Talk:San Ysidro McDonald's massacre/Archive 1

Anti-Hispanic?
Is there any evidence that he targeted Hispanics? If so, it should be noted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.160.29 (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. San Ysidro is right on the US/Mexico border (there's a major border crossing in the city), so it's not surprising almost all of the victims were Hispanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.116.128 (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Murder-Suicide"?
This is currently categorized under Murder-Suicide, but the article states that the gunman was killed by a police sniper. Is there something I'm missing here? 70.7.133.200 (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, that's puzzling. Maybe it refers to "suicide by cop"?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Victims' names
Should the list of victims be re-included? It seems right... but something more specific than "retired truck driver" seems appropriate.

From this photo I can tell that the memorial includes all 21 names. But I can't make them out. Is anyone in that area, who'd be willing to go check?

-Adam

I'm glad that they put the victims names and I added 6 of the Survivors.

Odd sentence
I removed "At the time it was the worst single-day massacre in U.S. history." See Battle of Antietam, for one.


 * Dear Unsigned,
 * "Odd sentence?" That may be true, but there's no need to remove the sentence altogether. It's obvious that the term "worst single-day massacre" refers only to non-military killings in U.S. history. To be sure, the Battle of Antietam was the bloodiest battle in U.S. history, but it was not a massacre of civilians by civilians.


 * I will reinsert the sentence but clarify that it was the worst shooting spree in U.S. history at the time.--Unregistered User 6 June 2008

Copycat Crime
Wasn't there also some guy in the mid nineties who shot up a McDonald's. I vaugley remeber it happening after that move "Falling Down" came out. Maybe I was just hearing the story wrong and they were referring back to this incident.

You are thinking about the Luby's massacre in Texas, but there was a movie called Bloody Wednesday and it is on Amazon.com TVSRR 19:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Rewrote awkward sentence

 * Freeman MacNeil is now (25 years until parole eligibilty is reached) in a maximum security prison in Renous, New Brunswick.

This was a weird sentence, so I rewrote it. However, I don't have the information about the actual criminal sentencing. The sentence as quoted above (as it originally appeared), in addition to being terribly written, is ambiguous. 25 years from the time this article was written, or 25 years from the sentencing? Someone with knowledge of the subject should clear that up. Torgo 22:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Split
This article for some reason discusses two different incidents, although the incidents are largely unrelated accept for the fact that they both took place at McDonald's restaurants. joturn e r 03:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the whole second section. It should be either it's own article or not be int. -  brenneman  {L} 07:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I split the two articles as requested. They definitely deserve seperate articles. Valoem   talk  05:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

McMurder?
I work in the news industry in San Diego (the market includes San Ysidro), and have never heard the term McMurder. An internet search did reveal use of the term, but it's hardly widespread enough to be cited in an encyclopedia. (For reference, "McFart" and "McTrash" all return lots of hits on Google, but we don't include separate sections on them.) Any comments before I change the name of the article, and its references? Photomikey 03:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree; the reference to McMurder should be removed. But what do you think should be changed in the name of the article?  --Satori Son 19:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree. The term "McMurder" that your Googling turns up is a sort of campaign slogan by militant vegetarian activists opposed to the fact that McDonalds sells meat products. It has nothign to do with this massacre. I will remove the line. -- Securiger 21:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The term McMassacre returns mostly hits directly relevant to this case. I'm not sure that there are enough search-engine hits for the term to justify its inclusion at the moment, though. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Music?
It's been said that Huberty carried a boombox to the massacre with him, and blasted the song, "Warrior" by the group Scandal as he shot people. The lyrics seem pretty surreal if this is true. Is there any way this can be confirmed and included in the article?

I heard this story too, but the version I heard said that the song came over the radio and Huberty danced around to it as he shot people. Sounds like an urban legend to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.191.25 (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting. Do you remember when you heard this and where ? I never came across this rumor in all my research done on this incident going back to 1993.

News stories at the time done in San Diego and Los Angeles, along with a chapter on the Massacre in Time-Life Books Mass Murder - True Crime Series confirm that a radio belonged to one of the employees at McDonalds. The San Diego Union Tribune reports that a Massacre victim heard a Michael Jackson record on the radio. Also reported was that Huberty had changed stations several times. Time-Life reports in Mass Murder that Huberty was seen at times shifting to a grotesque little dancing in between firing his weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.46.158 (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I did read in the Paper that he had a boombox with the song "The Warrior" by Scandal playing. It was a very popular song when that happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.210.250 (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Huberty had a radio with him and listened to it, so if that song was popular at the time, it is very much possible that it was played. AFAIK Huberty also did some dancing to "Thriller" by Michael Jackson, threw french fries at his victims, and slurped soft drinks during the shooting. (Lord Gøn (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

I remember hearing that also when the story came out on the news. I've remembered the massacre everytime I heard that song from then on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.240.138.28 (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I remember reading about this event in the National Enquirer my grandparents had at our family cabin. I believe it was specifically mentioned in that article that he played "Warrior" from a boombox because the image of it in my head is still strong and the only source I read about it from was this one article. I also remember it mentioning people trying to hide under tables and I remember as a child trying to think of ways to escape or hide if anything like that happened. The music part stuck in my brain the clearest. Anyone try tracking down the National Enquirer article on this? We all know it was horrible journalism but might solve this mystery. 2600:8802:5522:9D00:31C6:697:C5AF:B95C (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The more I think of it, the more I remember it being on the cover of the National Enquirer as the headline. This might be why so many people remember it - not many people bought the National Enquirer but most anyone who went through the line of any grocery store saw their headlines every week whether you wanted to or not. If it wasn't the Enquirer, it was the rival rag at the time, but I can't remember that name. 2600:8802:5522:9D00:31C6:697:C5AF:B95C (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There was a small portable radio near the service counter (if memory serves me correct it belonged to one of the employees). At one point in the massacre, according to several survivors, he abruptly began searching the frequency spectrum. Some thought he was searching for radio broadcasts of his actions, but he left the dial at an unknown/unnamed radio station, then placed the radio back on the counter and resumed shooting. The radio is depicted on at least one diagram of the scene after he was felled.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Past Work History/behavoir
In 1964, I was Jim's mentor as an apprentice embalmer/funeral director in Canton OH. He liked to talk about his father being a portrait artist but never mentioned his mother or siblings. He was fasinated by guns. He exhibited very anti-social behavoir. His co-workers thought of him as odd and he had no friends that I recall. During viewing hours at the funeral home, if people stayed beyond the normalvisiting hours, he would pace back and forth mutter "get out". If that failed, he would start turning out the lights. I cautioned him about that type of behavoir and he told me he didn't care. With something like three monts of employment he was fired for improper conduct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdcmadmax (talk • contribs) 19:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Apparently his wife was a piece of work too, had some strange history of her own. She also sued McDonalds afterward saying chemicals in their food contributed to his psychotic behavior.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is such a sad article I can't even read it without crying. I remember reading about it when it happened.2602:30A:2C52:C170:D47C:D368:4BD7:4204 (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

how many victims?
The opening paragraph says 21, but the list of names says 22. So, how many were killed?Jlujan69 *22 Including him died in the incident, but he killed 21 personally. what I want to know is if there were 15 injuries or 19 injuries, because it states both in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatsketch (talk • contribs) 10:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeline or Aftermath?
Does anyone have a detailed timeline of this event? It was probably printed in the local papers at the time. Also, were there any policy changes that came about from this? I vaguely remember the police being roundly criticized for allowing him to live so long, but don't know if anything came of it.
 * The criticism has been added.--Rockero 00:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I found at least a partial timeline of events on the San Diego Tribune website. http://www.signonsandiego.com/san-ysidro-massacre/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.184.187 (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

anyone uninjured
Does anyone know if there was anyone that was not injured at all?

JP
 * The video I reference shows a number of people exiting the premises who look to be uninjured, some in McDonalds uniforms. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

deleted the old anti-Mayor Sanders newspaper article quotes
Looks like it was put in around the time someone didn't want him to become mayor. He won anyway. Besides, the "local" (Spanish language) newspaper quoted is totally unknown to me, and I've been a San Diego local my whole life. That paper seemed to be more than a bit biased, feel free to quote the San Diego Union-Tribune or CNN if you feel Jerry Sanders was drunk and couldn't find his car keys while some wacko shot up the town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.6.196 (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath: Charity tennis match
I remember reading in a tennis magazine in the 80's that Jimmy Connors was so moved by the tragedy that he called his hated rival Ivan Lendl, at home, to request they do a charity match to raise money for the victims' families and survivors' medical bills. Lendl apparently agreed immediately. I have tried to source this through the Internets, so far without success. If anyone can help, I'd be grateful. I think its worth adding if cited because these two loathed each other (and probably still do...) and its a measure of how shocking this incident was to a nation who had yet to experience the future regular stranger-shootings that followed... Plutonium27 (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits as of 9-9-08
My source for edits concerning his life in Canton in the second paragraph are sourced from Time Life Books "Mass Murderers". Kaltenborn (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Well, then add the reference and everybody'll be happy and dance the dance of happyness and joy. Otherwise a horde of zombified Wikipedians will invade your home and eat your buttocks.  BTW, what's the deeper meaning of this post? Do you want anyone else to add the ref for you? (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

Book
Well, maybe this is not the right place to ask this, but I know that there is a book about the case, published in the late 80s or early 90s, if I remember correctly, though I don't know its title and thus cannot find it anymore. Maybe someone here can help me out and tell me what I am looking for. Thanks. (Lord Gøn (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC))

Only book i know of is Mass Murder by Time-Life books, 1992. There is a very detailed chapter called "The Tally" on this incident taken from Police reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzi9mm (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at March 2008 versions of the article to find the newspaper quote revisions discussed above and found this reference to a book:

"The murders are reconstructed in The Sett (1996), a book by Ranulph Fiennes which deals with the subject of revenge killing." JeremiahJohnson (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Use in Film
I have taken part of the aftermath section out and put it here to see if it can be sourced - the unsourced tag has been there for a long time.
 * A scene in the 1984 war movie Red Dawn that featured Russian soldiers eating at a McDonald's and a tank driving onto the parking lot was withheld out of respect for the victims.

An editor created the section "Trivia", splitting this statement off into that section, but rather than open a new section for this comment alone (a section which maybe couldn't be expanded beyond this claim) a source should be found for the comment, and then if notable it should maybe be included in the body instead of it's own section. Weakopedia (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As originally integrated into the article, this statement constituted "trivia" (and quite frankly, I'm tired of editors trying to pass "trivia" off as "In Popular Culture". Call it what it is, or get rid of it). This content *might* have a place in the article - though personally I don't see it - but if so, it should be integrated in such a way as it does not fall into the category of "trivia". As well, a valid reference is required. =//= Proxy User (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Timeline problem
I'm reading this article on 10 Aug 2011. The articles states:

" The massacre began at 3:40 p.m. " - and - "law enforcement and emergency crews responded ... at 3:15 p.m." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.187.176.199 (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted the "responded at 3:15" paragraph; it didn't show any sources, and the time was obviously in error. Also added another ref with a detailed timeline that conflicts somewhat with the 3:40 start, but didn't modify that text. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"shooting" or "massacre" in title
I'm not trying to stir up controversy, but the trend with articles of this type has been leaning towards the use of the term "shooting" versus "massacre": 2013 Santa Monica shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, etc. There are exceptions such as Virginia Tech massacre, but given the creations dates it would seem that the term "massacre" was used because of this article. There is considerable discussion about the use of the term on the Virginia Tech article's Talk page.

Obviously its used numerous times in the article and if the article were moved to San Ysidro McDonald's shooting a redirect would be created and anyone using the term would still find the article.

I am in no way trying to change the impact or impression or any other interpretation of the event, this is simply for consistency sake with similar articles. Does anyone object to this move? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of sources (found by a narrow google search) shows that it's most widely known as massacre, rather than shooting:
 * "san ysidro massacre" 1984 -wikipedia
 * "san ysidro shooting" 1984 -wikipedia
 * Acknowledging that google search counts aren't definitivie, I think we should probably just stick with what it's most widely known as, and it seems most sources refer to it as massacre. Anastrophe (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Anas, would you mind linking to the search results you found. I'm having a hard time duplicating what you state. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=%22san+ysidro+massacre%22+1984++-wikipedia and
 * https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=%22san+ysidro+shooting%22+1984++-wikipedia Anastrophe (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at any random link in the article and you will get your answer. JOJ  Hutton  21:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COMMONNAME the articles uses the most common name used in English language sources. Massacre is the word used in sources. JOJ  Hutton  20:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I understand better what you are basing your stance on, but how you did the search makes no sense to me. When I narrow the search to the time frame of sources that the original writer of the article had access to, I don't see a clear preference. Here's an example... and. Few of the links are WP:RS and there's no clear use of the term massacre by reliable sources. The search has to be narrowed to this range because this article skews the results. For the record, this article was created 13:06, December 23, 2004. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My search specifically excludes wikipedia from the results, and only searches specifically for references to the 1984 shooting; yours searches for just the inclusion of the three words, without keeping them parsed. If you put the term in quotes, you get the same balance of results as mine for the most part. Anastrophe (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, but do you understand the importance of the search stopping before the article was written? That way that article itself cannot be considered an influence on any other mass media article since. My search specifically looks at the sources available when this article was first written. Yes, many sources call it a "massacre", but only since the Wikipedia article has existed. Prior to 18 May 2004, there does not seem to be a predominant use of the word. Furthermore, I just tried out the Highbeam research account that WP just gave me on the same terms going back to 1984 and there are more occurrences of "shooting" than "massacre". It's a ratio of roughly 3:2, almost exactly 60:40. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe I wasn't clear. When you take your searches above, and put the term "san ysidro shooting" and "san ysidro massacre" in quotes - which is the only rational way to do it, otherwise your searching on any article that includes those three words in any order - you still get results that mirror in ratio the results I got. Your own search, when properly narrowed, shows the same thing as mine did. I can't speak to "HighBeam", but since the results are not freely shareable, I'm inclined to dismiss them as useful in this case. I don't really care about this issue. It's been called the san ysidro massacre predominantly ever since it happened. I don't see any reason it should be change. Anastrophe (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure how this can be misconstrued. Every source used in the article, very reliable sources I might add, say " Massacre". That's the common name because that's what sources use. End of story. Wikipedia doesn't use made up names not commonly used in sources. Those are the rules. JOJ  Hutton  00:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually it says in WP:TITLE "The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic." Personally when I see the word "massacre" I think of old Westerns and scenes that involve Indians and circled wagons, but your opinion seems to be that its use is clear and not likely to be misunderstood or confused. I have to wonder what a reader in South Africa or another part of the world (where there are "massacres" that mostly involve the used of a machete) would think of using the word in this context. But you have already taken into consideration the global audience that Wikipedia has, right? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It matters very little what comes to your mind when you see the word massacre. Wikipedia titles use the names used in reliable sources. We don't make up titles simply because you don't like the common one. This is a very long established standard. I doubt you will get any support for going against it. JOJ  Hutton  17:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually its far from "a very long established standard", the opening of this section has proof to the contrary, but like I said you are entitled to your opinion. Thank you for your input. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not my opinion, it's what the sources say all the way back to 1984. According to a Newsbank search, The San Diego Union used the phrase in 129 articles in 1984 alone. If you think the sources are wrong you are free to write to each and every newspaper and periodical and make your case to them. Wikipedia is not the place to impose activism. JOJ  Hutton  18:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To your latter point, I couldn't agree more...! Please post the link to your search. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Newsbank has a paywall and it requires a subscription to access its sources. I could link you to what I searched for, but you may not be able to see it.-- JOJ Hutton  16:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did a similar search using Highbeam which resulted in a predominance of the term "shooting" by WP:RS, see my comment above. But according to Anastrophe, "but since the results are not freely shareable, I'm inclined to dismiss them as useful in this case." So its my source vs. yours, now what? Using Anastrophe's logic neither of use have a basis for our stance unless we go back to the Google search, but I contend that it must be done within a pre-article time parameter to be accurate.
 * With regard to the San Diego Union, I saw some of those articles as well. The earliest of which uses the word "massacre" in the title, but no where else in the article. I would tend to chalk that up to the "if it bleeds, it leads" guideline that many editors use. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Try using parenthesis. Search "McDonalds Massacre" vs "McDonalds Shooting". JOJ  Hutton  17:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, in Highbeam the results I get are global, kind of sad how many bad things happen at McDonalds. Anyway, in short bombings and other larger scale attacks articles have the term "massacre" show up more often. Where as if a gun is involved, its referred to as a "shooting". And again, its the title primarily and not the body of the article. The same goes for Google, but I've narrowed my search range to the day before the San Ysidro incident and the day before this article was generated in order to replicate what sources the original author had available. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I specifically only used the San Diego Union Tribune. Try "McDonald's Massacre" San Ysidro. That should narrow your search to just this incident. I also tried "McDonald's Shooting" and the results netted only 12 hits over the last 30 years. As opposed to well over 100 for 1984 alone for "McDonald's Massacre". JOJ  Hutton  18:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, yes, with that change my results are more in line with what you are saying. But if I change the time parameter to 7/18/1984 - 12/22/2004, what the original author had to work with, its back to being inconclusive with many of the results things like "Murderpedia" and other useless sites. These aren't WP:RS, they are just blog fodder and rants. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the blogs, I read one comment that the phrase "McDonald's massacre" had "memorable alliteration".... Ugh... So much of the internet is garbage. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

continuation
So back to the topic at hand, is the use of the word "massacre" in this article title encyclopedic or accurately descriptive of the event from a Wikipedia standpoint? Or does it simply serve to titilate and/or reinforce Google searches for the term in association with tragic events? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Lacking the motivation to get into such things as Google search arguments and hit counts and separating the wheat from the chaff, I took a look at the gold standard of RS (imo), The New York Times. They seem to like "massacre" more than "shooting". They refer to "shooting rampage" some, but still less than "massacre". Almost all of this is pre-2004. I could do the same for The Washington Post, but I suspect I'd get similar results. That's good enough for me. Yes, "massacre" has a tabloid feel that I don't like, but that's pretty much beside the point. Mandruss (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Tone and style of article
Article currently reads more like a true-crime novel than an encyclopedia article. One of many examples: "Huberty's chest heaved, then relaxed."

Hello?

There is WAY too much unnecessary detail, such as Huberty kissing his wife on the way out the door. Does the preponderance of reliable sources tell us that's a significant fact? I don't think so. This detail makes for a riveting read, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. People who want that can and should go to sites like crimelibrary.com (I also recommend Norman Mailer's The Executioner's Song).

My guess is that most of this extraneous detail came from a single source, and that source was crimelibrary.com, a similar site, or a book about true crime. One source does not qualify a fact for inclusion, as is made very clear in the Wikipedia documentation pages.

Probably about a third of the article should be removed. Before I take on the extensive edits necessary to fix this, I would like to see a general consensus on this point (especially from whoever is writing this stuff, if they are still around). Otherwise this effort will be two steps forward, one back (or worse). I wouldn't object to anyone helping out with the cleanup, btw. Mandruss (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is/was a work in progress. There are not too many sources for this article from what I can find and have, but what sources there are have to be used. Tweaking and expansion has been made by yourself, myself and others and personally I like the toning of some of your edits. I particularly applaud you changing of "Shortly thereafter, James Huberty walked into his bedroom" to read "he walked into his bedroom."

Like the above, some of what has been removed was superfluous ('Israeli-made' as to the Uzi, to give one example), although some of the word choices in new edits being made make the article read like a barroom conversation that an encyclopedia article in my own opinion ("positioned on the roof of a post office overlooking the restaurant" now reads "was a sniper on the roof of a post office next door"). Overall consensus from users is of course paramount. It would be interesting to know what the 33% you propose to be removed is. There are nearly 70 active watchers on this page.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. So you're the culprit! :)


 * The objective of the article is to inform the reader with the cold, dry, uninterested facts. Its goal is not to give the reader such a vividly detailed mental picture of the events that he can imagine he was there at the time; that's the purview of the true-crime novel. If "there are not too many sources" for the level of detail currently in the article, that's because very few sources see those details as significant. From WP:NOTEVERYTHING: An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.


 * It would be interesting to know what the 33% you propose to be removed is. To fully answer that question would be as difficult as doing the edits to remove it. But let's look at an example, the first paragraph of the "Prior to the incident" section. It could be pared down to the following:


 * On July 15, 1984, three days before the shooting, Huberty commented to his wife, Etna, that he suspected he might have a mental problem. Two days later, he called a mental health clinic, requesting an appointment. He was assured the clinic would return his call within hours, but the call was logged as a "non-crisis" inquiry to be handled within 48 hours.


 * I think that gives the important details. It's far less significant that he waited quietly by the telephone, or that he went out for a motorcycle ride. It's certainly insignificant that the receptionist misspelled his name, since that misspelling didn't prevent the return call (may we assume that he left his phone number too?). Btw, the paragraph's word count was cut by 54%.


 * Re the "barroom conversation" comparison. I see two differences between the "before" and the "after".
 * Change of "positioned on the roof" to "on the roof". To me, those have the same meaning; therefore "positioned" is superfluous and only serves to add a literary flair that's inappropriate for an encyclopedia. (A better example of this was the very literary "deployed in strategic locations surrounding".)
 * Change of "overlooking the restaurant" to "next door". I did that because it was the only way I could think of to eliminate the repetition of "restaurant" in the same sentence, which I thought sounded awkward.
 * Are you in the UK? If so, that may help explain the language disagreement. In the U.S., there's nothing "barroom" about "next door", it's simple everyday speech. Everyday speech is fine for a Wikipedia article, provided it conveys the meaning clearly and accurately (although contractions are taboo except within a quotation). One shouldn't need to read at a high school level to fully comprehend an article like this one. Obviously the colloquial and the vulgar should be avoided.


 * But I don't want to focus too much on language, at least at this point. Content is more important.


 * I understand that it's a work in progress, and I'm certainly willing to help with the work. But I don't want to start doing that until it's clear that we're all pulling in the same direction. Mandruss (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. :) As I mentioned, the article was a work in progress. I came across this page in June and, to me, back then, it was sorely lacking in content in areas (look at how it was in content at the beginning of June). I was surprised by this and decided to expand the article. Sure I live in the U.K. I've visited the U.S. a few times but that's irrelevant: What is relevant is that we speak the same language and maybe we disagree somewhat on what is and isn't encyclopedic content. To give one example, it would not be inappropriate or superfluous to add that the SWAT team were "positioned" on the roof given their objective and tactics to end an act of this nature. I certainly do not see many encyclopedia articles or Wikipedia GA articles reading like what I would deem street conversation (and as said previously I was guilty of adding some superfluous info. in addition to word structure awaiting tweaking). You're correct: cold, dry, uninterested facts are what is needed. I'll say again I was in the process of researching and populating the article.

Maybe a third party should address these issues as, although we are both committed to the improvement of the article, I can see a potential for friction. Best regards and keep up the good work.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have asked for help at the Teahouse, here. Mandruss (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Teahouse helpfully directed me to WP:3O (Third Opinion). I added the question there (here). Mandruss (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

To Mr./Ms. Third Opinion: Specific examples would be great, instead of or in addition to general guidelines. The "Events of the incident" section would be a good source for example fodder. Thanks for the help in advance! Mandruss (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, Stfg. I concur with most of what you said, although I still prefer "next door" as I think "roof" implies "overlooking" (most readers know a McDonald's is only one story high, I think). "Neighboring" means "nearby", but not necessarily next door. But that's a nit.

You didn't say anything about how the level of detail (in this article specifically) should relate to sources, if at all (I accept that there is at least one source for everything currently in the article). Can you say something about that?

Also, would you agree with me that "said" is almost always better than "stated", and "tried" is almost always better than "attempted"? Just trying to get a more precise idea of where to draw the formality line. I understand these are "matters of taste and judgement," as you said, but I'm interested in your third-opinion taste and judgment. If you were writing this article from scratch, would you usually say stated and attempted, or said and tried? Mandruss (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that "most readers know a McDonald's is only one story high", and I suspect that those who do know it are mistaken. Not all McDonald's are in buildings wholly owned by McDonalds. Actually, neither of the two sources state that the post office was next door (for which the formal term would be adjacent, wouldn't it?) One says "nearby", the other "just south of McDonald's". Perhaps, after all, we should use "nearby".


 * Not having worked on crime articles in Wikipedia, I don't feel qualified to comment on how much of the detail in the sources should find its way into the article. We surely shouldn't dramatize or sensationalize matters, which is what a blow-by-blow account tends to do, but that's a question of tone more than of due weight, and it isn't saying a lot anyway. Perhaps some regulars of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography could give some better advice?


 * Yes, I usually prefer "said" to "stated" (but not strongly) and "tried" to "attempted" (more strongly, but we attempt stunts and tricks; trying these is too informal). I suspect you have a preference for plain English, which I share. Another desire when copy editing, though, is not to replace the original writer's voice with our own. The distinction between doing that and making an improvement isn't always clear-cut. Best, --Stfg (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Point taken as to varying McDonald's structures, modern-day, worldwide. As to location, I had committed some WP:OR by looking at Google Maps, which shows a post office just southeast of (next door to) the former McDonald's site. My bad.


 * I had never heard of this thing, plain English, until you mentioned it. Looking into it, I was gratified to find some validation of my first principle for writing: Use the simplest words that clearly and accurately say what you mean. Harry Truman and Will Rogers are pretty high on the list of people I admire. (For example, I said "gratified" instead of "happy" because there's a subtle difference between those two words, and "gratified" more accurately conveys my meaning in this instance --- not because I want to sound sophisticated.)


 * I found a Wikipedia article containing a list of formal words and their plain English equivalents. Amazing! Oddly, according to the article, plain English is "particularly in relation to official government or business communication." I don't know why the same principle shouldn't apply to Wikipedia articles. We shouldn't be trying to sound sophisticated, either; we should be trying to be accessible to the largest number of potential readers. It's an unfortunate fact that a large number of people still read at below-high school level, and that's not to mention the readers for whom English is a second language. Mandruss (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Good list. Note how often Germanic words are preferred to Latin- and Greek-derived ones. I don't think its choice of the word formal is quite right. Formal -- the opposite of informal, not of plain -- is a virtue in writing. A better word to contrast with plain might be something like fancy, elaborate, hifalutin, ... On your last point, we shouldn't be dumbing down either. It's sometimes said that we should be aiming roughly at the intelligent 14-year-old (meaning one for whom English is a first language). --Stfg (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I'm going to have to get to know some intelligent 14-year-olds. I haven't a clue what they're capable of reading these days, aside from lol, ttyl, etc. It's been 16 years since my intelligent son was that age.


 * I have long been curious about the artificially formal language used by law enforcement people. Why do they say "apprehended" instead of "caught", "stated" instead of "said". It appears to be a universal part of their culture. The more local the jurisdiction, the more pronounced the tendency; city LE do it more than state, state more than federal. Apparently there's some inferiority complex at work. I wish they would get over it.


 * I could talk about language until the end of time. Usually, the only way to get me to shut up is to stop responding, and I wouldn't be offended if you did that. We're off-topic, strictly speaking. Mandruss (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * True, we're off topic. Let's leave it at that. I'm still watching in case things relating to this article get raised. --Stfg (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking a short WP:WIKIBREAK, until maybe the end of the month. Mandruss (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

22 killed(including an unborn baby)
One of the victims was pregnant. Shouldn't the kill count be 22? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 00:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Turns out I was right. One of the persons whom was killed had an unborn baby. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=39822035

I fixed the kill count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

He took his guns to Mexico?
"When Huberty and his family moved from Ohio to Tijuana, Mexico in October 1983, he left all but the most essential of his family's possessions in storage, but ensured he brought his gun arsenal with him."

Although it is cited, [and I do not have access to the cited work] the chance of a random US citizen being allowed to import firearms into Mexico is so unlikely that this is likely nonsense. This is not even considering bringing "his arsenal" back across the US border. I'm not going to edit the page, but I hope someone has the resources to clarify the facts. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I own that book. I found it hard to believe too, but that's what the reference states. If you can find a reference that negates this, be my guest.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)