Talk:Charles Whitman/Talk3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Other topics that should be addressed in this article

I don't have enough expertise to do it myself, but I would encourage one of the principals of this article to address the following topics:

(1) The abusive personality of Charles Whitman's father and the psychological impact that it had on Charles. I'm not a neurologist or psychiatrist, but this would seem to have a far greater impact in respect to the etilogy of his actions than the brain tumor.

(2) The role ordinary "hero" citizens played during the shooting should be amplified. More names of ordinary citizens should be added. People who pulled victims to safety, etc. Also, I seem to remember hearing that people pulled their pick-up trucks over; took their rifles out and began returning fire at the Tower. This was mentioned briefly in the article but is this true or an urban legend? How about some names.

(3) There is also a huge chronological gap in the article between the time he left the Marine Corps (Background)and the time he visited a doctor prior to the shooting (Health). During this time Whitman (a) got married (b) enrolled at the University of Texas (c) invited his mother to come live in Austin to escape his abusive father

Otherwise, this article is pretty doggone good, the snit you folks are having over whether to count the unborn child of Claire Wilson as a casualty notwithstanding; with a little work, it could be "featured". Hokeman 04:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C. Whitman is an Ex-Marine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps#Former_Marines_and_ex-Marines

BIG Tuna 04:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 17:36, 13 March 2006

  • Yes, we have that in this article already. Johntex\talk 02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't understand what the difference is between "former Marine" and "ex-Marine". Does the Marine Corp make any distinction between the two? Hokeman 14:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't imagine that they do, though I could be wrong. They're synonymous as far as I'm concerned. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I just read the link that Big Tuna furnished. Our article on the Marine Corps claims:

Marines acknowledge individuals that served, but have generally referred to those who have brought dishonor upon themselves, as ex-Marines because they are no longer deserving of the title Marine. This is not an offical Marine Corps, or veteran's, policy, but it can be found by looking at numerous instances in the past.

I did a Google search on "ex-marine"+"former marine" and I got 24,000 hits. The first few are news reports that are using the two terms intercahngeably [1], [2], [3]. Here is one that claims that neither term is correct because "once a marine always a marine" [4]. Here is a discussion forum where a poster says he acknowledges the distinction between the two terms [5].
I'm OK with Big Tuna's "ex-marine". As far as I can see, its not wrong to use here, so I'm happy to go with Big Tuna's version. I'm going to add {{fact}} over at the marine article though. That article should site a source for its explanation. Johntex\talk 16:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind it either, though if we decide to go that route, "ex" shouldn't be capped. I'll fix it. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That's what I was thinking also. There is no doubt in anyones mind that Charles Whitman sullied the good name and reputation of the Marine Corp (as did Lee Harvey Oswald). That's not the issue here, Big Tuna. The issue here is does the United States Marine Corps make an official distinction between "former" Marine and "Ex"-Marine, or is this an urban legend that some guys in a bar made up. As far as what the article actually says, I agree with the comments in the above paragraph. Hokeman 19:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

From a small airplane, a policeman reported that there was only one sniper firing from the parapet. The plane circled the tower until Whitman shot it twice, and it retreated from its position. - I would assume that a policeman in the plane was also likely shooting at Whitman? Any evidence of this we could cite?


Ambulance driver Morris Hohmann was responding to victims on West 23rd Street when he was shot in a leg artery. Another ambulance driver quickly attended to Hohmann - should this be removed, and instead considered fodder for if we ever bother making an article about the wounded? With dozens wounded, it seem odd that Hohmann is the only one to get his own quasi-paragraph. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)


Intro claims the rampage killed 15, injured 33...but I'm counting 10 people killed from the tower, then if you count the 3 killed inside, then you'd also have to be counting two 'unrelated' murders the night before. Those definitely weren't part of the rampage, he only killed 10 in the rampage. (I'm not counting Gunby since he was more of a suicide anyways...but just to note, my numbers don't count him, if they did, we'd have 16 right now). As per 33 injured, I see 30 listed, 31 if we count Gunby as an injury rather than a death. Are the other two mentioned the Gabours? We're very unclear on this point in the wording right now. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Was Gunby not listed as homicide? And if so, should that not be listed as a killing? And couldn't we change the wording to say "in the span of 24 hours, Whitman killed 15(/16, if we count Gunby), 13(/14) of which during his rampage" or something similar? 82.83.34.219 06:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Gunby was not murdered, despite the coroner's reporting. He lived on dialysis for 40 years, he could have continued living on that process indefinitely, but chose instead to die, which is suicide. We already mention that the coroner reports..., so we address the subject, but we shouldn't be including him in Whitman's death toll just like we don't count people who commit suicide because of any other disaster in the death toll. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 08:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.whatwasthen.com/uttower.html tells an odd story While in the Marines Whitman was hospitalized for four days after a jeep accident in which he went over an embankment. According to witnesses, Whitman, although groggy, lifted the jeep from his pinned companion, then collapsed and was unconscious for several hours. that doesn't seem to be substantiated elsewhere online. So long as it's the only source, and not very thorough at that (no names attached, no date, etc), I suggest we leave it out. But I'd love to add it in if it could be verified. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 06:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I think 16 is the correct number. The murders the previous night and the tower shooting seemed to all be part of Whitman's plan, if you can call it a plan. The note he left the night before implies the tower killings, or implies he was working up to them. Gunby's death was ruled a homicide by the official in charge of making such a determination. Johntex\talk 19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The issue wasn't so much the number, as the words surrounding it - since his mother and wife weren't related to "the rampage", so I've since reworded it a bit. As I said, we mention that Gunby's death was officially labelled homocide by the coroner, but having known several suicides myself, I assure you that authorities are loathe to label anything suicide that they don't have to, simply out of respect for family who don't want the stigma attached to their departed. But that doesn't mean that Whitman killed him, Whitman wounded him and Gunby decades later decided that his "wounded life" wasn't worth living and committed suicide. Saying that you are committing suicide because of somebody's past affect on your life doesn't mean they murdered you Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I hear what your saying but I personally am not convinced by your arguments. I think all 16 are murders directly related to the rampage. Johntex\talk 19:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
His mother and wife definitely were not related to the rampage, since he killed them, then decided to plan out this rampage. The only thing we have suggesting he planned even 24 hours in advance in the purchase of canned Spam (easily routine shopping) and binoculars (less so) - which is why it bothers me when people try to say he meticulously planned this for ages, and pre-meditated for months. He appears to have decided to kill his wife and mother, his notes indicate that. Then after they were dead, he "went on a rampage". The wife and mother were definitely not related to "the rampage", and Gunby was definitely not "murdered". But Kathy and his mother should be mentioned in the opening, Gunby really shouldn't anymore than if any of the other dozens of victims had commit suicide because of their injury. Go look at the Columbine massacre, it's unlikely that if one of the students later commits suicide, they'll consider to have been killed in the massacre Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I agree with Sherurcij - if somebody injures you and a few decades later you decide to stop getting treated for it, that's your fault. But as far as Wikipedia goes, it really only matters what the official sources think of it, since we are not a publisher of original thought. So if the sources include the wife, mother, and Gunby, then that's what should be there. Kafziel 19:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Kafziel said "So if the sources include the wife, mother, and Gunby, then that's what should be there." I agree - the intro needs to say 16. It can be explained more fully in the article for sure. It can even be footnoted directly to an explanation of the discrepency, but we can't just choose to say 13 or 15 or some other number. Johntex\talk 20:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, killing his mother and wife are not contested so long as they are not said to have been killed "in the rampage", so it's certainly not 13 as a number. However, only one official source ever listed Gunby as a homocide, only after 40 years. We already went through the issue of "but what if reports say..." on the issue of Clare Wilson's unborn child. They get later mention, but are not included in statistics or summaries. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 20:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) The following is just a datapoint, I don't mean this to be conclusive to the discussion. I just did a quick test to see how many sources, as reported by Google, say 15 or 16. I put the entire phrase in quotes, so as to be very restrictive about what hits were returned.

  1. "Charles Whitman killed 16" - - 73 hits
  2. "Charles Whitman killed 15" - 3 hits

I have not gone through these to see how many are unique, or how reputable the sources are, or anything else, this is just a data point. Johntex\talk20:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Even following your links gives me completely different numbers, I see
  1. "Charles Whitman killed 13" - 21,700,000 hits
  2. "Charles Whitman killed 16" - - 34,100,000 hits
  3. "Charles Whitman killed 15" - 32,500,000 hits
  4. "Charles Whitman killed 12"37,400,000 hits

What's going on with google? :P Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 20:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

They seem to work okay to me. Clicking on your links doesn't give me that exaggerated count. I get Johntex's 73 and 3, as well as 6 hits by clicking on your "killed 12" and 9 hits for "killed 13". Kafziel 20:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Same here. I did the first search using Firefox, I've now repeated it with Intenet Explorer and I get identical results. Even without enclosing the phrase in quotation marks, I get fewer than one million hits. I checked my preferences, I have no filtering on or anything I can see that would restrict the hits. Johntex\talk 21:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I made the lead say the following:
"Whitman killed 15 people and wounded 31 others, before he was shot dead by Austin police. The total killed is 16 if David Gunby is included, and 17 if both Gunby and an unborn child are included in the count, as some sources have done. Two of the victims killed were Whitman's family members, who he murdered the night prior to the tower shootings." - Johntex\talk 20:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, there was a paperback novel that came out a year or two before the shootings called "Open Square" by Ford Clark which was about a sniper at a university campus. Should we make reference to this somewhere? It doesn't really belong in the popular culture section, since it predates the shooting. Dedman 12:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinks

For Woohookitty - I see your point about the wiki-links. But should not they have essential relevance to the article? Some - such as - "Standard Bank" - lead to nowhere. Others - such as - dates - lead to a date with a lot of info - but as the August 1, 1966 death list doesn't even list Whitman's name - what is the relevance? Sorry - I was only trying to contribute - but if three hours of work is easily removed - I will contribute else where - this article is too busy and hard to read.Organizedconfusion 17:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Personally I'm in favour of wikilinking anything plausible, which would include Standard Bank and such, but does not include dates or common verbs/nouns like "Charles Whitman shot people" Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 00:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you - but click on Standard Bank and see where you go - no where - that was my point for removing some of the obvious wikilinks and leaving others alone to keep the focus on the article. Just my opinion thoughOrganizedconfusion 00:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Or

Click on [[User:Organizedconfusion and see the same! ;) Redlinks are the deadlinks that don't yet have pages created for them, but their benefit on things like Standard Bank is that it means people reading it go "Hrm...there's no article on that bank, maybe I'll create one" - it's not the most likely thought in their mind, but it's a lot better than not wikilinking it and then people never even consider the possibility. Especially on an article like George W. Bush or Jesus or something, the instant a paragraph includes a red-link (assuming it's for a valid term, say for example "George W. Bush worked as a clerk at Standard Bank as a teenager"), then by the end of the day, usually the new article has been created :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 00:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I just looked up Standard Bank" on the internet for Austin - there is not one there - so if it has been taken over or gone defunct - as many things do over time - the link stays in cyberspace and dead information in an article - just a thoughtOrganizedconfusion 00:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Or

This article says that it merged very recently with East West Bancorp. It also says With the acquisition of Standard Bank, East West Bank has $9.2 billion in assets and operates 62 branch locations -- 61 across Southern and Northern California and one branch in Houston, Texas., so I'm guessing that last one is definitely one of the former Standard Banks ;) I guess we should at least make the redlink be [[East West Bank|Standard Bank]] as a redirect, since they're now the same company. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 01:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
On another note actually, I notice it was a teller for Standard Finance Company, not "Standard Bank" that we're talking about - assuming we have no evidence they're the same? I admit part of the problem is that Canada only really has 5 banks, whereas I remember hearing now that the United States has thousands of smaller ones, in which case maybe you're right. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 01:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes - American corporations like to absorb smaller concerns to increase their profile and get rid of the smaller name after an adjustment period. I believe the Standard Bank in the article is long gone for whatever reason - therefore not worthy of a wikilink. Your assessment of dates is also a consideration - if it is mentioned in the article, fine - but as a relationship to the article - if the date is not in the link -???Organizedconfusion 07:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Or

Sorry, I did not look at the banners on the page declaring this a private project. My mistake - I will not intrude againOrganizedconfusion 15:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Not at all, every wikipedia article is a public project :) WikiProject UofT (and to a lesser degree, Scouting) just put their banner on here so that their members consider helping out, but it's not at all exclusive :) I don't belong to either, so you're as welcome here as I am ;) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, everyone is welcome here as long as they are working towards improving the article! Reading the discussion here, I think Standard Bank is not worth linking since the bank is defunct. With respect to dates, WP:DATE urges us to link complete dates mainly because it enables a user's preferences to determine how the data appears: 2006 Ausust 24; August 24, 2006, or 24 August 2006. It really has nothing to do with whether the article on that date will relate to this subject or not. Johntex\talk 16:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sherurcij - what misspellings - mis-directs and lesser format are you referring to? I can change them - let me know what needs to be changed. The only misspelling I recall was the British term "cheque" being replaced by the American version "check", which isn't incorrect in either format - except it was an American event, so I changed it to the American version. I also do not understand your term "lesser format". What does that mean?Organizedconfusion 00:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or

You changed [[University of Texas at Austin|The University of Texas at Austin]]'s [[Main Building of The University of Texas at Austin|27-story tower]] to [University of Texas]] at [[Austin]]'s 28-story tower (including the observation room and deck) which fails to identify that it's *the University of Texas at Austin*, and you unlinked the tower, instead just putting informal brackets breaking the third wall. You also randomly capitalised titles like "Mother", "Wife" and "Coroner", you changed [[Guantánamo Bay, Cuba|Guantanamo Naval Base]] to [[Guantanamo Bay]] , you said it was during the (misspelled) [[Cuba Missle Crisis]], which it wasn't. You unlinked the terms altar boy, matinee and SPAM, you changed the fact about why his scholarship was withdrawn, you changed the timeline of the suicide note...in short, pretty much every change you made was detrimental to the article. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 00:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'm only familiar with a few of the way's you mention - sorry! Let us look at a few items that were correct though - that you mentioned were incorrect. First - the "timeline note factor". Whitman wrote several notes. The initial "suicide note" was started at the Jewel address - interrupted by friends - abandoned to pick up his wife at the phone company - and continued after both his wife and mother were dead in his hand writing. The note left at his mothers apartment - was written there and left there in only his hand writing- as well as a note not to disturb on her door. I cleaned that up in the revision. Second - he was returned to the Marines because of academic standards that were not met to keep his scholarship in good standing - not the deer poaching incident. The capitalization in some circles are regarded as "emphasis" points - that may not be correct here. The tower elevator goes to the 27th floor only - you leave the elevator on the 27th floor - turn right - go to a steep set of stairs - go up - turn right through a small hallway - turn left at the end and go up two shorter stairways that dog leg - and you are on another floor - consisting of an interior room that leads out to the observation deck - 28 floors - not counting the bell housing and clock walls. How can we corroborate on this - I write - you format?Organizedconfusion 01:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or

Well we definitely can't capitalise for emphasis, but moving onto the other two facts. I'll assume you've been there, so know how the tower works better than I do. And google's not much help, Results 1 - 10 of about 215 for "university of texas" 27-story. and Results 1 - 10 of about 178 for "university of texas" 28-story. , not enough of a variance to say one is much more common than the other. I'm stymied on how to word this easily, we could measure in height instead of floors, but personally I find that offers less context. Let's see if anybody has better ideas. As per the scholarship revokation, think we'd need references either direction. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 02:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

O.K.! No emphasis! I've been up on the tower. The fact would be - if Whitman shot from the 27th floor - as the elevator states - he would have been shooting from the windows of that floor and not the observation platform - regardless of internet searches and measurements. You were right about my mistake on Whitman being in GB during the missle crisis, he was in the ROTC program at UT at the time.Organizedconfusion 02:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or

(chuckle) On the one hand, I wish all factual disputes on Wikipedia were about something as small as whether the UT tower is 27 or 28 floors. That would mean we were pretty darn informative and that we just had a few details to tidy up! On the other hand, it is a little bit tricky to be accurate and still concise. I have also been to the top of the tower several times, including when I was doing research into how the observation deck could safely be reopened.
Having said that, I am not 100% sure how many floors the elevator serves. Scm83x or Jareha or Rebel2guys still live there, so they could go check for certain. I DO know that the elevator does not go to the observation deck. Organizedconfusion is absolutely correct about that. You have to take the elevator as high as it goes, and then take stairs (3 flights I think) to the observation deck.
Even that is not the end to the story though - the carrilon is even above the observation deck. The roof above that has antennas on it. I seem to recall there is also a basement. I don't remember how it is counted in the elevator button numbering.
I suggest the following for the intro "Charles Joseph Whitman, born 1941 June 24, is known for ascending The University of Texas at Austin's 27-story tower on 1966 August 1, and shooting passersby in the city and campus below." In the body of the article we can describe that he had to go up stairs to get to the observation deck. Johntex\talk 02:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
In this photo: Image:Uttower1.jpg, I count 25 rows of Windows. The top floor seems to have higher windows that the rest. There may be a floor or two of windows at the bottom obscured by the trees and buildings. Johntex\talk 02:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
According to UT's website, the guy who plays the bells "...takes the Tower elevator to the 27th floor. He then makes his way through several locked doors and up 55 narrow steps that wind inside the Tower and behind the massive clock face. Tom plays the carillon in room 3002, but to actually see the bells, he must continue up a ladder and climb through a trapdoor."[6] Johntex\talk 03:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

All good suggestions everyone. To the "scolarship revocation" - here is what the Daily Texan link in the article says:

There he met Kathleen F. Leissner, and they were married on August 17, 1962, at Needville, Texas, her home town. Because of low grades he was ordered back to duty as an enlisted man in the Marine Corps on February 12, 1963. Page 1. Daily Texan in reference section.

As to the phot from Johntex - there is one set not easily recognised where the building gains girth going up - and there is no way from the photo to know if there is one missing from the bottom.Organizedconfusion 03:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or

Just wanted to pop in to offer my 2 cents. I don't know if this helps the conversation, but does the building have a 13th floor? A lot of them don't, particularly older ones. Might explain the discrepancy between 27 and 28 stories. Kafziel 03:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I was preparing this before I found the edit conflict. Good thinking KafzielOrganizedconfusion 03:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or

Great question! It may not. Also, as Organizedconfusion says, there does seem to be a set of windows barely visible where the tower gains girth. I missed that row before. So, there are 26 rows of Windows in the photos. There may or may not be a row of windows hidden from view at the base. There may or may not be a thirteenth floor. There may or may not be one or more basement levels which may be numbered or not. However, from the link above to the UT page, they say the top floor served by the elevator is called the 27th floor - regarless of how many floors there actually are. We know that the observation is above this. I don't know if it could be considered a 28th floor or not. Incidentally, if we ever want to talk about the height measurement, List of skyscrapers shows there are different methods of calculating this also. Johntex\talk 03:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we should go with what the floor is called, whether or not it is accurate. By the way, Emporis lists it at 29 floors. *sigh* Kafziel 03:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

To keep it simple - without rulers and protractors - the facts are - the elevator goes to the 27th floor, according to the button - I know there is another set of elevators that go to the basement nearby - I know the buttons start at one - I also know the elevators were renovated after the incident, when(?) - so to not confuse and belittle the arguments - adopt the fact of 27 floors - observation room inside the observation deck is one floor above via one large staircase and one smaller dog legged staircase - that should satisfy the pre-requisites of verifiabilityOrganizedconfusion 03:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or


[edit] SWJ Jr

  • Why did you remove the fact Whitman was arrested for poaching?
  • Do we have a reference for Dexedrine and Excedrine being on his person during the attack? They don't appear on the police list of items gathered that I recall
  • If you're going to change a fact in the article, like changing the results of the autopsy to "inconclusive", then it would be a good idea to provide a reference for it.
  • Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
What does SWJ mean? I know what Jr means. I tried to look up SWJ in the search and found nothing! Anyways, to answer your questions. I just removed it because it is in the wrong context. I, or you can put it in its' proper context. Yes, I do have a reference for Dex and Exed being on his person. Put a needs cite next to it and I will post it tomorrow. I will provide the reference for the "inconclusive" also. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.Organizedconfusion 07:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or

Sherurcij - I just went in to post the deer incident in it's proper place - guess what? - no reference is/or was there for it - I showed the reference for changing the scholarship error - but there was no reference in the article for the deer - should we exclude it? - This is a dilema you've created! You ask to have something referenced that has no reference - and complain about something else included by someone as not being referenced! Do you see the flip-flop there?Organizedconfusion 07:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Organizedconfusion

Here is the link to the Dex on Whitman's person: [7] Here is the quote: A number of Dexedrine tablets – known at the time as goofballs – were also found in Whitman’s possession, but physicians were not able to detect that he taken any before he died. He may simply have laid in the stimulants to keep him alert during a long siege.Organizedconfusion 06:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or

The above link also answers your "inconclusive" autopsy question - a 2fer1 - format them correctly for everybody - Thanks!Organizedconfusion 07:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or


And if you ask, you shall receive. The deer reference is CrimeLibrary, NNDB, Voicewin and others. I did not "create a dilemma", nor is it flip-flopping. The article has seen a handful of 3 or 4 editors work together in cooperation on it (despite some disputes, as always - but things are working great). We've all read the same references most likely, so when someone includes information about Whitman's arrest for poaching, or someone else edits in discussion about his wife's name, most of us recognise it as valid information. The trouble comes when an editor (in this case, you) changes a fact in the article, erasing some information and replacing it with your own. As per the Dexedrine, your link confuses me a bit, not to be contrarian, but "had in his possession" would include them finding the drugs at home, as opposed to "on his person" which would indicate he had them at the tower. But what really confuses me is the line He may simply have laid in the stimulants to keep him alert during a long siege. While it would break WP:NOR anyways, I'm cocking an eyebrow wondering why there's a mental image of Whitman dumping a bottle on the ground and rolling in its contents to absorb them...or does this mean something else? I notice also that The Biography Project points out that there was no Excederin on him. ("Note that there is a disturbing absence of Excedrin.") - it's a tricky issue to claim he had them in the tower at best, and I'm still waiting on a reference that the autopsy was "inconclusive", since your link doesn't say that at all. I'm also cocking an eyebrow at your link's authority on facts, since it talks about Whitman needing absolution to be buried as a Catholic since he was a murderer. Only suicides are traditionally buried outside the main plot, not murderers. It also mentions the Cessna, then later refers to it as a helicopter. I'm not saying the reference is worthless, I'm just pointing out that when the author seems to "branch off" he makes quite a few errors of fact, so it's not inconceivable that an ambiuously-worded "in his possession" is a reference to the fact he was prescribed the drugs, mentioned them in his writing, and they were later found at home, even without the onus of the reference already making more glaring mistakes in his summary. FOr now I suggest we put the autopsy back how it was, definitely remove the Excedrin comment, and continue to argue the Dex Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Suggestion for Removing None Related Cultural References

Just a suggestion - but - if the cultural references don't directly apply to Whitman - such as Buffy, Homer and the oral porno rantings of Tomahawk - does not the references demean the victims and tragedy of the article? True - there are fans that want to believe the characters referenced Whitman and the tragedy for inclusion - but if Whitman's name is not directly connected - or the event specified - couldn't the space be used/not used to improve the article? Just a thought!Organizedconfusion 08:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or

It's fairly common practice to list pop culture references to historical phenomena (look at the article on the Texas Ranger Division for instance). It's a way of showing how much something has seeped into the public discourse. I would oppose removing them. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 12:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Katefan0 on this - cultural references are important to include. Johntex\talk 15:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please understand - I agree cultural references are extremely important - relevant references - that is what reference means according to Webster: "(2) a work (as a dictionary or encyclopedia) containing useful facts or information" - I would emphasize "useful" by the definition - how is Homer, Buffy and Tomahawk useful? - if they do not mention Whitman directly, is that useful? - do the rantings and obscene content of Tomahawk help the image of the usefulness of this article? - even if Buffy and Homer stay, please review the Tomahawk reference and re-consider that one, chanting Whitman's name at a concert in Austin, doesn't seem to fit the "useful" in part or whole, click on the link and see if you agree or not - I am not saying censorship, I am saying useful - just my four cents (inflation)Organizedconfusion 16:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or

If it can be verified, I think it's an interesting addition. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your long and thoughtful consideration!Organizedconfusion 16:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or

No need to be snarky. I'm a long-time contributor, I've given Wikipedia much of my thought and time in many venues. Including at this article. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to annoy you - I thanked you - no need to point me to the rules of civility - I could use the same ploy and say that your brevity was meant to annoy - but I could be wrong so I won't say it.Organizedconfusion 16:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or
I didn't mean it to come across as short, I'm just busy today. Reminding you about civility was no "ploy;" you're a new user and deserve to know the rules of this place -- it's often the case that new users will fall afoul of Wikipedia's rules before they even know they exist. This place can have a pretty steep learning curve. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you KatefanO - I appreciate your advise!Organizedconfusion 17:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or

If you check the archives, I think you'll notice that we've already removed many references, and those still existing are the ones deemed appropriate to the article. Ones like The Simpsons, that don't mention Whitman by name, I believe we spent time checking whether or not the entire "crazy sniper in a tower" stereotype was widespread during the 60s and 70s, or if it was really an offshoot only of Whitman. Since it seemed the latter is true, then references to that stereotype are references to Whitman, even if the Simpsons scriptwriters couldn't find a way to make Ned Flanders turn towards the 'camera' and say "In this scene, I am referencing Charles Whitman, an ex-Marine who climbed to the top of the University of Texas tower and...." Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 16:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sherurcij - one project at a time - I gave you your references and sources to include and exclude in areas of interest to you at the time - nothing has been done - so why should I fragment things further by responding to this?Organizedconfusion 17:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or
Eh? That doesn't even make sense, what "other projects" are we dealing with besides Charles Whitman? Why are you now saying that you refuse to address me here...when it's your request to remove pop-culture references? :P I don't care if you don't offer any rebuttal to my statement, you are the one who loses by that route :P Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
According to The Simpsons Archive episode capsule for "Homer Loves Flanders", "Texas school-tower sniper" is listed as a reference under the "Movie (and other) references" section. jareha (comments) 16:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Jahera - that removes Ned from the list - maybe your reference should be posted - rather obscure search material for the uninitiated.Organizedconfusion 16:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or
I don't think it's necessary to include a reference to a claim that a Simpsons episode exists, it's difficult to dispute, especially since we already have a Wiki page for that episode. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
As for the Buffy the Vampire Slayer reference, Slayage, Number 5 notes the following:
"...including an anonymous plot to commit mass homicide of the students of Sunnydale High. Suspicion — erroneously it turns out — falls upon a short, dumpy loser named Jonathan, whose parodic re-enactment of the Charles Whitman University of Texas sharp-shooting scenario..."
jareha (comments) 17:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Again Jahera - your civil manner has removed my doubts about Buffy and Homer - my Tomahawk issue still stands.Organizedconfusion 17:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or
What exactly is "the issue"? It is referenced, so that's not a problem. It was a concert in Austin, TX, so I don't think the issue is which Whitman they were referring to. The band is notable enough to survive on Wikipedia, so what problem exists? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I see where I erred in reference to Tomahawk - the reference as it stands is fine - it is the Tool link further down that I (POV) feel is offensive due to the graphic language and references to drug use and other deviant references - not suggesting censorship - but a warning to potential clickers may or may not be helpful - then again, warn them and it will be used more than ever - my suggestion would be to remove the link - sorry about the mis-communication!Organizedconfusion 18:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or

The link exists as a reference, not as suggested further reading. Further reading links frequently make use of warnings of context/POV, but references exist as footnotes to a document. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored for a discussion on why we can't/won't remove the link. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 18:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your help on talk - see Wikipedia:Profanity - my interpretation is that if the link doesn't further or enhance the article - it should be removed on that premise alone - I fail to see the enhancement or furthering of the article through the link - just my opinion!Organizedconfusion 19:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or
It is being used as a reference, so it's not supposed to add anything to the article; it's only supposed to back up the claim made in the article, just like a reference to a book or newspaper article. If it was used as a normal "further reading" link, then it would be expected to have some unique perspectives to add. As a reference, however, it doesn't. Hope that clears it up. Kafziel 19:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kafzieland, Sherurcij - I lose - my primary concern is that minors have full unfettered access to the link - parents not aware of the rules of WP may allow them innocent access - only to be lured to the link through curiosity - but what the hell - I withdrew my nomination as Pope a few years ago, so what do I know? Next!Organizedconfusion 19:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or

Parents should always police their childrens' use of the Internet. As Sherurcij mentioned, Wikipedia isn't censored for the protection of minors. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McCoy

There's absolutely no justification for removing a wikilink to Houston McCoy. We have an article on him, he's relevant to this article, he should be linked from it if we're going to mention him. That the other officers don't have their own articles does not mean linking to McCoy's is biased, it means the other officers need their own pages too. Feel free to create them, Organizedconfusion, that's the beauty of Wikipedia -- anybody can start any article they want. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I placed wiki-links on every officer in the same paragraph as McCoy - so as Sherurcij and yourself suggested - someone could by the "end of the day" (Sherurcij) create pages on them - Woookity(?) removed them - I was trying to be fair to all the officers in the paragraph - are you people gaming me?!?Organizedconfusion 17:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or
This is really not worth arguing about. Whether someone has a wikilink or not doesn't indicate bias. You're free to create the articles, or not, just as we all are. I don't have any opinion really about whether the officers should have wikilinks or not. Red links can either annoy people or spur them to create articles -- potato, potatoe. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subwayjack removing all doubt

There is not one article on the internet that does not have errors - major or minor in them about the Charles Whitman-University Tower Tragedy. I'm surprised Sherurcij - after looking at your contributions - and you claiming to be from Canada, which I take at your word - you would have little to no access to the Austin Public Historical Library in Austin, Texas. Yet - your more recent contributions to the article read, in part, to information from the sources in the library and not posted on the internet. Further - Jahera and yourself participated in establishing a "Houston McCoy" page that is full of errors and references that have wrong information, some libelous. That only leads to the conclusion that Jahera - who is in Austin - went to the library and paid for copies of the information, e-mailed them to you and you still get information wrong in the article. Jahera and yourself exchange emails and you post your interpretation of the information out of context. The deer poaching on your links do not mention that the Marines revoked his scholarship for deer poaching - however - have Jahera go back to the library and get the Connelly Report if he has not already sent it to you. Read it! A lot of the BS you have been spreading will be gone at that point. Also, have him get the FBI, Department of Public Safety, and APD records - I did, I had to go through the Freedom of Information Act to get them. Since I have appeared and helped McCoy - the media exposed it - and the information given over the air and in print in Austin and elsewhere - they decided to give the documents to the Library as a public service - how nice of them since I spent three years and hundreds of dollars to get the info so editors like you and others can call into question every post I have ever made. Also - read the recommendations by the Commission on how the University of Texas and the State was to help the victims - including McCoy - and ask yourself why the City of Austin decided to sue McCoy and prevent him from getting the Texas Workman's Compensation award that we fought hard to get against the Lawyers of the City of Austin - and it still hasn't been paid. I don't have to prove a damn thing to you, Jahera, KatefanO or Woohookitty, McCoy and I have lived the experience, you enjoy adding to the misery through Jimbo Wales Rules. The only thing I have found come of any good through WP is Wiki-Truth. I hope they use this. Tell Kate her letter to the attorney who contacted me spoke of "truth" in WP, he got a lot of my frustration in an answer. He still hasn't contacted me back after giving him the facts. Now - here me well!!! - REMOVE THE HOUSTON McCOY PAGE, not just the link, the page also!!! IT HAS FALSE AND LIBELOUS MATERIAL that I will hold Jahera, A.K.A Jonathon Horak responsible for in part! I will blank it myself immediately after posting this! If it is reverted and remains until the date posted below - the actions mentioned below will be taken! We are not interested in correcting it! McCoy wants it removed! You have until May 5, 2006 to remove it! Further action will commence thereafter. To others who have been co-operative and civil in his exchange - Thank you - this is not your fault - we invite you to get the real story soon!Organizedconfusion 20:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Or

Out of interest, how the hell did you pass the bar exam? Anyways, I am indeed in contact with the Austin City Archives, e-Mail is a beautiful thing, I even included copies of my eMails to them about the Houston McCoy copyrights to the Wikimedia Site Administrators :) Librarians/archivists are by nature very friendly and willing to help somebody who displays an interest in something :)
C'mon, you're a lawyer, surely you know the value of actually doing your legwork to present an ironclad case? Now please, you've promised to leave a dozen times already, for once be true to your word and leave :)
As per Jareha, if he has extra money then I request he send it to me directly, rather than purchase items and eMail them to me. Mr Noodles cost money dammit! I'll also point out that his "libelous edits" to the Houston McCoy page consist of disambiguating links to the Austin Police Department and .38 pistols...do you even know what libel is? If not, we have a beautiful article you can read :)
Finally, I am confused counsellor by your statement to the tune of If it is reverted and remains...the actions mentioned below will be taken! We are not interested in correcting it! McCoy wants it removed! You have until May 5, 2006 to remove it! Further action will commence thereafter. Now it appears to me that you reference "the actions mentioned below", but then never mention any actions! Surely this isn't your idea of legalese, is it? Tsch. Wikimedia has stated on numerous occasions that it doesn't matter whether or not a subject wishes to have an article about him, I've fought this case before about my John Stockwell article and won. So not only common sense, but precedent, is on my side :) (Though I must say Stockwell and his nephew were both much more polite and reasonable than you, so we were more willing to make concessions about what information to include/notInclude about his later life) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 21:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 21:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
All right, that's enough. Subwayjack has been disruptive here but there's no need to goad. This new sockpuppet has been blocked as per Wikipedia's policies, particularly since there are now legal threats involved. Subwayjack, if you're reading this, you should call the Wikimedia Foundation office yourself, or email Brad Patrick. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Spoilsport :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 21:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Damn. I went to dinner and missed the chance to block a sock. I'll never take lunch again! Johntex\talk 22:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Now I feel kind of silly for having given him advice. Kafziel 23:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
But it was very nice advice. Thanks for your kind words. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we've all earned ourselves A nice cup of tea and a sit down, I'll grab some cucumber sandwiches and lemonade, and we can all enjoy a brief respite. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 00:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/Talk%7ECharles_Whitman_Talk3_683a.html"