Talk:Nathan Gale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
On the Nathan Gale page it states he was shot in the face, but on Dimebag's page it states Gale was shot in the back of the head. Which is it?

Contents

[edit] Alleged

I removed the word alleged from the article. This word is superfluous as he was shot dead on the scene and positively identified, and accepted, as the killer by the police and several hundred witnesses. Furthermore as he is dead he will never stand trial, but his guilt is accepted as given (nobody used the term "alleged" with the boys who carried out the Columbine Massacre etc.). The term "alleged" would only be neccesary if he was captured by law enforcement and was awaiting trial, even if he was obviously guilty, for legal reasons: presumption of innocence etc; or if his actions were in any doubt, which they do not appear to be in terms of the 4 murders. Rje 03:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

I think this article should be deleted and made a redirect to Dimebag Darrell. Nathan Gale was not notable enough for an article except for the murder; this article is not going to expand. Tempshill 06:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been slowly trying to figure out how to get this article deleted but Wikipedia can't make the Deletion Process any clearer for me so I was hoping that somebody can nominate this article for deletion. Just because a person murders a celebrity doesn't mean they deserve to be mentioned in any encyclopedia, regardless of past figures who have. This is the sort of thing people like Gale want, so I urge somebody to remove this.-Ryan

  • This article definitely deserves to stand alone without redirect because he has become a very notable figure. True, if he didn't kill people then we wouldn't even know his name but isn't that also true for people like Mark David Chapman??? Rambone (Talk) 13:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Why redirect it? He killed others to, and if he was indeed a mass murderer (responsible for the deaths of several people) it should have more than a mention in one notable person's article. Эйрон Кинни (t) 00:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD tag on main article

On June 21, 2006, someone anonymously put up an AfD tag on the main article. However they did not follow-through with starting an official AfD article, so I reverted to remove the apparently bogus tag. If it is legitimate, please try again using the correct process. Earpol 11:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I apologise for that, I didn't realise I needed an account to nominate a deletion. Thats the sort of thing Wikipedia needs to tell people before letting them know how to do it. But it should still be deleted. Doesn't anybody see the controversy in this? anonymously posted by 58.165.146.130 22:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What controversy? Some unknown kills a famous person and then becomes notable. It happens too frequently but it happens, and sorry - the killer is now notable in his own right. Information resources such as Wikipedia would be irresponsile if they filtered information based upon some "moral" reason, such as "it's just giving the killers what they want." In this particular case, I suspect that notoriety was about the last thing on Gale's mind. Earpol 04:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so you think he is notable. Does that mean there should be a small outline of his life story, a biography if you will? No. The facts of where he was born and what school he went to shouldn't relate to the reason why he was put in Wikipedia. It's like he is being treated as some kind of special figure (which he isn't if you think he is). The simple reason why Gale shouldn't have an article is this: we don't NEED an article, everything important about him is explained in Dime's article, It's a pure waste of space and nobody really cares. Fuck me dead, they wanted to get rid of the article for web comic David Firth, I think it's sick people think Nathan Gale's article should stay, and I'm still going to try to get it removed even if it means registering. The End. anonymously posted by 58.165.146.130 00:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, obviously you care. -- Captain Disdain 05:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do register, and sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), which will automatically blow in your user name and posting time/date, as is the convention. Earpol 09:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Nathan Gale should have his own article, plain and simple. He isn't being idolized or lauded as an important figure...he's just simply a NOTABLE FIGURE. If you think that his bio should be taken down then, on that same basis, you should lobby for every serial killer's and every obsessed psycho's articles taken down as well. The Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed people, in part, to be remembered and talked about after their deaths...why not take down their bios as well? My point is that your logic for deletion is hollow, at best. Rambone (Talk) 19:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The only reason that a lot of this stuff is also in the Dimebag article is because it's been put in both places, and maybe it more rightfully belongs here. I'll bet (without looking) some of the same information is contained in both John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald. So what? If one thinks that Nathan Gale does not deserve an article, then, using the same logic (I think), Lee Harvey Oswald does not deserve an article. If I am wrong please explain why. Earpol 09:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
While I respect your argument, Lee Harvey Oswald is notable, because of the incredible amount of news coverage and public attention he recieved for killing the most important public figure of the time. People still talk about him, and their suspicions of the larger plot behind Kennedy's assassination. Gale was just a crazy with a gun who decided to kill a (significantly less notable, no disrespect intended) man.--711groove 22:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with 711groove. Gale is notable only as the killer of Dimebag, and doesn't actually merit a Wikipedia article. The current article will never be added to, and the only revisions will be subtractions of content. Tempshill 19:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There is an inaccuracy here

The main article about Dimebag Darrell describes Gale's death as being shot in the back of the head by a police-issue shotgun. Yet, the main article about Nathan Gale states that he was shot in the face. Which of these is true?

Please sign comments.
I was looking for the video the article mentions one website has of the incident, but it doesn't seem to exist. If I can find it anywhere, I'll fix this. (USMA2010 04:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC))
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/t/Talk%7ENathan_Gale_807f.html"