Talk:Tyler courthouse shooting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on July 11, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Contents |
[edit] Why deleted?
Why was this article deleted with 5 minutes without any discussion?--Brian H 18:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I changed the tag to normal deletion at your request. Travelbird 18:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- This Article has merit, because Mark Allen Wilson, in life and in his death, was extremely unusual. He entered into a raging gun battle and arguably saved the lives of several people, at the cost of his own. Mark Wilson did so, not as a professional rescuer or policeman, but as a concerned citizen acting in his own private capacity to help others. Because he was an American and lived in one of the many American states that allows citizens to carry concealed weapons, he could do so with a handgun. A further edited and expanded article of the incident and Mark Wilson's actions through a neutral examination of facts has a value to all view points in the hotly contested debates involving violence in our society, the ownership of firearms and their ethical use as a means of self defense or in defense of others. While the facts of the incident might lead some to think Mark Wilson was a fool to intrude into a police incident, my personal feeling is that the Vikings would have immortalized Mark in song and saga, in a modern world he at least deserves a mention in Wikipedia. --Brian H 19:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] completely lost
I am completely lost reading this article. There is no background information, no explanation of who all these people are, no explanation of the events. The article just starts with babel leaving the reader completely lost. The articles title, which suggest its going to at least be a bio about someone, hardly says anything about Mark Allen Wilson. Perhaps, if it is such a notable murder, the article should be moved to a page with the name of The Murder of Mark Allen Wilson one the article is cleaned up and brought to wikipedia standards.--Gephart 20:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- As I continue to refine the article, I have addressed some of the issues raised above. The facts are being drawn from multiple sources and the editting/citing process continues. I am attempting to get more biographical information and public domain photos.--Brian H 21:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I have split the articles
Those articles have now been split, as they should have
[edit] Unwarranted deletion of text
The article has been reverted to original text after nearly every referance to Mark Wilson had been deleted for unknown and unexplained reasons. I left the article split for now, but the article had orginally been in two parts and was merged after some discussion recently. Any thoughts?--Brian H 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
This article is not encyclopedic and does not adhere to the NPOV policy. It is about a courthouse shooting but it seems to glorify this Mark Wilson guy who tried to wound the guy. 68.223.42.19 13:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- The primary sources for the article are about Mark Wilson, so the available information concerning the incident favors aspects Mr. Wilson played in the incident. If you have more detail to add or wish to add more depth to it, do so. The incident is unusual, because a citizen was killed while assisting police Officers. That is a fact and therefore neutral. The incident description does not say that he "foolishly" or "bravely" did anything. The narrative simply records actions and events. You are free to think of Mr. Wilson (or Sgt. Jacks) as a fool or a hero. People who do not carry guns do not pay much attention to shootouts, but for some of us they are a wealth of real world knowledge and wikipedia documents many famous ones such as the gunfight at the OK Corral and ones that a famous only to those interested in the lessons to be learned in a very narrow field of study (Newhall Incident, FBI Miami shootout, 1986, North Hollywood shootout etc.)--Brian H 21:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Writing: "Instead of eating and apple, Mary ate an orange" is inherently uncyclopedic. One must write the facts and simply the facts, ie: "Mary ate an orange"
- But "Because of morning rains, Napolean choose to delay his assault on Wellington's army at Waterloo. The delay delay did not benifit Napolean much, because the battlefield was still muddy in the afternoon when the Prussian Army arrived to reenforce the British army. Wellington was able to break repeated assaults by Napolean's forces and Napolean withdrew from the field in defeat." That may not be unencyclopedic, but it is history.--Brian H 15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- You don't get to make up rules.
- Yes, but I do try and contribute. I don't just complain without even a signature or use nothing more than an IP address. NPOV does not mean uninformative Your example of "Instead of eating and[sic] apple, Mary ate an orange" is a fallacy, because failing to document the options considered removes a piece of the story and removes the context of the decision ulimately made. I agree you should let the facts speak for themselves and not say that either choice was better or worse in itself. The story could tell something about Mary if one piece of fruit had some context (favorite variety, a gift, she stole it, ate orange because mom was making a pie) Appartly you feel that encyclopedic requires a boring redition of incomplete factual information. If you don't like the article, ADD TO IT!!! --Brian H 21:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This article has been reworked quite a bit by moi for POV, misspellings, clarity, length, and organization. As such, I think it no longer warrants the POV header and have removed it accordingly. If you disagree, plese feel free to add it again, but I think at least some of your concerns have been addressed. 64.178.101.32 08:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Look at me! I'm way over here! 64.178.101.32 08:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- This article has been reworked quite a bit by moi for POV, misspellings, clarity, length, and organization. As such, I think it no longer warrants the POV header and have removed it accordingly. If you disagree, plese feel free to add it again, but I think at least some of your concerns have been addressed. 64.178.101.32 08:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes, but I do try and contribute. I don't just complain without even a signature or use nothing more than an IP address. NPOV does not mean uninformative Your example of "Instead of eating and[sic] apple, Mary ate an orange" is a fallacy, because failing to document the options considered removes a piece of the story and removes the context of the decision ulimately made. I agree you should let the facts speak for themselves and not say that either choice was better or worse in itself. The story could tell something about Mary if one piece of fruit had some context (favorite variety, a gift, she stole it, ate orange because mom was making a pie) Appartly you feel that encyclopedic requires a boring redition of incomplete factual information. If you don't like the article, ADD TO IT!!! --Brian H 21:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- You don't get to make up rules.
- But "Because of morning rains, Napolean choose to delay his assault on Wellington's army at Waterloo. The delay delay did not benifit Napolean much, because the battlefield was still muddy in the afternoon when the Prussian Army arrived to reenforce the British army. Wellington was able to break repeated assaults by Napolean's forces and Napolean withdrew from the field in defeat." That may not be unencyclopedic, but it is history.--Brian H 15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Writing: "Instead of eating and apple, Mary ate an orange" is inherently uncyclopedic. One must write the facts and simply the facts, ie: "Mary ate an orange"
- The primary sources for the article are about Mark Wilson, so the available information concerning the incident favors aspects Mr. Wilson played in the incident. If you have more detail to add or wish to add more depth to it, do so. The incident is unusual, because a citizen was killed while assisting police Officers. That is a fact and therefore neutral. The incident description does not say that he "foolishly" or "bravely" did anything. The narrative simply records actions and events. You are free to think of Mr. Wilson (or Sgt. Jacks) as a fool or a hero. People who do not carry guns do not pay much attention to shootouts, but for some of us they are a wealth of real world knowledge and wikipedia documents many famous ones such as the gunfight at the OK Corral and ones that a famous only to those interested in the lessons to be learned in a very narrow field of study (Newhall Incident, FBI Miami shootout, 1986, North Hollywood shootout etc.)--Brian H 21:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Title accuracy
As I noted on the talk page for this article back when it was Tyler Courtroom Shooting, the building where the incident took place is the Smith County Courthouse, NOT the "Tyler Courthouse." In addition, I question the accuracy of the word "shootout" in describing an incident that began as an attack on unarmed people. I therefore propose a move to Smith County Courthouse shooting, or at the very least lowercasing the word "courthouse" in the title. -- Hedgey42 17:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Done--Brian H 22:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
