Talk:Charles Whitman/Archive 2

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 (speaker for the dead) 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? -- Crohnie Gal Talk  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. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  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 Wikipedia 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 (speaker for the dead) 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 [di-stawr-shuhn] 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.

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."
 * Discussion of Whitman's Motivation

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.

(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 Wikipedia, 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: Wikipedia 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:
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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)