Content deleted Content added
Rm - banned editor |
|||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
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.--[[User:Victor9876|Victor9876]] ([[User talk:Victor9876|talk]]) 16:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC) |
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.--[[User:Victor9876|Victor9876]] ([[User talk:Victor9876|talk]]) 16:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Suggested delegation == |
|||
I think that the shooting even itself should have its own page. Then we can discuss if Whitman is a [[WP:1E]]. In my opinion, his WP bio is justified because our minds still ask the question: why? Anyway, is this new name too long? |
|||
:"1966 University of Texas at Austin tower massacre" |
|||
Any other suggestions? We will just have to try to strike a proper balance on the autopsy results between the person and the event.--[[User:Conleynema|Conleynema]] ([[User talk:Conleynema|talk]]) 13:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:There is no need in trying to split this into two articles. Charles Whitman and the Texas Tower shootings are synonomous, one is never discussed without discussing the other. The shooting itself can't be discussed without the depth of content about Whitman, and Whitman can't be discussed without the context of the shootings. We don't have to strike a balance with anything between two articles because one can't really be discussed without the other. [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 00:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::I think that you are succumbing to hubris and are being rather inflexible. Many other emotion-charged events have achieved separation at this site. Look at [[Abraham Lincoln assassination]], [[O. J. Simpson murder case]] and [[Virginia Tech massacre]]. The one-day tragedy and the person are separable. Nobody will ever know with certainty what was happening within the skull of Mr. Whitman on that day and the days preceding but we can make a responsible report of what we know of "what happened" on the one tragic day in a fashion that avoids mixing in the minutia of his lifetime. The storyline should read: a fair summary of his background, he enters the stage on that day, he acts, he is blown away and there is follow-up. NPOV to the max.--[[User:Conleynema|Conleynema]] ([[User talk:Conleynema|talk]]) 07:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think for someone who only registered a username yesterday, you've made some assumptions in characterizing me that simply are not acceptable. Since you are new, please take a moment to review [[WP:NPA]], especially where it covers discussing the content and the contributor, then kindly retract your accusation of "hubris" and inflexibility. First of all, Abraham Lincoln and O.J. Simpson both have notability aside from the crimes that are associated with them. In that regard, it is quite clear why there are separate articles for the person and for those crimes. The Virginia Tech massacre occurred recently enough that there was more than sufficient content available to adequate cover the massacre and the person, although initially there was only one article to cover both, at least until much more information became available. That is not the case in regard to Whitman and the tower shootings. In fact, there is relatively little content regarding it to fill two separate articles. As it is, the sources that exist in regard to the event don't differentiate the event and the person, so it isn't factually possible to discuss the event without discussing the perpetrator. There won't be much new information forthcoming over 40 years later. This article comes in at 46kb, which is precisely in the recommended article size. To separate the two would yield two articles, neither of which would be large enough to justify separation. You raised two separate issues when you posted, having a separate article for the event is one. The other then entertains the possibility that Whitman may not even warrant an article under [[WP:1E]], which actually isn't an issue at all, Whitman is one of the more notable crime related biographies we have. I do find it curious, though, that a newly registered editor would be familiar enough with wikipolicy to bring these issues up and cite the policy. [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 08:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Even forgetting the questions you're raising about that user, there's no point in renaming the article to something no one is going to look for, and there's no point in having two articles. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 09:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I know exactly what was going on "inside his skull that day"! The problem is, Wikipedia rules prevent the telling of it because of [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:VERIFIABILITY]] and the fact that Wikipedia doesn't pay well enough to spend the time on it. I agree that the subject and the event don't merit two or more articles...this one has too many errors already, why compound the errors with another article? Am I being hubristic enough!--[[User:Victor9876|Victor9876]] ([[User talk:Victor9876|talk]]) 21:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Let's look at some of those higher ranked articles that I have already provided (and I can give you a dozen more, if you request such). Please address the merits of the proposal that separating this article into a "biography" article and an "historical event" article is the correct structure. There is a strong and clear precedent to separate the biography from the page about the one-day event/tragedy.--[[User:Conleynema|Conleynema]] ([[User talk:Conleynema|talk]]) 06:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
(outdent) Perhaps you have overlooked the fact that three separate editors have disagreed with your suggestion. The "merits of the proposal" have already been addressed and there is absolutely no point in wasting time having to readdress the same question from a different angle. Don't come in and direct other editors to address the merits of your proposal, that is ''your'' job. [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS|Other stuff exists]] isn't a valid reason or rationale to apply here to do so. There have been sufficient reasons given for ''not'' separating this article, perhaps the most germane being ''there isn't enough content to support two separate articles'', which is why Cho and Virginia Tech are separate. Those "higher ranked articles" - whatever that means - have already been addressed as to why they are separate and why this particular article isn't two separate articles. Meanwhile, it was requested that you retract your personal attack. [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 06:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I do not feel that talking about my account and your attempts to bully me are properly addressing the merits of my proposal. Wikipedia is not a democracy: it is about quality. The higher-ranked articles do it that way and so should this article. The initial version of this all-in-one article was low-quality and so is the current version because it does not conform structurally. You are just defending the low-quality status quo (which is certainly easy to so). --[[User:Conleynema|Conleynema]] ([[User talk:Conleynema|talk]]) 06:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::The question regarding how long you've been here is valid considering the familiarity you show to how things work here and no one is bullying you. You have yet to retract your personal attacks. The "merits of your proposal" ''have been addressed'' by three separate editors to one degree or another. Again, no clue what you mean by "higher ranking articles", each article on Wikipedia is dealt with on its own, not by comparing apples to oranges. Please advise exactly what you mean by "the initial version" of this article because how it was years or even months ago has no validity to this discussion. There is also no merit in your claim that the article does not conform structurally. It most certainly does conform to MOS standards and that is the structural guide to articles. There is no merit in an argument that because some topics are covered in two or more articles then this one must also, there is no such guideline demanding that. The shooting and Whitman are synonymous, you cannot discuss the shootings without involving Whitman and you cannot discuss Whitman without discussing the shootings. One does not exist independently from the other in regard to notability. Low quality would be a personal opinion and such a claim in the absence of any examples is simply rhetoric to push forward your agenda. Democracy does not rule at Wikipedia, but consensus does, and the consensus spoke. You wanted to separate the article into two much shorter articles that would both use the same content and three dissenting voices spoke immediately. There is nothing accomplished by continuing to push a viewpoint that no one else supports. [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 07:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[Virginia Tech massacre]] is FA partially because is has the correct structure. It does not attempt to the bio on the perp. While restructuring will not immediately make this article even GA again, it will help.--[[User:Conleynema|Conleynema]] ([[User talk:Conleynema|talk]]) 13:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::If you can find a verifiable three-words-or-less title, as an alternative to the current title or to the mouthful that you suggested up top, that would be a good start. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 13:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Texas+Tower+shootings , but I am willing to discuss if the T in tower should be capitalized, but if there is some copy-cat bozo who makes another one some day or one of the Tower employees goes postal and exits in an orgy of workplace violence, don't come crying to me if we have to go and put the year back on or do something like with [[McDonald's massacre]].--[[User:Conleynema|Conleynema]] ([[User talk:Conleynema|talk]]) 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Texas tower shootings would work. If a copycat comes along, there's no problem putting a year after it to distinguish. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 20:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
(outdent) I don't think the discussion is enhanced by flippant references to copycat bozos or orgies of workplace violence. I'd also say that naming conventions govern what is and isn't capitalized, so that's a non-sequitur. I asked you before and I will repeat it - please show me the guidelines that govern your view of "correct structure", or anything that reflects what you believe "correct structure" is, because that is quite a vague description. There is nothing incongruent with the manual of style regarding this article. Meanwhile, you're entirely off base on your assessment of why [[Virginia Tech massacre]] is a featured article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Whitman&oldid=63340781 This] is the article when it passed [[WP:GA|GA]]. Criteria has changed quite a lot from July 2006 and it would not have passed GA as it was then by today's criteria, so your points regarding that aren't particularly valid. That version did not separate Whitman and the shootings nor was that the reason it was delisted. |
|||
Your [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Texas+Tower+shootings&fp=1&cad=b link to google] produces 138,000 hits, but if you [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Texas+Tower+shootings%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=a4yop6-RGmA correctly disambiguate the phrase], that number drops drastically, to 10,500. If you [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Texas+Tower+shootings%22+-%22Charles+Whitman%22&aq=f&oq=%22Texas+Tower+shootings%22&aqi=&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=DkheYKZULkw consider it without Whitman], it drops to 4,400. Meanwhile, [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Charles+Whitman%22&aq=&oq=&aqi=g10&fp=DkheYKZULkw searching for "Charles Whitman"] yields 63,200 hits - I wonder how many of those aren't about the tower shootings? You have not addressed in anyway whatsoever how one creates a reasonably sized article by eliminating Whitman from the shootings or the shootings from Whitman, without a massive overlap of material that renders a split ineffective and a waste of time. From where would the sources magically appear to support such a division? [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 21:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Straight from the front page right now: [[Mrkonjić Grad incident]] and [[Scott O'Grady]]. See? The "event" article and the "biography" article have two somewhat different set of policies and foci. "Texas tower shooting" works for me. Captial T on the Tower. Whatever.--[[User:Conleynema|Conleynema]] ([[User talk:Conleynema|talk]]) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Um, an item from "on this day" that points to two start class articles is not a good example. Both of those articles are hopelessly inadequate in scope of coverage for either, there is a sum total of two inline references for two articles and neither has a snowball's chance of passing a GA or FA review, despite the fact that the event occurred in recent years. You've refused to answer some direct questions. One of those is why you're pressing onward as if three separate editors had not already said that splitting the article into two is not supported. The next concerns "correct structure", what you think that is and where you find any guidelines or policies that would support what you suggest is "correct structure". You've pointedly ignored a direct comment that this article follows manual of style guidelines for layout, which ''is'' structure. The next concerns just ''where'' you suggest sufficient divergement content would be found to create two articles that don't cover the same set of information. There is policy that covers the two articles you pulled out from "on this day", that being [[WP:BLP]], which does not apply to Charles Whitman. You've yet to actually give sufficient reason that a split would be productive, you've yet to provide rationale for any of it besides it is what you would like to do and you've yet to garner any support for your suggestion. And naming conventions aren't subject to approval, that is a strict policy. [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 02:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Would just re-naming the present article, Charles Whitman and the Texas Tower Tragedy be a compromise? You know, like Harry Potter and the ????. (Only Harry Potter has more facts to rely on than this article.) Other than that, I reiterate my position that separate articles are useless. On another note Conelynema, your voice echoes Gary Lavergne who wrote "A Sniper In The Tower", referenced in the article. Have you read the book as Snipercraft did and agree with the conclusions of his Op-Ed that got shredded in the article? --[[User:Victor9876|Victor9876]] ([[User talk:Victor9876|talk]]) 00:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Harry Potter is fiction. This is non-fiction and we are talking about the biography a real human being. Nobody likes the memory of him, but I emphasize his humanity because of the complexity of his life and mind. There are different policies for biography and than fiction. For instance, who wants to know about Whiman's date of birth if their focus is on the shooting day? It is like submitting an outline to your teacher for your term paper when your outline has just two big sections: the multi-millenia history and tradition of astronomy and the current state-of-the-art engineer aspects of telescopes. Unless you point is to dwell on the relationship between those two subjects (which is a third subject altogether) the teacher will likely hand the outline back to you and say "either pick one of those two subjects or write two term papers."--[[User:Conleynema|Conleynema]] ([[User talk:Conleynema|talk]]) 01:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Totally unrelated analogies and this isn't a term paper. It is an article covering Charles Whitman and the actions that he took that made him notable for an article. The two are not different subjects, the event that Whitman perpetrated ''is'' the subject. It is a well sourced article covering the event and the person comprehensively. Again, please indicate where anything policy related would support your claim that it needs to be split, and the "correct structure" you suggest is lacking. Then please show us where anyone has given support to your left field suggestion to dismantle an article that is comprehensive and adequately sourced to support its content. Finally, answer [[User:Victor9876|Victor9876]]'s query regarding Snipercraft and the Lavergne book. [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 02:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Harry Potter is Fiction?! You mean I've been lied to!!! Well that changes everything. You might want to consider your use of all-inclusives, like Nobody, Everybody, always, etc. I've met and interviewed people who genuinely did like Charlie, just not the deeds he did on August 1, 1966. But let's say you get another article launched about Charlie or the Tower Tragedy. What can be said that isn't already in the present article. Are you going to approach it from one of the paradigms of Psychology, or [[meme]]s or some other perspective? Where will your sources come from? Are the sources reliable? What was so complex about his mind and life? I have all of his records from grade school, the Marines, the FBI, the Department of Public Safety in Austin, as well as his personal diary. I've studied him and his victims as well as represented the officer who killed him for his development of PTSD. I've interviewed victims and professors of Whitman and they have different views on Whitman. Some are forgiving, some hope he is burning in Hell. So what are you going to contribute that I know is not on the internet for your use? The only thing you could use would be POV and OR. So what's your point or agenda? Your analogy was quite alarming! Now apologize to Wildhartlivie as she requested for your personal attack!--[[User:Victor9876|Victor9876]] ([[User talk:Victor9876|talk]]) 02:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Based on Google hits, Wildhartlivie has convinced me there is no reason to change the name of the article. And there's also no reason to break into two articles. This is a one-incident situation. Had the guy gone up and simply jumped off, there would be no article. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 03:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Undent. I agree with the others too. I think this should stay as one article. There is no reason to break into more than one article. Whitman is known only because of this event. The event is connected to Whitman. There is no reason to separate, that would only cause problems IMHO. I think time would be better spent just working this article as it is. Thanks for listening. --[[User:Crohnie|<span style="color:purpled ">'''Crohnie'''</span><span style="color:deeppink">'''Gal'''</span>]][[User talk:Crohnie|<span style="color:deepskyblue"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 11:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:06, 2 June 2009
Charles Whitman was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:UTTalk
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
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)