Talk:Moscone–Milk assassinations/Archive 1

older entries
I think the edit should be enough to take down the copy-edit request. I have improved syntax and flow and corrected several inaccuracies: White was found guilty of manslaughter and paroled in 1984; Feinstein did not claim that she was Mayor in her announcement of the murders. I wondered about keeping two sections for each man's murder, but left that intact. Opinions? --Mhatchett 15:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Does something about this belong in the article?
The following dialogue is quoted from '''"DAN WHITE'S LAST CONFESSION" by Mike Weiss.  It was published September 18, 1998 in the San Jose Mercury News'''

''"I really lost it that day," White said. ''

"You can say that again," Falzon answered.

''"No. I really lost it. I was on a mission. I wanted four of them." ''

''"Four?" Falzon said. ''

"Carol Ruth Silver--she was the biggest snake of the bunch. 

And Willie Brown," White continued. "He was masterminding the whole thing." 

The truth finally came out of Dan White. IT WAS PREMEDITATED MURDER. He went to City Hall that Monday morning in 1978 for the purpose of murdering Mayor Moscone, Supervisor Harvey Milk, and two other liberals, Supervisor Carol Ruth Silver, and California State Assemblyman Willie Brown. White also confessed that he had intended to kill himself, but was unable to do it. Falzon believed what he was told, but saw no sense in revealing the confession at the time. However, I think this new information tends to refute the popular opinion that homophobia was a motive in Milk's murder.

http://thecastro.net/milk/soledadpage.html

--BillyTFried 22:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added the relevent info to the Dan White article, which brings up another question: why does this separate article exist?  There is almost no information in this article that isn't in the Dan White article.  And most of what little there is would actually appropriately fit in Dan White's article. Mwelch 22:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, in following up I see that there is a great deal of repitition of this info not only Dan White, but also in George Moscone and Harvey Milk. That argues for this being valid as a separate article, but the info present in those other three should be scaled back accordingly.  It does no good to have a "main article" if all of the articles that link to it are still going to replicate almost its entire content themselves anyway.  Mwelch 22:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Following up on your points, Mwelch, it seems to me that an article on Moscone-Milk assassinations actually makes more sense than a Dan White article. How notable would one be without the other?  Moscone and Milk's murders would still be notable even if the killer wasn't known.  If Dan White hadn't committed murder, he would just have been a man who had served for a while in a position at City Hall for one of America's large cities and then left under bad circumstances.  That's not very rare.
 * I also agree with you completely about removing duplication. Obviously it's not possible to remove all duplication, but repeating the same facts between articles is a necessary evil which should be avoided whenever it isn't necessary.
 * To bring up a new point -- what Falzon says that White confessed to him in 1984 is certainly interesting, and certainly belongs in the article. However, it's one witness reporting what no one else still alive could confirm or deny, 14 years after it was allegedly said.  I don't think we should treat it as unquestionably true -- which is what the article currently does in this sentence:  "Debate among the Board members was sometimes acrimonious and saw the conservative White verbally sparring with liberal supervisors Harvey Milk and Carol Ruth Silver, whom White also planned to kill, most often."  I think we should either remove that clause, or perhaps convert it into a parenthetical note, something like "Debate among the Board members was sometimes acrimonious and saw the conservative White verbally sparring with liberal supervisors Harvey Milk and Carol Ruth Silver most often.  (In 1998, a friend of White's would claim that White had identified Silver in 1984 as someone he had planned to kill along with Moscone and Milk.)" -- 192.250.34.161 19:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MilkMosconeslainpaper.gif
Image:MilkMosconeslainpaper.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"pro-growth"
This is weasel-wording at its worst. 75.183.8.246 02:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you care to offer any alternative suggestions and/or elaborate on why you object to that wording? Mwelch 03:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MilkMosconeslainpaper.gif
Image:MilkMosconeslainpaper.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)