Talk:Charles Whitman/Talk2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archived 2 Veteran? 3 Text move 3.1 The Report to the Governor - Medical Aspects - Charles J. Whitman Catastrophe - Austin, Texas - September 8, 1966 4 Claire Wilson's unborn child 5 Injured List 6 Idea? 7 3RR 8 A Proposal 9 Death and Injured lists 10 Mismatched numbers & King of the Hill 11 Minor edits 12 Suggestion to remove Martinez book 13 Thank You Woohookitty 14 Problem 15 Looks like we are right back where we started 16 Request to Archive This Page 17 Refocusing 18 Request for Review 19 An actual request for review 20 Tumor 21 Cleanup ====> NPOV

[edit] Archived

As of · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If, as subwayjack says, amphetimines and Valium are detected in urine, not blood...then I see no reason to leave the anonymous user's edits in place, let's just go back to saying he was abusing the drugs (which he had earlier been prescribed). Saying "We didn't find any in his blood, but that's because it's never in blood" is pointless, imho Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.nida.nih.gov/pdf/monographs/73.pdf#search='testing%20for%20drugs' Pg 95. Dr. Chenar, the Autopsist, had failed to originally do a drug screening. His initial diagnosis of the tumor was that it was an Astrocytoma. He then started preparing the body for the autopsy. No blood or urine specimines were kept. But then this will be considered personal research. I never said "we...."!Subwayjack 16:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack

Blood and tissue samples were sent to the "Armed Forces Pathological Institute" (or something named close to that) where the tests were done and reported to Governor Connally's Commission investigating the case. That is why the Commission included the results of the drug tests in their report to the Governor. I agree with Sherurcij: why not say he was a drug user (which we know), acknowledge that some believe there was a connection (which is true), and reference Douglas and Lavergne as disbelievers and why (the motor skills part)? Everyone's views are represented. Very "Wiki" don't you think?

I'm not sure that's what I'm saying, I'd love for a reference to be marked to but very few physicians believe the tumor could have caused Whitman to engage in such a long period of goal-oriented behavior., and since neither Douglas nor Lavergne are coroners, I don't think their personal opinions on "how much" drugs could have affected his behaviour, should be cited as professional. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Veteran?

I've seen a couple sources refer to him as a "veteran", in the United States I assume that still means that he saw wartime duty - do we have any clue where he was stationed? What division? I know Canada has service records available to the public online of any servicemen killed more than ten years ago, any chance of finding those for Whitman? Would certainly help flush out the "Pre-Psycho" section a bit Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Whitman served at Guantanamo Bay during the Cuban Missile Crisis, I have the records, but how do I get around the independent research rule?Subwayjack 20:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)su

If you have a scanner, or a digital camera, it's at least half-decent. At the very least it gives the rest of us service numbers to google to make sure you haven't gone to town with the crayons again ;) (kidding) Often if you look, there will be pdfs online somewhere of things like old municipal records, and things like services records are surely somewhere - so basically as long as we find a source saying he was stationed at Cuba, then we can pretty much weasel your document's information in as "supporting" since I doubt it would be controversial like the baby issue. Just my opinion, of course Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

See [1], "This pistol-purchased, according to Charlie's father, when he was a Marine at Guantanamo Bay-was part of his arsenal on the tower." -- Pinktulip 21:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Just looked, it's referenced in the Texas Handbook link at the bottom of the article.Subwayjack 20:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Su

Cool, you able to get a scan of your stuff online? We can host it on Wikisource then, even. :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No scanner at the moment (X-mas? The X is my crossed fingers! HeHe)Subwayjack 20:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Su

Got the scanner for X-Mas! However, received a disturbing e-mail from an agent of WP about WP and it's position on truth. Therefore, I cannot continue to contribute to the Whitman article. Thanks for the debates. Sorry for the mis-understandings and arguments. [[[User:Subwayjack|Subwayjack]] 17:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)sub]

...you're certain this is legit? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"a) means Wikipedia is not in the business of stating truth. We are in the business of stating what is believed to be the truth." This is the excerpt from the email that I based my position on.Subwayjack 15:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)S

That's what an encyclopaedia does, unfortunately. The article 9/11 attacks probably isn't telling the truth, and neither is JFK Assassination, they can both only tell what's commonly believed - and in extreme cases, make articles like 9/11 conspiracy theories. shrugs Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia isn't after the truth in any form. That's because there can be many truths, depending on your worldview. Instead, what Wikipedia strives for is verifiability. Read verifiability. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 07:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

O.K., a Wiki article is not that important to me. I had time to kill and I tried to contribute. You people are more psychotic than Whitman. But I am a bit curious, Douglas is the father of profiling mass murders and the author of many books on the subject. Lavergne's book is fully-documented and published by an academic press after peer review. If not them, who should we believe? And with that, my friends, I take my leave. (And unlike some others, you will see that I mean it.)

Well it seems contradictory to me that we state he had "long term goal-oriented behaviour" in this regard, then we say that he "never showed any signs of having planned this until the day before, when he bought a weapon" - something is out of place. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Darn! Come back Anonymous, you were sheding light! Don't let our ramblings confuse the big picture. Hell, I might even leave a dozen or so more times. But if you do return to just review this, know that you were correct about the Connelly Commission. Here is an excerpt from the report, on the problems stated prior:

(Report to the Governor-Medical Aspects-Charles J. Whitman Catastrophe; Pg 6., Para. 2)

The week-long examination necessarily was limited in depth and scope for five reasons. 1. The autopsy was not performed until approximately 24 hours after death. 2. The body had received arterial and trochar embalming before Dr. de Chenar's initial examination. 3. Many parts of the brain were damaged by the penetrating fragments of bone which had been created by the gunshot wounds. 4. All of the pieces of the brain were not recovered for the examination. 5. The brain had been sectioned at the time of the autopsy. (End)

As to the drug findings (Same Source. Pg8., Para. 1)

Specialists at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington D. C., reviewed formalin-fixed and embalmed specimens of tissue from the brain, kidney, stomach, and liver for toxicological analysis. The report indicated: Kidney, Stomach and brain--no finding of basic drugs (next line) Liver-- no finding of barbituates (next line) Kidney--no finding of neutral drugs (end of referencing)

Gary Lavernge, in "A Sniper on The Tower" uses this and other references to dismiss Charles as being anything other than a monster. But what Lavergne doesn't do, is include a significant piece of information in the report: (Same Source, Pg 10., Para. 11 and Pg. 11,. continued)

11. It is the opinion of the task force that the relationship between the brain tumor and Charles J. Whitman's actions on the last day of his life cannot be established with clarity. (Lavergne uses this and omits the following) HOWEVER (emphasis added), the highly malignant brain tumor conceivably could have contributed to his inability to control his emotions and actions;(end)

So there is an abscense of urine and blood that has not been corrupted by the embalming process, the embalmer discards the urine and has to let blood out for the embalming. The autopsy is performed a day later. Re-examination is done a week later. (Personal speculation about Lavergne's book and motives deleted.)

Thanks again anonymous for your contribution.68.187.194.251 18:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack

[edit] Text move

I have excised a recent addition by Subwayjack that does not conform to Wikipedia's policies. It is improperly formatted and, moreover, mostly an essay-like bloggish commentary, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Anytime you find yourself signing something you add into an article, you can pretty much assume it's not appropriate for the article.

[edit] The Report to the Governor - Medical Aspects - Charles J. Whitman Catastrophe - Austin, Texas - September 8, 1966

(Report to the Governor-Medical Aspects-Charles J. Whitman Catastrophe; Pg 6., Para. 2) The week-long examination necessarily was limited in depth and scope for five reasons. 1. The autopsy was not performed until approximately 24 hours after death. 2. The body had received arterial and trochar embalming before Dr. de Chenar's initial examination. 3. Many parts of the brain were damaged by the penetrating fragments of bone which had been created by the gunshot wounds. 4. All of the pieces of the brain were not recovered for the examination. 5. The brain had been sectioned at the time of the autopsy. (End)

As to the drug findings (Same Source. Pg8., Para. 1) Specialists at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington D. C., reviewed formalin-fixed and embalmed specimens of tissue from the brain, kidney, stomach, and liver for toxicological analysis. The report indicated: Kidney, Stomach and brain--no finding of basic drugs (next line) Liver-- no finding of barbituates (next line) Kidney--no finding of neutral drugs (end of referencing)

This information above is possibly interesting, but fails to answer the question of "so what?" · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Gary Lavernge, in "A Sniper on The Tower" uses this and other references to dismiss Charles as being anything other than a monster. But what Lavergne doesn't do, is include a significant piece of information in the report: (Same Source, Pg 10., Para. 11 and Pg. 11,. continued) 11. It is the opinion of the task force that the relationship between the brain tumor and Charles J. Whitman's actions on the last day of his life cannot be established with clarity. (Lavergne uses this and omits the following) HOWEVER (emphasis added), the highly malignant brain tumor conceivably could have contributed to his inability to control his emotions and actions;(end)

Some of this we can incorporate into the article. I'd suggest something like:

The XXX task force concluded that Whitman's brain tumor could have "contributed to his inability to control his emotions and actions," but states that it cannot definitively conclude that it caused Whitman's murderous rampage. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Claire Wilson's unborn child

Consensus remains to be that Claire Wilson's unborn child shouldn't be included in the list of deaths. Additionally, as a reputable souce hasn't been attributed to the following text, it has been removed (by me) from the article:

"In 1966, all victims lists included an eight-month fetus carried by a pregnant student named Claire Wilson. Some consider the fetus a victim because it was viable and involuntarily removed from its mother."

Frankly, to avoid controversy, the best solution would be to simply note that Claire Wilson lost her unborn child inside the article but outside the list of deaths. jareha 20:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I just looked at the Violence Against Unborn Children Act (2004.) Guys, you are misapplying the issue here. Claire Wilson wasn't considering an abortion! That is the whole gist behind your motivations to exclude her child from the death list. We can't retroactively decide that an event in 1966 should be held to the social thoughts of any other era. It is law now, by the Act now, the unborn child would be considered a murder victim, and there would still be debate, but the Law would prevail. The police reports, the Dr. and all the media of the time ruled that the unborn child was murdered, period! The unborn child stays in the list, just like it was, and is, in the Texas Handbook!Subwayjack 23:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack

You misunderstood. Claire Wilson didn't ask for an abortion, but an abortion was performed for medical reasons. Regretably, this is exactly the type of argument I wished to avoid.

Also, you've reverted good edits "until an understanding is reached". You've made no attempt to work towards an understanding. jareha 00:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto, Ditto, DittoSubwayjack 02:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Su

None of us have said anything about Bush's VAUCA from last year, and this has nothing to do with whether or not she was seeking an abortion. It has to do with the fact that history only counts a deathtoll as humans living detached from their mother's womb - just like the Holocaust figures don't take into account whether or not anybody was pregnany. Wikipedia works on consensus, not on "all the media of the time", and consensus says it does not stay. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 00:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Injured List

Gentlemen, you have been wanting an injured list. I just posted it! And to the person who let me a message that I was the cause of a battle in this site. Post me another one with a return address and we'll discuss it! Thank you!Subwayjack 00:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack

Again, no original research. Without a tangible source we can verify against (i.e. not in your personal records) that injury list cannot go on this article. jareha 01:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The List source is The Austin Historical Library, shall I repost it ?Subwayjack 02:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)subwayjack

I'm asking for a source that everyone can see without going to an archive. I'm aware that, yes, I live in Austin, but the onus is on you to provide a source we can all examine. Something reputable online, for example, would work. Thanks for asking here first. jareha 02:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sherurcij, name every person and pregnant women from the Holocaust! Name me all the death tolls in history and the names of all the dead! The reason you can't, is because it is impossible (without records) to name everyone. Some are destroyed beyond recognition. Some are overlooked. Some women are not known to be pregnant. And on and on. BUT, HOWEVER, IN LIGHT OF, CIRCUMSTANCES AS THEY ARE: We have an isolated event. Where all injured and dead were accounted for and labeled as to there conditions, dead or injured. Claire Wilson when you look at the list was injured, her unborn child was listed among the dead! I saw your comment to Kate and quite frankly, I want to see this site rise above half way respectable. I have too much involved! And yes it's personal!Subwayjack 00:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack

Hmm.Wiki has policies about referencing which are intended to ensure that articles are accurate, but their most important application normally is to arbitrate disputes between editors. I don't entirely like that, but when there is no practical way to tell whether one person is right or wrong, it does produce a solution. Now, also, on different articles I have seen, editors have been slammed for producing internet references, on the grounds that these are insubstantial and unverified. Last time I read it, the policy page said something on these lines. But such references are also easy to check. Every editorial dispute comes down to trust in the end. Do other editors trust the one who is introducing a particular point, or (as here) trust that they have personally looked it up and that it is accurate. The Austin historical library (I am assuming this is a recognised place run by some reputable organisation?) sounds like a sensible source for obscure information. Do old neswpaper archives carry articles with lists of the injured? Is the issue here that the list is inaccurate, or that it is not appropriate for it to be in the article? Sandpiper 18:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Idea?

Just an idea that occurred to me, would it be right to perhaps seperate into two seperate articles, this one detailing the "mainstream" beliefs and understandings of Whitman, and then having a page similar to 9/11 conspiracy theories or Nick Berg conspiracy theories that has a lot more leeway in terms of posting original research, allowing the talk about the University's cover-up and stuff? (And then this page has a link saying see the article at Charles Whitman conspiracy theories displayed). Seems like that might give some users the ability to post their own knowledge, without it breaking WP's rather strict rules on NPOV and NOR. (Since offshoot pages are traditionally fairly immune from those rules) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds great to me! Where do you guys want to put your conspiracy link at? I know , build a page on Lavernge and link it there! You can also link your pro-life views without offending, be as pedantic as you two want to be, that is of course until you two realize that your consensus opinions are really collusion tactics to steal someone else's contributions, convert them to your views of WP rules and continuing to refer to yourselves in the first, second and third person on your own bios. Jehera, be in Austin in a few weeks, I'll drop by and we'll discuss a few things, try to keep it in the first person though!Subwayjack 23:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack

I've added a link under the "See also" header. jareha 01:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you get permission from Sherri before you did that?Subwayjack 02:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Subway

[edit] 3RR

Just thought I should add a note on the talk page, since it's possible people don't read edit summaries. Please be aware of Wikipedia:3RR Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, since it's now also a problem, please be aware of Wikipedia:Wikiquette, which would mean things like "Fuck you sherurcij" are not very civil ways of debating a point. Also be aware of Wikipedia:No personal attacks :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It's Roquefort cheese, thank you for asking :) Besides, it's hardly my fault that Super Mario Brothers 3 is better than you are...in fact, you rank about Super Mario Brothers 2-ish, so that's bad. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 20:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean like this?Subwayjack 02:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack

I'm pretty sure that's more of an insult towards Super Mario Brothers 2, than to any particular user...have you ever played SMB2? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I just keep sharpening up on my sniper skills.Subwayjack 02:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Subway

FYI, that "article" did qualify as nonsense. I tagged it as such as an anon. These kinds of idiotic stubs flood this site on a daily basis. As it stands, it's better off as a redirect. Please be a bit more civil in your edit summaries.  :) - Lucky 6.9 17:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC) Or This one? There are so many examples!Subwayjack 02:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack

Since the issue is continuing, please be aware that it is not allowed to vandalize other user's talkpages, it is the same as vandalising an article. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I saw you use the F-word to so one, I thought it was proper. Sorry I followed your example!Subwayjack 02:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack

Ah, I'm sorry - I didn't realise you were still at an age where you thought imitation was proper behaviour. I'll try to think of that in the future. Meanwhile, I encourage you to use your own judgment, and the WP rules to guide your behaviour Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Will you do the same, even though I realize you have a handicap about good judgement?Subwayjack 02:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Subwayjack

[edit] A Proposal

The problem here is pretty obvious. But that aside, we have three days to work on this in a mature and harmonious way. The article is way too long, and a lot of energy has been expended on minutae that shouldn't be there in the first place. This should be more like other Wiki entries--about one tenth (or less) of its current length. "A commission of physicians appointed by Texas Governor John Connally could not, with certainty, identify a psychiatric or medical reason for Whitman's rampage." That can replace a couple of paragraphs, or at least a lot of blather about blood and urine. If readers want more, they can check out the references--that's what references are for.

I ask for consensus for a rewrite as described above. If it doesn't work out we can revert to the present article. Chesschamp21 15:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not overly enthusastic about the idea of "cutting it down to a tenth the length", I do agree that some parts are ridiculously ill-weighted, giving as much attention to a particular Wikipedian's view on a particular author who once wrote a book, as there is for the entire scene of Whitman being shot. If you want to try a massive rewrite, your best bet (and one not many people use) is to put it at Charles Whitman/rewrite, where we can all offer opinions, edit and tweak...without anybody going "This is trash, I'm reverting to the old thing!" Then, when complete, we can see whether people favour replacing the current Charles Whitman with what is given at Charles Whitman/rewrite. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)}

In a sincere attempt to contribute a rational and reasonable article, more in line with Wiki rules and policies, and also more consistent with articles of other mass murders and infamous historical figures, please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman/rewrite

All of the content is verified by the references and sources cited at the bottom.

If acceptable, someone with more experience than me will need to format it properly--sorry. I ask for consensus to replace the current article with this one. Subject to dispassionate and reasonable input, of course. Chesschamp21 16:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I just came across this and looked at the original page, and the proposed replacement. I am afraid, the original wins hands down. It has much more detail and is more interesting. I do not consider it remotely appropriate to restrict the lengths of articles, except in so far as they become unwieldy. I would imagine that as almost every article on wiki begins with just a few lines, shortness in other articles has more to do with lack of information about them than any policy. An article shouldn't repeat itself, but it should be complete. I also gather that authors outside have found enough information to write an entire book in this subject? Now, I also gather there is some dispute here about content, but I have not read enough to express a sensible opinion on that. Sandpiper 14:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sandpiper, when comparing the rewrite to the page as it is now, you are right. At the time I did the rewrite this page had been plagued by a contributor with an irrational hatred for one of the sources. Since then he has apparently been blocked and cooler heads have prevailed. Thanks for taking a look. Chesschamp21 20:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Death and Injured lists

Whitman Injury & Death List

Thank you Jareha for your efforts to clean-up the lists. I was in the process of doing the same (with different views) when I found you had edited as I tried to save. I'm trying as I hope you have noticed to become compliant with the rules and sources. I hope you are satisfied with the source and others who may feel compelled to change things due to prior issues that I prefer to keep in the past. With all that said, we need to re-visit the issue of numbers and who should be counted among the numbers. As discussed, even demanded by myself, while opposed by you and others, the unborn child of Claire Wilson remains a topic of discussion. Permit me to make my point. The source I gave, lists the unborn child among the dead. The number of dead in the source (which used the Austin American Statesman as a source) was 17, exclusive of David Gumby. Please go back and count if I am not believed. Within the article itself on WP, (Under Chas. Whitman, end of second paragraph) the number is 17. Look at the injured list, prior to edits, and Claire Wilson is listed alone as injured. I would suggest to you, that the count now is 17 if Mr. Gumby is counted, however, the original list, which you edited, would only be 16 dead. If the original list was 17, and Mr. Gumby dies in 2001, the number should be 18 dead, not remain at 17. I realize you do not want to make this a political issue, nor do I! Abortion, C-Section and all other points of view do not change the original numbers, regardless of political, religious, moral, ethical, philosophical or any other thought out there. I ask you to use good judgement. Review the possibilities of the numbers and you will see what I mean. If you still do not agree, which you have the right to do, let's have an administrator other than Kate (no prejudice intended, it's just that she graduated from UT and I ask her to be recused of the issue) to settle this matter. I ask you to do this in good faith, because the numbers do not add up to me. Thank you and seasons greetings to you and yours! (A copy of this will appear in the discussion page)Subwayjack 03:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Sub

Thanks for bringing out discussion on this topic! Especially considering I didn't do so myself (immediately) before or after editing the article. In response to your concerns, I felt that mentioning the loss of Claire Wilson's unborn child on the injury list would serve as a compromise. Honestly, my goal is to take controversy out of the detail (a detail which I do consider encyclopedic, by the way). jareha 04:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Then compromise it is! My goal has been to provide information as has been yours and all contributors. If I had the ability to enlighten everyone, of the many years and sacrifices made by myself and individuals effected, to try and grasp the magnitude an event like the UT Tower Tragedy have both personally and vicariously, I would! Then I would feel that I had accomplished my original mission; to answer the whys of the victims while honoring the last wishes of Charles Whitman, to try and prevent further tragedies of this type! Perhaps a little more time, and I do realize WP is not the source or venue for that, but it may serve as a pointer in the right direction! Thanks for the compromise!Subwayjack 06:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Sub

Should we now put an introductory paragraph after the "Casualties" header and before the lists of deaths/injuries? Maybe we can discuss Claire Winslow's unborn child in this paragraph? Basically, the double-bulleted note at the end of the list of deaths doesn't look right. jareha 09:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a style question, but can we make the list so that it's not a single column somehow? I'm guessing div-tags would do it? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 07:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. I'll columnize the injury list tomorrow, unless someone else gets to it first. jareha 09:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Columnized. jareha 20:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Great ideas!!!Subwayjack 16:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Sub

[edit] Mismatched numbers & King of the Hill

First off, I would like to point out that the numbers of Whitman's victims vary from his article to the article about the University clock tower to the list of wars and disasters by death toll. The numbers are 10, 14, and 16, respectively. Those should be made correspond, however I don't know what the actual number is.

Second, I believe Whitman's actions were parodied in an episode of King of the Hill where Dale is spraying for bugs in a clock tower, and the police mistake his pesticide hose for a rifle, resulting in a standoff. Should this be added to the Pop Culture references section?

-Albrozdude 22:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've always been a bit wary about our "pop culture" section, because unless I'm mistaken, Whitman wasn't the only "sniper in a belltower" (why else do we say belltower, for example :P ) phenomena, he was merely the best-known one, just like Patrick Sherrill was the best-known person to "go postal", but it's considered a phenomena, not a single incident. So while things like Full Metal Jacket are definitely referencing *Whitman*, things like the Simpsons often seem to just be parodying the *whole phenomena* - but on the other hand I could be completely wrong, and Whitman was the only peacetime example of such a thing, in which case it fits. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 11:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Sherurcij about the parodying phenomena. However, there was the issue of the "Vietnam Nam" conflict going on at the time and there were protests and tensions around the world over it. Whitman was in the ROTC at UT and may have resented the protesters at the time.subwayjack 15:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)S

[edit] Minor edits

No real content changes. Minor Edits to make prose less verbose and less passive. Chesschamp21 05:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Great work! Done? I've noticed two minor adjustments that should be made. jareha 05:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Right after I saved it I noticed a couple of typos: If you could go ahead and adjust away I'd appreciate it. I'll probably visit it again this weekend. Chesschamp21 11:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to remove Martinez book

Ramiro Martinez' book "They Call Me Ranger Ray" is not referenced anywhere in the article. Also, Martinez' book is self published, I am posting his own words here for a consensus.

"After having completed the first draft of my manuscript I was faced with the dilemma of seeking a publisher or self-publishing. As a new author, I was in dire need of direction. Fate smiled upon me when I decided to investigate Morgan Printing in Austin. I met with Terry Sherrell who was very congenial and not only introduced me to other key people, but also gave me a tour of their facility. After some soul searching, I decided to put my faith in Morgan Printing and self-publish. Terry had the patience to answer my questions. Working with Stephen Bright, we developed a book cover that has great eye appeal."

[2]

He admits it is self published!subwayjack 16:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)s

Hmm. I'm on the fence. It's apparently a vanity press, which is usually grounds for removal, but then he was also directly involved in the shooting. Does it ONLY deal with the shooting? · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question Kate, no it does not deal only with the shooting, only a brief mention of his POV as to what happened. I'm not sure as to what Sherurcij is suggesting, but giving him his own wiki article is not something I can address.subwayjack 16:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)S

I'd vote against it myself, and instead consider whether it was grounds to give him his own wiki article - if he's gone on to write books, or do interviews, and pursue lawsuits, stemming from all of this Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 16:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I have captured the gist of your message Sherurcij. If leaving the book as a reference to link to a wiki article would be productive, then the same would be true of McCoy and all others involved in the shooting. At that point, my self published CD, which deals only with the UT Tragedy, and has McCoy, Martinez, A&E errors, other officers, victims, professors, friends, Drs., and family members speaking to the tragedy should also merit the same consideration.subwayjack 17:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)S

It seems to me that we have been considering the CD for some time now and there has never been support for its inclusion. It seems clear that its content is more editorial than factual. I agree with KateFan0 that it belongs on a talk rather than article page. As to inclusion, I vote against the CD and for the Martinez book. Chesschamp21 21:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the salient difference here is that Martinez was involved in the incident and is writing about his experiences about it (among other things). You weren't involved in it, so you can't be talking about your own experiences -- that makes a self-published book or other media not okay in this instance. I haven't completely decided yet about the Martinez book, but the CD isn't all right, particularly not as a link to an ebay sale. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Chesschamp21, if you haven't heard the CD how can you determine it's content as being editorial, when the actual people are involved telling their experiences, not mine. And Kate, I'm not talking on the CD, the actual people are talking about their experiences. That's salient. Again, if you don't know the content, why make premature judgments? In any event, Martinez' book meets WP's standards for not being included since there are no references in the article to it. Wether you allow the CD or not.subwayjack 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)s

Regardless, it may be included in a "further reading" type section. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't make the rules Kate, you know that. I only break them, you know that also! But how do you know Martinez' is not editorializing as it has been suggested that I am? Can my unknown contented CD also be referenced as well as Martinez' unread book, under a section, say maybe................."for further listening"?subwayjack 00:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)s

With all due respect, and I don't mean this as a personal attack, but you have written so much about your personal production of this CD over the past few months (including an admission that no one would publish it) that there can be little doubt as to its content. Plus, your history of blanking, deletes and edits in this article speak for themselves: You have a hangup over the City of Austin, The University of Texas, Ramiro Martinez, and Gary Lavergne that surely borders on hatred. Again, I mean no disrespect, but that is editorializing. Chesschamp21 22:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

When someone has to preface their statements that their intentions are not to be something, guess what, their statements mean exactly what they are disclaiming! I admit, my frustrations led me to acts I regret. I admit that rules are not my forte', however, I bet I have alot more experience dealing with the UT Tower Tragedy than anyone else out there. See "City..... Hero" in the reference section and READ the article. Four years to get to that point with McCoy, all the while, getting interviews with "all" of the people, who would talk to me, actually involved with or effected by Whitman. A "hangup" with the City of Austin, again read the article, I even include two hearings dealing with the courts and the City of Austin. A "hangup" with UT, read the Connelly Commission Report of 1966 as to their recommendations of helping the victims and you might understand my frustrations. A "hangup" with LaVergne, not really, Lavergne basically did a James Frey with "A Sniper in the Tower". His index has quotes and suggestions that he talked to a lot of people, the people I could verify was McCoy, Martinez, Larry Feuss and an attempt to interview Whitman's father (LaVergne traveled to Fla. only to find out Whitman wanted a lot of money for the interview) I could have saved him the trouble because he wanted the same thing from me, only I let him know up front I wouldn't pay. LaVergne is making Charles out to be a monster instead of the ill person he was. It kind of throws the smell away from the University who should have recommended Whitman out to a specialist who may have found the tumor that would have killed Charles within a few months anyways. The implication there is that the whole tragedy may have been circumvented if he knew what was going on and causing his psychosis. These issues are all revealed on the CD, not by me, but by the people who were shot by Whitman, advised Whitman, were friends with Whitman and Killed Whitman! I don't mean to be disrespectful, but what do you know about Whitman?subwayjack 00:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)s

By the way, Chesschamp21, I never said no one would not publish it! I said I refused to give up the rights of the CD and not allow it to become an abridged version by the publishers. I also said that they wanted an enormous percentage that I felt I could pass on the savings to the consumers. I brought the price down to what I thought would be fair for 8 1/2 hrs of interviews. The publishers wanted three times what I'm asking.subwayjack 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)s

Why does this story have such a hold on you? Have you considered seeking professional help? Chesschamp21 01:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow Kate, look at the invitation by Chesschamp21! And I get accused of being a nuisance!!!subwayjack 02:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)S

I rest my case. Chesschamp21 03:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What case???

I've removed information that could be considered libelous. Please concentrate on talking about the article; this talk page isn't for going on and on about subjects not directly related to debating article content, or for making ad hominem attacks on authors or people involved in the shooting. As far as I'm concerned, the CD will not be included. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You Woohookitty

Just so everyone knows, I accept Woohookitty's regret as an apology.

[edit] Problem

I regret saying that you made threatening comments. However, there is no way to expunge block summaries or alter them. I wish there was, but there isn't. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)subwayjack 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)S

[edit] Looks like we are right back where we started

The amphetamine psychosis citation is merely a description of amphetamine psychosis--not evidence of whether Whitman acually suffered from that condition. This is a medical condition in search of patient. It would be more accurate to cite a dictionary definition of murder and say Whitman was a murderer. We are also back to original research with medical diagnoses from friends, the only source of which is a collection of MP3 interviews. Chesschamp21 16:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I never said they were diagnosing AP, I said they were more in agreement with the tumor being the cause. And another thing, why don't you have a userpage. You might be someone who just gets their kicks by irritating others with your chatter, again, what do YOU know about Whitman. Forget the CD already, you wouldn't have time to listen to it anyway's, let alone understand it! Of yeah, of course I don't want you to think I'm being disrespectful or creating a personal attack, or flaming you or anything like that. Your doing a great job of that yourself!subwayjack 21:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)S

You know. That's right. It's not about me. And it's not about you either. There is no reference to you or me in the first comment under "Looks like we are right back..." What I will tell you is that I don't like bullies--not even in WikiWorld. And you are right in something else--I don't have time for this. Now, let's get back to amphetamine psychosis, the SUBJECT of a link you posted. Can you cite a published source where a physician clearly diagnosed Charles Whitman as suffering from AP? And while we are at it, can you cite a published source that has a medical doctor concluding unambiguously (and placing his reputation on the line)that Charles Whitman's brain tumor caused his rampage? If you can, and tumors can do such a thing, can you name someone else, in the history of the world, who has ever committed mass murder or murder of any kind because of a brain tumor? I don't have a copy of the Connelly Report you cited earlier, but the sections you quoted basically said that they (the Commission) don't know why he did what he did. Saying that something is a "possibility" is an admission that you don't know--isn't it? History is not the mere memorization of many documents so that your recall is better than everyone else's (in re: your having read everything ever about Charles Whitman); anyone who can read can do that. History includes sound judgment and higher-levels of thinking. That's the part that's hard. For example, if Houston McCoy is so affected by an incident that has traumatized him for nearly 40 years, how reliable can his memory be? That is not an unfair question. Chesschamp21 23:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

How many people in this article are trying to promote an MP3 CD with interviews from McCoy, Professors of Whitman, other APD officers in the tower on August 1, 1966? Therefore, if I'm the only one, then I am the referenced "source" in your comments. Am I wrong? Let's jump to the McCoy memory issue at the end. Memory is all he has! Repeat, memory is all he has, and since PTSD is based on having been subjected to a life threatening event that the person recalls vividly for a prolonged period of time, their recall is as sharp as the moment they were subjected to it. When I met Houston, he was receiving $40.00 a month from the Boy Scouts, living transiently between family members due to his alcoholism, another product of PTSD. As we talked, I recognized he was a proud man and was careful to be attentive to everything he said. He was very personable, but there was a demeanor that didn't appear to be quite right. As we approached the tower for his version of the events of August 1, 1966, he stopped and became hypervigilant, he started crying because he didn't get up there fast enough to stop Whitman from killing his friend and fellow police officer. I recognized he was going through survivors guilt, and had him go to the VA in Waco for a diagnosis. Dr. Mink's diagnosis, PTSD, Police Combat, August 1, 1966. McCoy rarely has a day go by that something doesn't trigger the PTSD. He still drinks to forget, which in turn, makes him remember! I have looked at his police report of the 8-1-66, nothing has changed. I have spoken with other officers with him, nothing has changed. I have Martinez' report, it has changed! I have interviewed Martinez', the story changed! I have him on tape from A&E, the story has changed! Let's not focus so much on brain tumors and include it in organic brain disease and trauma. Whenever there is trauma of a significant amount that causes personality traits to change, there is sympathy for the person and they are recognized as having been the victim of the trauma. Yet, if someone starts to have personality changes due to some unknown origin, they are classified as being mentally ill, a must to avoid, and if they do something horrific, they are called monsters or whatever you want to label them. My point is this, Whitman had a brain tumor that caused him to have a break, psychotic or whatever pleases you, but a break from his norm. The amphetamines are known to cause psychosis in abusers, just like LSD causes hallucinations in abusers. Amphetamine psychosis doesn't require the long time user to have taken any recent to the Psychosis as LSD users don't have to have taken LSD recently to suffer flashbacks. It's all a chemical response to the uses of the drugs. Each person is different, depending on their super-egos and level of control! Whitman lost that prior to 8-1-66, it just didn't manifest until July 31st or sooner, when he decided "life is not worth living"! I don't have the book with me now about tumors and murder, but I'll find it and get you a few if you want. Also, look up Andrew Kehoe, Bath, Michigan, 1927. LaVergne says UT was the worst mass murder at the time. Tell me what you think! Kehoe had suffered a blunt force trauma to the head!subwayjack 01:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)S

Damn! Hot off the presses of the Daily Texan- [3]subwayjack 02:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)s

Fascinating. But your own citation does not mention Whitman, and the area of the brain they speak of (frontal lobe)is not where Whitman's tumor was located. And it was not remotely the size of an orange. So, again, and I hope you address the question I am posing: Can you cite a published source where a medical doctor clearly diagnosed CHARLES WHITMAN as suffering from AP? Can you cite a published source that has a medical doctor concluding unambiguously (and placing his reputation on the line)that Charles Whitman's brain tumor caused his rampage? If you can, and tumors can do such a thing, can you name someone else, in the history of the world, who has ever committed mass murder or murder of any kind because of a brain tumor? Now, just to be clear: Houston McCoy's 40 years of alcoholism improves, or has had no effect, on his memory--is that what you are telling us? Chesschamp21 03:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Unlike the term "murder", the term "mass murder" does not have a legal definition, i.e., it is a moral term of negative connotation. Therefore its usage and applicability depends on the historical context and moral paradigm, which may lead to controversies when describing particular events." From Wiki. He must think so according to his historical context and moral paradigm. Why does this matter? Chesschamp21 03:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh! I get it now! Your above paragraph is kinda like the age old question surrounding this riddle:

A Shephard is attending his small herd of eight Sheep on a mountain pasture. Each of the eight Sheep have the power of eight flatulations. As the Shephard turns to admire the view of a distant mountain, he hears four flatulations. How many flatulations does the third Sheep on the right have left?

I know a real moral paradigm when I hear one.subwayjack 06:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)S

I don't own the definition of Mass Murder and I see no need to defend it for Lavergne or you. Come now, you wouldn't be using sheep flatulance to avoid my questions at the bottom of the page--now would you?Chesschamp21 07:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I was preparing to address your response, as limited as it may be at the moment since I mentioned I would have to get the textbook which is not at my disposal right now, when I came across the above statements. What are you talking about, and to whom?subwayjack 05:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)s

I was responding to your question about what I think about Andrew Kehoe. The answer is that mass murder does not have a standard definition... So, with that distraction aside, again, can you cite a published source where a medical doctor clearly diagnosed CHARLES WHITMAN as suffering from AP? Can you cite a published source that has a medical doctor concluding unambiguously (and placing his reputation on the line)that Charles Whitman's brain tumor caused his rampage? If you can, and if tumors can do such a thing, can you name someone else, in the history of the world, who has ever committed mass murder or murder of any kind because of a brain tumor? Now, just to be clear: You believe Houston McCoy is a reliable source even after what 40 years of alcoholism might have done to his memory--is that what you are telling us? Chesschamp21 05:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So if mass murder does not have a standard definition, a person could blow up a whole neighborhood and kill everyone in it, and be defined as... "population pruning"?Subwayjack 03:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)S

It wasn't meant to be a distraction, it was meant to be a correlation, which does not mean causation. Now here's the problem with your questions. The medical and legal fields are bound by Ethics that do not allow medical records to be released for a number of years, if ever. I tried to get Whitman's medical records from UT's legal department, and Mr. Lee informed me that they were sealed and I would have to go to Court to get the records which might take several years, if ever. The answer's to your other questions regarding Drs. diagnosing Whitman with AP is no! Their was no AP diagnosis back in 1966, but there is today. As to the tumor, yes! The link provided above mentions murder, read the article. You seem to have come to the conclusion that Whitman's tumor was benign or impotent in his actions. You mention the size of the tumor which leads me to believe you have read articles about Dr. de Chenar's Autopsy Report referring to it being the size of a pecan. That report also called the tumor an Astrocytoma which had no effect on Whitman. However, he also mentioned necrosis in the report and that is when the Connelly Commission scrambled to try to get the parafin preserved samples and slides. Necrosis is an indicator of a much higher grade of tumor, the Gliobastoma Multi-forme. Once the Commission was able to do their own study, they concluded that Whitman did have the more severe Glioblastoma. The brain had been so severely damaged by McCoy's shotgun blasts, along with Dr. Chenar's disecting, that it was impossible to put the puzzle back together for a formal analysis of conclusively saying what effect it had on Whitman other than the classic symptoms he was reporting to the University Health Center and the Marine Corp. before that. The Commission did state however, that given the scope and severity of the tumor and the known problems with organic brain diseases of that time, that the tumor "conceivably" could have contributed to his actions that day. The record was sealed for twenty years. As far as McCoy's alcoholism, it is separate from the PTSD. He binge drinks, not a daily routine. That started in 1975 after the movie the "Deadly Tower" was released. And yes, I believe McCoy to be a reliable source, he was there, we weren't!subwayjack 06:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)S

O.K., so you cannot give me a NAME of a medical doctor, in 1966 or now, who has publicly and in print diagnosed CHARLES WHITMAN as the victim, i.e., some who has lost his free will, of amphetamine psychosis or a brain tumor. And, in all of the prose above, I might point out, you have made an eloquent argument that the Connelly Commission didn't either. It was "conceivable" which means they don't know.

Now, on the other topic, what does Houston McCoy think is the source of his alcoholism and PTSD? And do you consider Houston McCoy's own judgment about the nature of his alcoholism and PTSD, i.e., that it is the result of trauma he suffered on August 1, 1966, reliable?Chesschamp21 06:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I think or McCoy thinks about his condition. Dr. Mink at the Waco Veterans Administration diagnosed him with PTSD (Police Combat, August 1, 1966). Judge Churchill, a Federal Administrative Law Judge, ruled he was suffering from severe PTSD and would have suffered the PTSD regardless of the drinking. The Texas Workman's Compensation Commission in Austin ruled he was suffering from PTSD and granted him an award. The City of Austin took it away through a long and costly process that should offend all conscious citizens of Austin and the State of Texas. And yes, I do believe the DR., the Judge, and the Commission to be reliable sources! Quiz over!subwayjack 07:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)S

Really. You interviewed McCoy didn't you? Did you get any information from him? If so, how reliable is that information? If not, what value was thee in interviewing him? Don't you evaluate the quality of your sources? Chesschamp21 07:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And also, the Dr. the Judge, and the Commission were not at the Tower like McCoy was--were they? You've indicated dozens of times that your work is better because "they were there." So, again, does Houston McCoy believe his problems were caused by his experience on 8/1/66? And do you believe him? Chesschamp21 07:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, gosh Chessmate21, I hate to suggest this to you, but remember that little dig of yours about seeking Professional Help? I think you may want to seriously investigate that for yourself! Good luck with it!subwayjack 07:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)S

Maybe so, cubicles can be lonely places. Then why don't you humor this old mental patient? The questions are simple enough? We've heard a lot from you, but what does Houston McCoy think? Does he think he has PTSD and does he think it is the result of 8/1/66? You're his power of attorney--you can tell us? I'll even add another question. Does Houston McCoy think he killed a murderer or a patient? Does he have the sympathy for Charles Whitman that you so effectively described above? Did you ask him that during your interviews? And if so, do you believe him? Those are fair questions aren't they? Chesschamp21 08:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me guess! Refers to himself as a group...tries to manipulate others into his game of 20 questions, not caring about the responses only his sick humor of twisting things around and repeating questions....asks what others are thinking...mis-interprets responses intentionally...does not clarify questions and writes in fragmented and incomplete sentences! I know! You're President Bush! Checkmate!subwayjack 08:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)S

Mmmmm. A bit touchy aren't we? And over what? Questions! I believe last month you told Jareha that anyone can show you materials and you could point out the errors. You said that everyone else got it wrong. Just above, you asked me what I knew about Whitman--I suspect not as much as you, so I consider it an opportunity to have you convince me that you, as a source of information, are credible. This is relevant because you have intruded hundreds of times into the Whitman article--representing yourself as the expert. True researchers producing scholarly material defend their work. So, let's start over: Does Houston McCoy think he has PTSD and does he think it is the result of 8/1/66? Does Houston McCoy think he killed a murderer or a patient? Does he have the sympathy for Charles Whitman that you so effectively described above? Did you ask him that during your interviews? And if so, do you believe him? Surely, after nine years you can answer such a simple question--what are you afraid of? Don't worry, I won't ask again. I'll just summarize like I did the last time you couldn't give me an answer. Chesschamp21 08:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong, you're not Bush! He goes to bed early so he can get up early and work on starting another metaphorical war. Is the cubicle your in padded? I hope so, if you bounce off walls the way you bounce off questions and answers! Oh, but of course, I have the opportunity of convincing you I'm a credible source. But then you'd have to buy the CD and listen to it to ask relevant scholarly questions that would require scholarly answers. I guess we're in a stalemate, Chessmate! I'm not interested in your summation either! Take your Zyprexa and go to sleep now. Goodnight!subwayjack 09:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)S

Good morning. I slept quite well, thank you. Ready for another glorious day.

I don't want to buy your CD.

So, let's talk about what you've posted on this site. YOU put it there and claimed to have read EVERYTHING about the Whitman incident. The beauty of the Internet is that information such as what you post here can be checked out. For example, major newspapers make their archives available online, and for a few bucks, anyone from anywhere can access them. Generally, the archives begin in 1989, or so. It turns out that on July 29, 1996, Bob Banta of the Austin American Statesman wrote a story about Ramiro Martinez and Houston McCoy, and unlike the Daily Texan article that you posted and are so fond of, McCoy speaks for himself. (Seems to me that would be a preferred source.) Banta writes:

"McCoy refuses to blame the Tower -- or his lack of credit for the work he did there -- for his hard luck"

"'I believe a man makes his own troubles,' he said recently, sitting in his workshop near two disassembled gliders he hopes one day to rebuild when he gets enough money. 'I might have ended up an old drunk, no matter what had happened.'"

And here's the beginning: He wasn't diagnosed then.

THE HEROES: Ending Whitman's life changed theirs

Author: Date: July 29, 1996 Publication: Austin American-Statesman (TX) Page Number: A7 ${ Word Count:

The resting places of their Medals of Valor reveal the contrasting destinies of Ramiro Martinez and Houston McCoy better than the men themselves. Martinez's decoration is tucked away inside an upscale home in New Braunfels, where he serves as justice of the peace, clad in a dignified black cloak, respected by the community. McCoy displays his medal to visitors in a gutted building where he lives and does odd jobs in the rural town of Menard, about 120 miles west of...Subwayjack 03:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)S

Why didn't you include this one, which is more recent, and I was involved in Chesschump1? Banta wrote it too! I wasn't involved in the one you quoted from so selectively! Want more asshole filled with Sherurcij's fist!!!! I could fill up three archived pages if you like!

UT Tower Hero Can't Forget Author: Date: October 25, 1999 Publication: Austin American-Statesman (TX) Page Number: B1 ${ Word Count:

The $286 monthly check for former Austin cop Houston McCoy is due any day now. It won't buy much, but to McCoy, the government stipend represents more than purchasing power. It is an acknowledgement that at least some of the problems he's wrestled with for the past 33 years have a rational basis. Since Aug. 1, 1966, when he and fellow officer Ramiro Martinez rode to the top of the University of Texas Tower and shot sniper Charles Whitman, McCoy has endured visions of...Subwayjack 03:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)S The credibility of the Charles Whitman Wiki article largely hinges on your work, since you bullied so much onto others. So, did you do a normal, simple newspaper archive search in the course of your nine-year investigation. If you didn't that would be rather incredible, wouldn't it? A kid doing a social studies fair project would know to do that. And if you did, why is this information excluded from your diatribes? Does Houston McCoy still feel that way? If so, you are misrepresenting him--does he know that? Did he believe the above then and now he believes Whitman was a patient deserving "sympathy"--as you believe and stated above? If so, his story did change, didn't it? Chesschamp21 14:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Woohookitty, KateFan0, and others,

I posted the above before I saw your warning. I am sorry we all had to go through this, but like I said, I don't like bullies. When you stand up to them they run. Woohookitty, I don't think anything I've written is a personal attack. More than anyone else you know Subwayjack fancied himself a source above all others. But I nonetheless accept your warning. As to this source and its credibility, I believe I've made my point, and will take a break. Sincerely, Chesschamp21 14:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I did warn subwayjack too, btw. It's more a way to try to get everyone to simmer down a bit here. Argue issues, not users. Subwayjack has already been blocked once for 2 weeks. Just take a deep breath, think about what you are saying and things should work out. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed MORE potentially libelous blather about Lavergne. Subwayjack, if you insert one more ad hominem attack on someone else's character into this page, I am going to block you for a month. I will not allow you to continue making unfounded attacks on people who aren't even here to defend themselves. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You will also be blocked if you make any more personal attacks, subwayjack. Enough. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall being the one who initiated this mess, but if I don't respond to Chesschamps maxim that if a bully, when confronted will run, then I would be at the mercy of all readers to think that I am a bully who is running. I am not a bully! You're right Kate, there will be no more ad hominem references, I was using it at the time in the same context as the Bush reference as a joke, rather than an attack, due to the nature of Chesschamps questioning and innuendos. My apologies for that! If you read the entire diatribe between Chesschamp and myself, you will hopefully see that in the beginning, I was going on the good faith policy of WP. As the questions kept coming and the tone starting shifting towards accusations and entrapments, I tried to stop the communication by saying Quiz Over! But no, Chesschamp had other ideas that surfaced again this morning. He wants to attack my credibility and expose me as a bully and fraud. I have fought hard to both contribute and correct in the article, the death and injured list was opposed until I found an internet source that had the list and partial injury list. The Connelly Report was not allowed because I couldn't scan the documents. A lot of the references in popular culture and sources were contributed by me along with the after effects. I have deleted others that make no reference to Whitman. And on and on. I feel I am entitled to take umbrege at diliberate and calculating efforts to discredit my participation, or should I just accept the fact that "no good deed goes unpunished" and move on? I have made personal attacks and accepted the punishment for it! Chesschamp, in his apology says he made no personal attacks while calling me a bully!?!? He even tells Woohookitty what Woohookitty knows, that I have no peer and therefore, by suggestion, a meglamaniac enthralled by my own delusions that I hold the keys and secrets of the Universe. I'm only human and just as fallible as everyone else! I haven't tried to make the Whitman project my own, just correct the bad information started by the media immediately after the tragedy and shed some light on the errors of the past. I hope this is taken for what it is intended to be, a statement to help clear-up some misconceptions about myself and apologize to the community for not having the patience to restrain myself from over reacting sometimes. I'm working on that! And may I make a suggestion? There is a message about the article size at the top of the page. Could you please archive this as another chapter in the Whitman debates. Thanks!subwayjack 17:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)S

[edit] Request to Archive This Page

Please archive this page, it is too long.

I vote "no." Most of the comments are only one or two days old. How about archiving half of it? Chesschamp21 22:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to have Chesschamp21 verified as not being a "Sock Puppet". He/she has no history, created the account on Dec. 11, 2005, only been visited by KatefanO and Woohookitty on the talk page, has no contributions list, suspiciously references Jahera in the exchange of recent between Chesschamp and myself, used information in the exchange that would have required prior knowledge of the information and Chesschamp has not been here that long. The suspicion is, their is "gaming going on"!subwayjack 03:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)S

No. There isn't enough "evidence" to warrant such an intrusive check. Beyond which, sockpuppets are not prohibited on Wikipedia unless they're being used to violate policy, vote stack, subvert 3RR, foil consensus or etc. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

He/she does have a contribution history, by the way. Like kate said, you have no direct evidence of sockpuppet use. When you do, fine. At some point, accusing him/her of using sockpuppets crosses the line from accusation to attack. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I responded earlier below. Here is all I can verify on any of the history links of Chesschamp21- (cur) (last) 15:41, 29 January 2006 Woohookitty (cur) (last) 11:08, 29 January 2006 Woohookitty (cur) (last) 04:54, 11 December 2005 Katefan0 (welcome) You must have access to something the community doesn't or at the least myself, and KatefanO is an administrator like yourself. I am trnsparent here and Chesschamp21 gets the luxury of wearing a veil. If you noticed, all the contributions from Chesschamp21 are in the Whitman article as mine are. I have suspicions with good reason to believe that Chesschamp21 is a sockpuppet, not accusing him/her of being one. That requires investigations and proof which I am gathering for evidence. Your assertion that there is a line between accusation and attack is of no moment. The issue will follow it's course until a decision is made, what can be more fair than that? And you do have a copy of the alleged threatening emails you claim I sent right.subwayjack 16:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)S

Thank you Kate! I'll send the email to a higher authority!subwayjack 04:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)S

You have nothing to base that on, subwayjack. In order to do a check user, you have to have an account or IP to check it against. Just saying "well I think so and so is a sockpuppet" doesn't do it. Have to be more specific. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Chesschamp21 must have an IP or why else would you have left this on his/her talk page?Subwayjack 03:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)S

Cease the personal attacks on Talk:Charles Whitman. No personal attacks are allowed on Wikipedia. Thank you. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Subwayjack's comments were more severe than yours. I really just want everyone to take a deep breath and calm down a bit. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)subwayjack 05:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)S

Because of personal attacks he had made above as chesschamp21. I have no evidence of sockpuppets or IPs he's used. And even if he has, as katefan0 said, having sockpuppets is not a problem, per se. It's a problem when they are used to violate policy in some way. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you will note, there are two messages left by you on the page. One at 11:08 and one at 15:41. There is no message by Chesschamp21 in between. The latter is a reference to my comments being more severe than Chesschamp21's, the implication here is that there must of have been some sort of communication to prompt the comment. Either by phone, email or in person. The telegraph system was abandoned years ago and the Post Office doesn't deliver on Sunday. The complaint is including a "straw man" and "gaming" collusion scheme. Let's see how it all play's out.subwayjack 08:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)S

Sigh. I posted to his talk page on 11:08. He posted at 14:49 up above saying that he didn't think he made personal attacks. I responded to him up above and also on his talk page at 15:41. There is no IP involved. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Good. That adds up. Except, why would you respond above and let Chesschamp21, me and the whole community know about the warnings and then personally make your opinions to a potential "sock puppet", almost condoning his actions and then warn me again?subwayjack 14:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)S

I'm not responding. I did everything correct. You are trying to trip me up and I'm not going to let you do that. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You can submit a request for a checkuser at WP:RCU, but it may be rejected if you don't have substantial evidence to back it up with. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for the help to compose the inquiry.subwayjack 04:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)S

I don’t know what a sockpuppet is, but I’m pretty sure I am not one.

Anyway, for all we know the last chapter of this might be written by the Travis County District Attorney’s Office, or the fraud divisions of the VA and TWCC. If this becomes a big deal who knows where this will lead?

This all validates the wisdom of Wiki’s original-research rule. When anyone is allowed to introduce or impose original research, it becomes impossible to comment on it without involving personalities. The verifiability that KateFan0 has been appropriately pleading for is grounded in a reasonable assumption that something good enough to be published or broadcasted was reviewed for accuracy by someone held accountable. As was demonstrated above, we should not view people or their hobbies as sources. Everything I’ve contributed in this discussion goes to the quality and reliability of the source—which happens to be an individual—who could not or would not answer basic questions that would have been asked in a publishers office, or a newspaper editor’s office, or in a high school classroom by a teacher reading a term paper. We wouldn’t be having this problem if the original research rule had been respected. Again, with respect to sources, and by way of analogy, all I wanted to demonstrate was that there is a difference between knowing how to count and doing algebra. Anyone can spend years memorizing thousands of pages of documents to regurgitate minutiae. That is like counting to one million—Jethro can do that if he wants to and takes the time. It is much harder to get algebra and applied mathematics right. What we see above is less than twenty-four hours of algebra bringing years of mere counting to its knees. And since the source is a person we have a problem. Books don't get pissed.

I don’t understand what in the way of an investigation is being asked for, but I am not at all opposed to having senior Wiki executives review everything on this page, along with the block-histories of everyone involved. If they find me at fault I will accept a permanent block without protest. Is everyone else willing to make the same commitment?

I am also in favor of confidentiality. I don’t identify myself on sites like this because I don’t want nutty people showing up at my apartment. Why does who I am matter if not for someone else's desire to harrass and intimidate? (WooHookitty, Jareha, and KateFan0: On different occasions you have made some people very angry. I would encourage you to review the personally identifiable information you have posted about yourselves in various places on the Internet. At any time you can be dealing with an individual with a history of domestic abuse or some other violent crime, and not know it.) Wikipedia is different because confidentiality assures free expression. But it is not a violation of free expression to insist that sources be credible and information verifiable. Anyone who participates in this site should respect those rules or get out. Chesschamp21 15:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and on the other side of that, villiany wears many masks, the most dangerous of which is virtue! Perhaps your confidentiality is a red herring to allow you to make "straw arguments" to irritate and then get out by pretending to be virtuous. But then, all you would have to do is created another confidential personna and re-enter. Free expression does have limits though and confidentiality is not one of them or anyone could say anything maliciously and claim freedom of expression, but not until the mask is removed!Subwayjack 03:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)S

Subwayjack: Either post a checkuser request at the appropriate page, or don't. But stop having this discussion on this page. It has nothing to do with the content of this article. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong Kate, it has everyything to do with the content of this article. Unlike the passive voice Chesschamp21 posted above you, his previous "questions" were aggressive attacks. I didn't mind the attacks on me, but when he attacked McCoy and his credibility, he didn't cross a line, he erased it! Now he wants to claim the no original research rule has been violated and he is an innocent contributor trying to follow the rules by asking questions that are personal and insulting. And then he asks to have block histories investigated, another direct reference to me! What I see in the article is rehashing and recycling of old articles from newspapers, magazines, TV quasi-documentaries with errors in them, cartoon references and songs, author's who have published books for profit and only did cursory investigations and drawn assumptions from them. The only factual information in the article are the names, dates and some occasional bits of information regarding the event. If every sentence on the page had to have a verifiable source attached, their would only be about a half a dozen. Many of the sources are cited without having been read or verified with consensus. A lot of the sources are drawn from web pages with erroneous information. The internet has been dubbed the information highway, but it doesn't claim the information is correct. It has been called the mis-information highway also. Of all the documents, I have, which is essentially the same as the Austin Historical Library. I have had to dismiss a lot of the information in there as not credible due to the mis-stated facts or lack of facts within them. The interviews I conducted give a much different picture of the tragedy and what people went through and their all credible people. The medical histories don't show sympathy for what Whitman did, but they do show a correlation for what he did. They also show that the UT Health Center dismissed Whitman's warnings. And no, I don't want you to buy the CD. And I don't find Chesschamp21's appearance a mere coincidence. I came here with one mission, to try and set the record straight as best as possible. Chesschamp21 has appeared to seemingly make me look as uncredible as possible. As Rebelguy said to you on his talk page, Hook'em! Well congratulations, you have, as well as the hero of your precious Alta Mater!subwayjack 17:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)S

Post a checkuser request, or don't, but stop going on and on about it here. If you have a problem with Chesschamp21's behavior, open a request for comments here. If you don't want to do either of those two things, that's okay, but please stop going on and on about it here. It's not the proper venue. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I call dibs on writing the article The Subwayjack Spree in six months eyeshifts Okay, okay, I'm not helping anything here...slinks away Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It suspiciously returns! Or better yet, write an article called The Sherurcij Fan Page where your one fan can post all the marvelous, bright and witty things about you! There would be thousands of things written! But Alas, the history would show they were by you or a sock puppet! Okay, I'm not helping either (but will probably be the one blocked)!subwayjack 21:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)S

Wait...*I* am the one you're accusing of being ChessChamp? I didn't even realise that I was the target of your venom, I just sort of breezed through things going "Wow...not getting involved in whosever sock ChessChamp is...", now I find out it's apparently mine! glares at Chesschamp maliciously Get over here! You belong to me now! shoves hand roughly up the sockpuppets anal crevice There, a perfect fit... Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 00:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

All right folks! I just got a call from a worried friend that advised me of my silly participation in this whole affair. Upon reflection, he is right, I will not allow mtself to be the bait in these trivial exchanges. After all, when ever bait gets used, it doesn;t benefit from the process. I'm also not interested in pursuing the complaints since I won't be participating. Enjoy yourselves messing up history!subwayjack 21:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)S

Value and cherish that friend. Chesschamp21 22:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Subwayjack, if you do come back to this article, any discussion of sockpuppets is going to get you blocked unless you follow the proper channels instead of just accusing people. You've been told the correct procedure to follow 4-5 times now. Enough. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not responding. I did everything correct. You are trying to trip me up and I'm not going to let you do that. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

How does it feel Woohookitty? And why did you remove the above contribution?Subwayjack 03:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)S

Here's another for Chesschamp from the Texas Monthly magazine:

From the September 2001 Issue...

Charles Whitman

by Chester Rosson

At the top of the University of Texas Tower 35 years ago, Austin policemen Houston McCoy and Ramiro "Ray" Martinez risked all to end the killing spree of ex-Marine Charles Whitman. The press initially credited Martinez with taking Whitman down, but after the coroner's report was issued, it seemed likely that McCoy's shotgun rather than Martinez's pistol had inflicted the mortal wounds. Although both men continued to share the credit for killing Whitman, a fictionalized film account nine years later, called The Deadly Tower, made Martinez the hero. Today the 64-year-old Martinez is comfortably retired in New Braunfels, serving on the advisory committee for the city's park board and "playing with the animals," he jokes, at the Lions, the Elks, and the Eagles clubs. After the Tower massacre, Martinez quit the Austin Police Department and eventually served for eighteen years as a Texas Ranger, then as a justice of the …Subwayjack 03:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)S

Here's a trivia quiz for Chesschamp, can you get them all right?Subwayjack 03:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)S

I removed absolutely nothing. Zero. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Anything new here?

WHO KILLED WHITMAN? There has been some debate as to which police officer actually killed Charles Whitman. The official version is that Ramiro Martinez emptied his service revolver into Whitman and then grabbed a shotgun from Houston McCoy and fired it into Whitman to finish the job. Skeptics contend that it was Houston McCoy's initial shotgun blasts that slew Whitman. Some go so far as to say that the Austin Police Department, seeking to capitalize on the presence of a Mexican-American hero on the force, embraced only Martinez so as to distract the media and the community from possible negligence by the department in allowing the event to continue for as long as it did or even happen at all. Interestingly, both Martinez and later McCoy sued the producers of "The Deadly Tower" for its depictions of them in that 1975 television movie. Martinez, who was upset about the film's portrayal of his wife and other misrepresentations, won an undisclosed settlement. McCoy, whose name was not mentioned in the film at all, did not prevail. Martinez went on to become a Texas Ranger and later a County Commissioner in Comal County, approximately 50 miles south of Austin. McCoy now lives in the Hill Country west of Austin.Subwayjack 03:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)S

Here's a scholarly source for Chesschamp, look at the last three paragraphs. Read the third one up, excerpt ..."when Ray and other police officers..." no mention of McCoy by name![4] Here's a good reason to keep the book in the "For Further Reading Section" of the article. From the same link above: Anyone wanting to read a detailed and in-depth history of Charles Whitman and the Tower incident will be disappointed. Ray does what few writers of autobiographies do: he only writes what he knows for a fact. ---So you see Chesschamp, you're quizing the wrong source, call up Martinez, and quiz him for all the "facts".Subwayjack 03:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)S

WP:NOR Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 16:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hold on. I thought I was you... or are you me? Chesschamp21 16:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dont flatter yourself!Subwayjack 03:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)S

To address your dis-jointed analogy to mathematics Chesschamp, what's wrong with this equation:

1+1=3+2=5+4=9+5=14

to help you out, if 1+1 does not equal 3, then all the following equations are incorrect and have to be changed or corrected!, This is exactly what happened with the Whitman history. It started out wrong and making it right is more difficult than simply changing numbers. Sometimes, if the wrong information benefits a person or large institution, there may be resistance to having the equation made right for their benefit. Even Opray tried to defend her position on the James Frey fiasco, but had to succumb to the pressures of popular opinion, that "truth does matter". However, here in WP, truth doesn't matter, only verifiable resources that may or may not be accurate. Which leads to arguments and angers members who want to stick to the pedantic rules of Jimbo Wales, which in turn makes contributors like yourself attack the messenger and not the issue. I've seen very little consensus here and when I have made suggestion, my opponents have gleefully jumped in to vote against every suggestion. But let me be fair and say that I also have been obnoxious and truant of civility. Right Woohookitty and KatefanO! From the sister city's of Madison, Wi and Austin, Texas, you both took delight in your administrative authorities to block me and refer to me as being disruptive, personality attacking and "not needing the grief"! Perhaps someday, you will encounter a situation where you do have the knowledge and information to try and correct something, only to have others who are vaguely familiar with the issue, challenge you to the point of personal attacks and insults. I hope you remember this experience! Thank you for allowing this catharsis, and Chesschamp, get an identity!!!Subwayjack 03:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)S

The above comments by Sherurcij and Chesschamp makes my case!Subwayjack 03:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)S

What is Truth? - Wikipedia doesn't try to decipher what the truth of the Kennedy Assassination, we just try to document what are verifiable reports. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 21:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refocusing

...too much noise, not enough signal. Focus on article content, please. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Review

I propose that Wiki administrators review:

"However, medical evidence and Whitman's history of drug abuse and medical problems due to the tumor, and last notes left at the scenes, point to his departure from normalcy to a psychotic break that led him into the tower. The tumor [4], amphetamine abuse [5], and overwhelming stress in his life at the time [6], led to a "cocktail effect" that pushed him into a state of confusion that he felt, "life is not worth living" and his thoughts led him to become a "PseudoCommando" Mass Murderer [7]."

Those are definitive statements not found in any credible source. Citations 4, 5, 6, and 7, are good descriptions of those medical conditions, but they do not mention Whitman, much less diagnose him. I have no objection to the paragraph if a medical doctor in a published source can be found that actually says Whitman suffered from those conditions. Otherwise it is speculation. I don't know if speculation is allowed so I did not change the article. Chesschamp21 13:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on the first part, simply because that's an argument for another day, the that he felt, "life is not worth living" and his thoughts led him to become a "PseudoCommando" Mass Murderer [7]." part should be completely stricken. We have no idea what thoughts went through his head, it's foolhardy to guess, and it's definitely poor writing to put it in quotation marks. Similarily, where one came up with the term "Pseudo Commando Mass Murderer", it's certainly not an encyclopaedic term. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and hello my darling sockpuppet :Þ Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Thoughts on Various Subjects-Jonathon SwiftSubwayjack 17:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)S

O.K. Can this dunce here ask you a couple of questions? When did Whitman's "psychotic break," as you call it, begin? Exactly when did this "cocktail effect" take hold of him? That's easy for a genius. Oh, and can you give us an example of something he did while confused? Chesschamp21 20:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is, No! As to those that follow, see your discussion page.Subwayjack 21:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)S

Katefano: This was posted on my page: "I promised Kate not to answer anymore questions from you or Sherurcij." Is this true? I thought this was a discussion page. I understand why he is frightened, but I limited my questions to what he posted. However, I respect you and your position and if you tell me I can't ask contributors any questions--I won't. Chesschamp21 00:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify, KatefanO did not ask me to not answer your questions, I promised her I would avoid you and Sherurcij because our histories are so rooted in a lack of mutual disrespect, that I feel you and Sherurcij are to be avoided. However, remove the snide comments from your questionaire, and treat me with due respect, as I will you, then I will answer your questions. There is nothing to be frightened of either.Subwayjack 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)S

Sir, at this moment the text you posted in the article that I had questions about is no longer there. In my opinion it was appropriately removed for lack of documentation. So I have nothing for you--now. As in the past, I will limit future questions to what is in the article and I will do so with respect. In turn, it is reasonable to receive a direct answer. I look forward to your next contribution. Chesschamp21 02:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! I had appropriate documentation links, however, Kate removed the links towards a general rendering at her own volition. I copied your removals back into the article so as to not revert any other changes. Thank you!Subwayjack 02:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)S

O.K. everybody, you win! I have done a major revamping of the article. It fits with the rules and the way I have been treated here. I know you will restructure it to fit your purposes. That's O.K.! I leave knowing that it is correct according to WP's rules, not the practices that have gone on here. I have wasted a monumental amount of time here chasing my tail. I have better things to do after tonight.Subwayjack 05:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)S

Subwayjack has been blocked indefinitely. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An actual request for review

With Subwayjack (talk • contribs) now departed, I think it is time for the community as a whole to take back control of this article. Previously, its content had been controlled by one individual. Now that that individual is gone, a civil and open discussion regarding the merits of everything in the article can actually occur. Please run through this article with a fine-toothed comb, and feel free to comment on the talk page about anything that is amiss. — Scm83x ^talk 06:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well said. It is in that spirit that I contributed. My suggestions are more in the way of writing style than content substance. I thought the article was too long, largely because it was filled with trivia more appropriate for a much more detailed treatment, like a book. Some of the content I edited is mentioned in other areas of the page. I hope I've helped. Chesschamp21 21:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Somebody should check the reference that He told the doctor that he wanted to go to the top of the tower and "start shooting people with a deer rifle." is correct, since I doubt doctors are allowed to release what somebody told them. More importantly, I'd like to see Whitman abused the drugs that had been prescribed for him by a number of doctors, including physicians on staff at The University of Texas Health Center. remove the reference to UT unless it's sourced that they were the ones providing the drugs. Douglas, in Anatomy of Motive (pgs. 225-27), and Lavergne, in Sniper in the Tower (pg. 268) agree that Whitman could not have had enough drugs in his system to affect his motor skills, much less his judgment. seems rather lengthy just to say "A random author agrees with the previous statement". He bludgeoned her skull with the butt of his rifle and concealed her body behind a couch. could be a bit more NPOV, same with The couple left the room unharmed., which the phrasing bothers me. Unlike many criminals who act in a fit of passion, Whitman had planned carefully. is patently false, since he didn't plan on anything until the day before, and it's a weasely term anyways, ditch it. a large grass and concrete area adjacent to the tower where students assemble seems odd to me, and Many in the area dismissed the "popping sounds" as they strolled to classes and appointments. should be sourced or removed. Whitman took full advantage of the many innocent targets below. needs NPOVing. Local Secret Service agents assigned to protect President Lyndon B. Johnson needs either a better context why the President is related to this story, or else rewording. and unarmed campus security. isn't all campus security unarmed? In fact, as Whitman had been saying for years, the deck was tailor-made for a stand-off first, treads closer to WP:NOR, also, had he really been saying it for years? McCoy then fired at Whitman's white headband. when did this appear? What headband? If there was one, mention it earlier in the article, if there wasn't, remove this. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 06:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tumor

A later autopsy revealed that Whitman had a cancerous glioblastoma tumor in the hypothalamus region of his brain. This type of brain tumor is particularly invasive and difficult to treat, and most people with this type of tumor die within three months to a year. [3]

If Whitman didn't know about the tumor, then there is no reason that it results in death should be listed. He also could have been struck by a car within a year. If he did know, then possibly it made him fatalistic, but if he didn't, it's bullshit Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I agree with you. He asked in his suicide note/s specifially that his autopsy look for evidence of mental issues. Presumably he may have had some inkling. That's speculative, but I do think those two things in concert are worth mentioning. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I phrased myself poorly. I agree we should mention that the autopsy confirmed he had a tumor. (A glioblamsatic one or whatever), but I don't think the phrase "most people with this type of tumor die in 3-12 months" is needed, because while he suspected a tumor, I doubt he thought "I bet it's a cancerous glioblastoma tumor in my hypothalamus region". Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 01:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that phrase is unnecessary here. I'd expect to find it at the appropriately linked article instead. jareha 03:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all with keeping it simple, I just didn't want to see the autopsy results removed completely. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

O.K. I did a little checking. I cut/pasted the questions and followed with what I found out.

“Somebody should check the reference that He told the doctor that he wanted to go to the top of the tower and "start shooting people with a deer rifle." is correct, since I doubt doctors are allowed to release what somebody told them.”

It is true, Whitman did say that. The university released the doctor’s notes the day after the shooting. That could not happen today because of relatively new federal laws about the confidentiality of medical records.

Okay

“More importantly, I'd like to see Whitman abused the drugs that had been prescribed for him by a number of doctors, including physicians on staff at The University of Texas Health Center. remove the reference to UT unless it's sourced that they were the ones providing the drugs.”

Yes and no. UT doctors did write prescriptions for him, but those were not the drugs he abused. The amphetamine, dexedrine, he abused was secured from a “friend.”

Okay, so that should be more clear.

“He bludgeoned her skull with the butt of his rifle and concealed her body behind a couch. could be a bit more NPOV, same with The couple left the room unharmed., which the phrasing bothers me.”

The statements are true. I don’t understand how that’s POV.

Hrm, k, response back..."The couple left unharmed" because it implies that the couple 'escaped' this psycho madman, but the fact seems to be that they were never in any danger anyways, so the fact they were "unharmed" is no better than me saying "I arrived at work today unharmed". I'd prefer the sentence just said "and the couple left".

I changed that sentence; I agree.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 19:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"bludgeoned her skull" is a tad sensationalistic, I'm not sure what wording I'd prefer, but it definitely reads like a thriller novel.

Also changed that one. But i used a little poetic justice in the hopes that someone will know for sure: i said "knocked unconcious" and "died later," though this may be false. I basically can't get the sentence to not sound sensationalist...club, beat, bludgeon are all a bit exageratted.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?}

New issue: "as the rest of the tourists tumbled down the stairs" - what, did all their legs simultaneously give out? I feel a word like "scrambled" - or even a simple "ran" - may do the trick better.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 19:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

“Unlike many criminals who act in a fit of passion, Whitman had planned carefully. is patently false, since he didn't plan on anything until the day before, and it's a weasely term anyways, ditch it.”

That’s POV. He did plan carefully for nearly two days. Maybe the sentence should be changed to say both: “Unlike many criminals who act in a fit of passion, Whitman planned carefully for nearly two days.”

And I planned elaborately to run over the pedestrian...but "Whitman had planned carefully" makes this sound like it was 9/11-style planning. I don't think it's fair to say "many criminals", he should be compared to other spree killers, and thinking of the closest example I know, would be William Kreutzer Jr. (The "Fort Bragg incident"), he similarily seems to have talked about snapping, and then spent a day or two planning the assault. There's nothing new worth mentioning, and definitely not saying Whitman was more methodical than other criminals. He's not a shoplifter, he's a spree killer.

Yea, I agree that it was poorly worded. I simplified it (planned meticulously for two days), but it still has the capacity to be better, i think. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 19:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

“Many in the area dismissed the "popping sounds" as they strolled to classes and appointments should be sourced or removed.”

The book, Sniper in the Tower, describes that great detail.

I'm still "ugh" on this, because it sounds like a literary device, to say that passersby mistook it for cars backfiring or something. But alright, I'll concede.

Didn't touch it. Don't particularly like it, either, but not sure what else to put in.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 19:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

“Whitman took full advantage of the many innocent targets below”.

needs NPOVing. I guess so, but the statement is true.

So it "Hitler is evil", but I don't want to see that in his encyclopaedia article :Þ

Just dropped it. The information was repeated more NPOV and more in-depth in the following two sentences, anyway.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 19:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

“Local Secret Service agents assigned to protect President Lyndon B. Johnson needs either a better context why the President is related to this story, or else rewording.”

I agree.

Me too. Why were they there? Was LBJ in the area, or simply in Austin?--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 19:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

“Isn't all campus security unarmed?”

I really don’t know. I think some of them are armed—aren’t they? But apparently in 1966 none of them were.

Well let's nix it for now, and then if anybody finds evidence that campus security was normally armed back then, we can make the distinction.

I left this in. Why not specify?--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 19:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

“In fact, as Whitman had been saying for years, the deck was tailor-made for a stand-off first, treads closer to WP:NOR, also, had he really been saying it for years?”

That is from a sworn statement from a Whitman friend who said Whitman said that to him in 1961 when he first arrived in Austin. He said it again in 1966 to the UT psychiatrist, so it is reasonable to assume he said in the years in-between.

"as Whitman had said before" would make more sense than "been saying for years" simply because we only know he said it twice. I've personally said similar things, not with any great emphasis or redundancy, but once a year or so I'm sure I make an off-the-cuff comment. It can be included, but we shouldn't make it sound like this was something everybody should've seen coming.

Changed the sentence; can we provide a note so this is cited? I feel like it's a rather sizeable allegation, so a source to cite might be nice.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 19:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

“McCoy then fired at Whitman's white headband. when did this appear? What headband? If there was one, mention it earlier in the article, if there wasn't, remove this.”

I agree—it is not clear what this is about.

Confused the hell out of me; no headband had been mentioned and really, "forehead," "face," or "head" would work just as well. Which do we go with?--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 19:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

“If Whitman didn't know about the tumor, then there is no reason that it results in death should be listed. He also could have been struck by a car within a year.”

I agree with that; he could not have been aware of his impending death. But I also agree with Kate—the tumor should be mentioned—and leave it at that.

Me too. Done.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 19:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Chesschamp21 21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup ====> NPOV

It seems the majority of the problems with this article are NPOV problems rather than writing or formatting problems, so i switched the tag. If i was wrong in that assumption, can we provide a single "Cleanup" section on the talk page so it's easy to see what problems need to be addressed? --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 19:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)