Talk:Charles Whitman/Archive 4

Jwy's Opposition to changes in article
I am not inclined to revert the edits. All I did was post a few issues to establish that an author who writes a book about a particular person in history, and renders medically opposing opinions that go against established professional doctors, needs to be clarified for the uninitiated reader. Since Lavergne has written the only book on Whitman and reviewed the medical records during his research phase, it should be pointed out that as an author, who does not have a medical degree, can arbitrarily dismiss previous medical findings by a panel of doctors, who are experts in their fields.--Victor9876 (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well. I went to the library and took the time to actually read the report and LaVergne's opinion piece. (LaVergne stated an opinion--it appeared in the EDITORIAL pages of the Austin American Statesman.) In their report, those doctors never concluded that the tumor caused Whitman's rampage. The "conceivably" quote is part of a discussion, not a conclusion, and it was in the context of it being improbable, not probable. In fact, the commission CONCLUDED that "Without a recent psychiatric evaluation of Charles J. Whitman, the task force finds it impossible to make a formal psychiatric diagnosis." It is on page 11. It is interesting that for all of the discussion of the "Connally Commission" (which they never called themselves), no one has ever quoted the actual conclusion of the report. I wonder why? The truth is that the doctors didn't know then and no one knows now why Whitman did what he did. Furthermore, in the cited Austin American Statesman editorial LaVergne wrote, he said "I maintain, that no one knows, with absolute certainty, why Charles Whitman became a mass murderer." The Commission and LaVergne agree more than they disagree because they both engage in discussion and then come to the same conclusion--no one knows for sure why that happened. The discussion of this has been less than honest. At present, this article misrepresents both the task force report and LaVergne's opinion. It appears to be little more than an attempt to smear LaVergne. Snipercraft (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you needed to go to the library to read the report, it is available from a reference link in the Whitman article here. I fail to see how what is written smears Lavergne in any way. You will just have to go through this paragraph and point out to me how any of it is smearing:
 * In his 1997 book "A Sniper In The Tower," Gary Lavergne, in a non-medical opinion, dismisses the tumor and Whitman's personal issues as sufficient causes for his actions, arguing he was in control of his actions and concluding he could not have successfully pleaded insanity had he lived. In Lavergne's statements, 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), which goes against the medical findings of the Connally Commission's Report of August 8, 1966.[30] 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."
 * You'll also need to address these questions:
 * 1. Is Lavergne a doctor so that his opinions would be medical opinions?
 * 2. Would a routine psychiatric diagnosis render a diagnosis of brain tumor?
 * 3. Did his book dismiss the tumor and Whitman's personal problems as causative?
 * 4. Did his book say Whitman was in control of his actions and couldn't have pled insanity?
 * 5. Did his book state that Whitman would have been found guilty and sentenced to death?
 * Those are the points addressed in regard to Lavergne. If any of those points are in error, please point them out with a reference to the error. Finally, please explain how the article misrepresents either the Commission report (which is not called the Connally report in the article, it is referred to as it is because it was the report from the commission created by Connally). Finally, it would quite helpful if you explain whether you are associated in any way with Lavergne.


 * I'm not entirely sure what your point is about the results of the commission report. The commission was created to examine the evidence about Whitman and arrive at conclusions about it. Those conclusions would be the resulting opinions. There is no one conclusion, the report, which I am looking at right now, has a list of conclusions, prefaced by "The review of behavioral data received in confidence led to the conclusions that:
 * It is the opinion of the task force that the relationship between the tumor and Charles Whitman's actions on the last day of his life cannot be established with clarity. However, the highly malignant brain tumor conceivably could have contributed to his inability to control his emotions and actions.
 * There is no discussion of probable vs. improbable. It is presented as a possible cause and effect. Brain tumor --> inability to control emotions and actions. Inability to control emotions and actions + high susceptibility to stress --> response. The only question remaining is whether Lavergne dismissed that conclusion and said Whitman was in control. If he did, then there is no misrepresentation, except when you say that the last of the report's 12 points of conclusion is the conclusion. That a psychiatric diagnosis wasn't possible does not preclude a medical diagnosis being concluded as a factor in a pattern of behavior. Please don't cloud the issue this way. I'm quite interested in hearing your responses on this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My concerns of WP:OR and WP:NPOV remain - although it is not as blatant now. While it does not come out and say it directly, it is indicating "commission right, Lavergne wrong" (the editor's strongly held opinion), which is not sourced.  And if Lavergne is such a bad source, why are we mentioning him here? (John User:Jwy talk) 16:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And my concerns Jwy, with the resurrection of Snipercraft, and your appearance at essentially the same time, is that there is a suspicious association between you two, as there has been in the past. All in regards to "protecting" Lavergne in one form or another. Wildhartlivie above, addresses the article paragraph quite adequately. There is no smear campaign going on against Lavergne, he wrote the book and the Op-Ed piece that appeared in the Austin American Statesman, as Snipercraft states, he/she has read them both, let's wait and see how Snipercraft responds, before invoking another round of debate - even though I personally see no need for one. Nothing is out of context, everything is referenced, and it is Lavergne's opinions, and the medical opinions of the Connally Report, that are at odds; both in the public domain.--Victor9876 (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no association between me and Snipercraft. I have no connection with Lavergne.  The closest I have been to anything in this issue has been tourist visits to the campus (and a UT football game).  The trigger for me to pop in this time were your changes to the paragraph we discussed previously.  I suspect Snipercraft was similarly triggered.  There is no contact outside WP.  Unfortunately, that is not something I can get you to believe by discussion.  But there is some hope that we can resolve content issues by discussion, so let's assume s/he and I are not connected and see if by discussion we get somewhere.
 * Wildhartlivie, in her carefully thought and reasonable response does not address the OR or NPOV items - or am I missing something. I am still willing to accept the fact that I might be over-applying the OR and NPOV guidelines, but I have not yet seen an independent opinion on the matter that suggests I am. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are still looking to invoke WP:SYNTH as well as OR and NPOV. I still maintain, against your previous attempts that WP:Ignore All Rules (if your point can not be made otherwise), and Common Sense, which is shown in the construction of the article paragraph. An independent opinion could prove or disprove the Big Bang Theory, but they wouldn't necessarily be more or less correct, than having the actual evidence we do with the Commission Report and Lavergne's own words in his Op-Ed.--Victor9876 (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not expecting a third party to determine if the information it true or not, just whether it is appropriate to have it here in Wikipedia as you are putting it. In all the "discussions" last month, I discovered WP:NOR/N, which is exactly the third opinion I was looking for.  I will post this issue there and abide by their response. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, and none of it addresses my point. The Commission, whether in a medical opinion or not, whether you cite the "conceivable" sentence or the "no diagnosis" sentence, said they didn't know why Whitman murdered and maimed so many people. Contrary to what is said above, and whether he is a doctor or not, LaVergne said he didn't know either and that no one knows for certain why Whitman did it. There is no controversy anywhere except for this page, and it is manufactured. Where else is a disagreement between LaVergne and the Commission discussed? Not in any book, newspaper or magazine article. Nowhere. This is rank POV and Synthesis. Second, JWY is correct, if LaVergne is such a bad source then why is he mentioned at all? And if he should be mentioned, why aren't others with the same opinion mentioned? Before LaVergne's book came out, James Alan Fox, the Dean of Criminal Justice of Northeastern University, in his book MASS MURDER: AMERICA'S GROWING MENACE, dismissed the tumor. And after LaVergne's book, John Douglas, the FBI's premier profiler, said the same in his book, ANATOMY OF MOTIVE. Why not mention them? Again, this is a manufactured issue. Snipercraft (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why write a lengthy book about the unknown? Idle time? Doodling between jobs? An interest in the unknowable? Your point appears to have many facets to it. You don't even respond to Wildhartlivie's points as to why the article entry should stand. I talked with James Alan Fox about the tumor and he admitted it could have had an effect. What I think you know is - writers do research sometimes and rely on newspaper accounts that have errors in them, as the media did in 1966. False information was given to the press by agencies to get rid of the press so they could get rid of them. The original autopsy was in error, the Connally Commission corrected the error, after the press released the false information. Lavergne purposely put the original information in the book, as well as the Commissions findings up to, but not including the HOWEVER section. A complete disregard for complete information. Lavergne did not work for the University as he wrote the book - but he was immediately hired after the publication of the book. There's no manufacturing here - the manufacturing was done in Austin, by interested parties and institutions. Lavergne wrote a book devoted to Whitman, the other authors, just throw Whitman into the stew. Their not regarded as experts on Whitman as Lavergne is. You claimed to come from law enforcement, what branch, maintenance?--Victor9876 (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'll answer specifically regarding OR and NPOV. That Gary Lavergne wrote the only book dedicated to the Whitman shootings is true, and he did come to some conclusions that opposed what the Commission concluded. That it is a fairly well-known book adds credibility to it, and makes it more relevant and valid to mention. It also is relevant to mention that TV specials have been made based on and about Lavergne's book, so I don't think that bringing the same up in the article is POV. I don't see a need to explore where Lavergne and the Commission agreed, that would be redundant. At one point, I thought the last part of the section was a little biased against Lavernge, and I believe I had told Victor that. I don't think that it is now. Contrary to what some have thought, I don't blindly support Victor, but I usually tell him in less public ways than on an article talk page - either on his talk page or in email. In email, I tell him more strongly than I would here.

I don't share Victor's concerns about Jwy and Snipercraft, although I do have concerns about Snipercraft, about which I asked above. I also have concerns about what Snipercraft states above, mostly because the Commission report covered far more extensive material and had a wider focus than just whether a psychiatric diagnosis was possible. No one would make a post-mortem psychiatric diagnosis with an absence of pre-mortem psychiatric examination, not in the 1960s and not in 2009. Since Lavergne's book covered points from the Commission report with which he disagreed, I don't consider it OR to state where the divergence occurs. From my memory, that is squarely in realm of whether the tumor had an effect on Whitman's behavior and self-control and to what extent. I will say that the next statement I make is my own OR/knowledge. Specific types of brain tumors most certainly can have an effect on the behavior of an individual, on how they handle stress and personal issues, on their impulse control, and indeed, whether a combination of factors can lead to violence. It can even lead to very faulty thinking processes and increase and heighten paranoia and rage. So, yes, I think it is valid to address where the opinions and conclusions of the assumed leading authority on Whitman differ from a panel of experts whose sole job was to analyze the events and arrive at conclusions over physical health, mental health, the resources available at the time both for intervention with a disturbed individual and for the community around him. I don't think the section needs any more content or expansion and I don't think it is OR or POV.

However, I would take out one phrase from the paragraph, and that is because it is beside the point. That would be "only to be reprieved as a result of the Supreme Court's Furman v Georgia decision". I find that oddly placed and not really relevant to what the courts would or would not have decided had Whitman lived to go to trial. Hopefully I've addressed your concerns from my viewpoint, Jwy.

I had two edit conflicts as I was writing and thus just now read what Snipercraft had posted. I addressed part of that above. The fact is, the commission had a broader goal than to determine why Whitman did what he did. Determining a diagnosis wasn't the goal, examination of everything they could study was the means by which they arrived at 12 specific conclusions. Snipercraft, you misrepresented the commission report when you said it had one conclusion. That just isn't true. Meanwhile, the overwhelming question to me that he pointedly ignored was whether he is or was associated in any way with Lavergne. I find it interesting that the only edits on Wikipedia he has made has been to this article and Lavergne's. If so, then there would be a possible COI in his protests. It was a valid question when he popped up suddenly before, and it is a valid question now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wildhartlivie is right about our disagreements, and I have one here in regards to removing the Furman v GA decision. It goes to Lavergne's possible belief that Whitman could have miraculously survived the glioblastoma, which supports the misguided research used for the book! --Victor9876 (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How does that factor in? Did the book say that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He (Lavergne) only mentioned the tumor under Dr. Chenar's original autopsy, as not having any connection with his actions. That autopsy was done on August 2, 1966 and the tumor referred to as an Astrocytoma (with necrosis), the Commission was assembled and their report came out on August 8, 1966. However, Lavergne read the Commissions Report and mentions the Commission found no relationship to the tumor and his Whitman's actions in the book.--Victor9876 (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just checked the source again, "Why Did He Do IT", and Lavergne mentions the tumor in as much as Dr. Chenar did. Without the Necrosis. Apparently to Lavergne an Astrocytoma grade 1, is the same as a grade 4 Glioblastoma, forget the two and three levels. As a Doctor, Lavergne would probably treat Pneumonia as the Common Cold, what difference does it make, sick is sick, take an aspirin and get over it. Sorry about the characterization, but lavergne doesn't believe McCoy has PTSD either and he interviewed him before I did.--Victor9876 (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, my question is "what does the Furman v. GA decision have to do with Whitman having been capable of standing trial and receiving a death sentence if he hadn't been killed?" Whether or not the tumor was causative hasn't anything to do with whether the death sentence would have been overturned 6 years later. The paragraph has to do with the Commission findings re: Whitman's culpability v. Lavergne's conclusion about it. What happens later isn't important to that, any more than if he were executed or if the tumor killed him. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at. Either way is fine with me. Still, knowing Whitman would have been dead before the Supreme Court decision, goes to the research question.--Victor9876 (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit break
Again. The Commission Report ("conceivably" and "no psychiatric diagnosis"), LaVergne ("no one knows with absolute certainty", and now James Allan Fox ("I talked with James Alan Fox about the tumor and he admitted it COULD have had an effect." ) all agree--they don't know with certainty why Whitman did what he did. And again, I repeat my challenge to cite a source, outside of this page, that shows a "debate" or even discussion of LaVergne's alleged disagreement with the Commission--you can't because it is nowhere to be found. It is OR, POV and WP:Synth at its worse. Either these Wiki rules are meaningful or not. The preceding entries, some of which are libelous, make it clear who is motivated to be fair and who isn't. As I recall the article's section in question has already been reviewed by outside editors. The notion that there is a debate or controversy of any kind between LaVergne, Rich, and the Commission is just wrong. We should revert to the original edits after that independent review or have other senior editors review this discussion page, yet again, and determine who is fair and who is driven by hatred. Snipercraft (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, Snipercraft, hatred? Disagreement isn't hatred. But you have failed to answer the very specific questions that I have asked you in two posts above. What on earth do you think that paragraph is about?? Have you even bothered to read what was posted? The very first question that you really need to answer is whether you are associated with Lavergne in any capacity? This is the third time you have been asked. The next thing you need to answer are the questions I asked in direct response to your claim that the paragraph smears Laverge. You need to clarify what is smearing in the paragraph. I'll even repeat the part of the posting asking the questions:


 * You will just have to go through this paragraph and point out to me how any of it is smearing:
 * "In his 1997 book "A Sniper In The Tower," Gary Lavergne, in a non-medical opinion, dismisses the tumor and Whitman's personal issues as sufficient causes for his actions, arguing he was in control of his actions and concluding he could not have successfully pleaded insanity had he lived. In Lavergne's statements, 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), which goes against the medical findings of the Connally Commission's Report of August 8, 1966.


 * You need to address these questions:
 * 1. Is Lavergne a doctor so that his opinions would be medical opinions?
 * 2. Would a routine psychiatric diagnosis render a diagnosis of brain tumor?
 * 3. Did his book dismiss the tumor and Whitman's personal problems as causative?
 * 4. Did his book say Whitman was in control of his actions and couldn't have pled insanity?
 * 5. Did his book state that Whitman would have been found guilty and sentenced to death?


 * Those are the points addressed in regard to Lavergne. If any of those points are in error, please point them out with a reference to the error. Finally, please explain how the article misrepresents either the Commission report or Lavergne's book.

And just to reiterate, there is a difference between a medical diagnosis, which is possible to make after death through autopsy, and a psychiatric diagnosis, which is not. The committee was not expected to produce a psychiatric diagnosis, they were required to examine the evidence from the event and draw conclusions about the event as a whole. I thought I explained that quite clearly. It's quite professional to state that a tumor could conceivably cause an inability to control one's actions and emotions or state that a tumor could have an effect. No one is saying that it all happened because of a tumor. A panel of medical professionals rendered an opinion that said that it is possible that it was a contributing factor. Now, did Lavergne dispute the possibility that a tumor could have an effect or he did not? It's very simple to respond to these questions, starting with whether you are associated with Lavergne. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Snipercraft, you wrote this, "The notion that there is a debate or controversy of any kind between LaVergne, Rich, and the Commission is just wrong." Why is a notion wrong, given the evidence? I know exactly why Whitman went up in the tower but Wiki rules prevent me from saying it here. Having said that, it goes against your acceptance of Lavergne's premise that "no one can say with absolute certainty...", Lavergne uses an all inclusive statement, as a matter of fact, he is programming the reader to accept his premise, and you bought it. If I know with an absolute certainty, why Whitman did what he did, that would contradict Lavergne. For Lavergne to omit the HOWEVER, and the opinion of the Connally Commission about the highly cancerous tumor, is a contradiction itself. That's all the paragraph is saying. What is the big deal?--Victor9876 (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie's input

 * That's a very good question. My take on it is that Snipercraft thinks that Lavergne and the Commission organized to investigate the killings did not disagree. He keeps asserting that the conclusion of the report was ""Without a recent psychiatric evaluation of Charles J. Whitman, the task force finds it impossible to make a formal psychiatric diagnosis." although the fact is that the Commission's report gave 12 separate points of conclusion, not one. pages 10 and 11. The statement about not making a formal psychiatric diagnosis is one of the points, but there are 11 others. One of them is:


 * It is the opinion of the task force that the relationship between the tumor and Charles Whitman's actions on the last day of his life cannot be established with clarity. However, the highly malignant brain tumor conceivably could have contributed to his inability to control his emotions and actions. As I noted above, the commission presents it as a possible cause and effect. Brain tumor --> inability to control emotions and actions + no other stressors --> no response. Inability to control emotions and actions + high susceptibility to present stress --> response. They don't conclude that the tumor made Whitman do it, but they do conclude that it was a possible factor.


 * On the other hand, Lavergne said "Anyway, I ultimately concluded... that “[Whitman’s] actions speak for themselves.” Any cause-effect theory, whether organic (brain tumor), chemical (amphetamine psychosis), or psychological (military training or child abuse), embracing the idea that Charles Whitman’s judgment or free will was impaired, is not consistent with what he did."


 * Snipercraft basically claims because the paragraph notes the disparity between the Commission report and Lavergne's conclusion that it is smearing Lavergne. However, he hasn't, to now, explained how the paragraph does that. He seems to me to believe that because the Commission couldn't determine a psychiatric diagnosis, that there was nothing abnormal going on with Whitman according to Lavergne. It just isn't that simplistic. Lavergne rejects any condition, be it medical or psychiatric, that would have an effect on Whitman's actions. It is a fairly "eye for an eye" approach that does totally discount the effects of a tumor. That soundly is in disagreement with the Commission report, which on the one hand didn't say "the tumor made him do it", but also does not discount that the tumor, an organic brain disease, might have been a factor. The effects of organic brain dysfunction are hard to discern and sometimes less difficult to understand. No one disagrees that one cannot definitively and conclusively state that we know specifically what made Whitman do it, but the one author, a layman, who has written a book and is considered well-versed in the case conclusively states he knows what did not. It's a logic issue at heart. One cannot logically state that the cause can't be known and at the same time say that something wasn't the cause. That his book is the only source devoted entirely to Whitman is a reason it should be covered in the article; but his book is also the reason why this disparity in conclusion should be covered.


 * I think that what is more concrete from the Commission report is in one of the final recommendations, which greatly addresses the "did the tumor have anything to do with this?" question. Recommendation #4 says This case is a dramatic indication of the urgent need for further understanding of brain function related to behavior, and particularly violent and aggressive behavior. With sufficient knowledge in this area, logical approaches to correction of abnormal behavior can be pursued. The Commission could not rule out the effect of the tumor upon brain functioning and the effects thereof. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Snipercraft's input
I'm off on a case and will be out for a few days, but I wanted to say that I am glad this is going to some kind of independent review. So I submit this as a summary of my views. I am confident that JWY will be fair to my point of view (POV). Which is all that this is--on both sides. A review of the long discourse above clearly shows that 1) statements like "It is the opinion of the task force that the relationship between the tumor and Charles Whitman's actions on the last day of his life cannot be established with clarity. However, the highly malignant brain tumor conceivably could have contributed to his inability to control his emotions and actions.'' from the report clearly show that the Commission did not know why Whitman did what he did. The word "conceivably" could not be used for any other purpose. 2) in the essay cited Lavergne writes that "My views are not as rigid as they may sound. I accept the limitations of my conclusions... I maintain, that no one knows, with absolute certainty, why Charles Whitman became a mass murderer." 3)there is no substantive or material difference between #1 and #2. 3) The section of the Whitman article that this deals with (which we've seemed to stray from) is about LaVergne--not Whitman, and even if the section remains there are dozens of others who have been published who have written the same thing about the tumor, namely James alan Fox, and John Douglas. There is no reason for LaVergne to be singled out. I merely ask why is he being singled out. 4) It is remarkable to me that anyone thinks they know how long Charles Whitman would have lived if he had been taken alive. Some people have tumors and live and other have tumors and die. No one knows how long he would have lived. This is another "we don't know." And finally, the long discourse above against LaVergne (which seems fanatical at times) and his book above is interesting, but those who feel that way should write their own book--that is a proper medium--not a Wikipedia article. I doubt that such a book will ever see the light of day because those ideas will every be taken seriously by any responsible publisher. But a book to rival SNIPER IN THE TOWER is still the way to go. And finally, the review group needs to confront a single issue, and that is whether the wise WP rules on POV and WP:SYNTH are meaningful or not. Almost all of the discussion here falls into both categories, there can hardly be better examples of both, including my comments, but I'm not asking for my comments to be in the article. Indeed, the section of the article involving the errorneous interpretation of both the Commission report and LaVergne's editorial should be removed or edited dramatically. See you later.Snipercraft (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I forgot to add. The bulk of the long comments above are not supported by sources nor do they appear in literature anywhere. The only controversy between LaVergne, Rich, Fox, and Douglas and the Commission Report is on this page--it is manufactured. There is also strong evidence that much of this discussion is driven by Original Research (OR). Again, Wiki editors are faced with a simple task. Are rules governing OR, POV, WP:SYNTH, basic fairness and a regard for the truth meaningful--or not.Snipercraft (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

NOR/N
Victor (is that the appropriate name?) asked that I post what the procedure for the NOR noticeboard was. I haven't seen an "official" description of it, but it appears that we write a paragraph summarizing the dispute at WP:NOR/N and various people who have studied this kind of thing and are aware of the general consensus here will comment on our difference of opinion. I'm a bit worried at the moment that someone coming to the page might have difficulty sorting it all out. Perhaps the best way would be for us to work together to have a clear summary of what we believe the key differences are and then post it over there. I'm REALLY tired right now, so it will have to wait until tomorrow because I want to do it right, but I will try to post a neutral description of the issue for your comments. Feel free to start now if you like. But maybe keep that discussion here in this separate section and try (very hard!) not to continue the content argument or attack/accuse each other, but try to identify the key points that we disagree about in the NOR/SYNTH area. Other issues, if they exist, should be identified as well to make sure others can understand what is going on, but the NOR/N people will want to concentrate on the NOR/SYNTH issues. What would you say we are disagreeing about? (John User:Jwy talk) 04:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the copious thoughts on this. I'll try to summarize - but it will take a bit o' time.  Give me until Sunday night? (John User:Jwy talk) 17:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * John, I have a major issue with the way that Snipercraft completely and totally avoids answering the very direct question I have asked him 3 times, as well as the other specific questions I posed regarding his claim that the paragraph smears Lavergne. I think it is totally germane to the issue at hand as to whether Snipercraft is associated with Lavergne, yet he will not answer that question. I don't think that the issues he raises can be addressed without his responding. I believe my comments are valid and logical (I know that they are valid regarding the distinction between medical and psychiatric diagnoses and their pertinence to the case and the reports.), and are not fanatical. Victor is correct in that assessment - it is almost a personal attack. How can one stir the pot and disappear again? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I try to focus on content discussions and try to ignore (not always successfully) other issues. In a summary here, I will mention this item, but at the same time it makes sense to understand any valid objections that might come from that quarter.  It would be best if all was stated and out on the table, but even if it is not, we need to deal with valid stuff that is there - just make sure we keep it in mind and have several grains of salt.  (On a similar note, it would be good if Victor were to announce his old id on his user page - I believe he mentioned having lost a password a while back - for complete openness, but its not necessarily important to the content discussions now). (John User:Jwy talk) 07:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the problems I had in trying to respond to what Snipercraft said was that he kept coming back over and over to the point that the commission couldn't assess a psychiatric diagnosis in their review, which it seemed to me made him conclude that the tumor couldn't have had a effect on Whitman's behavior, which is what Lavergne said. One does not particularly have anything to do with the other. That's why I kept "harping" on it - whether Whitman had a psychiatric diagnosis isn't germane to a tumor, necessarily, although a tumor can (and I'm not saying it did or didn't) result in symptoms that mimic psychiatric issues. I know a lot about psychiatric diagnoses and the effects of organic brain disease and he simply did not make sense regarding that. The other point he kept coming back to was that the commission came to one conclusion, when that was absolutely incorrect, if one reads the report linked in one of the references. There were 12. I'm bothered that he wouldn't address what he felt was a "smear" to Lavernge when I asked directly. The report and what Lavergne wrote absolutely are not in agreement in all aspects. Maybe they agreed more than they disagreed about some points, but not in others. I'm not clearly sure why a college administrator would be more knowledgable about medical problems and their unclear effect upon behavior and thought processes, but the bottom line is that a team of individuals including ones skilled in that area did say the tumor conceivably have had an effect on Whitman's actions. They didn't say it did, but they did say it could. Lavergne says it did not. Lavergne wrote a book dedicated to that proposition, that Whitman was quite sane and focused on what he was going to do and denied there was anything wrong that could have propelled that or was impetus for his thought processes. It just isn't that cut and dried. Doctors and psychiatrists are often stymied about such issues - people with brain tumors have been incorrectly diagnosed with psychiatric issues before the tumor is discovered. They affect thought processes - causing paranoid and psychotic thinking, and behavior quite often. It may not be easy to see by lay people, but it does happen. Anyway, it's frustrating not to get the answers to the questions I asked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Jwy wrote / "Victor (is that the appropriate name?) / (On a similar note, it would be good if Victor were to announce his old id on his user page - I believe he mentioned having lost a password a while back - for complete openness, but its not necessarily important to the content discussions now)".


 * There is a pattern I see developing Jwy, it appears I am to be the focus of how the paragraph is written and you are going to try and show that I have an agenda against Lavergne. If you want "complete openness", as I also would prefer, then post your real name and vitae here and I will do likewise. Personally, I really do dislike this "phantom" moniker scenario of WP, but it is a part of the system, with it all of it's faults and benefits. You first - after verification, then me. Deal? --Victor9876 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking for your "real" identity and I support editor's rights to privacy. I think it clear you have a strong opinion about Lavergne.  Even if it is agenda, I'm okay with it as long as what is in the article is appropriate.  Knowing your strong opinion makes me more vigilant about NOR, NPOV and SYNTH, but I feel I have to deal with the content and not you.  That's why opinions of those who have not had the "exciting" discussion we have been involved in would be good:  to ensure I am not over-reacting.
 * That said, I had intended phrases to address different ends: First, I only asked if Victor was an appropriate name as I find Victor9876 a little awkward as an address and was asking if it was okay if I used simply Victor - not if it was your "real" name.  Also, I have mentioned that "John" is a fine address for me and its weird to be regularly called Jwy (if was available, I would have used John as the id).  Second, the parenthetical mentioning of your old id was in response to Wildhartlivie and her questions about Snipercraft's personal connection with the topic.  To some degree, that is a distraction and not a content issue we could discuss here.  Pursuing your old id might also be considered a distraction - although I think it is usual here to make clear those "previous lives."  Perhaps I should not have brought it up.  It IS distracting.
 * The recent discussion about differing opinions on the actual content of the sources has thrown a monkey wrench into my hopes of a simple summary for NOR/N, but I will try. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take you at your word. Although I have not seen any other Victor's on this page or the article, as well as a request for "past life input". I am curious about your "monkey wrench" remark and the necessity of continuing a pursuit, after Wildhartlivie exposed the very contrasts with her input. They are logical, and follow protocols that are both in the medical community as well as the Encyclopedic community. Lavergne can't have it both ways, and his assessments damage rather than promote a clearer understanding of Whitman, who is the article subject.--Victor9876 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I will use "Victor" then, since you don't seem to object. I think I mentioned once the "past life" once, but didn't make a big deal of it. That was my point. Its not that critical, at least as I currently see. Sorry I brought it up. As to "continuing a pursuit," I am simply doing what I said just above, attempting to summarize the disputes so we can get a handle on them appropriately. The "monkey wrench" was simply that I thought that it was agreed that the two sources were reasonably represented in the paragraph and the only issue was whether the facts therein were "synthesized" or not. Snipercraft seems not to agree on the content point, so the disagreement is more complicated than I originally anticipated. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Jwy's summary
Actually, not that difficult to summarize the issues. Much easier than it will be to resolve them, but I hope a useful step on the way. Please don't use this section to argue these points, but only to help clarify if I have correctly identified the key points. Once we have that, maybe we identify ways to address each (I imagine there will be a different strategy for each).

Summary of our issues with the "motivations" section of the Charles Whitman article.


 * 1) There are suggestions of conflict of interest and/or collusion on both sides. It has been suggested that several editors involved here have a conflict of interest and/or have colluded to manipulate the article.
 * 2) There are differences of opinion on how notable Lavergne is as a source/subject.
 * 3) There are differences of opinion on whether the content of "Sniper in the Tower" and the government's investigations are accurately presented.
 * 4) If we presume the content of the two sources is accurately presented, does the way they are presented amount to original research via synthesis by slanting the presentation against Lavergne. in how it presents the information.

(John User:Jwy talk) 03:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC) (signing late)


 * After all that has been said below - I find the above offensive and deeply disturbing John. There is no collusion or subterfuge for that matter. Lavergne is a prime candidate and notable as the author of the only book written exclusively on Whitman, in fact, he has his own Article Gary Lavergne. The accuracy of the Commission report vs Lavergne's opinions are well documented. There is no slanting of the presentation against Lavergne personally, just in his maladaptive writing of the issues Whitman was under. Again, the above is extremely offensive, given all the input below. I'm not attacking you, I am avoiding you from now on!--Victor9876 (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Victor, I was hoping to list the differences of opinions, not argue them. I do not accuse you of ANYTHING here, just say these are things where the editors on this page have a difference of opinion.  Some of them I disagree with you on, some I do not.  Agreeing that people disagree with you on one or more of these things does not mean you are conceding the points.  I'm going to take a break.  Catch up with you Monday or Tuesday. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * With the adjustments above, these are the items I think agreement has not been reached upon among the parties. Again, while I have an opinion on each, I am attempting to simply point out where the editors here disagree.  That there is disagreement is pretty clear.  I posted it here to get your input as to whether I was describing the disagreements fairly.  I'll wait a day or two before proceeding to suggest how to resolve each and implement those suggestions.  I hope you will participate.
 * I apologize if I have offended and disturbed, but I don't see how saying "it appears we disagree on these items" could have done so - and it was posted here for your comments, not as "this is how it is." If I am missing rudeness on my part, can someone please explain on my talk page and I'll make amends where appropriate.  (John User:Jwy talk) 15:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have revisited all of the points above and corrected the paragraph by removing any appearance of synthesis. I also removed, upon the suggestion of Wildhartlivie, the Furman v GA reference.--Victor9876 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The issues are still out there. I've numbered them for ease of use.  I assume the current text reflects Victor's opinion of how the paragraph should remain.  #1 I choose to assume no COI until we meet an impasse in other areas.  There is not much we can do about it at this level anyway.  #2 Snipercraft seems to think Lavergne should go away (or the treatment radically changed).  I think it might be useful in a general discussion of motivations, but don't feel too strongly.  Victor has it in.  #3 Snipercraft and Victor appear to differ here.  #4 I disagree with Victor and would like more eyes on it.  I was comfortable with the version before the March 25 changes.  Unless there is further discussion that resolves this issue without it, I plan to get WP:NOR/N to look into this aspect tomorrow. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, speaking of Mission Statements John, you have made clear that you "do" assume COI through your denial, several times. The "until we meet an impasse" in issue #1 above, clearly indicates that if things don't go your way, you will bring it up later. So don't think you are fooling anyone with your remarks. As to Snipercraft, for all the weight he has contributed to the article (0, I might add), and his elusive, in fact, down right disregard for disclosure by not answering questions by Wildhartlivie and continually repeating his/herself, except that he likes Lavergnes' book, is hardly a testament to errors of others. But do as you wish. You were going to anyways. This is where assuming good faith ends. More eyes have nothing to do with content, disputes yes, but any law enforcement officer, as Snipercraft has suggested he/she is, will tell you that eyewitnesses, make the worst testimony. It's all perspectual and frames of reference. I will be surprised if the paragraph is changed, especially since Wales goal for WP is "the sum of all human knowledge".--Victor9876 (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'll clarify.  For the purposes of these next steps, any COI issues with you or Snipercraft (or me, for that matter) are irrelevant (IMO).  My repeated mention of it is primarily to indicate I am, for now, dealing with what Snipercraft says and not where it is coming from.  If discussion with him/her gets too convoluted or crazy, it might be useful to explore the source further, but I hope not.  You have a very strong opinion on the topic and some indirect relationship to it which I've wondered about.  Now, the indirect relationship doesn't bother me much.  And I don't see the strong opinion as a COI.  It only suggests we be careful about your contributions in that area.  The additional eyes are specialized to NOR/SYNTH (i.e. #4) and not the other items.  I will abide by their decision on that issue, which is the only one I feel strongly about. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Extra comment
I'm sorry for the edit conflict. Just for the record, I corrected some of the reference citations in the paragraph, and added ones to specific quotes. And for the record, if this goes further up, to arbitration or wherever, I don't plan to participate. Frankly, I can't take the stress of that health-wise. I think it is hugely pertinent that Snipercraft refused to answer direct questions about his connection to Lavergne and don't honestly feel that this can be go forth without that information. That speaks volumes to COI if it is true. No one asked him to disclose his identity, just his association. I also have great problems with his refusing to specify what he felt was "smearing" about the paragraph, that's a completely valid question. But mostly, I don't see how how it can go forth from here when all I see at the moment is taking swipes at one another. I've tried in good faith to discuss this and I've lost my patience with indirect answers, generalities and avoidance. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I sympathize about the stress and am glad you are taking care of yourself. You have done well keeping your cool here.  (John User:Jwy talk) 19:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And you may be right about the COI. But Snipercraft's comments are independent of my concerns about OR (and the current status of the article). (John User:Jwy talk) 20:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, the eye bleeds too much and it is doing so the last few days - that is partially stress related. In any case, would adapting the following statement of the paragraph make it appear less OR: "which goes against the medical findings of the Commission's Report of August 8, 1966" to "although the Commission Report of August 8, 1966 found"? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Missed this yesterday. That's the general idea, the connecting text is what is what needs to be carefully handled.  That WOULD be an improvement. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On my part, I don't think that is too much of a controversial change. It keeps the contrast without imparting a judgment on either side. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Victor9876's input

 * I have copied Snipercraft's input below to better be able to address his issues without being accused of refactoring.

''I'm off on a case and will be out for a few days, but I wanted to say that I am glad this is going to some kind of independent review. So I submit this as a summary of my views. I am confident that JWY will be fair to my point of view (POV). Which is all that this is--on both sides.''


 * To the above - no answer necessary.

A review of the long discourse above clearly shows that 1) statements like "It is the opinion of the task force that the relationship between the tumor and Charles Whitman's actions on the last day of his life cannot be established with clarity. However, the highly malignant brain tumor conceivably could have contributed to his inability to control his emotions and actions. from the report clearly show that the Commission did not know why Whitman did what he did. The word "conceivably" could not be used for any other purpose.''


 * False - the word conceivably was to show that the highly cancerous tumor "could" have contributed to his emotions and actions as stated. The "clarity" part only refers to the amount of view the Commission had about Whitman's history. Also details were still coming in and the Commission was only enjoined to re-examine the tumor that had been mis-diagnosed by the original pathologist and make recommendations.

2) in the essay cited Lavergne writes that "My views are not as rigid as they may sound. I accept the limitations of my conclusions... I maintain, that no one knows, with absolute certainty, why Charles Whitman became a mass murderer."


 * Those are Lavergne's words - they should only be held accountable to Lavergne.

3)there is no substantive or material difference between #1 and #2.


 * This is Snipercraft's synthesis, not shared by everyone. Also note - Snipercraft uses two number 3) points. I mention this to show it is his wording, not my mistake.

3) The section of the Whitman article that this deals with (which we've seemed to stray from) is about LaVergne--not Whitman, and even if the section remains there are dozens of others who have been published who have written the same thing about the tumor, namely James alan Fox, and John Douglas. There is no reason for LaVergne to be singled out. I merely ask why is he being singled out.


 * Wildhartlivie above, explained this before this was written and it is again, because Lavergne is the only author to have written about Whitman exclusively, and away from his field of expertise.

4) It is remarkable to me that anyone thinks they know how long Charles Whitman would have lived if he had been taken alive. Some people have tumors and live and other have tumors and die. No one knows how long he would have lived. This is another "we don't know."


 * Meet a reference on the type of tumor Whitman had here[]. Be mindful that this is a recent article and does not reflect 1966 and the limited ability to help sufferer's of this type of tumor as it was in the Hypothalamus region, in the white matter and above the brain stem (the worst possible scenario).

''And finally, the long discourse above against LaVergne (which seems fanatical at times) and his book above is interesting, but those who feel that way should write their own book--that is a proper medium--not a Wikipedia article. I doubt that such a book will ever see the light of day because those ideas will every be taken seriously by any responsible publisher. But a book to rival SNIPER IN THE TOWER is still the way to go.''


 * The above borders on WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS, but we can get through it. I'm sure Lavergne appreciates Snipercraft's endorsement of his book, as I admit, it is well written, in spite of the misleading omissions, mischaracterizations of Whitman, and non-medical opinions. Fiction yes, True Crime yes, Factual no! Also, Snipercraft obviously doesn't understand the limitations of book writing and manuscript submissions. There are literally hundreds of thousands of authors who want to be published and only a few thousand books published per year. The chance of getting a book published are near zero, unless, like Lavergne, an opportunity comes along that the Author must present a certain product, that is approved by an institution for their own purposes. In this case, the University of Texas.


 * Also note, Snipercraft begins the preceeding statement with "And finally", as well as the next point, again with, "and finally". I merely mention this so the reader doesn't think I manufactured the dual headers.

''And finally, the review group needs to confront a single issue, and that is whether the wise WP rules on POV and WP:SYNTH are meaningful or not. Almost all of the discussion here falls into both categories, there can hardly be better examples of both, including my comments, but I'm not asking for my comments to be in the article. Indeed, the section of the article involving the errorneous interpretation of both the Commission report and LaVergne's editorial should be removed or edited dramatically. See you later.Snipercraft (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)''


 * Snipercraft appears to be duplicious, he breaks the rules on one hand, and demands the rules be rigid for his cause, which is to get Lavergne's name removed from the article, even though there have been long discussions previously, WQA's and Snipercraft requesting to have his user page removed. Snipercraft has limited his contributions to only this topic and the Gary Lavergne page, while accusing us here of being bias and unfair to Lavergne. As mentioned previously, before this discussion, Lavergne wrote the book and made the errors, Lavergne wrote the Op-Ed article and further exposed his lack of expertise, and now Snipercraft wants us to swallow the tale as true (as he states below). With his reverence for the WP:Rules he espouses below, he should know that Truth is not the mission of WP, and verifiable references are. I believe we have met that target and stand by the article paragraph as written.

''Sorry, but I forgot to add. The bulk of the long comments above are not supported by sources nor do they appear in literature anywhere. The only controversy between LaVergne, Rich, Fox, and Douglas and the Commission Report is on this page--it is manufactured. There is also strong evidence that much of this discussion is driven by Original Research (OR). Again, Wiki editors are faced with a simple task. Are rules governing OR, POV, WP:SYNTH, basic fairness and a regard for the truth meaningful--or not.Snipercraft (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)''


 * For some reason, Snipercraft has mentioned parties not referenced or even mentioned in the article. Fox and Douglas are not even mentioned. He has read Lavergne's "essay" as he calls it, where they are mentioned, but Lavergne puts his words in their mouths, but their words are not in the article, because they made no comment or assessment in question that could be verified in the "essay". Only Frank Rich of the New York Times was mentioned, because Lavergne directly linked an article by Rich on his website, in support of Lavergne's non-medical assessment, thereby giving information from Rich that can be used. Again, there has been no manufacturing except by Snipercraft.--Victor9876 (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Motion to archive
It appears since no action was taken above per the time line quotations, and no other advances in article content has been raised, it would benefit the project to archive all of the above discussions for the benefit of new readers and scrolling issues.--Victor9876 (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The page is automatically archiving anything 30 days or older. That should be sufficient. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. However, the top discussion is dated Feb 24., that is older than 30 days. Perhaps the Bot was changed?--Victor9876 (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, missed this note. Not sure what is up with that.  It looks like it is still set up "properly" for 30 days.  I'll see if there is a support location for it and/or move it "by hand." (John User:Jwy talk) 15:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How many did he kill?
My friend recently logged onto Wikipedia and saw he killed 16 people. Now it says he killed 14. He is pretty sure it was 16. Has there been any recent edits? Or has it always been 14? Donatrip (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whitman did kill 14 people at the tower. He killed his mother and wife earlier, and those are included in the article later and with the total tally. Nothing's been changed in some time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for removal of Depiction Section
As interesting as the Depiction Section could be, there are far too many references that may at some point be put in the section. A depiction should be relevant to the subject, rather than relevant to the poster. The section has had many references that are of no benefit and uncyclopedic. A continuing maintenance issue should not be the responsibility of a few. Therefore, a request to remove the section is hereby made to preserve the integrity of the article.--Victor9876 (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Photo caption
Crohnie just made an edit that I don't agree with - removing info that explains what the picture is about and how it relates to the text in the article. The diffs can be seen here, here, and here.  It seems she disagrees with my revert of her revert and has decided to take an "all or nothing" stance. Now, while all or nothing can be productive at times, I don't think it is here because without the info, the inclusion of the picture is confusing to the reader. I'm not going to revert the revert right away, after all, Wikipedia has no deadlines. But I would like to know if anyone else has any thoughts on this. Crohnie? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look at the paragraph right next to the photo you will see what the photo is about. The information that was in the image was inaccurate because Whitman was not only shot in the head by McCoy.  Here is where the image is describes already. My edit summary also stated this and that it was redundant.   "''As Martinez was firing, McCoy jumped just to the right of Martinez and with his 12 gauge shotgun, fired two fatal 00 buck shots into the head, neck, and left side of Whitman, as the photo to the right shows, who was sitting with his back towards the north wall in the northwest corner area approximately fifty feet distance. He was partially shielded by the observation deck tower lights and in a position to defend a confrontation from either the northeast corner or the southwest corner.

Martinez threw his empty revolver onto the deck, grabbed McCoy's shotgun, ran to the prone body of Whitman, and fired a point blank shot into the upper left arm, as the photo to the right shows."''  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC) refactored my comments to remove what I feel is wrong for me to write. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Two things. The photo can be moved by another editor sometime down the road, and if that happens then the text that the photo is at the right will be wrong.  Saying "the photo at the right" can be problematic later on.  Secondly, I don't think that the photo caption explains what it should.  I still believe what was there (that you removed) should be put back.  But, I'd like to see if anyone else will weigh in here and give their thoughts.  I don't think this will need any kind of consensus or vote, just more eyes and other ideas.  --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * O.K. SRC, I posted the photo but don't own it. I also represented McCoy after recognizing he was suffering with PTSD, had him diagnosed by the VA through Dr. Mink, etc. etc. etc. As to the photo description, the photo shows Whitman's body as photographed about ten minutes after the confrontration. His body had been searched and moved, however, his body is still in the general area of the deck where he was killed. As to the caption reading, "Whitman as photographed after the confrontation" may be the best description. Do as you wish however, there is much more wrong with the article than just this photo.Victor9876 (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well...WP articles can *always* be improved. As far as the photo caption, I just don't think there was anything wrong with it as it was before the majority of the text was removed.  But...I think your text suggestion is good.  I will also be removing the reference in the article text referencing "photo at the right" as it could be problematic down the road.  Thanks for your insight.  --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL! Thanks for fixing that, Crohnie - I got distracted and forgot to remove the text in the body of the section.  ;-)  --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, I had just read the section when I adjust the photo caption. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  18:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I also moved Lavergnes section to his Article. For some reason, the section seemed to be outside of the event and the exposed errors of his book and historical data seemed more appropriate for his Article - not the Whitman Article.Victor9876 (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Latest sources
I'm concerned about some of the latest additions to the article coming from primary sources and possibly being original research. I have no opinion on the topic itself and realize it has been contentious in the past, so I'm not jumping into to make changes yet. But a participant's statement about what happened is, in general, NOT acceptable under Wikipedia policy. Comments? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest sources
Resurrecting this from archive: The text I was concerned about WAS removed but recently re-added. Anyone?

I'm concerned about some of the latest additions to the article coming from primary sources and possibly being original research. I have no opinion on the topic itself and realize it has been contentious in the past, so I'm not jumping into to make changes yet. But a participant's statement about what happened is, in general, NOT acceptable under Wikipedia policy. Comments? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 22:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC) (originally 20:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)).

WP:Undue Weight issue
An edit conflict has arisen in the McCoy-Martinez section. One contributor wants an expansive non-Whitman bio on McCoy, the other for the section to follow the Undue weight rule of Wikipedia. The latter feels extraneous information about McCoy is irrevelant to the Whitman article, and should have a bio article for McCoy as Martinez has to expand the information for McCoy. AS the article stands now, the McCoy paragraph is still larger than the Martinez paragraph. That aside, the other info about McCoy, is outside the bio of Whitman, and if McCoy had his own article, that would accommodate the info on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.94.163.97 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the correct forum for discussion rather than engaging in an edit-revert war. Now, wait for other editors to chime in. As to length or word count, that is not a valid means to determine weight or emphasis. Much of what was excised was actually the extensive reference source. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC).
 * First, I fail to see how quoting WP:Undue Weight is not a reliable source for reversion. That being said, I agree word count is not a standard, but the included information was. Why McCoy left the department is irrevelant, given the waffle term "reluctantly". Also, how does his being a flight instructor and Boy Scout Ranger have any merit in the Whitman article? The movie reference would also be suited better in his own article! Martinez's paragraph is brief and direct, so should McCoy's be, that is why McCoy should have his own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.94.163.97 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Second of all, this series of statements represents two sentences which I believe the editor has used for "background," establishing that McCoy was a reputable citizen and that he was justifiably incensed at being portrayed as "cowardly" in a television docu-drama. The litigation arose from the dispute over his presentation. There is another literary device that can be applied in the instance of establishing background and that is the "aside" or supplementary note. I have already revised the article formatting in order to create this type of approach. Wait one day for other interested editors to take note of this discussion "string" and then I will alter the passage in order to suitably amend the section. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Whenever an editor uses WP:BOLD, the action must be able to be supported by alternate reference sources or a clear and undisputed discourse that establishes the reasoning behind the revision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

I'd suggest:


 * A Grand Jury issued a justifiable homicide verdict for Houston McCoy's part in the death of Whitman and McCoy received the Austin Police Medal of Valor in 1967 for his part in subduing Whitman. Two years after the event in 1968, McCoy resigned from the police force and was employed as a civilian flight instructor for the United States Air Force in Del Rio, Texas. In 1990, lawyers representing McCoy filed an unsuccessful lawsuit against TBS for falsely advertising the 1975 television film The Deadly Tower as a true story. In the film, a character resembling Officer McCoy was portrayed in a cowardly manner, misrepresenting his confrontation with Whitman.  McCoy was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder in 1998.

As it removes less notable (with respect to Whitman) aspects. I have not checked whether the references are still applicable. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

[post removed]

98.94.163.97 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What does Mr. McCoy's credibility have to do with what has been written and sourced by references aside from his own personal account? Reading his personal account, in my opinion, he is not implying he was diagnosed with PTSD because of the movie, rather the movie was a factor in triggering symptoms of PTSD. Also, his personal account states the diagnosis included "unrelated stress factors" not "other outside stressor's from the movie" as stated above. It is fairly obvious (in my opinion) that the PTSD originated due to the tower incident, but certain factors in life can trigger the disorder. That being said, I am not in the medical profession nor have any right or merit to question another individuals personal medical history & am only stating an opinion based on what little information is presented in his personal account and other articles. I guess it's all in how each individual interprets one's writings, but what is the reasoning behind boldly questioning this individual's credibility? Why is that even an area of concern? The fact is he was diagnosed with PTSD, the information currently written (in Whitman article) about Mr. McCoy clearly states that and I would assume all the personal specifics lie within his personal medical records. Also, the question was asked "how does his being a flight instructor and Boy Scout Ranger have any merit in the Whitman article?" The same question can be asked about Mr. Martinez...how does his being a narcotics officer, a Texas Ranger, and Justice of the Peace have any merit in the Whitman article. Don't misunderstand me, I think that all of the information that is currently written and the way it is currently worded is just fine and Mr. Martinez has additional information for further reading. I only bring the question up to make a point, how is it justifiable to do away with Mr. McCoy's career history after the incident and not Mr. Martinez's? Bateauxny (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My proposal is not to remove any material but to establish a note indicating McCoy's post-shooting career as it is germane to his re-establishing himself and then finding that his reputation, actions and honor was being questioned in a sensationalized television documentary. FWiW, we are still at a juncture where a consensus, as to future development of this section, is being explored. Bzuk (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC).
 * From the Camp Sol reference - in McCoy's own words:

"Neither Lt. Wells nor any other investigative officers ever asked me any questions; although, I was asked questions by my shift sergeant from time to time. My belief is that my answers were relayed to the investigative officers. As media were reporting the event inaccurately, my sergeant asked me if I wanted the department to set up an interview to correct their inaccuracies. I declined the offer, telling him that the only people I cared to talk to were my family and friends."

[post removed]

98.94.163.97 (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Another excerpt - "In 1974, by telephone, I interviewed with Antonio Calderon of MGM for the movie "The Deadly Tower" aired by NBC TV in 1975. On learning the script would be fictitious, and in no way resembled the incident, I told the producers to not use my name or character." This statement implies that Mr. McCoy did in fact talk with movie producers and made them aware that the script was fictitious. A police officer declining to have a media interview directly after being involved in such an unheard of and shocking critical incident in no way puts blame on Mr. McCoy. Why is this such an issue for you? What do the points you are trying to make have to do with the current information written on Mr. McCoy as his personal account is not even being used as a source to reference information about the movie. Given the points you bring up and have issues with and making a statement such as "It appears Mr. McCoy is his own worst enemy" and "This calls into question Mr. McCoy's credibility" it seems like you have a personal issue with or about Mr. McCoy.Bateauxny (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Bateauxny, you are the one with exclusive contributions to Whitman/McCoy and Martinez. What's your relationship to McCoy?98.94.163.97 (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, let's get back to the topic at hand and forget the snipping. There does not seem to be a consensus for change but I will propose that the earlier edit revision that was proposed be used:

Revision proposed
"A Grand Jury issued a justifiable homicide verdict for Houston McCoy's part in the death of Whitman and McCoy received the Austin Police Medal of Valor in 1967 for his part in subduing Whitman. Two years after the event in 1968, McCoy resigned from the police force and was employed as a civilian flight instructor for the United States Air Force in Del Rio, Texas. In 1990, lawyers representing McCoy filed an unsuccessful lawsuit against TBS for falsely advertising the 1975 television film The Deadly Tower as a true story. In the film, a character resembling Officer McCoy was portrayed in a cowardly manner, misrepresenting his confrontation with Whitman.  McCoy was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder in 1998.  "
 * Support as it provides rationale for actions and is fully attributed to verifiable and authoritative reference sources. FWiW, add your comments below. Bzuk (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support with the addition of "he later became the Camp Ranger at Boy Scout Camp Sol Mayer"[4][5]after the flight instructor sentence.Bateauxny (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please verify or point to the actual reference of McCoy being employed by the US Airforce.98.94.163.97 (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Opposed McCoy's post, and Martinez' post activities have nothing to do with Whitman, that can not be addressed in their respective biographies. They are already mentioned in the article for their actions on August 1, 1966. Who's to say that in the future, some other editor may come along and want to expand the section (as is being done here)- save them the debates by having separate biographies aside from Whiman! 98.94.163.97 (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference 5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bateauxny (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As I've seen before, some of the discussions are taking a strange, contentious turn into rather obscure issues. I won't be diving into the details and suggest (changing my original proposal) that we remove the section on the two officers as not-so-notable and perhaps replace it a more apropos topic of the movie. We could (properly cited) mention the two officers both had issues with the film. Perhaps the "justifiable homicide" verdict belongs above. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How pertinent is this material (following) to the issue of a two-sentence passage edit in a Wikipedia article? There has to be a sense of proportion here. fWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

[post removed]

98.94.163.97 (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Update - I just tried to create a Houston McCoy page and it re-directed to Charles Whitman, or here. This should substantiate my remarks. I left the link intact if anyone wants to verify by clicking on MCCoy's name in the Whitman article which is re-direct blue. 98.94.163.97 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The below "related material/background" information suggests that editor 98.94.163.97 has a personal issue with the subject matter that is negative, inappropriate and bias in nature. My vote is still to keep the section on the two officers.Bateauxny (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * [post removed] 98.94.163.97 (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

98.94.163.97, based on what you wrote earlier that has now been removed, you obviously have a personal issue with Mr. McCoy which in my view was disrespectful to put in a discussion forum. You continue to make personal attacks about the subject matter like (McCoy only wants printed what he agrees with, not the facts, just like Martinez!), questioning his credibility, stating he is his own worst enemy and now even calling Mr. Wales "passive-aggresive". Am I the only one who thinks this is inappropriate? I am a new to Wiki and this is the first article I have been involved in and I am learning a lot, but I just don't get how or why someone would write so much negativity. What is the true issue at hand here and why such the hard harsh push to have a small amount of info about the two main police officers involved in ending the shooting spree? Reading the article to include the police officers topic, it was interesting and informative to me.Bateauxny (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

[post removed]

98.94.163.97 (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * [post removed] 98.94.163.97 (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an obvious WP:COI issue going on and the article now will be directed to either an admin to revise or for conflict resolution. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

What kind of COI are you talking about? 98.94.163.97 (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A conflict of interest occurs when an editor has a personal interest which negates one of the core principles of Wikipedia, in that a a neutral point-of-view must be maintained. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

[post removed]

98.94.163.97 (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The talk page is used for development of an article, and discussions on it are related to the article. Indicating a personal connection to a living person has implications for Wikipedia that fall into legal and jurisdictional areas. Whenever an article appears that is related to a living person, all aspects of it must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is un-sourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.

As to introducing inflammatory statements under the euphemism of "balancing sources" that have no clear verifiable or authoritative references for support, I am willing to explain my position further, but that is the topic for another discourse. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

[post removed]

98.94.163.97 (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I also believe in the adage of WP:DFT. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Now that that's over ...
This article really has a lot of problems, primarily having to do with sources. The problem IP above was nothing but a disruption, but there are a lot of personal accounts being used as sources. There's one ref that looks like a link to an FBI report. Another one goes to a website called DVDtalk.com. I mean for god's sake, DVDtalk.com? In a BLP? Does anyone here seriously think that can fly? In my opinion this article wouldn't be one bit worse if all the info on the later lives of the officers were out. Thoughts? (Note:I know the article isn't a BLP, but McCoy and Martinez are apparently still living so the policy applies.)--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think the article is more or less a rambling mess and there are sourcing worries too. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Valid contribution in article
I have no idea what the problem is with my contribution in the article. The LA Times is a reliable source. The source quotes McCoy about Martinez. The source and reference is valid. If McCoy can be quoted from his own source, why not another source? McCoy gave the interview and it shows some disagreement between he and Martinez. The quote is in Martinez' paragraph and not McCoy's. Where is the unstated problem? 98.94.164.237 (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The stated problem that was consistently noted is that your contributions represent a conflict of interest and you have been warned, blocked and reverted already in your past disguises and identities. It is time to move on. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC).
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to move on...move. 98.94.164.237 (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, FWIW is a song by "The Buffalo Springfield" group from the '60's and written by S. Stills. FWI'sW! 98.94.164.237 (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular problem with this contribution other than the editor making it? I don't have a dog in this fight; I just want to make sure we're not excluding useful, interesting, and valid information solely because of the particular editor who tried to add it. ElKevbo (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking neutrally, WP:Weight and WP:BLP would be the worries. The edit itself (although the quote marks were handled clumsily) was sourced, but the statement was made decades later and without more depth of coverage, I can't say how much notability this has to the topic. With very careful wording, a neutral editor might be able to write a line citing that source. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this article is a biography of one Charles Whitman, not a litany of every dispute that's happened about his death. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Marine Record
There appears to be an internal contradiction concerning Whitman's Marine record. In the opening paragraph it says he was "affected by a court martial from the US Marines" but later it says he was honorably discharged. Which is it? You can't both be court martialed and receive an honorable discharge. Does anyone know the status of his release from the Marines and have some verifiable source?Jdlund (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimbo has advised: Block-Revert-Ignore based on years-long disruption in this article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In most militaries, a court martial doesn't always end in an other-than-honourable discharge. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

McCoy section
I'm sorry but the McCoy section is too long and has undue weight with what was added so I deleted it. Editors have to remember the article is about Whitman. More of my thoughts can be read at my talk page about all of this since this talk page was semi protected at the time the discussion got started. It is no longer so that the IP may now discuss here. Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  16:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You are correct that the article is about Charles Whitman. Charles Whitman's actions are what put McCoy into the position of killing Whitman, and Whitman's actions, caused McCoy's PTSD - they can not be separated. 71.85.120.252 (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes you're right but it's still WP:One event that applies to this along with undue weight. Mentioning a little bit about McCoy is alright but it should be short and about what he did in regards to Whitman.  If you can find that McCoy is notable on his own than an article about him can be tried again.  The last one was deleted because of the lack of notability and one event.  Like I suggested earlier, read why the article was deleted so you can find out if writing an article about his is doable.  Just a suggestion, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have copied the content of both Martinez and McCoy below:

Ramiro "Ray" Martinez (born 1937) is one of the two Austin Police Department officers credited with killing sniper Charles Whitman at the University of Texas at Austin on August 1, 1966.

Martinez was born in Kent County, Texas and attended Rotan High School in Rotan, Texas, graduating in 1956. He enrolled in the University of Texas at Austin, but dropped out after one semester due to financial difficulties. He later joined the United States Army and served three years as a combat medic. After his discharge from the Army, Martinez joined the Austin Police Department in 1960, graduating from the police academy in 1961.

Martinez was off duty on August 1, 1966 when the news of the Texas Tower sniper shooting aired on television. Martinez reported for duty and was told to assist with traffic control. Arriving on the scene, Martinez proceeded to the Tower, where later he and Officer Houston McCoy shot sniper Charles Whitman dead. TIME reported on August 12, 1966 that Martinez had hit Whitman with all six of his pistol shots, however, the autopsy would later reveal that the shotgun, fired by Officer McCoy, killed Whitman.

From Whitman article:

Ramiro Martinez became a narcotics investigator, a Texas Ranger, and a Justice of the Peace in New Braunfels, Texas. In 2003, Martinez published his memoirs, entitled, They Call Me Ranger Ray: From the UT Tower Sniper to Corruption in South Texas.

Compare to McCoy's content:

-===Houston McCoy and Ramiro Martinez===

Houston McCoy appeared before the Travis County Grand Jury on August 5, 1966 and received a justifiable homicide verdict for the death of Whitman. McCoy received the Austin Police Medal of Valor in 1967 for his part in subduing sniper Charles Whitman. Two years after the event in 1968, McCoy resigned from the police force and was employed as a civilian flight instructor for the United States Air Force in Del Rio, Texas where he taught military students from various nations to fly T-41 primary trainer airplanes. In January 1975, he accepted the position of Camp Ranger at Boy's Scout Camp Sol Mayer near historical Ft. McKavett, Texas. McCoy was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in 1998, as a result of the tower shootings.

Results:

Advantage Martinez. Why not separate the two, or bring Martinez' article to the Whitman page, where "weight" would not be the issue, they are both known for the "one event"? 71.85.120.252 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but you are still trying to make this article about the two officers. This article is about Whitman.  Sorry that I keep repeating this but this is what is important.  What you type above, I don't know where you got it from about Martinez but I am assuming it's from his article.  The article was voted to keep because Martinez when on to be more notable than McCoy.  Martinez went past the one event.  McCoy unfortunately had problems with the situation he found himself in and became ill. I can definitely sympathize with his situation but that doesn't change the fact that there should be only short comments about what they did with their involvement with Whitman.  You can find more discussions about this in the archives.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  17:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sorry; and you are wrong about me trying to make this article about the two officers. The contribution on McCoy was short and specific, along with being verifiable and sourced. It was also germaine to the tower incident and Charles Whitman.

Napolean once said that "History, is a set of lies that are agreed upon!" Apparently WP. and Jimbo Wales, who is the "Lady Gaga" of the encyclopedia world, adhere to that view. I do not, and will no longer try to correct the errors of WP. Happy editing to you, I see now why Wildhartlivie left, I am doing the same. 71.85.120.252 (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to give up on the project. The way things work here is people give there opinions about things and those with the best arguments win. Now since it was just the two of us talking here maybe you should wait to see if others will come and respond.  Two others reverted you  if I remember correctly and I'm sure there are others who have this article on their watchlist.  Please be patient and see if anyone else responds.  As for WHL, you obvious don't know why she retired with bringing her up with this disagreement.  You can check, her and I were good friends.  I didn't cause her to leave the project which is how I read what you say above.  I hope you stick around, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I started to respond yesterday but saw the IP's intention to leave in a huff and thought it was just as well because they weren't going to like my additional comments which support leaving the McCoy additions off. I don't see the merit of such additions and I'm not sure how this is "correcting the errors of WP". WHY is adding a postnote on McCoy so terribly important such as to cause a ruckus? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 14:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I wish I knew too. I tried real hard to explain my reasoning both here and on my talk page.  Did I get rude or something?  I was totally surprised by the response above that was made after I left for the day.  Oh and thank you for fixing the archives so it is easier to find things.  I for one really appreciate it since I didn't think to do it myself.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you weren't rude...the IP seems terribly impatient for some reason. You're welcome on the archiving bit...I wanted to be able to access the topics through an index. I was looking through the archives on previous McCoy bits which might be relevant to this discussion but when I saw the IP's intention to leave, I dropped it. If their skin is that thin, they don't need to be here, in my opinion. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 15:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the IP may have been upset that there isn't an article for McCoy but there is for Ramirez.  There was one for McCoy but it got deleted I believe for one event and lack of notability.  With the above that IP copied/pasted which some was from the article, I think they were trying to get the information into this article which is kind of like using the back door.  Oh well, I tried to encourage them to see if they could write an article about McCoy since they said they wanted to.  I made suggestions on my talk page for this.  Oh well, time wasted, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well golly gee! I realize I may have looked thin skinned, if you saw me in person, the skin is the largest part! Just for purposes of information, I want the Austin American Statesman's article about McCoy being diagnosed with a terminal illness for a social benefit. All of the data on PTSD shows correlations with PTSD and Panic Attack sufferers having the largest number of substance abuse issues, primarily smoking and alcohol, as self calming and self medicating devices. Many Medical doctors don't have the proper background or training in PTSD issues. My thinking was that McCoy, a single case study (along with J Wambaugh's "The Onion Field" book), could be used in articles as reference points to help educate the masses about the issues that go beyond the diagnosis. As much as I hated to read the article announcing his condition and circumstances, it would be a tribute to McCoy to be able to use his history (and the history of how he was treated by those who could have helped him before I met him (I have documents from clinics where he presented with PTSD issues to professionals, well before I helped him, and they missed the diagnosis), as well as the APD being non respondent and the City of Austin sueing him for the awards I got him. Makes ya kinda feel that maybe the Doctors should pay the patients to get their practices into the arena of getting it right instead of practising, with proper knowledge. So again, my intentions were/are to get a verifable subject, for social advances in the medical field. Does thst make sense? The reason I ask is, because my experiences and McCoy's experiences, makes no sense as to how the systems failed us; primarily McCoy, but they bankrupted me, in more than one way. So to use the information, may have a social good that benefits others, who may be experiencing the same ills in a society where money, trumps the social good, for selfish reasons. I hope that is clear. 71.85.120.252 (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You know Wikipedia isn't for this kind of use plus from what you say above it sounds like original research to me. Unfortunately there are horror stories out there for lots of people, I'm no exception. I can tell you what happened to me too back in '99 through 2001, but what would it do to change things? I do my best now to try to educate people about Crohn's disease but I don't go to the article to show how badly things went for me and I shouldn't. If you want more about this to understand pop back over to my talk page, and I'll explain, it's short and easy to understand. Your last sentence has me with mixed feelings, I don't know if I should laugh or cry. I became one of the millions without health insurance in Mar. of 2010. Since then I've been rushed to the hospital three times. You want to hear about how the uninsured can be treated? No, trust me you don't want to know because it can be deadly in the consequences. Like I said, I can understand and sympathize with what McCoy has endured with his health problems but I still need to understand how it fits in with Whitman's shootings from the tower. Now we have discussed the possibility that Whitman's health may have caused his brutal attacks but there is nothing to prove it, at least nothing definitive. I'll go check your changes now and will let you know what I think. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  09:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking over this article, it is in desperate need of sources plus it seems to bounce around a lot. The addition of McCoy's PTSD seems out of place, sorry.  But that being said, the section above needs sourcing and verfying so at this point I guess it doesn't matter.  I thought this article was better sourced a long while back, where did the sources go?  I don't have time to work this article properly but it does need work.  I am still in recovery mode from my last hospital stay so I hope I can 'help' someone who is interested in the major work needed.  This article should be a GA candidate not what it is now.  I'm really sad to see the poor shape it's in right now.  Any suggestions?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  10:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I'm going to go offline here soon for awhile, need to, sorry I can't be of more help at the moment.

Bateauxny's non-conversational response to reversions
You need to bring the discussion here Bateauxny - not in the reversion summary. 71.85.120.252 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I will start with this sourced quote:


 * "Encouraging signs from the Wikipedia project, where co-founder and überpedian Jimmy Wales has acknowledged there are real quality problems with the online work.


 * Criticism of the project from within the inner sanctum has been very rare so far, although fellow co-founder Larry Sanger, who is no longer associated with the project, pleaded with the management to improve its content by befriending, and not alienating, established sources of expertise. (i.e., people who know what they're talking about.)" (bold added)[] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.120.252 (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Austin Police Department: "Chief Miles, Houston McCoy and the media" Section
71.85.120.252: As to your own admission of who you are (ref: Whitman talk page and my talk page) according to ANI thread http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=395139145#Charles_Whitman_article in which it is stated - 'I've lengthened the IP block and removed all the BLP vios I could find. Please keep in mind, any editor is free to rm BLP vios on sight. Likewise, given all the sockpuppetry and disruption, if/when he shows up again, all an editor need do is let an admin know about it. Meanwhile, this looks like enough support for a community siteban to me, so I've added ban tags, so anyone who stumbles onto this later will be aware of the background. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC), you have been blocked/banned on several occassions and should not be editing in particular the Charles Whitman article. Even this discussion page was protected from IP users on Dec 13, 2010 due to disruptions that were shown to be you. An admin (probably not knowing the history) now unprotected this page on May 19, 2011.

As a measure to justify my revert to your edit, I re-reviewed all the sources you used to create and justify information under the Austin Police Department: Chief Miles, Houston McCoy and the media topic and found only one that actually backs up a statement ("The event dominated the national and international news that day. It also led President Lyndon B. Johnson to call for stricter gun control policies") that being said, I feel this statement has no merit on its own under the topic title and therefore chose to remove it also. Maybe it can be incorporated into another part of the article.

Source 26, Carlisle, Kristin - City Appeals Against Compensation for Texas Hero, The Daily Texan, April 11,2004, nothing comes up except an Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

Source 25 - when clicked on it goes directly to "Houston McCoy's own story" and that source is used to back up the first two below paragraphs, however, the only thing I read in the story that is even remotely close to any of the below information is "Moe, with a hand held transceiver had relayed Martinez’s "I got him!" information to the dispatcher." Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where it stated anything about where Chief Robert "Bob" Miles was monitoring the events from, about the local media asking the chief for information, trouble keeping up with queries from the press, premature releasing of information, genesis for interdepartmental problems, Martinez disputing information, other officers disputing information, etc.... (Source used "Houston McCoys own story" for the following) Chief Robert "Bob" Miles, of the Austin Police Department, had been monitoring the events from his office. After the shootings began, the local media, including today's Austin American Statesman and Associated Press, were asking the chief for information. As there was no communication coming from the tower, the office was having trouble keeping up with queries from the press. Officer Harold Moe, who was the only officer with a communication radio, notified the chiefs' office that the situation was over, and that Martinez claimed to have killed Whitman. Miles gave a news release that the siege was over and that Martinez was the officer who had ended it. This premature releasing of incorrect information was the genesis for interdepartmental problems. Martinez never disputed the information, even though the other officers did. Chief Miles, several years later, would recant the account and correct the information to say that McCoy had killed Whitman.

Source 27 from the Austin American Statemsan reads correctly with the exception "McCoy told the Austin American Statesman in 2011" According to the article it was not McCoy's statement. Bateauxny (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I just checked your mentioning that source 26 doesn't open except to "Wayback Machine", which takes a few seconds to bring the article up. I copied this from it for your, and others review:


 * Home > State & Local
 * 4/11/01
 * City appeals against compensation for Tower hero (click on it again and wait for the rolling :circle near the cursor arrow to stop and load the article source.


 * Source 27 - open it and it will say Monika "McCoy", Houston's daughter said, she appears to be his spokesperson now, and she is a McCoy, who may object to her name being used in the article. Put her name there if it upsets you.


 * I know there was an article earlier that Chief Miles statements and other objections you have, were in. There is an important point to remember and be aware of; the internet is changing and many of WP's sources are being withdrawn by the copyright holders, to prevent use by WP, in advancing a commercial use of the sources. I will try to find the original source, however, bear in mind, if the source is no longer available, it doesn't mean it wasn't at the time the entry was made. 71.85.120.252 (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have placed this source, [], which contains essential the same language as the article was sourced with. I did not copy and paste anything into the article, as rules prevent it, but it may need a new leadin, to fit the new source. 71.85.120.252 (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I previously stated "maybe I am missing it", but I still don't see where it states solid information such as where Chief Robert "Bob" Miles was monitoring the events from, about the local media asking the chief for information, trouble keeping up with queries from the press, premature releasing of information, being the genesis for interdepartmental problems, etc.... Where does the article state those specifics?

I never said that Source 26, Carlisle, Kristin - City Appeals Against Compensation for Texas Hero, The Daily Texan, April 11,2004, was not there, I just stated nothing comes up except an Internet Archive Wayback Machine. Obviously you were able to view it, but I was not.

Why is it sad to you as you stated here that I notified the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I stated nothing more than the fact that you have previously been banned and are not supposed to be editing this article, in addition asking for help in solving this issue that it seems you and I will not be able to solve alone. It was previously stated by the admin that blocked/banned you if/when he shows up again, all an editor need do is let an admin know about it. That is what I did. So why is that a huge issue in which according to your own words makes me "passive-aggressive" and need to"seek help" for?

Also, in past disputes you were against having information about Houston McCoy stating the article was about Charles Whitman, not Houston McCoy. You were successful in having the information removed. Why now are you insisting keeping in information about Houston McCoy which is all the 3rd and 4th paragraphs consist of?Bateauxny (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Bateauxny, I learned along time ago to try and keep some manner of regard for others, to a point of reason. You no longer fall within that parameter. I will not be a part of this game you are playing anymore, and just ignore you. Regards! 71.85.120.252 (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is about Whitman. Nobody outside the Austin PD cares about the squabble over who shot him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If that is so Bugs, why is Bateauxny so concerned? And myself? You use an "all inclusive" term "nobody", yet the details were and are still being hashed out by at least two editors. You obviously never took a course in "Critical Thinking", so please go back to the admin boards, where your damages can be contained. Cheers! 71.85.120.252 (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He's concerned because he's trying to maintain the integrity of wikipedia. As for your concerns... There's an interesting comment from Wales on ANI about that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, you're at about 5 reverts now, and I've reported you for edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Page is now semi'd, so hopefully this megillah can be confined to the talk page for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm surprised this round has gone on as long as it has. The IP in question has been griefing this talk page and disrupting the article for years trying to get as much information on McCoy as possible into it as possible and carrying on forever about it when he's opposed. It seems to me it's time for a topic ban. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That could be done, provided you could define just who it is you're banning. Is it always the same IP, for example, or does it bounce around? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For further conversations about all of this please see my talk page. This user IP is a banned/blocked user from a long time ago. I just thought since new editors are here that I should post this here for them to read if they would like to. Just for clarification, I didn't know who this was for a long time. Also, I should say that the IP has been extremely polite to me so maybe the IP should go to their original account and ask to be unblocked to edit in a proper manner, meaning not having to edit by IP. Just thought I should share, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  14:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Gruesome picture
Do we need that morbid picture of Whitman's corpse shortly after having had his face blown apart by gunfire? An encyclopedia is supposed to be complete, but the main interest in the Whitman case is how his tumor may have caused him to act against his own wishes. The details of the debacle with the police confrontation are important, of course, but not to the point of having this hair-rising, child-unsafe crime-porn. If anything, we should have a diagram from the Glioblastoma article instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.66.97 (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  03:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia may not be censored, but this has some conflict with one of the principles of WP:CENSOR, "least astonishment". Out of all of the horrific events in history commentated by this encyclopedia, I have never seen such a graphic image that adds nothing to the understanding of the article. <b style="color:blue;">|</b> <sup style="color:black;">help <sub style="margin-left:-3.8ex; color:black;">dןǝɥ  <b style="color:blue;">|</b> 00:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Words do not adequately convey the message, as with Saint Valentine's Day massacre. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * and that message is? All I can get out of it is "bullets kill messily" bit that adds no value to the article. I can go either way on this issue, but the comment begs the question. Do we post the death photos of anyone killed in a hail of gunfire? If so, I demand Tupac! (but seriously, as an example, at least the Che death photo is actually famous) --A Good Anon (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. The picture contributes nothing to the article.  It is rather like adding hardcore porn to the "vagina" article.  The interest here is the tumor and whether it generated periods of uncontrolled rage.  24.21.175.70 (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Seperate Page?
Shouldn't there be a seperate page of the University of Texas massacre? I mean, it was one of the deadliest school shootings, so shouldn't it be on a seperate page? I mean, the shooter is important to, but couldn't we just have one page about the shooter and one page about the massacre, like for the Columbine article? Faithful On Grammer (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's really not enough material to justify two articles, and the only thing the shooter did that was notable was this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Serial killer?
Why is this article in the Serial Killer Task force? The article doesn't refer to him as a serial killer, and he doesn't fit the definition. If he can be categorized, I would say he was a mass murderer.Boneyard90 (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  10:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He was both: he killed his wife and mother the day before in a different location, so counts also as a serial killer. --222.230.95.75 (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He wasn't a serial killer but he was a spree killer. Serial murderers don't have a two day career...they have an established pattern over time.

Eagle Scout?
wondering if the section on Eagle Scout shouldn't be deleted or revised? There is no evidence of any of the allegations in the Eagle Scout section other than a few online articles. Also since the section states he became an eagle scout in 15 months that creates a conflict with the actual requirments to become an Eagle Scout, an Eagle Scout has to have 16 months in other Scout Ranks to become an Eagle Scout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.185.181 (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Lede discussion
Information is in the lede that is controversial, poorly sourced and historically inaccurate. "The Texas Sniper" reference is not in the source. The "worse case of mass murder in American History" is also false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.128.19 (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree this should be discussed. Firstly I agree that the section stating the mass murders were "the worst case of mass murder in American History" (which I have not attempted to reinsert after reading your prv. explanation) is questionable and somewhat sensationalist. (I would like to assume this is what you are referring to as being both controversial and historically inaccurate.) As for the other section, however, Whitman is known as the Texas Sniper (Bell Tower Sniper, Tower Sniper or other similar derivatives) and his method of indiscriminately targeting random strangers from this location would justify this being in the lede. Even the header of the page has a redirection point stating this article is about the tower sniper.

I appreciate your efforts are for the betterment of this article - as are mine.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your points are understood. However, as you mention above, Whitman is known by many monikers, even the "All American Boy". To reduce confusion in an encyclopedic article, the use of monikers should not be used, as it invites the valid use of all monikers. If I were to expand the moniker list in the lede, a whole paragraph could be created of just the monikers. I hope you see my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.128.19 (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, many people know Whitman-and others like him-through their actions and the monikers given to them (usually by the media). I do feel it would be appropriate if we had some degree of a mention for the nicknames he is known by in the lede. If you feel a brief, separate paragraph would be too in depth, then perhaps a brief mention by other means in the lede would suffice? Or maybe the infobox should have all the monikers in the 'also known as' section?

In many Wikipedia articles relating to subjects such as this (e.g. 1 e.g. 2 e.g. 3) there is a mention of the names by which they are generally known to the public. Many other articles list monikers in the lede.

That said, I do dispute your reasoning for reverting my reinsertion of the original sentence which had been in place (WP:OWN), considering I was merely attempting to reinsert a sentence into the lede of the article (which has almost 150 active watchers) and had been there for many months. It must have been viewed 1000s of times and seemed to meet everyone's approval but yours.

Nonetheless, as I have already mentioned, your efforts are for the betterment of this article. I can see your attention to detail is acute from your edit today alone. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree, respectfully. Especially for the lede (a side-box is another matter). If the subject had been unknown for sometime (ala, The Son Of Sam (Berkowitz), Scorpio (unknown killer in San Francisco), Jack The Ripper (unknown) or others per thier deeds by the media, then the point would be valid. However, those are generally serial killers and there was no name associated with actions until caught and reported by the media as such. Here, the monikers come after the perpetrator is identified. Why glorify the perpetrator with a moniker? It also cheapens the article because it gives weight to the article and appears as you mentioned previously - sensationalistic. The flow of consistency is lost as the reader has to absorb unnecessary information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.128.19 (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt it would cheapen the article, but in having said that, I cannot ultimately disagree with your rationale. I lost this argument... ;)--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You didn't lose anything - you gained valuable information. I hope you reconsider your assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.128.19 (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Too much detail about killings
Given that there is a list of victims who were killed, there is no need to repeat all the personal details (age, status, location when shot) in the body of the article. Similarly, details that seem to glorify Whitman's shooting ability should be deleted; some of this seems like mass murder porn (shot carefully through 6 inch space, etc.) The VA Tech article seems to summarize material better. Parkwells (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

010813 Family Murders edits
I removed the word "instantly from the following sentence: "Whitman returned to his home at 906 Jewell Street. He stabbed his wife three times in the heart as she slept, killing her instantly." The reason is that nobody dies "instantly" from a knife wound to the heart.  That is a figment of Hollywood movies.  A stab wound to the heart would probably take 3-5 minutes for some one to bleed out, with the person being awake and aware. Rob043055 (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus to remove David Gumby in the aftermath section as a homocide.
After doing some extensive research, I came across this article in reference to David Gunby. http://articles.latimes.com/2001/nov/16/local/me-4897 After examing the details, Mr. Gunby, an unfortunate victim of the shootings on campus, did survive his wounds. The article states that he was born with only one kidney; that he went on to find gainful employment; that he fathered children; that he decided to end a treatment program that could have prevented his death. The article also states that his son stated, that "... the only reason my father is dead today, is because of Charles Whitman". The coroner would have been influenced by the sentiments of the family. That is understanable. However, after 35 years of the aforementioned accomplishments by David Gunby (an unusually long time for any victim, and with many other possible issues that may contributed to his decision to stop treatment), the coroners attribution to the cause of death, does not follow the protocols of a murder, just an attempted murder scenario. Mr. Gunby has been listed among the wounded on August 1, 1966. His inclusion as a murder victim, after bearing the fruits of life after the wounding, should exclude the claims of the coroner. The inclusion in the article is controversial, and adds unnnessary weight, with a cloud of suspicion over the coroners report. March 5, 2013, Signed in absentia for User 76.112.160.28
 * There needs to be a consensus of the editors. Your speculations about the coroners "being influenced by the family members" is just that---speculation. The homicide claims of the coroner are the legal and documented decision of the person charged with that responsibilty....not a Wikipedia editor. There is no consensus to remove David Gumby among the editors working on this article. You can create a consensus but until you do the information should return to the article. Also, please sign your edits. It aids future editors in knowing who is talking. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  18:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I had previously posted to have a consensus through discussion, and no one responded - so I blanked the entry and in the summary, placed "see Talk". As to legalities, those change through time and new information, that is what appeals are for. Documents can also have erroneous information, that influences decisions, and sways away from the correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you proposed that content be removed/changed and no one answered, that's not your cue to remove/change said content with a note to "See Talk". What are people suppose to "See Talk" about anyway? I don't see this conversation you started here or in the last archive. As for your proposal, it is seemingly based on your own speculation and obvious misunderstanding of how death rulings are reached. I suggest you read up on the legal and medical definitions of immediate and secondary causes of death which may help you understand why your logic is extremely flawed. Whitman was the precipitating cause of Gunby's death. Presumably, Gunby died of renal failure or something of that nature - that is his immediate cause of death. Doesn't matter when it happened - Whitman's actions set off a chain event which ended with Gunby's death. That's why the coroner ruled Gunby's death a homicide and there's no "legality" that changes that. Gunby died in 2001 - what laws have changed in the last 12 years that would change the legality of this? I can't even think of what laws have changed in the last 100 years that would clear Whitman of responsibility. By your logic, Gunby wasn't a "real" victim because he had a productive life and bore children after the shooting. What he did after the fact has no bearing on the event that caused his death. Neither would having one kidney as many people have lived normal, productive lives with one kidney. I have no idea why that was even brought up except I suppose you think if the death is not immediate, it was not caused by the shooter. Wrong, wrong and, again, wrong. Your other basis for dismissing the official finding seems to imply the coroner was swayed by the family's comment. That's basically calling the coroner an unprofessional liar who is more interested in placating family members of the deceased than doing his appointed job. That's quite an extraordinary claim that you've thrown out here with no back up aside from your own personal feelings and a clear lack of knowledge on basic legal and medical findings. Just because you don't understand something or don't like it does not mean there's a "cloud of suspicion" over it nor does it mean there was any wrongdoing. I honestly don't know what your end game is here but your zeal to dismiss official rulings based on your own weak theories and your quickness to imply that there's some sort of conspiracy leads me to believe you should not be editing this article or making any kind of proposals. This is an encyclopedia - not a free space to rewrite facts because you don't personally agree with them. It is what it is - deal. This page should probably be placed under indefinite protection because it's clear the one person who was trying to whitewash this article (and was banned by Jimbo no less) and nit pick over bullshit about the cops in this case still hasn't gotten over their obsession. 24.224.46.51 (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ...banned by Jimbo. ??? what's that about? ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk ' 07:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Look through the archives of the talk page here. This article has a long and varied history because of one user (who I will not name) that was banned because of their disruptive editing, claims of conspiracies, etc. Xe has moved away from obsessing over the police who were involved in this event but the nitpicky MO over facts (not opinions) is still there. That's why I said the article should be locked indefinitely. This person is obsessed with this event which is why this article is rarely stable. 24.224.46.51 (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

wow...........!!! WOOWWWWW! IP user 24.224.46.51 has issues unknown to me. I merely questioned the examiners findings as to the cause of death DUE to the victim willfully stopping treatment, that would have kept him alive. Others would call that suicide regardless of who the victim was, and the perpetrator. If Gunby had died of the wounds, there would be no issue. A also fail to see how a request for input is being disruptive. I hope IP user 24.224 isn't allowed to own guns. All his/her arguments go beyond my intentions!2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also IP 24.224.51, here are cases that do not support your rant about medical examiners http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/studies-errors-texas-medical-examiners-led-wrongful-convictions. You obviously have issues I can't address, but please seek help, or think twice before making assertions. You also said you could not find my previous post - look in the history of this talk page and you will see it. You also claim I had no right to remove a section and put "See Talk Page" - WP:BOLD. anyone can edit, etc., etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

-

2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A, AKA 76.112.160.128, has asked me to explain why I reverted his edit.

This is yet another attempt by the IP editor to eliminate or contradict the coroner finding of homicide. As Buster7 notes above there is no consensus for his position--which contradicts reliable sources--but he keeps trying anyway. In the specific case, a coroner's verdict exists, and the verdict states "homicide" as the cause of death. Period. End of story. Legally and medically Gumby did, in fact, die of his wounds. No amount of legitimate philosophical debate on whether "passive euthanasia" is the appropriate term to use in general when people who voluntarily choose to end life-saving treatment changes the facts in this particular case. Ylee (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually Ylee, your characterizations are incorrect about my motives, however, I have found out why it was ruled a homocide - Texas has no category for assisted, passive or death other than justifiable or just plain old homocide. Suicide is the only other option, and carries penalties from the insurance companies in Texas. The coroner could not list it as suicide. It could not be listed as passive euthanasia, as Texas does not recognize the term, and the doctor would have been investigated for murder. So ... philosophical or not, in Texas, as usual, there is no debate. I will refrain from pursuing this any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is this a "Charles Whitman" article?
Those of us who were alive and sentient, at the time, think of this as "The Texas Tower Shootings/Sniper/Massacre". I was 25 when it happened and had the devil of a time finding the article. I have never remembered his name, and wish all articles about mass murderers would be listed under the incident/location name rather than giving glory to the perpetrators. They should be nothing more than a notation in the course of an article that details the incident. Ignoring Native American retributive attacks, i believe that before this incident, there are very few cases of mass murders at schools. Skimming through the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States, the first one seems to be in 1891, and the next isn't until 1927. Since 1970, schools seem to be target-rich environments. Ignoring the two early outliers, i think "Texas Tower Shootings" would be a far better title. Filé gumbo (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I support the proposed move. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you type "texas tower" texas tower shootings comes up and if you click the under-link, it directs to the Charles Whitman page. As to your personal sentiments, they are too idealistic for WP and News agencies, who report the names in an attempt to appear to be exclusive. That is the problem with the media, they appear to pray for these events, and always use the same rhetoric and chatter in thei articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6007:27:29E8:7C13:746:17E3 (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I also support that the Tower shooting information be placed on it's own wikipedia page. Social Media (which wikipedia can fall under) has a great deal of power and control around the rhetoric of public memory today. The tower shootings shouldn't be a sole Charles Whitman issue, it should be a University of Texas issue and at the very least a human issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.195.240 (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

SWAT teams
, discussed above, continues to disrupt the article. He attempted many times to blank the cited section on the shootings' contribution to the formation of SWAT teams around the US because, well, he didn't agree with it. I have added more cites in addition to the Texas Monthly article he (falsely) characterized as not a RS and slightly tweaked the language to compromise, but he now continues to insert his own text which, while cited, is problematic from a WP:TONE and, possibly, WP:SYN perspective. (He also wants me to contribute to an IndieGogo campaign. Is he John Moore, its creator? Your guess is good as mine.) Thoughts? Ylee (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * [] Your reference PG. 138, in bold letters MILITARIZATION AND THE SWAT, first sentence - "The Watts Riots changed everything on August 11, 1965..." {end quote}. Also Ylee, show me and other contributors where Daryl Gates and John Nelson, the framers of SWAT, ever mention Whitman by name. You can't because it is a Meme, created by post writers who assume SWAT could have done anything different than the way the Tower Tragedy unfolded, and you have taken the authors assumptions as fact, where it is not a fact. The "Creation of SWAT" in the article should be removed because it is not true in regards to Whitman. There is no compromize there. Again, you have labeled me disruptive. Was the wikitable table for the victims I created disruptive? Was the pointing out that Gary Lavergne, the author of "A Sniper In The The Tower", being historically incorrect about the Tower Tragedy being "the worst Mass Murder in American History" as of August 1, 1966, when in fact the blowing up of the Bath, Michigan school by Andrew Kehoe in 1927 was double the murder and wounded from Whitman... being disruptive? Was the fact that Lavergne also throws away all the known medical evidence from the Connally Report, specifically the tumor, and declares Whitman would have been electrocuted after a long and lengthy trial for Capital Murder, or be alive today in a prison - even though the science says Whitman's tumor would have killed him within a year if he had stayed at home and did nothing - was that disruptive? You need to realize your limitations of who you are dealing with on this subject. I do not not want you to buy the eBook on Indiegogo, because frankly, I do not see you as having the ability to comprehend a complete and exact treatment of the documents and audio clips contained there within. That is not an ad hominem attack, but your knowledge of dealing with facts, is unusually remiss. So one more time, WHITMAN WAS NOT THE IMPETUS FOR SWAT, many factors before Whitman was. Read your own references completely next time. Now you have given me license to blank the section one more time, as it should be.2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You are repeatedly deleting text with multiple cites from reliable sources because you don't seem to understand that this isn't an article about the history of SWAT. This is an article about an incident which multiple reliable sources say contributed to the formation of SWAT teams. It should not go into lengthy detail about the varying reasons SWAT teams came into being during the 1960s (I inserted the LAPD-Black Panthers-SLA text to attempt to compromise with you), and it stating that the Whitman incident was one of the reasons does not preclude other reasons from also being valid. You do not seem to understand this.
 * As this Talk page demonstrates, this is not the first time you have disrupted this article with your behavior. I will request mediation from either WP:3O or WP:DRN depending on whether other editors involve themselves here first. Ylee (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is YOU who does not understand. The header said "Creation Of SWAT", and attempts to mislead the reader that SWAT was created from the incident, which I clearly proved that it wasn't. If you can not understand that, take it to whoever or whatever you want. I don't own the article!2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've restored the section 2001:558 removed because (for one) the removal broke a citation and there is no consensus to remove this material. I have removed the header for now because it is a tad misleading because it seems to imply SWAT teams were created because of this particular event. The entire content should not be removed however unless a consensus of more than one lone editor is reached. On another note, I worked on this article, albeit briefly, some years back. I've been reading through the talk page and looking at the history of this article and it seems the same similarly worded arguments and insistence that one particular source isn't reliable is popping up again. The one user who made those arguments and also tried to remove information because of "media distortions", etc. was banned from editing. The short of it - banned users should not be editing here under an IP address or a "new" account. If you want your ban lifted, go through the proper channels. It doesn't matter if you come to the talk page in an attempt to appear like you're editing in a collegial manner (which you're not because you're implementing changes despite objections). There's no reason for editors to have to continually defend this article and debate sources that are clearly reliable. Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to absolve someone of a crime or insert your own bullshit theories. The next stop isn't third opinion or mediation, it's WP:SPI and, if need be, a request for extended protection because it's pretty clear this article and topic is a clear source of contention with exactly one person.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  06:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm... this [] and this [], do not reconcile, unless Pinkadelia personally emailed Ylee offering her help. Smells bad, kind of like (since Pink already used the term above) bullshit and a cabal. I have edited according to the rules, argued the points with clear thought and in good faith. Where Pink gets "bullshit theories" and absolution for the crimes from having an errant paragraph removed from the article, is something in her own mind. I fail to see how removing the SWAT paragraph would resolve Whitman or anyone else for crimes. That is nonsense. I clearly made the case on this talk page, that the SWAT paragraph was misleading, and Pink, in the revision section even agrees to that. She even removed the header and marked it as misleading. However, she makes red herring references to some phantom past, to make threats and appears to want to protect the page, where no evidence exits to do so. I stand by my editing as mentioned above. I do not need to make threats. I asked for Ylee to produce a source that mentions Whitman from John Nelson or Daryl Gates, the founders of SWAT, and he apparently could not. I even gave him the sources to check, but he apparently could not find what he wanted, because he wants to use references that come well after the facts, and the sources erroneously contribute SWAT being a creation of Whitman's actions, for their own sensationalism. How would an editor know, or a reader, that the sources might have been corrected and the content changed in a retraction by the source later on. There is no way to know. So the next logical conclusion would be to examine the original sources, which I have done, and Whitman is not named in any of them. Take to this to whoever you want. I stand by my previous input, and will WP:BOLD remove the SWAT references.2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't edit war. ElKevbo (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't view it as a war, ElKevbo. I consider it a defense of principles and historical accuracy.2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's no cabal or super scary conspiracy but nice try. I don't know Ylee and (s)he didn't ask for my "help". Your detective work is commendable, downright amazing actually because my talk page is so very difficult to find, but I have no problem letting you know that I contacted another editor to let them know my suspicious of sockpuppetry which I stated above. This was done after I made the revert here. Regardless, I think it's time to proceed with the sockpuppetry case because you're just not getting the point. Banned editors are not suppose to edit. Even if you're not banned, your tactics of coming to the talk page, proposing a change and then proceeding with it even after editors disagree with you isn't how things are done. Find another hobby.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  20:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you meant "suspicions", so therefore, I am guilty, is that what I'm hearing? What is a "sockpuppet"? According to WP, "A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception." I am an IP, and prefer to be an IP, because I do not like false identities - like user names. You (as Pinkadelica), Ylee and all others who use names other than their own, are the true "sockpuppets". It allows you to snitch, make false assumptions and claim the sky is falling, all because you will not be held accountable for your mistakes in the real world. What does any of this have to do with SWAT and Charles Whitman? As I pointed out in bold letters above, Swat was created as a result of the Watts Riots of 1965, almost a year before Whitman. That is not to say that Whitman would not be used later for techniques on how to deal with his type of scenario in the future, but Whitman was unknown to John Nelson and Daryl Gates in 1965. The "notable events" mentioned in the paragraph in the article, came after Whitman, but SWAT was fully funded and implemented at those times. Whitman was not a factor in 1965. Is Whitman used by SWAT as a teaching method? I know he is. There are other events that preceeded Whitman, that are taught as well. The reference to SWAT in the Whitman article, is a misplaced reference, created by mis-informed sources. Now excuse me - my "new hobby" is calling.2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Pinkadelica and WP:OUTING
Because of this [],Pinkadelica is in violation of 1. Not notifying this IP user of an actual investigation and 2. WP:OUTING and 3. WP:PRIVACY.

I am asking for an administrator, to review these allegations, and appropriate actions be imposed.2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism
This article appears to have been directly copied from "A Sniper In The Tower", because of the long lists of Ibid's in the reference section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6007:27:4010:28A4:F6EC:CF4D (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Plagiarism means that it was copied directly from a source without attribution and passed off as one's own work. Plagiarism is not citing the same reference repeatedly using ibid. In fact, I do not even see ibid being used in this article. The only thing I see wrong at the present time is the Scribd.com reference is now dead and there is other content that needs a source. Unless you can prove there is plagiarism with some diffs, don't claim it. 24.224.46.51 (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You are NOT the only one who knows what plagiarism is! You are right about Scribd.com, that was the source of the plagiarism. "A Sniper On The Tower" was being, and still is, directly copied from the book - errors and all. And stop telling people what to do!2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I know I'm not the only person who knows what plagiarism is. I explained it to you because you obviously have no idea what it is and still don't. I've gone through the article and replaced the Scribd.com link with the actual citations to the book. Whilst doing that, I also checked for copy/pasted content - there was one instance which I have since reworded. Again, your cries about something being "incorrect" are unfounded so yeah, I will tell you to stop bitching about issues that aren't real because it's annoying and disruptive. I get that you have a thing about Whitman and want to basically excise victims' names, details, etc. because...hell, I don't know why, but it ain't gonna happen. The present sources are acceptable by Wikipedia standards and nothing is copied directly from its source. You really need a new hobby that consists of something besides wanking it to a nearly 50 year old murder rampage. 24.224.46.51 (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Of the 89 references at the bottom of the article, 21 are attributed to Lavergne. That's 23.6% of the references. All coming from the author who claims the tower tragedy was the worst mass murder at the time (1966), in American history -forget about Andrew Kehoe of Bath, Michigan in 1927, Lavergne must be right because a consortium of scholarly analysts didn't want to question the claim. Lavergne also claims in his book, that the Connally Commission, claimed the tumor had no effect on Whitman's actions, which is untrue, they say it could have "conceivably" had an effect, the very next page that is in the Commissions Report, it's in the reference section... you look it up. To an earlier point of yours, there are no ibids because the format of WP is not static, one reference placed between two of Lavergne's references would break the ibid. If there was "ONE" direct copy you found, that does not mean there are not others. That is the soft soil of WP. Excise is generally an economic term for taxation, however, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant to "cut out" victim names, etc. That is a false assumption on your part. In fact, someone removed the whole list of wounded victims from the article, I think they should be put back. My hobbies are my concerns, live with your own - of which Mental Masturbation seems to be the major pre-occupation.2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have the book and I can find no mention where Lavergne dismisses the Connolly findings and gives his own opinion on the matter. If you have the page number, please provide it. What I did find was the author reporting on Dr. de Chenar's findings (not his own) that the tumor did not have "...any correlation to psychosis...", etc. (p. 262). The author then goes say that the findings are debatable and it's possible that the tumor did cause Whitman's actions but most doctors and criminologist who studied the case don't believe that to be so. (page 268). So where is the author saying that "that the Connally Commission, claimed the tumor had no effect on Whitman's actions"? He said just what the commission said - it is conceivable but there's no solid proof thus there is no definitive answer. The only place I found that Lavergne claimed the Texas Tower shootings was any kind of historical anything is on the back cover where it states that the shootings were "...then the largest simultaneous mass murder in American history". Did Lavergne write the back cover copy or was it someone from marketing or a publicist who likely didn't read the book and wrote the copy? Did Lavergne mention this elsewhere in the book? If so, page numbers would come in handy. Considering this particular source is not used to support the commission's findings or used to support that this shooting was the "worst shooting/mass murder ever", I have no idea why you used those two examples as proof that the entire book is wrong and should be completely disregarded. For whatever reason, you don't seem to like this book or what it claims but that's not a valid reason to remove it or the content it supports from the article. Also, I have a hard time taking your opinion or even your declaration of "facts" about this subject even remotely seriously as you're the same person who tried to change content in this very article regarding a coroner's official death ruling based on your own conspiracy theories and feelings. That stunt alone was enough to support that you're not here to improve this article but push your own unsupported POV. These new claims of "unreliable sources" and "plagiarism" further prove your true agenda. I think I have entertained you long enough and am obviously the only one silly enough to continue to take time to deal with repeated claims of "mistakes" in this article. If you have a plagiarism complaint, file a notice at Copyright problems. While you're at it, go to WP:RSN and post your "proof" that this particular book is unreliable. I look forward to your posts there. 24.224.46.51 (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is Lavergne, making the "worst mass murder in American history" claim - from his own mouth, (start 7:00 minutes) []. As to the Gunby death, there are many possible reasons the coroner ruled it as a homocide, that are only known to the coroner. The fact that Gunby decided to stop treatment, that could have prolonged his life, sounds like suicide. However, I've addressed that here on this talk page, and also mentioned it would not be pursued any further. I do not feel, nor ever said any conspiracies were involved, I merely question the length of life and time after the shooting. I feel bad for Mr. Gunby and his families loss. As to Lavergne, read here what he says about where Whitman would be at the time Lavergne wrote this (last sentence) []. Now look up glioblastoma muti-forme grade IV brain tumor, and look at the prognosis - how could Whitman be alive as of 2006 (my best guess for when Lavergne wrote the "Why" article), and/or survived a lengthy trial? No, I do not have his book, but I read enough of it in Austin when it first came out, to know there was something was wrong, because he and I had access to the all of the FBI, APD and Whitman's diaries. I have all of the files and lot of the photos (I don't know if Lavergne does), plus audio interviews with Whitman's victims, professors and friends. A few of the photos in the Whitman article are mine. I represented Houston McCoy and Jeannie Speed, the widow of slain officer Billy Speed. But I realize that makes me have a WP:COI (except for the photos that others say should stay). So I have given you enough to consider, and I will return to my self-imposed ban. You forced me out, with your allegations and characterizations. You have Lavergne's book, I'm sure he will autograph it for you. Best of luck to you.2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Mediocre shot
How can Whitman have earned a Sharpshooter's Badge, yet have "been a mediocre shooter in the Marine Corps" as per text prv. in the article?

The text read: He had been a mediocre shooter in the Marine Corps, but now became very accurate. --Kieronoldham (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Sharpshooter's Badge is the 2nd rank of badges related to shooting accuracy; it is second to the Expert Badge. See Marksmanship Badge (United States). - Boneyard90 (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sears Model 60
I noticed the short back-and-forth regarding specifying the brand name of Whitman's shotgun. This is a bit tricky because the Sears Model 60 needs to be disambiguated from the Marlin Model 60. It's also not possible to assume that just because he went to Sears that he bought the Sears model, because the Marlin is quite popular and I believe (but am not sure) that Sears also sold the Marlin at some point. So I think we need to add Sears back to the model, but not go into details about who actually manufactured it. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Good job. :) --Kieronoldham (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Finding Whitman
http://www.policemag.com/videos/channel/swat/2010/04/lapd-s-chief-gates-on-creation-of-swat.aspx Can anyone find Whitman in this video? If Whitman was so influential, Gates would have mentioned him by name. He Doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.161.183 (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Once a Marine always a Marine?
I'm unsure if this has been discussed beforehand, but for now I'm changing "former" Marine to "retired" Marine. GuyHimGuy (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit reportedly from Thomas Eckman's nephew
See User_talk:Barton_Campbell. I reverted his change and suggested he contact OTRS. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Article move, University of Texas shooting (1966)
I would like to start a discussion regarding switching the focus of this article to the events leading up to and involving the shooting incident and away from Whitman. Obviously Whitmans notable status is tied directly to the 1966 tower shootings making him a WP:1E. Similar shifts have been done on the Kip Kinkel and George Hennard articles regarding the Thurston High School shooting and Luby's shooting respectively.

The redirect created will still point Readers searching for information regarding Whitman to the article. Additionally, I added the "(1966)" because there was a second shooting incident in 2010. Although there is no article currently on the 2010 incident, per WP:MOS guidelines this is an appropriate addition to the article title if one is ever created.

I welcome everyone's thoughts and input. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there no proper article on the shooting itself? I'm surprised that the only article about such a noteworthy event is the article on the perpetrator. I'd like to see the creation of a seperate article for the shooting itself (coexisting with this one for the perpetrator). - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. As good as this article is, a seperate article on the shooting and aftermath seems like a good idea. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Marine Corps career exemplary?
I'm not sure I'd call his career "exemplary." Good conduct medals are earned not by doing anything special, just by not messing up. And qualifying as a "Sharpshooter" isn't a huge deal either, it's the middle of the 3 shooting badges. The expeditionary medal is not received by any personal actions, but by being qualifying for it in general. The reference for this information has a bibliography but doesn't directly provide notations, so it's hard to tell where they're getting the information that justifies his career being called "exemplary." This can all be confirmed with some simple google searches and information available on wikipedia already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.131.228.19 (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: Whitman's autopsy and disposition of his brain
Refer to the following CBS news report by Michael Casey on December 3, 2014 regarding the possibly missing brain of Charles Whitman. Some statements made within the "Autopsy" section of this entry now require revision.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mystery-solved-missing-university-of-texas-brains-tossed-in-trash/

"The Austin State Hospital had transferred some 200 brains to the university about 28 years ago under a 'temporary possession' agreement. UT Psychology Prof. Tim Schallert said his psychology lab had room for only 100 brains, so the rest were moved to the basement of the university's Animal Resources Center.

"Schallert, co-curator of the university's collection (which still has the remaining 100 brains), set off a minor frenzy Wednesday after he told an Austin newspaper that someone 'may have taken the brains.'

"His co-curator, psychology Professor Lawrence Cormack, confirmed, 'They are no longer in the basement.'

"Schallert was quoted later in the day asserting that the brains had been found at the University of Texas at San Antonio. A spokesman for the San Antonio campus, Joe Izbrand, squashed that rumor with a swift denial to CBS News.

"Then, the University of Texas at Austin put the frenzied search for the brains to rest when it announced they had been tossed in the trash a full 12 years ago.

" 'We believe the workers disposed of between 40 and 60 jars, some of which contained multiple human brains, and worked with a biological waste contractor to do so safely,' the university said in a statement. 'We have no evidence that any brain specimens were shared with other universities or health institutions, though we will continue to investigate those reports.'

"The disposal was done in coordination with faculty members who determined that the brains received in the 1980s were in poor condition and were of no use for teaching or research.

"'The university will also investigate how the decision was made to dispose of some of these specimens and how all brain specimens have been handled since the university received its collection from the Austin State Hospital in the 1980s,' a school spokesman said. 'University officials will appoint a broader investigative committee to examine these issues. As researchers and teachers, we understand the potential scientific value of all of our holdings and take our roles as stewards of them very seriously.'

"The school also quashed speculation that the brain of clock tower sniper Charles Whitman was among the missing specimens. Whitman's 1966 rampage at the University of Texas killed 16 people, including his mother and wife.

"The 100 remaining brains at the school have been moved to the Norman Hackerman Building, where they are being scanned with high-resolution resonance imaging equipment, Cormack said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.148.128 (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"one shot, one kill"
One editor removed a statement that Whitman did not fire upon anyone who had already fallen. Another editor restored that statement, asking for a source justifying the edit. There's an interview with Roland Ehlke stating that he had been fired upon twice, once after hitting the ground. While the "one shot, one kill" statement is also sourced to a Texas Monthly article, I think that there's enough of a cloud over the statement to remove it from the article. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * First, I'd appreciate if you restored my edit or at least explained why you reverted it since it has nothing to do with this "one shot one kill" dispute.
 * Second, regardless of whether Whitman shot people multiple times or not the specific sentence has some problems in that (a) it's closely copied from the cited source and (b) over-the-top language that doesn't seem to have much basis in reality. Even if it could be fixed so it's not a close copy of the cited source - and I don't think the first half of the sentence can be salvaged - it seems problematic to try to link Whitman to trained military snipers considering that nowhere in the article does it state that he actually had sniper training.  So even if the broad facts are true the description of them needs to be modified. ElKevbo (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who removed your edit; that was . I imagine that it was just collateral damage from a hasty revert. To all your other points, I agree entirely. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I apologize for reverting your edit; it was indeed collateral damage. I'll fix it.
 * Regarding the "one shot" sentence: 1) It is difficult to paraphrase one sentence. Were this a full paragraph it would be easier. Suggestions welcome. 2) Regardless of whether Whitman received formal military sniper training, he a) proved to be an excellent shot, repeatedly making difficult shots from long distances under fire, and b) is universally referred to as a sniper; the title is not one that requires a certificate or license. 3) A reliable source stated that Whitman followed the sniper maxim. (As I explained to, there is no contradiction between the Ehlke cite and stating that Whitman followed the maxim. Ehlke stated that he was up and moving when he was shot the second time. The cite isn't clear on whether he ever fell to the ground after being shot the first time; it only says that he dove for cover—which implies that he didn't fall involuntarily—before getting back up to to try assist and being shot again.) Ylee (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing the earlier section and I apologize for getting confused about who made the initial revert.
 * With respect to the "one shot one kill" sentence, if this is only described in one of the many sources that describe this incident then it shouldn't be in this article. That the specific sentence is closely copied from the source and directly implies that Whitman was intentionally acting like or following the training of a professional sniper when there isn't any evidence of that are further reasons to remove the sentence.
 * Look, it's pretty clear that the sentence in the cited source is sensationalized bullshit. The whole "following the tradition of a sniper" bit doesn't add anything to the article and unless it's very intentional and based in fact it's amateurish prose that detracts from this encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again an editor has removed this claim and you have immediately restored it. Can you please explain why this is so important to include in the article, even though the claim is confusing enough that multiple independent editors have repeatedly removed the text and argued against its inclusion on this talk page? Since you're the only one who has restored the text after the previous discussion, I'm hoping that you can shed light on this. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not responsible for anonymous IP editors who are not able to comprehend the text. (Remember, also, that there is a longstanding issue of a banned editor attempting to sneak his particular views on various aspects of this article, including the sentence in question, with IP edits among his tools.)
 * I am not wedded to the sentence. If clear consensus develops against it here, I have no problem with removing it. But, until then, I object to doing so because of bogus objections like "it too closely paraphrases the text" and "only one cite makes the claim". The former, I've discussed it above; the latter is one that is found nowhere in WP:MOS. A reliable source stating that Whitman, who provably was an excellent shot, lived up to a well-known sniper creed in his murderous actions is hardly WP:FRINGE. Ylee (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been other arguments made against the claim. made the clearest argument IMO, which is that the text implies that Whitman was connected to or influenced by sniper training or methodology (which may indeed be true, but this source isn't sufficient to clarify that connection). And I can't speak for the IP editor, but I think that I'm a reasonably intelligent person, and I considered the text imprecise enough to remove. And while I agree that Texas Monthly is a reliable source in general, that doesn't mean that they are experts on this particular topic. And I completely agree that Whitman was an excellent shot and that's worth discussing with appropriate sourcing. There are probably other ways to express this without relying on journalistic license; any thoughts? Regards,  Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

An IP editor who again reverted the text in question just left a message on my Talk page that sounds like the above-mentioned banned editor. (For the curious, see this page's archives, and my Talk page (I am not referring to User:Kww; rather, the one Pinkadelica refers to).) Ylee (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ylee's right about this posting -

Following the sniper tradition of "one shot, one kill", sounds like a certification that is misinterpolated into the article for dramatic effect, rather than Encyclopedic rendering. You don't seem to understand something - Whitman WAS a Sniper, not a military or police sniper, a social sniper! Stop your playing with logic as if it is a toy you can manipulate at will, and not get caught. I've seen your rants to others who were trying to explain your abusive replies, and see your WP:OWN issues. You think you know everything and how to weasel out of it by being flippant. "One Shot - One Kill" goes. - I have no problem leaving it here. As to Pinkadelphia and a banned editor, what's up with that? A desperate attempt to step away from a blown ego, by blaming someone else? 172.1.26.250 (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ylee has once again reverted the above discussed removal of "one shot - one kill". There appeared to be consensus among the editors, that it was an unnecessary, and untrue account of it's purposes. Now, Ylee has become anal explosive with accusations and delusions that an IP is a banned user, after all of the substantive issues were inquired here. I reverted it based on those principles. 2602:30A:C011:AFA0:89D3:19B3:9A90:9378 (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If I may add - based on Ylee's language in his revert, and his behavior's, he has to be my mother! lol! 2602:30A:C011:AFA0:89D3:19B3:9A90:9378 (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to review the following editors history; if, almost certainly qualifies under some WP:Rule, to justify editing and starting edit wars, WP will forever be almost right...// (cur | prev) 18:30, 19 February 2015‎ Ylee (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,718 bytes) (+137)‎ . . (Undid revision 647621445 by 172.1.26.250 (talk) Based on behavior and Talk-page language it's almost certainly the banned editor using IP addresses again) (undo)2602:30A:C011:AFA0:89D3:19B3:9A90:9378 (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Changes that need to be made to article
I have seen good faith editors in Orange Sofa and Kev, I expect problems from Ylee, however, Ylee may agree as well if the information is proven.

Changes to consider:

1. S.W.A.T. was not created by Whitman or Daryl Gates. It was the product of John Nelson after the Watts Riots of 1965 and snipers associated with that incident, and another sniper in L.A. after the riots and before Whitman. Whitman came after the program was initiated and being developed, but Whitman was not the impetus for SWAT.


 * After reviewing numerous websites about the creation of SWAT, there are none that mention Whitman until recent entries, and those are mainly from writers who have assumed a correlation with Whitman and SWAT. Most all, do refer to John Nelson (police officer), others Daryl Gates (was or was not initially connected). The primary focus of the creation of SWAT, according to most articles were the Watts Riots of 1965, a year before Whitman. In fact, prime candidates outside of Los Angeles, that could have been mentioned are Lee Harvey Oswald, 1963, and other major events prior to the Watts Riots, but were not. So why Whitman, almost forty years after the creation of SWAT? Whitman would been a good candidate, and certainly would have caught the attention of the creators of SWAT, but again, SWAT was already named and in the works, as Whitman was shooting from the tower. Of all the articles reviewed, the information (and lack of information), makes it impossible to sync them into a credible source that Whitman was the impetus, or even known at the time SWAT was created. My suggestion here, based on the aforementioned information, would be to remove the SWAT reference. 2602:30A:C011:AFA0:94C0:C3A2:5A20:5824 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * One article, mentions John Nelson and Daryl Gates as putting the SWAT concept together with approval under Chief William Parker, after the Watts Riots of '65. Chief Parker died two weeks before Whitman acted. [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C011:AFA0:94C0:C3A2:5A20:5824 (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

2. If you look at the references, in context to the article, one author is being used with undue weight and direct language from his book. One WP editor is co-mingling other references to not have the appearance that this is being done. Whether it is fringing or direct copyright violations, is a matter to be determined.

3. There are dead links that contain no mention of the material it is referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C011:AFA0:6814:D9C9:94B9:ACC7 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

4. The issue with the more recent "brains" issue should go. Whitman's body was exhumed a few days after his burial so that his brain (what was left of it) could be studied by the members of the Connally Commission. After their findings, it was re-interred with Whitman's body. It was never among the brains in the sensationalistic reporting within the article and the talk page.2602:30A:C011:AFA0:6814:D9C9:94B9:ACC7 (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Anibot rescuing Orphaned References
A bot has rescued references from a musicians name (Marlee Macleod) that leads to a TruTV page that has no links to anything that is written in the article and/or Whitman. ???!2602:30A:C011:AFA0:9B8:BD02:84F:4E62 (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits
Pinkadelphia's pruning of the references, makes more clear what I wrote above about using a particular author, which may be a copy-right violation. The author's name is Gary Lavergne and the narrative in the article almost exclusively comes from his book. There are a few other references mixed into the references, which appears to be a strategy. Look at the reference section and look at the number of references by Lavergne. It far outweighs contributions by other reliable and unreliable sources. However, by all means leave it that way. Perhaps the author should be asked if his narrative of events, should be allowed. WTH, he may allow a copy and paste of the whole book.2602:30A:C011:AFA0:E9A9:F825:9B17:627C (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Gunshot sound?
How do people not hear the gunshots when there were no silencers and also a gunshot at a university (silent place) should be heard like a mile away no? Especially when firing from a building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo Da Vinci (talk • contribs)
 * The article doesn't state that gunshots weren't heard. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Charles Whitman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://austinpolice.com/magline%20pdfs/2009-vol1-5.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 11:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Charles Whitman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150905180049/http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6FlJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KQoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=804,861969&dq/ to https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6FlJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KQoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=804,861969&dq/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 21:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources about Claire Wilson and Kathy Leissner
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Colloff, Pamela. "The Reckoning." Texas Monthly. March 2016.
 * Scott-Coe, Jo. "Listening to Kathy." Catapult. March 30, 2016.

Using Template:Rp for Lavergne and Time-Life Books citations
Using Template:Rp may simplify the ease of seeing what information is supported by what sources in this article. The template describes itself as "an alternative that can be used in articles with one or several sources that must be cited a large number of times, at numerous different pages."

In this case, Lavergne 1997 is cited 21 times and Time-Life Books 1993 is cited 22 times, each with shortened footnotes and page numbers.

Any objections to switching these two sources to using Template:Rp for the page references?

—Verbistheword (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Role of Ramiro Martinez
The article as written minimizes the role played by Martinez in favour of McCoy.

The Introduction credits only McCoy as the officer who brought down Whitman (backed up by five references to the same basic article), without even mentioning Martinez. When he is referenced later in the article, the impression given is that he emptied his gun (missing with all shots) and then went sprinting out to take the credit. In addition, he is alleged to have credited the people shooting at the tower for saving lives.

That is very different to the interview with Martinez that appears in the BBC Witness series, where he says that when he arrived on campus (having been at home, off duty), people were aimlessly shooting from distance at Whitman but not actually doing anything about it.

This is clearly a sensitive issue and I understand the perception that Martinez milked his role. But whether he did that or not, the fact remains that he displayed significant courage and the article is not even-handed in its treatment of him. Even McCoy was open enough to say that it was a joint effort, which is not the impression this article gives.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)