to this. I admitted I misread the original post. Period. I would have apologized, except you can't seem to be civil long enough, so one will not be forthcoming. Now, if you cannot reel back your sarcasm and try being at least a little bit civil, then maybe you have a problem. And if you can't let it drop and move on, then I will take it to AN/I. It was a misread post. It's over. Get over it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm stepping in Arima this one time and only this one time to speak to you directly. The genesis for my coming in was to speak to John and John only. I complimented him on his efforts and offered input. I was hoping for a reply from John, but you, as usual stepped in. I am not obligated to answer your questions. I choose to ignore, not duck, someone who, how did you put it, oh yeah, has "animus" for me. Any discourse between you and I are over. I will accept a consensus, I want nothing to do with you. That is personal, but not an attack. Some people just can not see eye to eye, and you and I are an example. Sometimes courtesy and team work is best when two opposed parties stay away from each other, that is my wish with you. You twist everything to what you want to see in black and white terms, with no shades of gray. I can not work with someone like that, so why try, given our history. You have not contributed one positive edit in the main article and have only been disruptive in this talk page. No need to retort, I have already anticipated your responses. Now, when John decides to respond to me directly or anyone else, they will have my ear. I will not respond to you in anyway or fashion, except this one time. History has shown me that it would only lead to further misinterpretations, or accusations of some rule breaking. So please, avoid me and stop refactoring what I have said, it was on point and a recommendation only.--Victor9876 (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You've been told repeatedly what is and isn't forbidden, Victor. Repeating what someone said isn't. Editing what someone said is. arimareiji (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving old material

Your archive was a very good edit, Wildhartlivie.
If there's agreement for it, it might be good to put MiszaBot in place with a 30-day expiry for comment threads. arimareiji (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The page was becoming hard for me to load. It would be extremely helpful if I could find the previous archives, but so far I haven't. They aren't listed under the usual names. I would suggest that it be a bit longer than 30 days. Considering how long some of the old content was extended, maybe 45 days. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No objections; I'm just a fan of having a bot do it regardless of how long the interval is. arimareiji (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly pertinent information: To my knowledge, MiszaBot archives based on when the last post occurred, not the first. I.e. a thread could have started in 2005 but still not be archived if it kept getting new posts. arimareiji (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

For John (Jwy) and Consensus

As the editor of the proposed change on the talk page, please review the suggestions and amend them as you see best or leave it as it is and post it to the article. For consensus purposes, all editors who approve, please post a yea below and sign, all editors who disapprove, please place a nay below and sign. Let's get on with other issues.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yea--Victor9876 (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What specifically are we supposed to vote on? When I asked previously, you refused to elucidate because you said you only want John to respond - but consensus means all involved editors. arimareiji (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To who ever cares, consensus means by majority, some editors can abstain if they want, by doing so, they accept the vote of the others.--Victor9876 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Vote of the others" (you, so far) for what specifically other than "I agree with Victor about something"?

(For reference, in case it ever gets changed: current wording is "As the editor of the proposed change on the talk page, please review the suggestions and amend them as you see best or leave it as it is and post it to the article. For consensus purposes, all editors who approve, please post a yea or nay below and sign. Let's get on with other issues.") arimareiji (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What is your agenda Ari? You continue to disrupt the discussion with bad faith interpretations, personal attacks, $20.00 words with bankrupt content, insinuations and comments intended to incite and continue edit-warring; after the WQA has been resolved. You have forced me to break my committment to dis-associate with you for the good of the discussion and article to allow others to have input, but when they come here, all they are going to see is an on going dispute and personality dispute. You brought this RfA, regardless of your stated reason. It's here. Now what do you expect, to come to a formal conclusion, so you and others can return to some sense of normalcy? As suggested earlier, place the content in the article and get on with your life. For purposes of further clarification - I believe the following is what you want to replace the "A Sniper In The Tower" section. Do it! Place it there and your Third Party Opinion has been met to your satisfaction. Anyone can edit it later anyway's so why belabor the issue and drag the issue on? Just Do It!

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

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

^ Gary M. Lavergne (August 1, 2006). "Charles Whitman: Why did he do it?". http://www.garylavergne.com/whitman-why.htm. Retrieved on February 2, 2009. ^ Frank Rich (September 25, 1999). "Journal; The Long Shadow of the Texas Sniper". New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02EEDF103FF936A1575AC0A96F958260. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Sniper-Tower-Charles-Whitman-Murders/dp/1574410296 ^ http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=68860

--Victor9876 (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Upon being prompted by User:Victor9876 to come look at the latest exchange, I'm posting my reply here. In contrast to your assertion of incivility and disruptiveness, I find no such thing above. In fact, the wording of this section screams "vote yes for my edit!". I'll even quantify that assertion, so there's no ambiguity here;

• "For John (Jwy) and Consensus" - Why primarily for Jwy? Should have been simply "Submitted for Consensus".
• "..all editors who approve, please post a yea or nay below and sign." - Translated, it reads like "heads I win, tails you lose". Again, shows a clear bias. Should have been "Could all editors reading this indicate whether we should add this or not?"
• "As the editor of the proposed change on the talk page, please review the suggestions and amend them as you see best or leave it as it is and post it to the article. For consensus purposes, all editors who approve, please post a yea or nay below and sign. Let's get on with other issues". - We know that you're the one submitting the change, no need to mention that. Further, this implies that the content gets posted in the article, regardless.
• THIS exchange is VERY problematic;

What specifically are we supposed to vote on? When I asked previously, you refused to elucidate because you said you only want John to respond - but consensus means all involved editors. arimareiji (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To who ever cares, consensus means by majority, some editors can abstain if they want, by doing so, they accept the vote of the others.--Victor9876 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• The way I'm reading the text above, Victor is suggesting that he wants JWY to respond, but other editors should abstain from voting, thereby affirming Victor's suggested content change(s). This is NOT acceptable.

When I asked you to come in Edit Centric, I asked you to review the whole discussion, not be selective as you were before, as in the WQA. I admit the wording to this section as you mentioned was problematic, and I have changed it to hopefully, not cause any further confusion, and reflect my original intentions. I was addressing JWY - the author of the proposed change for the article, not Arima. I did not write it and only made suggestions and gave information for Jwy to use to slightly change and correct the wording. Is that the SHENANIGANS you are referring to?!? If you would have gone through the whole process after the RfA, you may have noticed other problems that I was referring to. But no, like minds stick together and you sided with Arima, even though he points you in the right direction about what you are responding to, sans the remarks about your wife. Then you carry on with re-hashing the WQA. Go back to your breathing excercises and coffee.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so that everyone knows, I also have my own "3O" process here, in that if I feel I may be reading something wrong, I get my spouse to read it also, and give me her thoughts. If she says I'm reading something wrong, I'm open to that. In this case, it was her that came up with the "heads I win, tails you lose" analogue...(She's truly 3O, not even a Wikipedian. Her thing is Cafe Moms...) Edit Centric (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

In Victor's defense, I think that a few hours after he posted to your (EC's) page, he tried to simplify the matter by saying that he was giving up opposition to John/Jwy's proposed edit. This would have more-or-less resolved the matter. My apologies, I was almost entirely busy elsewhere, at work, or asleep between then and now.

The only reason I'm not sure is the sentence "Anyone can edit it later anyway's so why belabor the issue and drag the issue on?" This could be construed as "I'll just go back and undo it later"; I would like to think that's not true. If you can confirm that, Victor, I'll happily cross-post the first three sentences of my post (minus "I think that") to EC's talk page. out. arimareiji (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted. The few minor foibles left over could be summed up as follows;

• Again, please don't break the conversation track by insertion and refactoring. The flow should go like this:

• A comments.

• B Responds.

• A Replies.

• B Replies.

Also, if you're going to use HTML or other mark-up inside your entries, please close the tag! Open wakka, fwd slash, mark-up, close wakka. (Open-ended tags tend to interfere with everything after them.) The ONLY tags that you should be leaving open are things like line breaks (open wakka, br, close wakka) and horizontal rules (open wakka, hr, close wakka).

I won't turn this into a treatise on how to write HTML, there's already literally hundreds of these out on the web. Edit Centric (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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