Talk:Lockheed Martin shooting

Style
Sorry to say this, but this article is written in tabloid press style, relishing each juicy detail. This is not at all what encyclopedic style should be like. --84.190.89.111 (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your evaluation of the article. Although there is a great deal of detail the detail is well sourced, and I don't really see any "relishing". What I think of as tabloid style, relishing in the lurid details, would include e.g. descriptions of a face after a shotgun blast ("what was left of his face, after perhaps a third of the skin was torn off and stuck to the wall behind in tiny bits..."), blood pooling on the floor, etc.


 * Can you offer specific criticisms, or, better, suggestions for improvement? Perhaps you could post here a revised version of what you feel is the most-offending paragraph? I think that's a better way to do it. Jeh (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, thanks for contributing here!
 * Now, moving this over here where it belongs:
 * It is difficult to raise more "specific" objections when the whole article is written in this style. It's not one offending paragraph, it's more or less the whole thing.
 * My "revised version" would basically be deleting everything except for the introductory paragraph. I doubt that this would be much appreciated by the previous editors of the article. That's why I hoped for a broader discussion.
 * To add another point, since you mention that: I did not criticize any lack of sources (which is certainly something I love to do if that is an issue). The sources are o.k.
 * However: Not everything that is sourced needs to be on Wikipedia. --84.190.89.202 (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "It's not one offending paragraph, it's more or less the whole thing." No, but I meant if you could present one paragraph rewritten as per your objections, then others would have a better idea of what changes you want. However if you really want to delete everything but the lede I see how that approach wouldn't work. I think you should try for something in between that and "leave the article as it is". Jeh (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, that's the point. The lede tells us
 * "The gunman, 48-year-old Douglas Williams, an assembly line worker at the plant, shot 14 of his co-workers with a shotgun, killing six of them, before committing suicide"
 * - and I think that's really all we need to know in terms of encyclopedic information. Why would it be considered encyclopedic content to hear exactly who did what at which point, when did the gunman turn right or left, and who said what or possibly something else?
 * Another example: Do we really need to hear each and every opinion on the matter in direct quotes? Wouldn't it be much more encyclopedic to summarize that in neutral and unemotional words and leave it to the reader to check the footnotes for more detail?
 * For instance, couldn't we just summarize in a way like "It remains controversial if he had racist motives" and supply footnotes instead of elaborating on the exact words of every single neighbor, co-worker, and police officer?
 * Another issue: The way the article is written right now is, in my opinion, only seemingly factual, but in truth it is written so as to evoke the readers' emotions. That's not what I would consider encyclopedic.
 * And do we really need to know all the names and all that personal information about the victims? What about WP:BLP (in effect for living as well as recently deceased people)? --84.190.89.202 (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

On WP:BLP, I just found what I had been looking for: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist. That's it. This article currently is sensationalist from top to bottom, in my opinion. --84.190.89.202 (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Please refer to WP:BOLD. Jeh (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Editing Needed
I think a little editing for grammar and style is necessary here. I would like to see a little more information about the shooter, such as when and where he was born. I also think it would be a good idea to wrap up the "motives" section in a broader discussion about the investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.212.111 (talk) 2017-01-27T19:12:12


 * Thank you for the edit you've already made. There is no reason not to continue. Oh, in the future, Information.svg Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png located above the edit window.

Thank you.. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lockheed Martin shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130409140737/http://www.factsantidepressants.com/2003-07-08-Doug-Williams-antidepressants.htm to http://www.factsantidepressants.com/2003-07-08-Doug-Williams-antidepressants.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.meridianstar.com/homepage/local_story_189012514.html?keyword=leadpicturestory

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)