Talk:Charles Whitman/Talk4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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)

Contents

[edit] Infoboxes

The infobox containing the list of Whitman's gear and food is so long that it bumps the next section down pretty far, leaving a big blank space in the middle of the text. With a few small changes, like leaving out minor details like the hardware store receipt (which isn't really gear anyway) and the brand of the alarm clock, and condensing the list of food into a smaller space, the infobox is made small enough to let the sections run into one another without interruption. It just makes the article more aesthetically pleasing.

I put my example of it in my sandbox, here. If the change is acceptable to everyone, I'll go ahead and put it into the actual article. Kafziel 18:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, probably the result of my using 800x600 monitor resolution, that it doesn't appear that way to me. I like your idea of putting all the food into a paragraph, rather than bulleted list. Would we be able to keep things like the receipt, then, if we save space on the foodstuffs? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 18:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The changes I made were only enough so that it would exactly match everything up, so if we add anything back into the list it will throw it off again. I figured we could mention the receipt somewhere in the text, making a note of where he bought the hardware or something. There wasn't really much I could get rid of, because all of it is interesting.
As an alternative, changing the parameters of the infoboxes themselves (to make them wider and therefore shorter) might do the same thing while still keeping the list as it was. Kafziel 18:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course, as another alternative, we could just forget about it and leave it as it is. It probably doesn't bother most people; I'm just anal. :) Kafziel 18:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Changing the infobox parameters made it wide enough to accommodate on one line some items that had previously taken up two lines. It fits better now, with no other changes to the list. Kafziel 18:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous editor

Hi, and thanks for your contributions! I've gone back to the old version for now, but would you happen to know of any links that might verify that the place returned and started shooting again, or that Crum accidently discharged his rifle? I hadn't heard either of those facts before :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The brain tumor

My addition of the brain tumor/behavior connection in the section mentioning the tumor, has been reverted with the comment: we mention the tumor, let readers draw their own conclusions, WP:NOR) My reaction is: "You want to let the reader draw their own conclusions, based on the reader's own presumed extensive knowledge of neuroanatomy and neuropsychiatry?" I don't think that flies.

Since this is a controversial topic (some people for philosopical reasons do not think any brain problem can ever be responsible for any criminal action, just as some people don't believe in evolution), I have moved it to a "controversy" section. However, I believe it is a reasonable point to bring up; those who wish to argue the opposite case are free to do so in this section.

My own reading of Whitman's life reminds me quite a lot of the classic case of Phineas Gage. Whitman was a good student, a good citizen, and a good soldier prior to 1962. After this time, all of his mental functions degraded, and the drugs he was prescribed were given to him after this began happening. His tumor, a high grade astrocytoma (glioblastoma) could well have been in place as a lower-grade tumor, from that time. It is interesting to contrast Whitman (for example) with Lee Harvey Oswald, who was a poor student with a violent nature and antisocial tendencies throughout his entire life. It is impossible to imagine Oswald as an Eagle scout or winning a USMC scholarship.Sbharris 18:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, and to be honest I'd be interested to read a thesis you write about the subject, but I feel that a section on conjecture violates WP:NOR which tries to make sure we stick only to fact, and not include sections with what were possibilities. ("Osama bin Laden's hatred of Americans may have dated back to his influential schoolteacher, Bob Jones..." would similarly be removed, even if there's a good chance it's true, simply because it's a thesis, not a provable fact.
Look, you failed to read WP:NOR obviously, because it has a whole section on explaining and summarizing "theories", non of which are provable facts because if they were, they weren't be theories. Your conjecture is my theory. The only hard rule in WP:NOR is that opinions must be referenced and not original, but I've passed that test. It's not MY original research or original idea that Whitman's actions may have been influenced by his brain tumor.
We know what Whitman wrote, we know what drugs he was prescribed, we know what the autopsy showed, but we don't know for certain "why he did it", and we shouldn't try. I'd be interested in hearing some other viewpoints on this of course, but I think that's general wiki-policy. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 16:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
No, for reasons discussed above, it's NOT wiki policy. And since it isn't, who are YOU to say we shouldn't try to sumarize published theories about reality? Causality is a funny subject, and it is impossible to separate "facts" from causality. For example, one of Whitman's shooting victims died many years after the event, and his death was ruled a homicide. But this ruling was merely a matter of opinion by somebody in authority, who could not possibly have known the ultimate cause of this one event, with 100% certainty. Yet you left this theory in the article. Is it the office of authority which makes you roll over? Do you believe that causation and reality are actually determined by the rulings of people in authority? But what happens when you get to science, where there is no Pope, and no Supreme Court? How is WP to deal with scientific matters which haven't been fully decided (which in medicine is nearly all of them). Do we just delete the article on global warming? Oh, wait-- let's delete everything from it but the FACTS. Yeah. Would you like to tell us what the facts are, so we'll all know? Because otherwise there's a lot of jawboning.
If you want some humor, I suggest you have a look at the Wiki on causality itself. If you're looking for the straight facts on causality, you won't find them there, because there's a lot of argument about what the facts are. With major published viewpoints and theories summarized. If you really think such stuff is against WP policy, and you cannot take the word of WP:NOR about summarizing theories, then why pick on ME? Just go over to the causality article and stick on a Humean header demanding that all non-factual material in it be deleted. Then you can progress through the Wikis on every philosophical subject. Clean em all out. Then the "soft" sciences, especially psychology. Let me know when you're ready to work on factual causation and medicine (now exactly what causes coronary disease?), if you survive that long.Sbharris 20:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

subwayjack/JohnMoore's eMail to me on the subject Are you going to let a Dr. over-ride your reversion on the tumor controversy on the Whitman page? He doesn't understand your power, Yah-Weh is with you! What gives him the authority to over-ride you? I'm being presumtious of course, he could be a she! Who knows if there is a penis or vagina under that smock? But you, oh mighty God king, you will know! We rely on you to correct this oversight...YOU, oh mighty Sherurcij, are the power and authority that even Jimbo Wales cannot stop!

You fascinate me Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 16:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Though most brain tumors do not cause mental illness or psychotic behavior, is information that would be found in brain tumor, not in this article.

I've taken it out, but something about the fact that some brain tumors do cause aggression needs to put some place, and referenced. Here's a place to do it, since otherwise a relatively rare brain tumor symptom is going to have to be stuck in a general brain tumor article.

the location of Whitman's tumor might have affected his mental function and emotions. This tumor was located where it could impinge the amygdala, an emotional processing center of the brain closely connected with anxiety and aggression. is a pretty good description, but saying it "might have" isn't really fact, Hitler "might have" been a reptiloid overlord, but we don't have a separate section in his article about it. But I wouldn't be adverse to seeing the short description of the Amygdala in the "Declining health" section where we mention the tumor.

That the tumor might have caused the aggression is a theory of some neurologists. I'm perfectly glad to mention it as a theory, since that's what it is. However, Wikipedia has good policies in place for summarizing theories--- for example see Kennedy assassination theories. I have already referred you to the section on the summation of theories in WP:NOR. Why do you continue to insist that WP have only "factual statements" when this is manifestly not the stated policy of WP? Wikipedia does not deal in "facts" or "truth", it deals in verifiable and referenced statements. Please see WP:V and WP:RS.
I think that the results of Whitman's autopsy are now in a rather odd and unnatural place, before the account of his shooting and death. I would suggest that they be moved to a place after his death, but before the controversy, as to their interpretation.
Comparing this to the idea that Hitler might have been a reptioid overlord is not helpful, and suggests lack of perspective. If you can find published references which support this idea on medline, I will consider it, however. :). Due to your mention of Hitler, however, you officially get the Godwin's law award for this debate. This is usually a sign of a poor position, but I leave further study of Godwin's law to you.

This fact... is not a fact, what are you referring to? The possibility that his tumor "might have" impaired his judgment? We definitely shouldn't call that a fact.

No, I'm refering to the things which I memtioned after the phrase "the fact that". Since these are all historical statements already found in the article (merely reworded), I assume you have to problem with them. If you wish to clarify that we are not considering the tumor's causation of agression as a "fact" but merely a theory of some neurologists, then that's fine. A clarifying statement is in order if you believe this might be misunderstood.

together with Whitman's record of good scholarship and conduct prior to 1962 surely we're not going to say "Because of Hitler's epilepsy, combined with the fact he was a decent sort of chap prior to 1927...", the fact he had a scholarship and behaved prior to 1962 has no bearing on the chances that his brain tumor was pushed against his amyglada.

Others disagree with you. I have referenced them. In any case, this isn't MY private theory. WP:NOR. You may have a private theory that a sudden change in behavior, when coupled with a new brain tumor diagnosis, actually has no bearing at all on any questions of tumor-induced behavior changes. That would be medically novel, but, if that is your assertion, I merely ask you to reference it. We'll put it in the "con" section of the controversy.

and his own perception of something unusual and uncontrollable happening to him, we already mention this in the article

Who is this "we" you mention? There is no "we" here, there is only "us." You do not own the Wiki on Whitman.
You are aware that "we" is the objective form of the term "us", right? "We asked him..." "He asked us...", it's really not that complicated. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
This fact is indeed previously mentioned, but not in this context. Some facts bear mentioning twice in the same Wiki, because they are used twice for different purposes. Do you need examples? "Lifeboats" are mentioned a number of times in the Wiki on the sinking of the Titanic. Early they are mentioned in the description of what happened. Later they are mentioned in the context of the investigation into why so many people died. Note that the investigation consists of statements of theories. There are no facts as to why exactly the number of people died aboard the Titanic, and not a few more or less, or some people and not others. We do not have the complete facts, and never will. However, most investigators have concluded that the number of lifeboats had something to do with it. That is their THEORY. It cannot be PROVEN unless you'd like to sink a 1:1 scale Titanic somewhere with the same number of people, and adequate boats. However, I do not suggest all discussion of this be removed from Wikipedia.

have led some neurologists to speculate that his medical condition was in whole or in part responsible for his criminal behavior. again, this could be tagged as a half-sentence onto the existing mention of the tumor. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 14:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it could, and the easiest way to do that is save all mention of the the tumor until after his death, then have an autopsy section, than have a "Tumor/behavior controversy" section. I'll be glad to restructure. Sbharris 01:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a good article on Wikipedia about the type of Tumour Whitman had, for anyone interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glioblastoma

and Wohookity, why am I being attacked by you, I read no personal attacks in the Wiki Rules and removed them. Now you are attacking me? Let's get an administrator to decide, I don't like this kind of behavior!Bimboyells 01:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)B

I am restoring the brain tumor section, which was basically deleted. I invite reader comment on it, since this is shaping up to be a major edit conflict, and will need arbitration. Sbharris 03:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help On McCoy Page

My name is Houston McCoy, the subject of a link in this article. I have been informed by my daughter, that Jimmy Wales has refused to remove a page created about me by a Sherurcij. My Power of Attorney, John Moore, warned me that Sherurcij is inclined to push "buttons" and push his theories and assumptions on others with no regard for a subjects own interest in having the truth told. In my case it is simple! Whitman sniped, my shotgun wiped! End of story to me. However, I appreciate others want a little more detail. That can be done in the Whitman article where I don't have to worry about others in the future vandalizing the page Sherurcij created on me and posted errors immediately. A Centrx came along and suggested a merge into the Whitman article. Fine by me! Sherurcij has other ideas! He wants to correct me and try to force me to go into greater detail than I want to. He doesn't seem to care and offers suggestions and analogies that seem like bait to a fish in my reading of them. He insists it is not my page, then who am I? The page has my name it! Perhaps he is saying, "go away if you can't verify or dispute the things I post"! I don't know! I offered to write a short factual account of my involvement and other officers and he reverts while I'm in the process causing an edit conflict screen to appear, only to find more demeaning and mean spirited intrusions into a debate I don't want any part of! He asks for blessings and I say no, so he attacks me with persistence. Yes, there has been a controversy with Martinez and myself about who killed Whitman, but that is mostly media hype and I respect Martinez as a fellow officer, we just disagree on who killed Whitman, but either way, Whitman is dead! The media started the public debate and now, Martinez and myself have to answer questions about the controversy? Put Martinez as the one who killed Whitman if that will end the controversy. I don't care! All I want is to not be the target of anymore controversy and debate that agitates my condition. I owe that to my family and grandchildren. The things said on the page in my name, could easily be turned into the Ramiro Martinez page. I am pleading with someone to do that, or delete the page with my name on it and move it into the Whitman article. I do not want suggestions or answers from Sherurcij, he claims to be a "professional journalist", but won't provide a link to his work, I want the same anonymity! He says it doesn't matter who he is, I say it does. If he won't post a link to verify who he is, how can I confirm things that happened in the tower that were never reported?HoustonMcCoy 05:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, we have pretty clear guidelines against people editing articles on themselves.
And besides, there's a 90% chance that you are John Moore anyway. So I'd suggest that you stop editing the article on Houston McCoy immediately or else I'll request a CheckUser and you will probably be blocked that way. We've been down this "Hey I'm xxxxxx of John Moore and I have something to say!" road before and it's always been...John Moore. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but that is quite wrong: See WP:BLP for the WP guidelines in such cases. A number of them appear to have been broken here. Read this article carefully. Living persons are discouraged (not prohibited) from writing their own bios, but are welcomed to take part in editing them (since they are experts in the area). There are also remedies provided for living persons who believe themselves abused by Wiki bio articles, and the threshhold of abuse, due to liability and legality concerns, is rather low. Courts tend to regard "public figures" as people who actively try to put themselves in the public eye (like politicians or actors-- the people in your example list), and not people who are simply dragged into the public eye 40 years ago, by means of a single tragic occurance which made it into the news then. So have a care, because you're on thin legal ice, and complaints to Wiki are going to a lot more effective here than if Maddona was complaining. You understand? Sbharris 18:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
You are quite correct that one is able to edit one's own article so long as the person sticks to citable information. One's own personal recollections and understandings do not make the cut, as I explain further below. Johntex\talk 18:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No. You didn't read WP:BLP as I asked. One's personal recollections and understandings about oneself are perfectly reasonable and includable so long as THEY DO NOT CONFLICT with citable sources. Since you're having trouble using a reference, I'll quote the relevant section from WP:BLP:
Using the subject as a source
In some cases the subject may become involved in an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography. When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.
Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:
It is relevant to the person's notability;
It is not contentious;
It is not unduly self-serving;
It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
There is no reasonable doubt that it was written by the subject.
----
End of quote. I don't suggest undue skepticism and attempts at gaming the system by using that last clause. There are ways of verifying the source of material involving notaries, and when they need to be employed in legal action, the footer of the expense bill is generally the person who is/was the skeptic (unless of couse they were right). So again, beware. Cause you're putting your money, and the Wiki Foundations's money, where YOUR mouth is. And the Wiki Foundation is very conservative about such things. When they get complaints, they tend to block pages until legal issues have been settled. Sbharris 18:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I thank you for providing the exact text to which you wish to refer. However, I would thank you even more to not presume to lecture me by saying I am "having trouble using a reference". WP:BLP is not the only policy we have - you don't get to pick just one to refer to. Please see WP:CIVIL. Also, please see WP:CITE. Also be aware that we have a policy against making legal threats. You may get yourself quickly banned with such behaviour.
Good luck doing it.Sbharris 04:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
As for verifying your identity - that burden is most surely on you, to suggest that the foundation is going to pay money to have you notify documents is a complete non-starter. Johntex\talk 03:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand. And I'm not going to explain it to you. Sbharris 04:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
What kind of statement is that? Is that similar to "I'll take my ball and go home?" I don't see how a statement like that is constructive to improving this article. Johntex\talk 05:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll assume for the moment that you are HoustonMcCoy, but whether you are HoustonMcCoy or John Moore or someone else entirely really makes no difference. We are writing an encyclopedia and our aim is to be as factual and as complete as possible. We can't remove an article just because someone doesn't want it to appear. We can't change an article just because someone wants it to say something else.
We don't let George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein or Angelina Jolie or Daniel Brandt or Colt McCoy control whether or what we write about them either. If you have information that passes WP:CITE for being a reputable printed source, then by all means provide it and we will work it into the article.
Put yourself in our shoes for a moment. Since someone can sign up for any username they wish - there is no way to prove someone is who they say. Even if we knew who they are, we can't trust their personal recollections about an event. They may honestly mis-remember the details. They may have an interest in lying to make their article sound better. That is why we stick to the published information and cite the source of the publication. The reader can then evaluate the source and decide how much credence to place in the information.
If the article disturbs you then either provide us reputable, published sources that agree with your claims, or stay away from reading the article. Those are really your only two choices. Johntex\talk 16:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually we can, if it's negative, biographical, and unsourced or poorly-sourced. This is quote from WP:BLP.

"Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule."

COMMENT: Editors means anybody, and I hereby take it upon myself to do so for the Houston McCoy page. I do not know the man, but he deserves to have his page edited in accordance with this policy.
Continuing to quote from WP:BLP:

"This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel."

COMMENT: Thus, those who plan on re-inserting any unsourced negative biographical material which I remove under this policy, may find themselves on the negative end of what it says above may happen. In that case, please don't say you acted in ignorance of the possible consequences. Thank you. Sbharris 04:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Several points:
  1. Please follow usual practice on indenting your comments, and stop putting your comments in between my paragraphs - the way you are structuring your replies makes it difficult for a reader to follow the conversation.
  2. I'll try to number my points so it will be easy for you to reply to a single point without sticking your comments in the middle of mine.
  3. What, specifically, do you allege constitutes "unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages" in this case?
Johntex\talk 05:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Houston McCoy

Since the encyclopedic notability of this person stems from and is confined to the events of that day, the story of the shootings should be in a single article. As of now, that article is Charles Whitman, though if there is some standard, convenient name for the shootings, along the lines of "UT-Austin shootings" perhaps, then it should all be moved there. The first three paragraphs (before the recent deletion of the preliminary second paragraph) duplicate what is properly in the main article. The latter facts, long after the event, are not sufficiently important for an encyclopedia and, if anything, would warrant a single, general sentence in the main article. —Centrx→talk 06:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm against the merge. The Whitman article is already fairly lengthy, and the events in Houston's life after the shooting are encyclopedic and interesting. Those events are also well sourced (four references in the current Houston McCoy article pertain to events after the shooting. Johntex\talk 02:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
First, because the Houston McCoy article in its relevant parts merely repeats (in some parts, identically) what is already in the Charles Whitman article, the addition would be no more than two sentences, likely less, which is a smaller addition than has been added only in the last couple of days, and will undoubtedly be added in the future. The length of the article is irrelevant to this merge.
Second, whether the afterward events are interesting is irrelevant. Many interesting things do not belong on Wikipedia. That the events are well-sourced is a necessary condition for doubtful information, but the mere fact that an event occurred and can be verified does not mean it warrants mention in an encyclopedia. Perhaps you mean that they indicate the events to be notable. Yet, looking at the sources, this is not the case.
  • The Dedman source (now a dead link, but accessed from the Internet Archive) is a personal website; Dedman might be an important person (though he has no Wikipedia article...) but he probably is not, and regardless it is his own website. This is barely good enough to warrant being a source at all.
  • The 3B Theatre source appears to be a film review and mentions the events for which it is a source only as an addendum to the central purpose of the film, which is the actual shooting—analogous in this merge discussion to the main article about the shooting.
  • The Lavergne book appears to be the author's website, about his own book, and McCoy's contributions to it are ancillary to the book and in support of its central purpose, again the actual shooting.
  • The PTSD diagnosis is unsourced, and is still only notable insofar as it is re lated to the shooting.
  • The Daily Texan article is perhaps the greatest indication of a notable event; it is from a published newspaper rather than a random website. However, even "major" newspapers pubish trite "where are they now" pieces that do not qualify as news so much trivial filler and factoids that will ever-so-slightly interest the reader until they forget about it entirely 5 minutes after reading it. And this is no AP-redistributed tidbit published in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, this is a college newspaper that serves the very university in which the shooting happened—though serving the same purpose as the trivial factoid—jumping off from the original, notable event and leading the story with it.
So, the Houston McCoy article right now consists of two parts: The first part is an identical copy of parts of the Charles Whitman article, and is inextricably tied to it. Anything that warrants mention in this part inevitably warrants mention in the Charles Whitman article, even if it were the originating article. The second part consists of trivia, all of which solely and totally dependent for its notability on the original shooting. What else is there? Why should everyone who happens to be involved in an important event all of a sudden warrant a biography about them, when their notability is only related to one event, and only by chance at that—some other officer could very well have been on the scene that day. Do you propose to create articles about Ramiro Martinez and Jerry Day as well? What is this article supposed to be? —Centrx→talk 04:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm still against it. I'm sure the Houston McCoy article could be substantially lengthened if someone were to put some effort into it. I would potentially be more supportive of renaming Houston McCoy to Houston McCoy and Ramior Martinez and discussing them both together, if that would make you happier than a seperate article. Johntex\talk 05:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Why? Any article at all could be lengthened with information about what a person likes for breakfast and their interest in stamp collecting. What information could be added to this article that would not either duplicate what is properly in the main article, or contains unencyclopedic information? —Centrx→talk 03:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am against the idea of a merge, just like we moved the List of Charles Whitman's victims to its own article. This article should be kept as direct and on-topic as we can keep it, and that means not discussing lawsuits stemming from portrayals of police officers in Hollywood movies. I'm not entirely against the idea of moving it to the Ramiro Martinez and Houston McCoy link as suggested, on a much smaller scale I created Bei-Alla and Musa Tsechoyev a while ago about two brothers who were easily combined into a single article. I'm not sure what WikiPolicy is though, but it's not a bad idea in my opinion. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I assert that the lawsuits are not notable, not encyclopedic, and should at most be reduced to a single sentence in the main article. Also, I think it would be a good idea to instead have a main "UT-Austin shootings" (or some better name) article, with the Charles Whitman article either being subsumed into it or in the relevant section listing that as the "Main article", and subsuming these tangent articles like Houston McCoy into that main article. —Centrx→talk 18:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, but the main problem I see with such a rename is that it invalidates all the information we are trying to portray about Whitman himself, not solely about his 90 minutes of infamy. His childhood, his military service, his autopsy and burial, they all fit in an article about him, but think of the 9/11 article...it can't afford to deal with the individal people involved like Hani Hanjour, they need their own article to keep the main article clean and concise.Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Having an article about Whitman, whether entirely there or having a section that refers to "UT shootings", is much more appropriate than about McCoy or Martinez. Whitman is the reason the shootings occur, all the events are center around him, and further his background may be important why he committed these actions. McCoy and Martinez, however, simply happened to be officers on call, two of perhaps hundreds of police officers in the region, any of whom could have been just as likely to have responded and killed Whitman. Adding information about the officers' childhood, for example, could have just as well been about the childhoods of many other people, and only happened to be McCoy. For the same reason, we don't have separate articles about all of the victims, who have been rightfully shunted off into a mere list. —Centrx→talk 21:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I find McCoy's medical issues and legal disputes with the government to be completely encyclopedic. They are notable both from a stand-point of understanding post-traumatic stress disorder but also in understanding the actions of the governmment in the aftermath of the shootings. I also find the question of who killed Whitman to be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Multiple books and articles have delved into this quesiton. People claiming to be Houston McCoy or his agents or associates have wanted both of these things removed, but there is no basis for removing this information. Johntex\talk 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
If the purpose is to understand post-traumatic stress disorder, information about that belongs in the Post-traumatic stress disorder article, not scattered across biography articles. The question of who killed Charles Whitman properly belongs in the article about Charles Whitman; the only part of article Houston McCoy that is related to this question is in the section about the event, which duplicates content already in Charles Whitman. The inclusion of this information is not threatened by this merge. Multiple books and articles, however, have not delved into the question of whether a film contained racist depictions of one of the officers, or whether an officer was diagnosed with PTSD, etc. It is these points that are not encyclopedic. —Centrx→talk 04:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
No, the purpose is to understand Houston McCoy and Charles Whitman and post-traumatic stress and workman's compensation and... Having the McCoy article draws these threads together into an encyclopedic study of a person and how these things have played out in their personal life. I reject the suggestion that McCoy is not notable. Johntex\talk 16:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The subject of an article its heading; this article must be about Houston McCoy. What do you propose, appending each after-event with statements like "This shows that people involved in traumatic events sometimes have a condition called 'post-traumatic stress disorder'" and "Sometimes when workers feel they have been wronged apply for 'workman's compensation'" ? If a person wants to know about post-traumatic stress and workman's compensation, information and examples about that are properly found in their respective articles. This is not "Profiles in Courage" and Houston McCoy is no Sam Houston or Robert Taft. Your proposal to educate readers in non-sensical places would apply equally to every soldier ever gone to war. "Here we have an example of someone who was involved in fierce battles but did not get post-traumatic stress disorder, one example of the 1,974 articles about random people who haven't, as opposed to the 2,349 articles about random people who did have it." —Centrx→talk 22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree the subject of an article is its heading. That is the main reason to keep an article on Houston McCoy - so that Houston McCoy can be described there and not clutter up other pages. As to the rest, people can search for "post-traumatic stress" and find articles where the term appears, then they can read about McCoy and see why he suffers from this, etc. Johntex\talk 22:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is not a list of case studies, or a randomly arranged guide to disorders. Any reader seeking information about post-traumatic stress will go to the Post-traumatic stress disorder. This Houston McCoy article does not come up in the first 80 Google hits or in the first 3 pages of Wikipedia search hits. Examples of post-traumatic stress disorder do not belong in this article, and no one is going to find it here. —Centrx→talk • 03:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I never suggested we create a list of case studies. If you want people to find Houston McCoy in relation to post-traumatic stress disorder, all you have to do is create a Category:People with post-traumatic stress disorder. Johntex\talk 04:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Right now it's 2-1 against the idea of the merge, but there are some notable voices missing from the debate. For now, would it be a fair compromise to move it Ramiro Martinez & Houston McCoy, and try to add more information on Martinez? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 01:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This naming style is so totally non-standard that it indicates this does not belong. Two persons are not combined in a single article. Either Houston McCoy is notable enough to have is own article, and so is Ramiro Martinez, or neither are. Both are equally notable. —Centrx→talk • 03:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me, we can keep them as a seperate articles then. Johntex\talk 04:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Add my vote to the merge, where it would be quite easy to add a section on "History of notable survivors, after the event", and put any really-must-keep info on McCoy and Ramirez there. Many people have contact with historical events without wanting to have the outcome be a Wiki bio of themselves as a result. I believe their wishes should be respected in these things. For example, all the doctors who treated and then autopsied JFK probably have enough public information on them and their statements to write an article longer on each, than McCoy's. But it wouldn't be FAIR to any of them to do so, if they don't want such a thing (if you don't understand the concept of "fairness," I can't explain it to you). Finally, please don't let me hear any complaints that I'm somehow being biased about inclusion of simple facts. There's no such thing as a "simple fact", and (as all have admited), the simple decision to include a fact and how much space to give it, cannot escape problems with NPOV. Those, we live with. But Wikipedians strive to give important things more space. Having as much information in Wikipedia on McCoy's PTSD diagnosis as there is on Whitman's brain tumor, illustrates the kind of extremely poor medico-historical judgement that has gone into creation of this pair of articles. If it was a single article, such poor judgement would stand out a little more. Having two articles allows it to continue to exist.SBHarris 16:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you are violating WP:CIVIL again when you say "If you don't understand the concept of 'fairness', I can't explain it to you." You are not the sole arbiter of what is fair, and it is uncivil of you to insinuate that any of your fellow editors doe ot understand the concept of fairness. Please confine your comments to the content of the article, not speculation about other editors. Thank you. Johntex\talk 17:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Taken in context, that rhetorical comment (Hamlet to Horatio) was made without personal content, not as part of a conversation (it was a vote in a RfC, after my long absense from this page), and surely therefore not directed to anybody in particular. It's a shame, therefore, that you seem to have taken it personally. Had you assumed WP:AGF you would not have. On the other hand, your opinion that I *personally* have been uncivil to you or anybody else thereby, probably actually does violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, which is irony. That noted, may we get on with the discussion?SBHarris 21:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
A comparison to doctors who tended JFK is unreasonable, a better example would be of those who shot and killed murderers, like say Boston Corbett or Jack Ruby, possibly even Lon Horiuchi - and you can be darned sure that if they or their relatives said it "wasn't fair" and they didn't want an article, we wouldn't remove an article for them. You claim to have killed one of the most notorious spree killers in history, you have to expect some people are going to want to know something about you. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 20:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Horiuchi's actions resulted in the Feds having to pay out >3 million in civil damages. Corbett acted against orders, went insane, and was sent to an asylum. Ruby, a civilian, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, and also went insane. These are the men you compare with McCoy? No wonder he's angry!SBHarris 21:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I stand by my assertion that your statement "If you don't understand the concept of 'fairness', I can't explain it to you." violates WP:CIVIL. It is certainly uncivil to insinuate that your fellow editors do not understand the concept of fairness. Even WP:AGF has limits, and your sarcasm has exceeded those limits. I would appreciate your refraining from such rhetoric. Johntex\talk 15:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not assume that the comment was made in bad faith. I, reading that, thought he may have been making a definitional statement in the vein of the Congressman who said that he couldn't define obscenity, but that he knew it when he saw it. This may be an insufficient argument for the purposes of these articles, but that does not mean that it was uncivil. —Centrx→talk • 03:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Jack Ruby decided to kill, maybe premeditatively, perhaps as part of a plot; Houston McCoy was a police officer responding to the scene—who may or may not have killed Whitman—and it could just as well have been some other police officer responding. This is analogous to a doctor in a hospital who happens to treat an important patient. If it was the personal doctor of the President, and not a random one, then he has already been individually selected for the position, and is not one of hundreds, as in the case of McCoy among police officers. —Centrx→talk • 03:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partially unrelated/non-discussion statement

I would like to thank everyone for posting their points and counter-points! Woohookitty, as I have found out is an administrator, has had negative personal interactions on both the McCoy Page and in personal e-mails with my Power of Attorney John Moore, this may show a bias. Woohookitty has also suggested to the point of insistence, that I am John Moore. Please do your IP check and you will find that I am using a library computer in Menard, Texas. There may be other strings of IP's since I do not have a computer and have to use family or public computers when I can. The time stamps will show some times as later because of the family computer when I am in the Austin area. To JohnTex, I have been informed, and someone would have to check to confirm, that editors and administrators who have a close affiliation with an article, should also use caution with editing because of a potential for bias. The fact you claim to be a UT student and an advent Longhorn Fan, may have also contributed to your opposition of the removal or merge of the page because of a bias against John Moore, which he has told me, may have created a group of biased editors against him. Mr. Moore has also relayed to me that he was at times imprudent due to his research and discovery of untruths. Thanks to everyone else who supports the merge or removal of the McCoy Page, and yes, I realise that is a biased statement, just as a reporter on Fox may be biased for Conservatives, and another reporter may be biased on CNN towards a Liberal on the same issues. News reporters, papers and magazines are for profit, they are always seeking exclusives and may believe an untruth spoken by anyone, and anyone can make a mistake during an interview. Would it be fair to say a straw poll of 1,000 people actually represents the population of over 260 million? They imply it does. That's the problem I have with a page named after me, it gathers the errors and bias' that others have printed without my input. How do I source the inaccuracies without breaking the rule of sourcing, I am the source! That breaks original research rules! So where does anyone with a page not break a rule in trying to correct an errant source? I'm not weighing in as a vote. Hopefully, just as a commentator on things to consider.HoustonMcCoy 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)H Just found this in my welcome page. Sorry, just to verify my previous comments, 15:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)HoustonMcCoy 16:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)H

First of all, if you are really John Moore, stop. Secondly, we have a long standing guideline that states that people should not edit articles on themselves. We also have arbcom precedent on this. So. Please stop editing the article on yourself immediately. --Woohookitty(meow)

Woohookitty that simply is not true, and I've quoted a section from WP:BLP which is above, to show directly that it isn't true. Steve 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the topic of Johntex being careful with editing

Hello HoustonMcCoy, I am breaking out this section to reply to your specific point about me so as not to run the risk of distracting from the question above, which is whether the articles should be merged or not. You state:

...To JohnTex, I have been informed, and someone would have to check to confirm, that editors and administrators who have a close affiliation with an article, should also use caution with editing because of a potential for bias. The fact you claim to be a UT student and an [avid] Longhorn Fan, may have also contributed to your opposition of the removal or merge of the page because of a bias against John Moore, which he has told me, may have created a group of biased editors against him...

You are absolutely correct that I have an affiliation with UT. Because of that, I edit a lot of articles related to UT. There is nothing unusual about that, of course, since people tend to edit articles on topics they know something about. It would be a shame if doctors stayed away from articles on medicine or if scientists stayed away from articles related to their field of specialization, etc.
It is certainly correct in general that people have biases and I claim to be no exception. For that reason, all editors should be continually working to ensure that they are in control of their biases and not the other way around. However, it is difficult to imagine what possible connection there is between attending UT and saying that we should have an article on Houston McCoy. Having an article on Houston McCoy does not make UT look like a better or worse institution.
It is also important to realize that "bias" is really a perjorative way to say "opinion". It is impossible not to have opinions. A person may have an opinion that an article is too long, or too short, or important, or unimportant, or too simple, or too-hard-to-read or too positive or too negative, etc. My opinion is that it is better to deal with the life of Houston McCoy in his own article, rather than to merge him into the Charles Whitman article. Other opinions will differ. With discussion, opinions may change or common ground may be found, or we may have to agree to disagree, we'll see.
As for the part about John Moore, I of course have heard the name, but I have had no direct interactions with him that I can recall. I don't see any connection with being a UT alumnus and with having any opinion on John Moore, pro or con. Johntex\talk 18:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather unrelated to this dispute, I must protest that a bias is not equivalent to an opinion. Whereas an opinion is a judgement or conviction based on reasons and may be a conclusion of logical thought, a bias is instead a predisposition or prejudice that precedes reason or any careful consideration. —Centrx→talk 21:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Dictionary.com defines "bias" as "...(1) A line going diagonally across the grain of fabric: Cut the cloth on the bias. (2) (a). A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment. (b). An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice." Based on my reading of that, I think bias can mean simply "A preference or an inclination" which seems very similar to an opinion to me. However, I am not opposed to drawing the distinction you suggest. In that case, I could ammend my statement to say "What might be alleged to be bias may simply be the person's reasoned opinion." Johntex\talk 21:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I must say, I don't understand the theory (that I first heard Moore propose) that somehow the Whitman shootings divide people into supporting either the University or the Psychiatrist, or the shooter, or the Marines, etcetera. I mean, as far as I can tell, there's nothing to whitewash, the whole point in my mind is that there is nothing discernable (except a possible tumor) that is to "blame" for his sudden streak. How University administration is involved, even tangentially, is beyond me. shrugs Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Just in case I was unclear - I have no formal connection to the University adminstration. I am only an alumnus. Johntex\talk 20:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you Johntex for responding. My life is no different than your life except for circumstances. A page dealing with my life would only entail erroneous reports (including my original report posted on the Whitman page) to 99% of the media presentations regarding the Tower. The reference to your susceptibility as an Alumni or student, is because the forklore, myths and other urban legends about the event have been passed on from one year to the next, with expansions and deletions on the UT Campus. So who knows what may or may not have influenced your opinion through the years. I have been misquoted, John Moore has been misquoted or truncated to have our interviews reduced to soundbites. I can't speak for Martinez or any other officer or person interviewed. I can suggest this, go to the Austin Historical Library, ask for the Teleclip News log, view the 30th Anniversary Fox News clip vs the 2001 Teleclip, and the K-EYE Clip, and the A&E Broadcast and you will find two different versions of the killing by Martinez. Please pull to the side of merging the McCoy Page to the Whitman Page. I would prefer to be left alone and all of this discussion and debate not focus on me, leave it in on the Whitman Page. Thanks!HoustonMcCoy 20:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)H
    • It is my pleasure to engage in dialog with you, which I hope will ultimately be productive. This may surprise you, but I don't think there are that many myths or stories on the UT campus about the shootings. People know the shootings occurred, they know the tower got closed because of them, many people erroneously think the shootings were to blame for the entire time the tower was closed (when in fact suicides off the tower played a large part). It is my understanding that you feel you have been misquoted and that news reports about you have been inaccurate. What I don't understand is how moving those facts from this article to the Charles Whitman article would buy you any relief? Do you understand that a merge would not mean that we stop reporting these things, but simply that they move to a different article? Can you help me understand what difference it makes to you what title appears over the cited information? In case anything here sounds confrontational, I would like to assure you that these are sincere questions and that no disrespect is intended. Johntex\talk 20:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/Talk%7ECharles_Whitman_Talk4_c923.html"