Talk:Charles Whitman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles Whitman article.
Peer review Charles Whitman has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is part of WikiProject University of Texas at Austin, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to The University of Texas at Austin, the people, history, and sports teams of the University, and promoting development of related articles. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
UT Portal
Good articles Charles Whitman has been listed as a good article on a historical figure for meeting the criteria for this category of articles. If you can expand or improve it further, please do so!
If it does not meet the criteria, or has ceased to since its inclusion, you can delist it or ask for a review.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Wikipedia CD Selection Charles Whitman is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!

Talk Archive: One, Two, Three, Four, Five

Contents

[edit] GA status

A tragic, thorough article, which I found to be a good read. The article certainly seems sufficiently broad, is NPOV which is nice for what im sure could be called an emotional topic, has nice pictures, has a very short intro which, oddly enough, does indeed seem to summarize the topic sufficiently despite the pleothora of content below, (think about expanding it anyway however) is in my opinion well-referenced, (though barely so) and appears stable.

A few suggestions though, if I may. I'll start off with the most important thing, references. Most reviewers I know in the GA project might not pass this article, some might fail it outright because of the single fact tag, while others might not be pleased at the large gaps of un-referenced article. Many of the references appear general in nature however and I suspect that they cover much of that information, try to look in them and see if you can cite the links multiple times to cover areas. Also, remember that "Further Reading" doesn't count as references, it's supposed to be used as a section to list material which the reader might find useful, but information from those sources wasn't responsible for material in the article. Maybe read one or two of those books and use them for references, same goes for the external links, it looks like much of the information can be corroborated from there. Many of the references are also still in link format, they should be converted to inline citations like the rest of the article, and it should certainly make it look more well-referenced in the long run. The entire "popular culture references" section also probably needs its own references sentence by sentence, I doubt you'll find much from what references the article already has.

Nextly, on organization, I don't think that the casualities section needs to be so detailed, since its more in a list format, it can hardly be argued to be "compelling prose", and im not entirely certain that elaborating on every victim like that helps this article. Maybe just relegate it all to a "See Also" if you can, or just pick up on highlights of the casualities?

Finally, on the intro, think about ways you can expand it, right now it seems to summarize the article, but for such a detailed character, one would think that it could be reasonable expanded without getting too off-topic. Some of the details of his background also seem non-notable, the speeding tickets I really don't see the importance to, and the piano lessons, didn't like every child in America take those things during that time period or something? The nail-biting thing also doesn't seem important, his later medical condition doesn't appear like it would of been so long-term that nail-biting would really of been relevant. Think about trimming that entire section basically. Homestarmy 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I largely agree, especially about the need to clean up our references. At the same time however, while admitting it's my personal opinion, I would jump to defend the "small details" like the fact he was in a motorcycle accident, took piano lessons, &c simply because Wiki is not paper, and it helps paint Whitman as an "All-American boy" solely through facts, without having to delve into creative novel-esque authorship. My favourite quote about Whitman, which I think came from Lavergne's book, is that a shopkeeper below was asked later about his views on it, and replied something along the lines of "Some people say the tragedy is that everybody thought he was the All-American Boy, but perhaps the real tragedy is that he actually was". But anyways, since all those facts were considered sufficient for a Grand Jury finding (which is where much/most of that childhood trivia came from), I think it stands to reason that people would be as interested in it, as in Usama bin Laden's kidney failure or something. shrugs Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lighter fluid

There's a link to Lighter fluid, which was a redirect to butane but is now a disambiguation to 4 types of lighter fluids. Which is the one referred to in this article? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

Everytime I tried to add the citation I seemed to mess up, thank you preview button for showing me that! So anyways, I found a research article on his tumor that could be used for citation on the opening. http://brainmind.com/Amygdala44.html guest 19:08, 01 October 2006 (UTC)

I added it. AxelBoldt 06:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X-Files

There was an episode of the X-Files where a man goes crazy and starts shooting his rifle indiscriminately from the top of a tower. I can't remember which episode that is, though. --KoopaTroopa211 23:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hypergraphia?

The Rotten Library entry on Whitman alleges he suffered from hypergraphia. Any truth to this? Umlautbob 04:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd never seen that before, nice find. A quick google search shows that other than Rotten.com, an A/E site says "it's been said", likely meaning the author saw the Rotten.com reference, but that this site credits the assertion that Whitman suffered from Hypergraphia to a 1999 journal article(?) entitled Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, Clinical Neuroscience, 2nd edition by Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D., which seems fairly credible that at least a bona-fide doctor "diagnosed" his writing as hypergraphia...admittedly several decades later. So I guess I'd support including "in 1999, a doctor suggested that...", but not outright saying "Whitman had hypergraphia", that sound reasonable? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 00:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I would say no. Hypergraphia is a recent term. Looks like the Dr. was searching for a correlation and found Whitman. If the suggestion is that Whitman's writings were related to the tumor, as the article demonstrates, then many Wikipedians could be thought to have the same type of tumor. That could be extended to journalists, diarists, poets and anyone who does a lot of writing for whatever reason. Diagnosing the dead (like a speaker for the dead, i.e., a palm reader or medium), is untrustworthy at best.2HOT2 01:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)2
Since the man has a Ph. D, it seems unfair to lump him with palm readers. (can the personal attacks Moore, nobody gives a shit about your axe to grind). Many people may have similar symptoms, but not all of them have been said to suffer from hypergraphia by licensed doctors writing research papers. I personally feel it merits mention to some degree Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The Unabomber had a Doctorate also. I'd still consider it fair to lump him with a serial killer, even though he didn't reach the magic number, he tried several times. Since the article was a personal research paper, absent a patient to study directly, I think NOR would apply. What axe? You revert me, insult me, use vulgar language that is banned by Wikipedia, attack me and you're crying VICTIM! (Appropriate Exclamation Point.) Are you always this pleasant or just having a good day?2HOT2 01:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)2


Wait, you're now saying you want to lump the doctor "with a serial killer", not Whitman? That really doesn't make any sense, unless you know some startling facts about Rhawn Joseph that the rest of us don't. The article was neither WP:NOR, or a personal paper, it was published research, which means it reaches a certain plateau under WP:V, an important distinction. You may also be interested to note that the word "fuck", as I used within context, is not 'banned by Wikipedia' in any way. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who The Hell is Sherurcij?

Who does this person think they are? Sherurcij wiped out two days of investigating before posting and wiped it out in two seconds. I read Mr. Moore's site and others, his seemed more credible with verifications, better than Rotten.com and others. What is Sherurcij's problem?2HOT2 23:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)2

On the off-chance you're not Mr. Moore, I'm one of a small handful of Wikipedians who have "adopted" this article to be extremely wary of potential bias, and have elected by consensus to describe his death as we have, noting the controversy, saying who fired how many rounds, but letting the reader decide whether or not "My guy is the hero, the other guy's shots all missed!" or not. Now, since you refer to "Mr. Moore" without any hesitation of knowing the name of Houston McCoy's personal friends, your only posts on Wikipedia have been legal threats and the Houston McCoy and Charles Whitman articles, you have a previous history of pretending to be "random passersby" who happen to agree with Mr Moore, you are addicted to exclamation points in edit summaries, and the fact most new users whose changes are reverted do not immediately start a vitriolic rant about Sherurcij, Chesschamp, WoohooKitty or anybody else on the talk page, and you edited the page to exactly what Mr Moore has edited the page to say in the past...I think it's a pretty fair guess that you are indeed Moore, in which case I will point out that you have been repeatedly banned from editing Wikipedia. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 00:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Well excuse me Mr. Webster, but since when has the English language been exclusive to traits where any one can be identified by styles except in forensic science which is really more of an art. Sorry you are paranoid over the article to the point of adoption, but don't press your paranoia on me. (No exclamation point!) Who cares what you think, I have a right to present my edits through Wikipedias policies as much as you do, and I got my edits from Moore's website. Now bugger off.2HOT2 00:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)2
There are times in life when only a Bash.org quote will suffice, this is one of those times. HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU TELL THAT I'M 13 BY LOOKING AT WHAT I'M WRITEING????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC) (since your talk page discussion has nothing to do with article content, I am re-reverting)
Wow. Nice wording Shakespeare. Addictions are rather catchy aren't they? I see yours are question marks. Bet you use them a lot in the real world. Also, there is no "e" in writing.2HOT2 01:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)2

I just went back and noticed Mr. Moore's website is linked in the Houston McCoy page, so that discredits Sherurcij's assertion that Mr. Moore's website has been deemed "impartial" as he noted in the reversion history!2HOT2 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)2

It is linked on that page because it is directly relevant to Mr. McCoy, that his personal friend runs a website for him to sell CDs on eBay. It is not relevant to any level of verifiability needed. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 00:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
That is the lamest excuse and reasoning I have ever heard in my life. You should be banned from editing anything.2HOT2 00:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)2
I just went back to look for eBay in Moore's website and found nothing. I look on eBay, nothing. If something you say can't be verified, what's wrong with this picture?2HOT2 00:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)2


Read the talk pages, there are still logs of "Mr. Moore" asking Wikipedians to purchase his CD off eBay to "fairly" argue his edits :P Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
"Fairly"? Everyone is supposed to read logs about past discussions on every article they contribute to? "Fairly" in your world maybe. Not everybodies! (Excuse the exclamation point, hyper-grahia is setting in.) Have you been examined by a Neuro-anything lately? Tumors can be evasive.2HOT2 01:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)2
John, please go get a hobby. You've disguised yourself as most of your family and Houston McCoy and also as "fans". It's transparent as heck. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture references

For the first post on this page: Popular culture references are references. How can they require a reference? And the details, 'popular' and otherwise, are apt - this is what makes Wiki different.

[edit] Does anyone know...?

Does anyone know whatever became of Allen Crum?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/Talk%7ECharles_Whitman_029e.html"