Talk:Charles Whitman/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Possible way for Houston McCoy to get his views heard

I made this suggestion a while back on a different discussion page in relation to someone who was posting claiming to be John Moore. I'd like to reintroduce the idea now in relation to User:HoustonMcCoy, who says he is Houston McCoy:

Maybe we should post a message on to the user and/or article page to ask them to cite their sources? If they are basically saying all the usual sources are wrong - then why don't they write a letter on John Moore stationary and GFDL it to Wikisource - then they could cite the letter? We could still cite other sources that give a different account. Then both sides would be represented and backed by some sort of documentation. Johntex\talk 12:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This proposal would not remove the sources that HoustonMcCoy claims are wrong, but it would allow us to cite his view of things and label it as his view. E.g. "In a notorized letter sent to the Wikimedia Foundation and available on Wikisource,[here] John McCoy says the standard media reports are inaccurate in that..." The reader would then have the option to weigh the different versions of the story. I am not sure myself if this is the right way to go or not, but I think it is an idea worthy of discussion. Johntex\talk 20:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, John Moore is quoted in media reports as having been his lawyer, so that's (relatively) verifiable - I don't think we should publish his notarized views on Martinez, the University or otherwise, but if there are actual facts (rather than opinions) that he disputes, such as the hang-gliding reference, then that would seem to be a decent solution. At the very least, such a letter would be listed under an "External Links" section on his article.
btw, I have to ask, was "John McCoy" an honest typo? :P Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 03:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Sherurcij asks a fair question Johntex to the typo. Sherurcij, where is your link to verify your "professional" credentials as stated below that I asked???

In that case, you can rest assured that I am a professional journalist by trade. I am also averse to the very thought of alcohol and drugs, and have never suffered psychosis. I can also assure you that I would hold Martinez to identical standards. I have no personal stake in your petty squabble, you're both just former police officers in my mind. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

HoustonMcCoy 16:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
HoustonMcCoy, please focus on content, not editors. Whether any of us are accredited journalists or not is not relevant to our editing of the article. Johntex\talk 16:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Johntex, content is created or supplied by editors. If statements of "professional" credentials are made within a discussion, they should be backed up with verifiable sources. You're "typo" as Sherurcij asked, could be harmless. Sherurcij's claim to being a "professional journalist" is suspicious unless I can claim to be a "brain surgeon" because I performed a fatal lobotomy on Whitman with my shotgun. The doctor part would not be true, just as the claim to be a professional journalist may not be true if Wikipedia is his only venture in journalism. To be professional, you have to be paid. To be paid, you have to work. To work, you have to be published. All I'm asking for is verification of an article that was published. Journalists don't get paid for sitting around doing nothing. Surely you can understand my concerns! Thanks!HoustonMcCoy 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
No, actually, I can't understand your concerns. None of us are getting paid to edit here. None of our day jobs are relevant. You can go ahead and assume Sherurcij is not a journalist if you want to assume that. It makes no difference to the article. Again, you need to focus on content, not editors. Do you have anything to say about this proposal? Johntex\talk 21:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see below!HoustonMcCoy 21:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just an odd thing...

Whitman's very last request, was that he be cremated, yet he wasn't. Just noticed that, thought I'd point it out. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 01:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Question

Whitman mentioned the visit with Heatly in his final suicide notes, saying that the visit was to "no avail". By the summer, Whitman was prescribed Dexedrine.

Who prescribed the Dexedrine? Heatly's report was clear that he did not suggest any medications, who did Whitman turn to for a prescription between April and August? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 03:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Favour

Enlarge

Can somebody use Photoshop's perspective button to correct Marg/Kathy's graves in that? My hard drive died a while ago, and I don't have PS myself anymore, so can't straighten them up. Figure it's better to put all three in a single image, than show them individually, no? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed merge tag

Hello, I removed the merge tag from this article today because it seems that discussion has gone stale and there is currently no consensus for a merge. If anyone wants to reinvigorate the discussion, they may re-apply the template. If not, then I will wait a bit longer and then archive the merge discussion. Thanks, Johntex\talk 01:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Are outside comments still needed, or should the RfC be closed? SB Johnny 11:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

(5 sections above this section) we have reached an agreemnt to examine some new sources that will be provided, and discussion of the merge is no longer current. We can always use more outside views, but it may not be a pressing matter until the sources are provided. You may want to ask whoever posted the RfC, though, to see if they agree. Whoever it was, they did not mention here that they made an RfC, nor did they sign their RfC request. Johntex\talk 15:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Checking the history of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography, I see that User:Centrx made the Request for Comment. Johntex\talk 15:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
RfC requests are not supposed to be signed by name. —Centrx→talk • 07:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Some people do chose to sign them. Johntex\talk 15:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Outside comments would be helpful. The discussion on merging is effectively deadlocked. —Centrx→talk • 07:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request to Remove McCoy Page - Merge to Charles Whitman

(Please not that previous discussion about the merge is in the archives, especially Archive4)

If an experienced editor, would proceed with Arbitration for me, I would appreciate it, since my requests have been ignored and compounded by the aggravation by Johntex and Sherurcij. Thank you!HoustonMcCoyHoustonMcCoy 22:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry you feel we are aggravating you. I've been trying to hold a productive conversation with you, but it seems like you won't be happy unless you get your way. You seem to be confusing the fact that we haven't all agreed with your requests with the idea that your requests are somehow being ignored. Your requests are not being ignored, they are being discussed with you in detail on this and other pages. Arbitration is meant to be a last resort after other means of dispute resolution are exhausted. Please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for options you can take prior to Arbitration. Thank you, Johntex\talk 22:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Johntex, that I am also dismayed that you feel you are being ignored or aggravated - I think the editors of both the Whitman and McCoy articles have been exceedingly patient in explaining things like WP:Cite and WP:NLT to both you and your attorney. You have to realise it is also somewhat aggravating for me that your attorney keeps eMailing me privately to ask me what kind of dildo I use, or whether I would prefer a zucchini or cucumber shoved up my ass, and that he has a history of vandalising the Wikipedia article, and of impersonating people he's not...things like this are not helpful to resolving the situation. I don't think any of us argued your removing the information about your alcoholism and lack of money at the time of trial...although you and John Moore initially added that information, and re-inserted it afterwards. Even on the issue of hang-gliding, we allowed the text to be removed or rewritten, even though we can WP:CITE that it is true, and we have only the word of User:HoustonMcCoy that it isn't, but we trusted that. We've been very accomodating and patient, and I think I speak for all of us in saying that we would appreciate the same courtesies being extended to us. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 14:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to why people refuse to understand that all this man wants is for the page to be removed and to be left alone. There are still slight inaccuracies and after nearly 40 years, it becomes just a tad bid annoying and frustrating. Have some respect for the man's wishes. Some people enjoy the spotlight and others don't. He is one that does not. If you knew him personally, you would know and understand this. The only thing that was hoped to be accomplished - if you will not remove the page - is to correct the information to reflect truth or to merge it with the Whitman page. He does not want a page of his own with his name in bold, black letters. He is a very simple, humble man and just does not want that. That is it. Something obviously not understood by those who continue to keep it going. It has been easily proved by the hang gliding error that other printed information can in fact be inaccurate and even the writer of that particular piece agreed and corrected the hang gliding error referenced in their article, due to the fact that he has never hang glided in his life. In 40 years, don't you think that many other articles were in fact inaccurate as well? In your mind you may think that he is just another former police officer that did his duty that day and that is in fact true for you, so it does not effect you. However you have absolutely NO IDEA of the personal mental and emotional impact on his life and the life of those closest to him since Aug 1, 1966. Because of this, you have no idea how this ongoing saga effects him. Please just stop. How hard is it to respect ones wishes and/or correct inaccurate information? I want to think that if it were you who were involved in this tragedy, that you would like information written about you to be correct and truthful. He didn't ask for this and I am more than certain he had no idea the day he bravely went up the tower to do his job (along with Martinez and others, respectively) that he would be in this predicament nearly 40 years later having to deal with people who don't even know him or what happened that day, that choose to cite sources with inaccurate information to write the same inaccurate info about him. There are articles out there that possibly you have not researched that reflect the information correctly. I myself have a few of them. These are articles/sources written prior to the internet days and not all of them are on the net. Even one of the articles you have referenced (#2) under the Houston McCoy page is not there anymore, but you are still using it as a source for your information. How is that fair to him? How do you determine that as truth about him? Now I have an understanding of how celebrities feel when such inaccuracies are written about them. The only difference is they choose to be in the spotlight, he does not. For some reason even after nearly 40 years, it just keeps shining on him and in a negative way at that. This continues to cause unnecessary distress. He didn't choose this path in life, but he has to walk it. Don't you think he's paid enough dues in this life yet? Putting all previous email exchanges aside, think solely about that for a bit. This statement is strictly my feelings after painfully watching from the sidelines. I don't wish to engage in vicious, mean-spirited email wars and (although I can't prevent it) I hope not to receive any personal attacks as to my statement. Thank You. Monika McCoy - daughter of Houston McCoy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.206.99.150 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 2006 June 21 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your very nice note. Most or all of the people you are dealing with here spend hours on this site trying to make it as complete and accurate as possible. We absolutely want to correct any incorrect information.
Unfortunately, your father has not been very specific in helping us out with that. We can absolutely cite references that are not on the web - but we need to be albe to see them. We saw the web article before it was removed, so it can remain as a source. Hopefully these references you have will be available in large libraries so that they may be confirmed.
It is not mandatory, but I strongly suggest you register for an account - that way, we will know we are talking to the same person when you come back again.
Now, what specifically is it that you or your father think is incorrect? And please don't start listing stuff that he just doesn't want us to include because he wants his article gone - please stick to what is alleged to be factually incorrect. We are more than happy to deal with each reported inaccuracy one by one, and to compare all relevant sources. Johntex\talk 03:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may offer a suggestion here, why not have Mr. McCoy directly write Wikipedia and have the page merged into Charles Whitman, or in the alternative, removed per his wishes? Mr. McCoy, nor his daughter, have any obligation to any editor or Wikipedia to help correct any erroneous information that causes them distress. If someone libeled you in the press or public forum, Johntex, you would have relief through a court system as a remedy. The McCoy's haven't suggested that, they merely want the information merged to the Whitman page because they do not endorse the information on a talk page with Mr. McCoy's name. In fact, if they didn't protest, you would have every right to proceed. They have protested de facto, thereby not endorsing the information in his name, and enjoy the same remedies you would in a court of law. Wikipedia, nor its editors and administrators are the court and law on the truth. No one raises their hand and swears to tell the truth under oath on Wikipedia. You have to in a court of law! If Mr. McCoy and his daughter feel the information is incorrect, remove it per good faith after verifying who they are. If they do, honor their request. If not, proceed at possibly your own peril! Just some friendly advice.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.115.108.98 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 2006 June 22 (UTC)

Thank you for your anonymous suggestion. Here are several points I think you shoud internalize:
  1. You are correct that Mr. McCoy, his daughter, and his power of attorney, John Moore do not have any obligation to Wikipedia.
  2. At the same time, Wikipedia has no obligation to them other than to be as factaul as available information allows us to be. Wikipedia does not owe them any favors and is not bound to grant their wishes.
  3. Discussion of libel is a serious matter. If Mr. McCoy or any one of the others involved feel that they are being libeled, they need to point out the specific alleged libel. We have given them every opportuntity to do this, but they can't or won't come up with any examples. They just keep coming back to "let's remove the page." I am forced to conclude that there are no examples for them to give and that they don't care about whether the information is correct or not. They just want to get their way in having it removed, for reasons that are known only to them.
  4. Mr. McCoy and his colleagues have no need to endorse this article. Wikipedia does not require their permission or blessing to have an article on Mr. McCoy. Mr. McCoy does not get to choose who writes about him. He does not get to go off on the one hand and get to give inteviews to the press and participate with people writing books, and then on the other hand protest when those sources are referenced. He just simply does not have the right to decide whether we have an article on him or not.
  5. Writing an article about someone is not illegal. Therefore, your insinuations that there may be consequences if Mr. McCoy's wishes are not granted are completely out of place.
Johntex\talk 16:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. True!
  2. Wrong! They have informed you that there is wrong information!
  3. Read the above again! I'm sure Mr. McCoy doesn't want to go through the legal muck of a public trial, I can't speak to that. It just seems insensitive to not grant his wishes since the Whitman page covers the event almost identically! What's the point?
  4. Colleages? Blessing? He can grant or turn down any interview he wants! References for what? Erroneous information! C'mon!
  5. Wrong again! Mr. McCoy is a public figure per an event, again, where is their Obligation? They have informed Wikipedia that there are errors and want the information removed or merged into another page. In libel suits involving public persons, libel is not enough, malicious libel becomes the standard. That includes continuing information that is false to remain in a public forum, after the notification has been made. The burden then shifts to the defendent, in this case, Wikipedia and editors who placed the erroneous information. The observation here is, you are the non-compliant one who "insists" on keeping the page. IMHO!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.115.108.98 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 2006 June 22 (UTC)
Absolutely he can decide who to give interviews to whomever he wants - and we have a right to read all the things that have been written about them and to refer to them here. Johntex\talk 00:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Johntex - Thank you for your kind response. I have registered for an account so you can be assured I am who I say I am and that is Monika McCoy - daughter of Houston McCoy. If any further clarification is needed, please let me know and we will work it from there. I am currently working with my father to make a list of specific entries he would like to see corrected as well as getting together the sources/references to back up his requests. On his page, there are 3 inaccurate entries and 1 entry that you may or may not care to add more specific information to. The entry itself is not necessarily incorrect, but another sentence or two would be more informative and offer clarification. When I have all the information ready, I will let you know and you can tell me how we need to proceed. Thank You.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by M.McCoy (talk • contribs) 10:09, 2006 June 22 (UTC)
That is great, thank you. I look forward to working with you on your list when you have it ready. Best, Johntex\talk 21:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Johntex - update: I now have in hand the needed sources to back the requests for changes to the Houston McCoy page. I am hoping to get a chance this weekend to sit down and thoughtfully write out the requests with my father's approval. Once in order, am I to post the requests on this page? Thank You. M.McCoy 03:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That is great to hear. Yes, please take as much time as you need and then post here so that we can all talk through it together. Best, Johntex\talk 04:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Johntex - I apologize for the delay in getting the requests posted. Life is hectic : ) I do have one request ready and the reference (McCoy, Houston Supplementary Office Report) is already posted. It is as follows - Under Houston McCoy page - 3rd paragraph - last sentence it states "In his statement made four hours after the attacks, McCoy stated that he heard the sound of WHITMAN returning fire when Martinez initially began shooting his revolver."

The Supplementary OFFENSE Report actually states "This officer heard a shot come from the area where he later saw the sniper."

The error in the sentence is that my dad never said he heard the sound of WHITMAN returning fire. His request is that the sentence on the Houston McCoy page read just as he stated it in his initial report. He does not know if it was Whitman returning fire and has never stated that. The shot heard could have been Alan Crumb's shot or it could have been an echo from the civilian fire below. It is just not known by him who's shot he heard and he wants to assure that his statement is reflected truthfully. As it reads right now, it is not correct. Thank you for your consideration in getting this corrected. I will post the other two requests for correction as well as the request to add additional info just as soon as I get a few more minutes to spare. Thank You. M.McCoy 22:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Hello, welcome back! Don't worry about the delay. Wikipedia is still here.  :-) I am going to go check on that right now. Johntex\talk 23:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I changed the wording to "In his statement made four hours after the attacks, McCoy stated that he heard the sound of a gunshot come from the area where he later saw the sniper." Thanks for picking up on that. Best, Johntex\talk 23:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Hello Johntex - here is request number two. The first sentence under AFTER THE EVENT starts with "In 1975, Ramiro Martinez received an out-of-court settlement.........." The date of 1975 is incorrect as Martinez did not even file the law suit until Oct 1976 and he did not receive his settlement until 1978. Because the date pertains to Martinez it is not overly important except for the fact that the next sentence pertains to H. McCoy and it gives the impression that he filed a law suit in that same time frame which is completely incorrect. He actually filed a lawsuit in the early 90's and it was NOT against the film producers like Martinez's was, but I will get more into that one as that will be the third request for correction. I have a news paper article written by Mike Cox in Mar 1978 from the American Statesman that reflects the correct date Martinez filed his suit. I have it scanned and ready, just need to know where/how to post it. Again - Thank You for working with me on this. M.McCoy 00:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You can upload an image directly to Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3AUpload - select the file off your desktop, and upload it. It will likely be automatically deleted in 7 days since it won't be used in-article right away, but don't worry about any such warnings you get. Just make sure you use a distinctive file name for the image, like H-McCoy-article.jpg or something, not 01.jpg as it will likely conflict with other images. Then just post the url or filename here :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I attempted to upload it. I am rather clueless to this stuff, so don't know if it is where it needs to be or not or if I even did it correctly. It is not a jpg file, but here is the file name: C:\Documents and Settings\mmccoy\Desktop\H-McCoy-article.BMP. If I am not doing this correctly, can I just email it to one of you to upload? M.McCoy 17:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, it doesn't matter that it's a BMP, not a JPG, it just means the file itself will be larger, and take longer to attach to an eMail or upload. I'll include instructions below to convert it, but if you don't feel comfortable that's fine too, you can just send it as a BMP. However, C:\Documents and Settings\mmccoy\Desktop\H-McCoy-article.BMP is an address on your computer, not online, so we can't view it. (The "C:\" gives it away, since it is what your hard drive is named) - you can eMail it to me at Joshua_Sherurcij@Yahoo.ca though if you'd like, and I'll upload it here. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Instructions to compress the file, Open the H-McCoy-article.BMP, it will likely open inside MS Paint. GO to the top "File" menu, and select "Save as..." - the second drop-down menu will probably say "24-bit BMP" right now, click and hold it, to scroll down and select JPEG (JPG, JPE, JFIF). THen make sure it is intending to save to your desktop, click "Save", and close it. THe new icon will now appear on your desktop as a jpg, of the same image, but only about 5% as big a file as the BMP was :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's the document, Image:H McCoy article.JPG, seems valid to me, so I assume no complaints if we change the date of Martinez' lawsuit? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 20:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me. My only request is that we get the name of the newspaper so that we can use the {{cite news}} template to cite our reference. That way, if the date ever gets questioned, the source will be named. Johntex\talk 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Johntex - the name of the newspaper is American-Statesman(Austin,TX)

As for the third request....1st paragraph of AFTER THE EVENT it states -

"McCoy then announced that he was also going to sue the film producers, despite the fact he was not represented in the film. His lawsuit was unsuccessful. [7][8][9]"

While it is true the lawsuit was unsuccessful it is NOT TRUE that he announced he was going to sue the FILM PRODUCERS. The suit was filed in 1990 and was titled Houston McCoy v. Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc. The suit was an attempt to stop TBS from AIRING AND OR ADVERTISING the movie "Deadly Tower" as "The True Story" / "The Chilling True Story" / and "The Authentic Story" The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice. Page 279 of Gary M. Lavergne's book "A Sniper in the Tower" states "Houston McCoy sued Turner Broadcasting for airing Deadly Tower." I ask that you please change the wording of the sentence "McCoy then announced that he was also going to sue the film producers, despite the fact he was not represented in the film. His lawsuit was unsuccessful" to reflect the facts more accurately. If needed I can scan and email this particular page. Thank You. M.McCoy 19:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Hello M.McCoy. Thank you for the name of the paper to support changing the date of the lawsuit. However, I should have been more precise in what I was asking for. The template we usually use to cite non-web articles has a space for several things. I'd like to fill in as many of them as possible. The important ones are:
Name of the paper
Title of the article
Name of the author of the article
Date of the publication
If we can provide those 4 things, then anyone who wants to confirm our source can go and look it up for themselves. It is especially nice since the paper is a fairly major one and I imagine (though I don't know for sure) that they keep good records available to the public. Johntex\talk 19:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • For the third change, it would be very helpful if you could please e-mail me that page. That way we will both have it in front of us, and I'll have a copy later if anyone ever questions it. In the meantime, I will review the other sources we have cited to see if they are specific about who they claim was being sued. In other words, I'd like to see if our sources disagree, or if there was simply a wording mistake somewhere along the way. Thanks again for your help. Johntex\talk 19:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/Talk%7ECharles_Whitman_Archive5_1b92.html"