Talk:Charles Whitman/Talk1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Paragraph Deletion

Due to the fact that the paragraph PRESENTLY is a fully biased section of this article, I have opted to delete it. It would be nice if someone could redo it though. Crisco_1492

[edit] Closure of Deck

The University of Texas Tower's Observation deck was not permanently closed due to the Charles Whitman shooting spree in 1966. In fact, it was re-opened two years later in 1968, but a number of suicides during the 1970s caused it be closed again in 1975. -- 80.230.115.66

Today, the observation deck is open once again, but unlike the easy access offered in the pre-Whitman sixties, there is a ticketing procedure and security screening that potential visitors have to go through. Also, only a set number of visitors are allowed on the deck on any given day. Often, it requires planning days or even more than a week in advance to secure tickets.

In the pre-Whitman era, only a lady at a desk on the observation deck floor "guarded" access, which was free. -- 24.153.206.54

[edit] Removed sentence

I changed this sentence, implying that the shootings directly led to the creation of the LA SWAT team:

Thus arose the first Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Team in the Los Angeles Police Department.

This sentence is questionable because the LA Police Department SWAT team wasn't the first (the first was apparently in Delano); and furthermore it isn't clear to me how shootings in Texas directly led to a team being set up in LA. There were many other more relevant factors in Los Angeles itself, such as attacks on police officers, and growing civil unrest from groups like the Black Panthers. -- FP <talk><edits> 11:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where did this text come from?

What the heck is all of that verbage at the end? They got him. Let it go at that. Amorrow 07:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Which verbage are you referring to? -- Cyrius|✎ 08:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have the same question as Cyrius. And "what the heck" is 'verbage'? I think you mean "verbiage."

[edit] We will never really know why he did it.

Look folks: You could probably write a whole nother book, full of theories, about why he did it. We will never know for sure. If you have relevant facts, then they are welcome, but please insert them so that the text scans in chronological order as much as possible. Amorrow 22:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Amorrow: I have far more important things to do than tussle with you on any of these points. The fact is, CW's motives and physical condition matter to many readers -- and certainly to people like me who came within a matter of feet and seconds of losing our lives that fateful day. If it gives you pleasure and feelings of power to trash other people's work, so be it. I can't stop you. I thought that Wikipedia was a place on the web where people could share as much information as possible. Obviously, it is a whole "nother" thing to you.

  • Although Amorrow's methods may appear bold, I must admit he is not completely wrong. This article is still not encyclopedic (for it looks like a short story), but it is already better than it was one month ago, when I read it for the first time. Sentences like "Had Whitman arrived on the deck slightly later, he would have been in time for summer session lunch hour foot traffic when classes let out at noon; the number of killed and wounded would have probably been higher" are, in my humble opinion, unecessary. Suppositions and extrapolation can be made in books, not in an encyclopedia. Here we should stick to the facts. I think Amorrow did a good job at making this article a little bit less POV than it was before by removing stuff like respected author or copies of his books can be found on Amazon . And Fpreece can you please sign your comments? Glaurung 07:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, if need to compare him with other bad men, or spirits and say is he "synonymous with evil" or whatever you need, then OK. Do it. Do it in the intro. Just keep it short. This is not group therapy. If you need that, you konw where to go get it. To be honest: I DO feel very bad about what he did. Maybe we should create Charles_Whitman/Survivor_Recovery or something. Amorrow 08:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geometry of the final assault

Folks: if we must dwell on trivial details of the final moments, then maybe a diagram is better. All this verbiage about this corner and that corner is all just an attempt at drama. The facts are: They attacked and they got him. Now, build it up from that without wasting the reader's time. Amorrow 07:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (I am really bad about remmebering to do this signing stuff. You can always figure it out from the hist. I will try harder to remember the tildes)

[edit] Splitting this article?

Most of the material in this article is not directly related to Chales Whitman, but describes the whole shooting story (to which Whitman is an important character). But, due to the length of the entry, I think it would be a good idea to split it into two different articles : -One about Charles Whitman, which would concentrate on the assassin (who he was, what he did and why) -A second one about the whole shooting story, in which all the other material could be better included (The title needs to be chosen. Why not UT tower shooting ?) describing the involvment of the other people Any thoughts? Glaurung 06:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

personally I'd be against the idea, it would be hard to colour which article specific events belonged under (Or whether both), such as killing his mother and wife. Personally, while I feel the article could use a lot of work still, I think it does a decent job of providing information about both Whitman, and the shooting. Sherurcij 19:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References in popular culture

what about the the movie "targets"(1967), there is a clear reference to the shootings. 84.169.202.101 15:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Full Metal Jacket (1987) makes refereance to Charles Whitman

[edit] Tumor

Why is there no mention of his tumor that aggravated what very well might be the cause of Whitman's uncontrollable aggression? He wrote a note before his death in which he suspected that he had some sort of disorder, and it turns out that his (very large) tumor was pressing up against his amygdala, which is believed to control aggression in organisms and has been scientifically proven to be quite volatile.

[edit] Subwayjack's message to Sherurcij

To Sherurcij: Received your message and I don't know how to contact you back. Email me at subwayjack@yahoo.com. I represent Houston McCoy, the officer who actually shot and killed Whitman. I have interviewed many victims of Whitman, professors of Whitman, friends of Whitman. I have interviewed other officers in the tower that day. I have all the APD, Public safety records, FBI reports, Whitman's diaries and notes and the Connelly Reports. I have been on the news in Austin with McCoy and been used by Dateline NBC and other national media. I have 8 years of investigations and research into the Texas Tower Tragedy and I'm not deleting Wikipedia material on a whim. I will delete this message as soon as we have an understanding, or you can delete it or anyone else for that matter, but let's have an understanding before a war. Thank you. (unsigned)

I don't doubt that you probably know far more about the subject than I do, and I respect that. My only concern is basically why any information is edited out of the article. Things like a reference late in the article about how this, combined with Richard Speck contributed to SWAT formations, or the fact a plane (possibly a crop duster, I've heard?) was flown around the tower as well. It helps an uninformed reader find all the facts, including those that may be disputed. (Such as which officer shot Whitman first, and we should mention that there is controversy, if there is one), an incomplete list of victims is better than no list at all, the fact he was using amphetamines, that a brain tumor was found during the autopsy, and the external links, are all important parts of the article as far as I can tell. Sherurcij 19:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You used an all inclusive term, "any." If someone wrote that Charles Whitman was from Mars and he was just doing what they do on Mars, would you consider that "factual"? An informed reader, who reads erroneous reports doesn't really know if the reports are erroneous. If the reader relates what he/she read as "having heard", then they are relating erroneous issues that spread as gossip and get out of control. It's the old "GIGO" computer effect. No one I've interviewed, except McCoy, Martinez and Whitman's father, was ever interviewed by Lavergne. I'm not saying that he didn't interview others. I'm just saying he took a lot of the information for his book, "A Sniper In The Tower" from the public records and his own interpretations of Whitman. The thing that makes me very suspicious of Lavernge is that he now works for the University of Texas, and left out a lot of information about Whitman's being cared for at the University's Health Center. Also, he misguides the reader by leaving out important aspects of the Connelly Report, which has vast implications to why Whitman may have gone mad. Anyway's Whitman had a glioblastoma that may or may not have affected the Amygdala, but it certainly caused him to endure the headaches and nausea he complained of. It is impossible to draw absolute certaintees from anything. However, if you care to order the Cd on ebay (just type in Charles Whitman, you will see the ad) the issue of Martinez and McCoy should be cleared up. I could list all 33 reported injured on Wiki, however, I am more inclined to pay attention to the details of what happened fom Whitman's perspective and help the victims rather than discuss them.

It is a noble goal and I applaud you, but that will have to remain your personal crusade, as it is Wikipedia's job to discuss them, rather than help them. I have no real desire to purchase your CD, but point you towards Wikipedia:No original research as reasoning that such thoughts should be kept to a well-written essay, thesis or project...and not on the Wikipedia. All of the information I provided is "verifiable", though it may indeed be part of a cover-up. But just like all of the 9/11 hijackers' articles have to assume that they were indeed the hijackers, so too should this article conform to what are the "commonly accepted" facts, perhaps with brief mention of 'oddities' or trivia such as Lavernge now working for UT. Sherurcij 23:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to "discuss" and "help" them at the same time? There is no correlation between "commonly accepted facts" and the truth. You're being pedantic in your approach to follow Wikipedia's policies! Truth is subjective! O.J. Simpson is not guilty in Criminal Court; is guilty in Civil Court! Saddam has weapons of Mass Destruction; Saddam does not have weapons of Mass Destruction! How do we debate the victims of the two examples? My reference to Lavergne working for UT is to show there was intent to make the University look like a victim , when in actuality they were culpable in part through Dr. Heatley, a psychiatrist at UT, that mentioned Whitman told him on March 29, 1966 that he felt like going to the tower and shooting people with a deer rifle, while "oozing with hostility."(sic)! By the way, assumptions are not facts either! Somone reads Hitler's "Mein Kamph", do we condone killing Jews? Someone reads Shakespeare and comes across the line "first we kill all the lawyers", if a group of people adopt that as "Commonly accepted" facts, is it O.K. to kill lawyers? The CD is McCoy telling exactly what happened from the time he got the call until he killed Whitman and the subsequent medias biased toward Martinez. This comes from the 'Horses Mouth", he was there, the writers and media were not! It is not coming from some 22 year old who reads misinformation from web articles and "assumes" the information is the truth. Like I said, I've been in the trenches for a long time and I'm not going to allow the suffering to continue if I can help it! Don't buy the CD and live in your Wiki World! Show me your verifiable sources and I'll show you the errors in them!

In the words of Dogbert, I'd mock you, but the challenge is gone Sherurcij 13:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Stick with your cartoon references, you're apparently influenced by them severely!

[edit] Ugh

I'm a strong pro-lifer myself, but I shudder seeing an encyclopaedic entry count Claire Wilson's unborn child as increasing the number of victims that day. Highly suggest we remove it. Sherurcij 08:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Okies, I waited 3 days on a fairly well-watched article, and there were no complaints - I'd rather people didn't simply revert the edit. I see no reason to include an "unborn child" as among the victims, just like we don't factor it into the deathtolls for 9/11, the Holocaust or anything else. If you wish it to stay on the list, please give a logical reason why this article should be any different. Sherurcij 18:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
No complaint here, for reasons stated directly above (re: other deathtolls). Remove at will. jareha 00:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Anybody able to find us an image that doesn't have Dobie Tower in the background - it would help give a better sense of scale, and also be more historically accurate Sherurcij 13:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Handbook of Texas

Links to the Handbook of Texas, a well regarded topical encyclopedia, do not qualify as advertising. They are useful to this article and many others. jareha 00:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The Handbook of Texas is biased and prejudicial; an isolated monolithic bend for discarding the truth in favor of its own prejudices. They would not recount the "Alamo" in favor of the Mexican version would they? Stop your projecting of your political views with Wilson's unborn child also. If she had been killed and a C-section performed to save the life of the child, would you condemn the C-section as an un-natural act of God? If Whitman didn't understand why he was compelled to go to the tower, what makes you think any reference source can definitively state why he did?
Everything in life is biased, unfortunately, on some level - but I certainly don't see anything obscenely biased in the Handbook - and no, I'd never heard of it until now, so I'm not bringing in any prejudices of my own. It seems to be a legitimate link, that offers a fairly mainstream view of the event. Sherurcij 02:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Subwayjack, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Now, as for your comments. You said the Handbook of Texas links were advertisements before, not biased. So, in mentioning "prejudices" in the encyclopedia here, you inadvertently pointed out your own reasoning for removing the link (showing your bias). And by your own point about Whitman's state of mind, why are you discussing this with me, here, now? jareha 02:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The Handbook asks for donations! The Handbook has advertising surrounding the article! The Handbook has errors in it! I think (I don't want to put words in your writing) that you meant "INADVERTENTLY" not "INADVENTLY", and "SHOWING" not "SHOING" in your reply. If that be the case, I did nothing of the sort. Do I have biases and prejudices? You bet! After helping Houston McCoy and other victims of Charles Whitman and The University of Texas, I have seen and been subjected to the deliberate cover-up by the media and the University of Texas. There are things they don't want known and people like you and Seruj(?) swallow whatever the media and Google ejaculate down your throats; and you beg for more!!! I have been involved with Charles Whitman and the University Tower Tragedy for over 8 years now. I have seen every document, every picture, and yes, I have come to conclusions that can not be expressed in this limited format. A&E, Dateline NBC, Life and Time Magazines plus the API all got it wrong from the beginning, and they will not stand corrected because people like you don't want to know the truth. You sit before your computer and Google yourselves into your own little hypotheses and declare yourself genius by projecting (let me declare, forcing) your ill gotten information as truth. I salute you, albeit with one finger raised, but I salute you! Oh yeah, damn your pedantic nuances! And, oh yeah, mainstream thinking can lead to a whole ocean of mis-information!!! But after all, I am prejudiced and bias!Subwayjack 03:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack
First, please, no personal attacks. I appreciate your desire to point out any means of cover-up, but Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Also, you "damn" my "pedantic nuances" yet point out my spelling errors (corrected, thanks for the heads up) while making mistakes of your own (e.g. "disgarding"). jareha 04:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Second, there is a difference between a typo and misinformation. Thank you for correcting my typo! If Wikipedia is to be used as an agent for misinformation, have at it! I withdraw from the forum. But remember, if someone makes a false statement about you in a public forum, you should have no redress either. Verifiable sources does not mean truthful sources. Claire Wilson's unborn child was counted among the seventeen killed from the beginning. It is there in the police reports and mentioned and counted by all the newspapers at the time. Remove it again if you are so inclined. Good luck with changing the truth to suite your own purposes; whatever they may be!

[edit] Article blanking

Don't blank articles. If you have problems with the article text, discuss them here. But blanking an article is vandalism and can and will get you blocked temporarily. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been a bit angry with this article. To shed a bit of a humorous analogue, I would recommend watching "Back To School" with Rodney Dangerfield. There is a skit where Rodney's character has an interest in his English Professor, this prompts him to pay Kurt Vonnegut to write a descriptive essay on the why's and whatfore's of one of his novels. Once the lengthy essay is delivered and payed for, it is submitted to the Professor for grading. She promply gives Rodney a failing grade. She declares that anyone who knows Kurt Vonnegut would never interpret his writings in a such a manner. This sums up my feelings about the way Charles Whitman and the tragedy is being used in Wikipedia.Subwayjack 22:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack
Feel free to raise your concerns here. Just remember that information in Wikipedia articles must follow the rules. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 22:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is, I could go to the Osama bin Laden article and claim that I went to school with him, and he's actually a homosexual Buddhist. I'm not saying that you're lying or anything, just that Wikipedia can't afford to take personal opinions too heavily when they seem to contradict the 'known' (in quotation marks) facts. If you indeed have FBI documents, police facsimiles or other documents that directly contradict information here, feel free to scan/photograph them and post images, as that might have some more weight :) Sherurcij 22:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
"Might have SOME MORE WEIGHT" Sherurciji!? Actually, Osama Bin Laden is a homosexual Buddhist and I understand he keeps a poster of you in his cave; except when he's visiting you in Windsor under the Ambassador Bridge! Of course, who am I to judge a 22 yr old part time student from Canada who wishes to impose his Imperialistic mind frame on American culture and history? I've got the verifiable sources, you've got............whatever it is you've got! Katefan0 is from Texas, as a responsible mitigator, he/she can easily call the Austin Police Department to verify that Claire Wilson's unborn child is one of the listed dead of 8-01-1966 and end this feud. Want to do a boolean on Google? Type in Houston McCoy and John Moore; perhaps that will solve your questions if you can get your hands free of Osama's beard! Subwayjack 22:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack
Do I dare ask what's crawled up you? To start with, I'm curious both where you get the idea I'm a part-time student (I'm a graduate of UW with a degree, ty kindly, and am working on my second), what part of anything I've said sounds vaguely "Imperialistic"? (be honest, do you know what the word means?) If you have verifiable sources, you haven't shown them, you've just repeatedly called people names and said we're all fools, and should buy stuff from your eBay account to learn "the truth". Sorry, but I'm not huge on conspiracy theories (Well I am, I just like to keep them off wikipedia). It doesn't matter whether Claire Wilson's fetus is listed on the police list, what matters is that encyclopaedias do not count pregnant women as 2 people, when assessing death tolls. Wikipedia is not a memorial in memory of certain people, it is an encyclopaedia. Sherurcij 22:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Who counted Claire Wilson's unborn child as two people? I only listed Claire's name because the 8 month old fetus did not have a name yet! You're talk page mentions the part-time student thing. Wow, a second degree, now you'll be twice as stupid for spending all that money when you could have been "googling"! By imperialistic, I was referring to you becoming Emperor over the policies and article on Whitman. When an individuals name becomes a topic for an encyclo, it becomes a memorial in one form or another! I have called no one foolish until now, you fool!Subwayjack 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack
I've stricken all the personal comments in this section. Please stop making them; there's just no excuse for behaving this way, no matter how much you disagree over something. Additionally, it's not my job to call the Austin Police Department for anything. If you want to insert something, it must be sourced. The burden of proof is on the person who seeks to include information, not on those who seek to excise something that is unsourced. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 23:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
A question: Was Claire Wilson herself killed? If so, can't we just write "Claire Wilson, who was pregnant at the time?" I think that makes the situation clear without being political. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 23:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Claire Wilson survived. Her unborn child did not. jareha 01:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Listing Claire's name is fine, I agree it should be on there, even saying "(pregnant)" or something as well, but an "unborn child" does not count among the casualties of any event in history with the exception of the sensationalistic case in the United States last year. (I forget the name, not Chandra Levy, the Scott one). My user page says nothing about being a part-time student, it's fairly vague, but if you must know I graduated with English and History, and am now in a Journalism program. I'm still not understanding the comment about "Emperor over the policies and article on WHitman", I'm not creating any new Wikipedia policies, you can view discussion on them at Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. You may also be interested in the definition of Imperialism. Finally, your comment When an individuals name becomes a topic for an encyclo, it becomes a memorial in one form or another! is patently untrue, there are hundreds of thousands of wikipedia articles that have an individual's name for their title, I daresay the 'majority' of WP articles fit that format. And all of them are strictly controlled to make sure they are not memorials. This is an encyclopaedia, you may be interested in creating your own website however with your version of events, and memorial to the victims. But while an article is on WP, it is not a memorial, it is not edited to fit a single user's version of events, it uses only verifiable sources, and it is open to debate on talk pages. Sherurcij 23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC) (edit: I wrote this at the same time Kate was writing her piece, it seems, so I guess we're in agreement on putting a note about pregnancy on Claire's listing)

[edit] Austin's Finest Hour Removal

Error 1. Whitman started shooting at approximately 11:48 A.M., not half past noon as the article states. Error 2. Whitman was born on the 24th not the 23rd. Error 3. There are more errors.

Hrm, for timing, I see Half past noon on the sweltering Monday of August 1, 1966, sniper Charles Joseph Whitman ascended to the observation deck of the University of Texas Tower and After clubbing the receptionist (who later died) on the twenty-eighth floor about 11:45 A.M., he killed two persons and wounded two others who were coming up the stairs from the twenty-seventh floor., the latter suggesting that there would have been more than three minutes during which he wedged the doorways up the tower, shooting at the family descending, and setting up his gear in the tower (Which was stored in footlockers, as I recall, so not assembled)
As per the birthday, rotten.com says 24 Jun 1941, Charles Whitman born to Margaret and Charles Whitman, nndb.com says Charles Whitman AKA Charles Joseph Whitman. Born: 24-Jun-1941 Birthplace: Lake Worth and the aforementioned Handbook says Charles Joseph Whitman, tower sniper, was born in Lake Worth, Florida, on June 24, 1941, so that seems fairly definite.
So I guess we go to the 24th birthdate, and we could change the time of shooting to "around noon"? I can't find Claire Wilson's police report, though I know I've seen it around - don't remember if it listed a time of shooting or not though, but if so, that would seem definitive. Sherurcij 00:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I updated the death list again. I have the report in my lap as I write this. Claire was one of the first shot, a little before noon. She was not removed for approximately half an hour due to Whitman having full range and control over the area. Once gunfire was returned, he started running to different corners and shooting. When the shots were heard coming from the West or North, they advanced to Wilson and removed her to an ambulance and taken to Brackenridge. Dr. Railey performed the C-section and pronounced the baby had suffered a fractured skull from the gunshot wound. No time was given. The officers time was 10:30 P.M. August 1; the Approved report by the Superior Officer was 10:30 A.M. August 2. As far as the time of shooting goes, there are varying opinions. It was finals time and Whitman had dropped a course he started that semester. He knew the time people would be getting out from their final exams. I believe he wanted to start shooting at 11:50 when he knew some classes would be out. Having been up on the tower myself, several times. I have come to this conclusion. The clocks around the tower are large. When looking up, the hands are approximately 12 to 15 ins from the face. The perspective of the angle may have falsely made Whitman think it was 11:50 A.M. As he looked over the parapet, he noticed people leaving the buildings, albeit in small numbers, but he knew more would follow shortly in masses. The two or three minute perspective ratio would have allowed word to get back inside that something was wrong on the outside. That's when Whitman turned his attention to the "Drag". If he would have waited the extra few minutes, there would have been a much greater tragedy. Whitman's fathers middle initial was A. for ADOLF, I won't go there!Subwayjack 01:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack
Unfortunately for us, what you hypothesized from standing in the tower yourself, is in violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Our job is to report the circumstances, not try to interpret them. Imagine what a mess George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler would be, if every user got to add their own personal theories; WP would cease to be a reliable source used by students, reporters and others, and would become just another messageboard of squabbling. Sherurcij 11:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
To JAREHA: You insist on putting the Texas Handbook as an external link. Within the Handbook, it lists 17 dead as the official count. Within the 17 dead is the Unborn Child of Claire Wilson. You want the Handbook left in, but the Unborn Child left out. Can you explain this conflict to me?Subwayjack 02:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack
I will not be held accountable for mistakes found in the Handbook of Texas. With regards to Claire Wilson's unborn child, I am most bothered by you ignoring consensus. jareha 03:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Whoa Bubba! Look up the page! Sherurcij and Katefan0 agree that the name should be there with explanations. I did that and you erased them! Is it down to the consensus of Jareha now? You acknowledge that your own "highly regarded publication" contradicts you and you're going to stand on the rock of dogmatism as a defense?! Shame on you! I forgive you though because I realize that going to UT-Austin has its limitations on free thinking. Don't worry though, Bevo will listen!Subwayjack 04:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack
Do not misrepresent my positions. I haven't agreed to anything, all I did was pose a question. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I certainly didn't agree to any such thing, and neither did Katefan so far as I can tell. I said that if we post a list of people shot (not just killed), then it should be noted that Claire was pregnant and lost the child. Sherurcij 04:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
"Listing Claire's name is fine, I agree it should be on there, even saying "(pregnant)" or something as well, but an "unborn child" does not count among the casualties..." Are these your words or not Sherurcij? I took your meaning as an "unborn child" should not be listed. Well guess what, I consulted with a pediatric surgeon and she said that if an expectant mother is gravely wounded, as Claire was, and a C-section is performed, guess what? The baby has been born, regardless of whether it is dead or not, because at the time of birth, it was not known whether or not the child was dead! They were trying to save the child and the mother and you two want to throw double and triple meanings into the equation almost forty years after the fact! You guys are sicker than I am! Listen you two, get together, discuss the Battle of Waterloo and the War of The Texas Aggression Upon Mexico and Her Boundaries, Sheri, you can be Napolean, Jahaha, you can be Santa Anna (or Claus, which ever you prefer), and contemplate to your hearts content, the outcome your answers might have on the game show Jeopardy! Who knows, Alex might even pay for you guys to be stranded on an island somewhere together,... along with Osama Bin Laden of course! Oh yeah, Jahaha, don't forget your Handbook!Subwayjack 05:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack
You are truly bizarre, of course those are my words, and as I went on to explain, if you have a list of wounded, it should state that Claire was pregnant and lost her child. But simply a list of those killed should not list fetuses/unborn children. As a sidenote, is there any reference for the University 'sponsoring' his drug addiction? I haven't removed it at this point, but will if no evidence is given in the next day or so Sherurcij 11:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Whitman visited UT's mental health center toward the end of March 1966. Dr. Maurice Dean Heatly was assigned to Whitman. According to A Sniper in the Tower, Dr. Heatly described his first impression of the former Marine as someone "who seemed to be oozing with hostility." Whitman shared his secret desire with Dr. Heatly that day "about going up on the Tower with a deer rifle and shooting people."Subwayjack 15:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack
Subwayjack, the Handbook of Texas tally of 17 includes David Gunby, who died of health complications (ruled a homicide). Not Claire Winslow's unborn child. The Handbook, therefore, doesn't appear wrong in this regard. Also, please cite sources we can reference, not archives. As Kate mentioned, the burden of proof is on the contributor. Again, this is Wikipedia policy: no original research. jareha 15:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Additionally, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability: "[i]t's important to note that 'verifiability'...does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true." jareha 15:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I just read the article again! David Gunby's name is not mentioned!!! Why? Look at the Bibli! Sources were prior to 2001! The article was written prior to Gunby's death! I know, you're not responsible for The Handbooks errors! Just live up to your own! Rotten.com, now there's an exemplary source for info! What does the porn section say about Whitman?!Subwayjack 16:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack
[Response to Sherurcij and Jareha follows.]
I don't have to imagine what a mess George Bush, Osama and Hilter were/are, that is self evident, like your knowledge of Whitman and the record. Are you being paid for contibutions to Wiki? You mention "job" as a function. We are now beyond repair as credible to each other. The rules you stick to say original research is permitted under certain circumstances, I am qualified to meet that burden of proof, but you and jareha deem yourselves guardian of the rules, even though you have no clue about why Whitman did the sniping, or any regard for the victims of that day or anyone else associated with it! Go ahead, post another rule!Subwayjack 16:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack

[edit] Wikipedia Withdrawal

To Katefan0,

I have come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is no different than any other source of misinformation. My intentions of contributing to the Whitman article was due to my involvement with the officer who killed Whitman and numerous victims, professors, witnesses and news media outlets. But Alas, I find myself, as Gulliver, lost among a few Yahoos whose intentions appear to be to their own speculation and interpretation of Charles Whitman and The University of Texas Tower Tragedy. Their abuse of sources shows their willingness to subscribe to editing and rules, in the face of facts and researched knowledge. They are pedantic and callous, and I unfortunately have joined them at their own level; I must now re-elevate myself and return to the dictates of logic and critical thinking, something that my experience on Wikipedia has deluted. I will return to my original research and take the experience of Wikipedia as a lesson; that no matter how much experience and involvement a person has on a particular subject, there are always those who no nothing, willing to reduce your efforts to elevate their own egos and ambitions. I will take away all my contributions. I realize they will be re-inserted for the Yahoos benefit, but that will be out of my hands! I would wish you good luck, however, you are going to need something much more powerful than luck to ever make this article correct!Subwayjack 17:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack

I'm sorry you feel that way; everyone's contributions here are valuable, as long as they follow the rules. Also, I'm sorry I must say this, but once you contribute, you release your contributions under the GFDL -- they cannot be "taken away." It says this at the bottom of the screen every time you edit a page. By clicking on the save button, you agree to the terms of that license. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

All Right! Let's play by the rules then! Tell those faggotts, to stop fucking with my contributions then. They don't use sources correctly, they use them to amuse themselves!Subwayjack 18:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack<

You may have misunderstood, nobody is begging you to stay. I do not mean this to be rude, but you keep claiming that you are leaving WP, then returning to continue flaming people - this is not constructive behaviour, and hurts the community aspect of WP. Not to mention I don't understand why I would use "sources" to amuse myself, that's clearly what Super Mario 3 is for. Sherurcij 18:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I have blocked Subwayjack for three hours for this latest round of personal remarks. Hopefully he'll return with a cooler head. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do not blank this page

...again. Sherucij, I think one of your comments may have gotten lost in the revert. Please feel free to re-post it. Subwayjack, if what you were trying to do is start off again with a clean slate and sort of put some of your personal comments behind you, what we can do is archive the page. But blanking it isn't OK. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 14:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/Talk%7ECharles_Whitman_Talk1_ca77.html"