Talk:Charles Whitman

Back to content

RFCbio originally here. Moved lower where there is a clearer description of the issues.

---

This is the current state of one section of the article:

"A SNIPER IN THE TOWER"

Gary Lavergne , in his 1997 book "A Sniper In The Tower", advances a lot of arguments about Whitman that breaks down to the non-scientific term "Evil", as to what and who Whitman was. Lavergne totally dismissed the tumor, the amphetamine abuse, the sleep deprivation and the personal issues Whitman was under at the time. As a response to criticism of the book, Lavergne published a page on his website called "Charles Whitman - Why Did He Do It?". The response also ran in the Austin American Statesman on August 1, 2006, the fortieth anniversary of the event. In the response by Lavergne he discredits those who disagree with him, while explaining that Whitman would be dead today and buried at Pecker Hill Burial grounds near Huntsville, Texas if the Death Penalty hadn't been abated a few years later in 1972, or that Whitman would be in prison today, serving a life sentence. Frank Rich, of the New York Times, in 1999, wrote an article in the Times praising the book, also charging Whitman as "Evil".

The facts are that the glioblastoma brain tumor would have killed Whitman within a year, and conceivably contributed to his actions on August 1, 1966, and goes against the Connalley Commission Report of 1966 as reported above.(see pgs. 10-11)

Prior to the Tower, Andrew Kehoe of Bath, Michigan in 1927, killed 45 people and injured 58. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7-12 years of age). Lavergne and other media publications have for years called the tower tragedy, "The Worst Mass Murder In American History".

---

I believe it shows massive problems with WP:UNDUE wrt Lavergne rather than his book on Whitman, WP:Attack_page against Lavergne, WP:SYNTHESIS wrt "The facts are...", and WP:OR by setting itself up as a tertiary source to analyze Lavergne.

The following was proposed by another editor, and I concur that it would be an improvement (although I personally think "The extent of..." does not belong in this section; IMO the only reason for its original inclusion was as a rationale to justify the previous title of "Media distortion" for the section.):

---

Discussion of Whitman's Motivation

The Conally report indicates that the tumor might have contributed to Whitman's actions. In his 1997 book "A Sniper In The Tower," Gary Lavergne dismisses these and Whitman's personal issues as sufficient causes, arguing he was in control of his actions and concluding he could not have successfully pleaded insanity had he lived. In Lavergne's opinion, Whitman would have been found guilty of murder with malice and sentenced to death (only to be reprieved as a result of the Supreme Court's Furman v Georgia decision had he lived that long). Frank Rich, of the New York Times, in 1999, acknowledging Lavergne, names the triggering element beyond these contributing factors "for lack of another word, evil."

The extent of the massacre has brought several media outlets to declare it the "worst mass murder" and "the worst simultaneous mass-killing" to that point in American history, although it had been surpassed in number killed by the Bath School Disaster of 1927.

---

Your opinions on this and/or suggested modifications would be invaluable. arimareiji (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

This points to the key concerns I have in the case. Thanks. I will defer any further comments until we get more outside opinions. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You have done a good job on reducing the section Jwy and only a few suggestions are in order. 1.) You only use the tumor in the opening sentence - the word "these" in the second sentence needs to be changed to "this" since the example is singular and not plural. 2.) In regards to the tumor, the original autopsy by Dr. Chenar, characterized the tumor as an astrocytoma and not significant to the event. The Conally Commission, after reviewing the slides and brain matter after retrieving the brain for a thorough re-examination, found it to be a highly cancerous glioblastoma multi-forme, and "conceivably" could have contributedto his actions that day. [[1]] Scroll down this source, and you will find a reference to the mortality rate of this type of tumor, as a one year median to death as of 2004. In 1966, medical advances were not to todays standards, nor the level of treatment options. This should be considered in the section, and even if the motality standards today are three years, Lavergne's assessment in 2006, could never have happened. 3.) As I wrote in the lead-in, there was no single "triggering" event. It was an accumulative issue. 4.) Another suggestion after re-reading your proposal, if you were to reverse the paragraphs and re-title the section to a consensus, I think the section would be fine.Victor9876 (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Since your objections have been the chief reason this RfC was needed, Victor, could you please clarify the exact wording changes you propose? arimareiji (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To Jwy, if you need any clarification, please feel free to ask me.Victor9876 (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking he did. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion was, since it seems relevant that the glioblastoma would have been fatal, that simple fact would nullify the assertions that Lavergne made. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be true if all the assertions Lavergne made were predicated on the assumption "because he would have lived more than a year." I don't believe they are. arimareiji (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I plan to move the RFCbio tag from the top of this section to the "content" section below as I think it will be less bewildering to a visitor. Let me know if there are objections. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I see there has been some discussion of removing the RFCbio tag. I'd be interested in hearing what they would have to say, but if the current status of the section is going to stay, I wouldn't have a problem with the tag going away. I will be quick to re-instate it if necessary, but the "motivations" section as is seems reasonable - in fact I think further discussion from other (well-sourced) points of view would be interesting and a good addition. Personally, I would add a bot archive for 14 or 30 days. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not back to content

Since your objections have been the chief reason this RfC was needed, Victor, could you please clarify the exact wording changes you propose? arimareiji (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To Jwy, if you need any clarification, please feel free to ask me.Victor9876 (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking he did. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think you have a case for your terribly clever insinuation, feel free to waste time taking it to WP:SPI... elsewise it might be better to put a sock in it. Figuratively speaking. arimareiji (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion Wildhart, would be to report this guy for uncivil conduct re-re-re-re-peatedly. The etiqette page should show his propensity to deliberately antagonize a situation and Always have the last word, several times. Even BMW warned him to drop it, and here he is again.Victor9876 (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion, immediately, is that arimareiji explain the accusation he's just made or I will take it back to the etiquette board. Are you implying that I am a sock puppet of Victor's? If so, then just say so, take it to WP:SPI and have fun. In fact, I suggest that you do. And then I expect that you issue a wholehearted apology. I am not a sock puppet, I have made no accusations of sock puppetry regarding anyone on this page and arimareiji's post above is beyond bad faith, it is uncivil and contentious and is absolutely not acceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the most sadly-amusing thing I've read in a long time. I ask a question of Victor. Victor says he'll answer questions John asks. You assert "I'm thinking he did. :)"

I tell you to take your insinuations to WP:SPI or drop them. Victor suggests repeatedly reporting me, and you come up with a rationale... that I just accused you of being a sockpuppet. arimareiji (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked to explain your highly contentious and assaultive comment to me, and if I recall, you were also admonished to be civil. Again, either explain your sudden and unprovoked attack on me, or it will be taken to AN/I. If you were not accusing me of sock puppetry, then do bother to explain clearly what you meant, because you are not making yourself clear. I responded to Victor's statement by telling him that Jwy just did ask for clarification. What is wrong with you that you cannot respond in a civil manner? How about you quit being cryptic and explain your attack. For the record, I don't make insinuations, if I suspect someone of violating a policy, I am not afraid to say so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

John said earlier, "This points to the key concerns I have in the case. Thanks. I will defer any further comments until we get more outside opinions."

That's not a request for clarification by any stretch of the imagination.

On the other hand, I (not John) had just asked for clarification. Victor responded to my question by saying he would answer questions from John. You asserted that John "did" ask for clarification. WP:DUCK, you're insinuating I'm a sock of John.

It takes a lot of chutzpah to claim that my asking you to stop doing so is a "highly contentious and assaultive comment". arimareiji (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL!!!! Talk about not assuming good faith regarding this talk page discussion. I misread who asked for the clarification and when I saw Victor's response, I was only trying to remind him not to be difficult. That is exactly what happened. On the other hand, you immediately assumed I was making a - what did you call it? - "clever insinuation" about sock puppetry. Since you posted what, yes indeed, was a highly contentious and assaultive comment (ref: telling me to put a sock in it), that was indented under my comment that the glioblastoma would be relevant, your comment was bizarre and certainly seemed to me that you were accusing me of being a sock of Victor's. To assume I was subtlely implying something sinister seems kind of paranoid to me. Maybe it's time for you to once again, try assuming good faith and not fly off the handle to fire off such a response. It would most conducive to getting along if you had just asked what I meant instead of immediately assuming the worst. And again, for the record, if I suspect someone of being a sock puppet, I don't couch it as a "clever insinuation", I flatly say so. I've been around here a long time, I've seen Jwy a lot and I would never confuse his postings with yours intentionally. I've never seen him be assaultive in his dealings with anyone. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So... you would never confuse John with me. Except that you did. And told me to take back my "highly contentious and assaultive comment" to tell you to stop insinuating I'm a sock, which was a terrible "sudden and unprovoked attack."

And this had nothing to do with Victor's immediately-preceding "My suggestion Wildhart, would be to report this guy for uncivil conduct re-re-re-re-peatedly. The etiqette page should show his propensity to deliberately antagonize a situation and Always have the last word, several times." Got it. arimareiji (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No, dude. I said "I would never confuse his postings with yours intentionally." As I said, you seem incapable of assuming good faith in regard to this page and honestly, I'm tired of responding to this. I admitted I misread the original post. Period. I would have apologized, except you can't seem to be civil long enough, so one will not be forthcoming. Now, if you cannot reel back your sarcasm and try being at least a little bit civil, then maybe you have a problem. And if you can't let it drop and move on, then I will take it to AN/I. It was a misread post. It's over. Get over it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm stepping in Arima this one time and only this one time to speak to you directly. The genesis for my coming in was to speak to John and John only. I complimented him on his efforts and offered input. I was hoping for a reply from John, but you, as usual stepped in. I am not obligated to answer your questions. I choose to ignore, not duck, someone who, how did you put it, oh yeah, has "animus" for me. Any discourse between you and I are over. I will accept a consensus, I want nothing to do with you. That is personal, but not an attack. Some people just can not see eye to eye, and you and I are an example. Sometimes courtesy and team work is best when two opposed parties stay away from each other, that is my wish with you. You twist everything to what you want to see in black and white terms, with no shades of gray. I can not work with someone like that, so why try, given our history. You have not contributed one positive edit in the main article and have only been disruptive in this talk page. No need to retort, I have already anticipated your responses. Now, when John decides to respond to me directly or anyone else, they will have my ear. I will not respond to you in anyway or fashion, except this one time. History has shown me that it would only lead to further misinterpretations, or accusations of some rule breaking. So please, avoid me and stop refactoring what I have said, it was on point and a recommendation only.--Victor9876 (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You've been told repeatedly what is and isn't forbidden, Victor. Repeating what someone said isn't. Editing what someone said is. arimareiji (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving old material

Your archive was a very good edit, Wildhartlivie.
If there's agreement for it, it might be good to put MiszaBot in place with a 30-day expiry for comment threads. arimareiji (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The page was becoming hard for me to load. It would be extremely helpful if I could find the previous archives, but so far I haven't. They aren't listed under the usual names. I would suggest that it be a bit longer than 30 days. Considering how long some of the old content was extended, maybe 45 days. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No objections; I'm just a fan of having a bot do it regardless of how long the interval is. arimareiji (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly pertinent information: To my knowledge, MiszaBot archives based on when the last post occurred, not the first. I.e. a thread could have started in 2005 but still not be archived if it kept getting new posts. arimareiji (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

For John (Jwy) and Consensus

As the editor of the proposed change on the talk page, please review the suggestions and amend them as you see best or leave it as it is and post it to the article. For consensus purposes, all editors who approve, please post a yea below and sign, all editors who disapprove, please place a nay below and sign. Let's get on with other issues.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yea--Victor9876 (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What specifically are we supposed to vote on? When I asked previously, you refused to elucidate because you said you only want John to respond - but consensus means all involved editors. arimareiji (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To who ever cares, consensus means by majority, some editors can abstain if they want, by doing so, they accept the vote of the others.--Victor9876 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Vote of the others" (you, so far) for what specifically other than "I agree with Victor about something"?

(For reference, in case it ever gets changed: current wording is "As the editor of the proposed change on the talk page, please review the suggestions and amend them as you see best or leave it as it is and post it to the article. For consensus purposes, all editors who approve, please post a yea or nay below and sign. Let's get on with other issues.") arimareiji (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What is your agenda Ari? You continue to disrupt the discussion with bad faith interpretations, personal attacks, $20.00 words with bankrupt content, insinuations and comments intended to incite and continue edit-warring; after the WQA has been resolved. You have forced me to break my committment to dis-associate with you for the good of the discussion and article to allow others to have input, but when they come here, all they are going to see is an on going dispute and personality dispute. You brought this RfA, regardless of your stated reason. It's here. Now what do you expect, to come to a formal conclusion, so you and others can return to some sense of normalcy? As suggested earlier, place the content in the article and get on with your life. For purposes of further clarification - I believe the following is what you want to replace the "A Sniper In The Tower" section. Do it! Place it there and your Third Party Opinion has been met to your satisfaction. Anyone can edit it later anyway's so why belabor the issue and drag the issue on? Just Do It!

Discussion of Whitman's Motivation The Conally report indicates that the tumor might have contributed to Whitman's actions. In his 1997 book "A Sniper In The Tower," Gary Lavergne dismisses these and Whitman's personal issues as sufficient causes, arguing he was in control of his actions and concluding he could not have successfully pleaded insanity had he lived. In Lavergne's opinion, Whitman would have been found guilty of murder with malice and sentenced to death (only to be reprieved as a result of the Supreme Court's Furman v Georgia decision had he lived that long).[1] Frank Rich, of the New York Times, in 1999, acknowledging Lavergne, names the triggering element beyond these contributing factors "for lack of another word, evil." [2]

The extent of the massacre has brought several media outlets to declare it the "worst mass murder"[3] and "the worst simultaneous mass-killing"[4] to that point in American history, although it had been surpassed in number killed by the Bath School Disaster of 1927.

^ Gary M. Lavergne (August 1, 2006). "Charles Whitman: Why did he do it?". http://www.garylavergne.com/whitman-why.htm. Retrieved on February 2, 2009. ^ Frank Rich (September 25, 1999). "Journal; The Long Shadow of the Texas Sniper". New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02EEDF103FF936A1575AC0A96F958260. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Sniper-Tower-Charles-Whitman-Murders/dp/1574410296 ^ http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=68860

--Victor9876 (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Upon being prompted by User:Victor9876 to come look at the latest exchange, I'm posting my reply here. In contrast to your assertion of incivility and disruptiveness, I find no such thing above. In fact, the wording of this section screams "vote yes for my edit!". I'll even quantify that assertion, so there's no ambiguity here;

• "For John (Jwy) and Consensus" - Why primarily for Jwy? Should have been simply "Submitted for Consensus".
• "..all editors who approve, please post a yea or nay below and sign." - Translated, it reads like "heads I win, tails you lose". Again, shows a clear bias. Should have been "Could all editors reading this indicate whether we should add this or not?"
• "As the editor of the proposed change on the talk page, please review the suggestions and amend them as you see best or leave it as it is and post it to the article. For consensus purposes, all editors who approve, please post a yea or nay below and sign. Let's get on with other issues". - We know that you're the one submitting the change, no need to mention that. Further, this implies that the content gets posted in the article, regardless.
• THIS exchange is VERY problematic;

What specifically are we supposed to vote on? When I asked previously, you refused to elucidate because you said you only want John to respond - but consensus means all involved editors. arimareiji (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To who ever cares, consensus means by majority, some editors can abstain if they want, by doing so, they accept the vote of the others.--Victor9876 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• The way I'm reading the text above, Victor is suggesting that he wants JWY to respond, but other editors should abstain from voting, thereby affirming Victor's suggested content change(s). This is NOT acceptable.

Victor, You prompted me to come take a look at this, again making accusations of incivility and attacking. Where? In fact, I see you perpetuating the "shenanigans" we were talking about in the last WQA, by preparing and submitting an extremely lopsided vote process here. The only thing I see Arima doing here is questioning the same things I am at this point. Edit Centric (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

When I asked you to come in Edit Centric, I asked you to review the whole discussion, not be selective as you were before, as in the WQA. I admit the wording to this section as you mentioned was problematic, and I have changed it to hopefully, not cause any further confusion, and reflect my original intentions. I was addressing JWY - the author of the proposed change for the article, not Arima. I did not write it and only made suggestions and gave information for Jwy to use to slightly change and correct the wording. Is that the SHENANIGANS you are referring to?!? If you would have gone through the whole process after the RfA, you may have noticed other problems that I was referring to. But no, like minds stick together and you sided with Arima, even though he points you in the right direction about what you are responding to, sans the remarks about your wife. Then you carry on with re-hashing the WQA. Go back to your breathing excercises and coffee.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so that everyone knows, I also have my own "3O" process here, in that if I feel I may be reading something wrong, I get my spouse to read it also, and give me her thoughts. If she says I'm reading something wrong, I'm open to that. In this case, it was her that came up with the "heads I win, tails you lose" analogue...(She's truly 3O, not even a Wikipedian. Her thing is Cafe Moms...) Edit Centric (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the 'ol "wife flipped a coin and you lost" defense. Good one Centric! Use it all the time myself!--Victor9876 (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In Victor's defense, I think that a few hours after he posted to your (EC's) page, he tried to simplify the matter by saying that he was giving up opposition to John/Jwy's proposed edit. This would have more-or-less resolved the matter. My apologies, I was almost entirely busy elsewhere, at work, or asleep between then and now.

The only reason I'm not sure is the sentence "Anyone can edit it later anyway's so why belabor the issue and drag the issue on?" This could be construed as "I'll just go back and undo it later"; I would like to think that's not true. If you can confirm that, Victor, I'll happily cross-post the first three sentences of my post (minus "I think that") to EC's talk page. out. arimareiji (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's see Arima, I think I read somewhere that...Wikipedia - The Encyclopedia that EVERYBODY can edit! Tell me if I am wrong.--Victor9876 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, this response to "This could be construed as 'I'll just go back and undo it later'; I would like to think that's not true." comes across very badly. If you intend to edit-war against the change, saying so plainly would be more honest. arimareiji (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is getting really tiresome and I am not seeing that the contention between either of you is abating in any way. Is it so impossible to stick to the issue at hand, which is the one section, without the back-biting and attempts to analyze some deeper meaning behind what is being written or trying to construe something else? It's just childish, and yeah, I mean that. More time has been wasted on mud-slinging than discussing the issue, which should have been resolved a week ago. No, there is no valid reason to assume that Victor meant something besides anyone could come along and change it completely. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

At the beginning of this thread, I would have agreed. That's why I 1) defended him, and 2) asked him to confirm that this wasn't the case. Both of your responses, by comparison, have been openly hostile. What I asked was whether he would revert it. It's less than encouraging that he refused to address it, and definitely less than encouraging that you both assert that "anyone could come along and change it" - presumably just by coincidence. arimareiji (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, my response was not hostile nor was it coincidence, it is weariness. I was echoing his statement, anyone can come along and edit it and completely change anything in the article. That's the nature of the Wikipedia beast. The thing is, someone is trying to finish this mess of a dispute. There is nothing to be gained by trying to read between the lines. It will never be a case of that section, or even any given sentence in the article, that once this particular issue is resolved, that content won't be changed. It's not a featured article, so it's not considered close to being done. If you want assurances that no one will change the section, they won't be forthcoming because nothing is static on Wikipedia. Tomorrow, something could come along that would render any given point in any article moot. It's not reasonable to ask Victor, me, Jwy, or the man in the moon to promise nothing will be changed at some point in the future. To me, it comes off as combative, especially as a follow-up. Don't overthink things. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't ask "Will anyone ever come along and make a different edit?" I asked whether he would simply go back and revert the edit.
• His answer was "Let's see Arima, I think I read somewhere that...Wikipedia - The Encyclopedia that EVERYBODY can edit! Tell me if I am wrong." I didn't raise the prospect - he did, and you followed suit. arimareiji (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Kindly do not read into my words. They are as transparent as the statement: Anyone can come along and edit the page. You are now ascribing intent to my comment, don't overthink it. This is exactly the kind of thing that has given me a migraine headache on 3 of the last 7 days. However, I am not seeing a consensus determination to go ahead and accept and change the section at this time. Since when does the disputed part get changed prior to the end of an RfC? They don't close after three days when the RfC hasn't closed. I am going to bed with the migraine and won't be responding tonight. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ascribe intent to your words, I repeated the manner in which you characterized the topic - i.e. "Will anyone ever change it," which was not a response to my question. Victor's absolute refusal to change the section was the reason for the RfC. With Victor's concession, consensus is 3-0 to my knowledge and there have been massive references to policies which state that kind of writing doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If you prefer that I immediately close the RfC I opened, I will. arimareiji (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted. The few minor foibles left over could be summed up as follows;

• Again, please don't break the conversation track by insertion and refactoring. The flow should go like this:

• A comments.

• B Responds.

• A Replies.

• B Replies.

Also, if you're going to use HTML or other mark-up inside your entries, please close the tag! Open wakka, fwd slash, mark-up, close wakka. (Open-ended tags tend to interfere with everything after them.) The ONLY tags that you should be leaving open are things like line breaks (open wakka, br, close wakka) and horizontal rules (open wakka, hr, close wakka).

I won't turn this into a treatise on how to write HTML, there's already literally hundreds of these out on the web. Edit Centric (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall this being an issue except in the previous WQA!--Victor9876 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe he's taking note of your edits today: another open blockquote tag, and another repeat of inserting material into another editor's comment. You'd been specifically warned not to make the latter edit, to which your response was "Thanks BMW! I appreciate the distinctions and understand now very well! This has been valuable." arimareiji (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's take this to arbitration.--Victor9876 (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think they will take it, I'm not averse to you doing so. I strongly doubt they will, as this is a combination of content dispute and admin-resolvable issues. arimareiji (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Then let's call in an administrator who doesn't have a wife who flips coins to resolve issues!--Victor9876 (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not only a blatant mischaracterization of his saying that she provided an analogy of "heads I win, tails you lose" to how you framed the issue, that's something like the third or fourth violation of WP:NPA against him alone. You're stomping on thin ice, and as I've said repeatedly I think the article would be the poorer without your input. Please at least listen to Wildhartlivie about this, if you won't listen to anyone else. arimareiji (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure!? Well...you should have removed the RfA tag before editing the main article. That was shrewd of you. Keep us busy here, while you run off and do your thing before any consensus. True, I told you to do it, but show me anywhere in all these threads where you have followed my advise without arguments and oral flagelations.--Victor9876 (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you know the time stamp will show your posting and the time of the removal of the tag. Don't blame me!--Victor9876 (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not even going to dignify Victor's personal attack with a response. There's a LOT I could say out of spite and retaliation here, but how would that be any more productive than Victor's snipe comments and insinuations? No. What I WILL say is that I am bringing a WQA of my own, and will by the same yardstick, recuse myself from the mediation process until this is resolved. Edit Centric (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait minute Centric, isn't not dignifying a response with a response - a response!? You know you have more clout here than I do on Wikipedia, I fully expect all of your friends to join in. But you were the one with the deep breate and coffee remark. You were the one I turned to for help. And what did I get? A monoptic review of the old RfA. Thanks!--Victor9876 (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Content

Please try to make this a meta-discussion free zone.

I've removed the key part of the paragraph that I most object to as per WP:SYNTH. My key question remains: Is there no notable source that reaches the same conclusion? And I hope the online authors source could be improved as its just a sample from the book - a "real" reference to a real book would be ideal. And it doesn't mention the specific medical identification of the tumor noted in the text.

With the part I removed in it, the paragraph seems to owe its existence only to discredit Lavergne, which needs good sourcing (especially as per WP:BLP). Without it, I'm not sure how notable it is. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a BLP. Whitman is dead. As to Lavernge, he is referenced in exactly the light he turned on himself in his book and editorial that is linked in the article. If he says Whitman would have died years after the event as he does in the article, and the medical facts say Whitman would have died shortly from the tumor, are you saying we should discredit the medical facts and history for the benefit of Lavergne? His book was released as a semi textbook and is used today as such in some colleges, if his logic fails science, are you saying, so what? Anyone can make an error in their summation? Should we call back reason because it may make someone look as if their research is flawed, just because it is?--Victor9876 (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Not throw it out. All I ask is source it to someone who has made that conclusion. And, if I understand it correctly, the fact that Mr. Lavergne's scenarios about Whitman's future are wrong because he would be dead doesn't necessarily invalidate conclusions about Whitman's motivations. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please Jwy, look at the reference I provided and read down it. It says exactly what you are looking for. It doesn't have to be in the first paragraph does it? If that is the standard, 85% of Wikipedia has to be thrown out. As to Whitman's motivations, I put all in the lead-in, near the bottom. I follow science and the high art of psychology, not rhetorical observations.--Victor9876 (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Scroll to the bottom of the source, sixth paragraph up. [[2]]--Victor9876 (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That sources that the Conally folks believe the tumor to be malignant and that Whitman probably would have been dead after too long anyway. It does not mention Lavergne or Lavergne's book. And even if we mention it contradicts Lavergne on this one point, this contradiction says nothing about other conclusions in the book and sufficient notability about this "problem" has not been established. In my understanding, without an explicit source it is synthesis (and non-notable) and therefore unsuitable for inclusion. I think this is the core of our content disagreement. If so, it is what we have asked for further help on clarifying and we should pursue those channels. I'm not sure the status of the bio RfC above. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Going nowhere fast. I peeked in on the bio RfC page the other day, and it seems to be accumulating more than it clears. It might be good to cross-post to society RfC. arimareiji (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the article sources the Commissions findings. The panel was made up of Doctors and highly specialized experts in their respective fields at the time. The "folks" didn't say they "believe" the tumor was malignant - they said the tumor "was highly malignant" (read the report). Why don't we apply "Occam's Razor" here and close out this discussion. You are asking for sources that fit how you want the article to read. When supplied, you bring up sub-arguments and thourough book reviews and want rebuttals that don't exist on the web. So, as a compromise, after reviewing your edits of the Whitman page, I can live with the edit - if you adjust the time frame by reversing the two sentences in the first paragraph. The second paragraph is independendent and dosen't need changing. Can we agree on that?--Victor9876 (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS

1. "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not in any of the sources."
2. "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research."
3. "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research. 'A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article.'"

Adding together "Whitman would have died within a year" and "Lavergne hypothesized Whitman would be in jail now if he hadn't been shot" to get "Everything Lavergne said has been discredited" is synthesis, unless a reliable source explicitly says this. arimareiji (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

That's your interpretation. The section merely shows three opposed findings. One by the official medical committee, another by an author, and another of media research. How it gets interpreted, is by the reader.--Victor9876 (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether we shall abandon these rules is what we need an outside opinion on. ...and a skilled writer can use the same facts to influence how something gets understood and it is our responsibility to ensure we don't slant the text unduly. Someone writing this paragraph believing Lavergne "is wrong on most of his views" [3] would have to be especially careful. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As you mention here [[4]], my jaw has been broken from hitting the floor over these exchanges. BMW was right, you were not even considered by me. I'll ask you again to review Occam's Razor and my suggestions to your rewrite that is now posted in the main article. I am prepared to move on as Bwilkens and Centric suggest.--Victor9876 (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

MoveOn.Arrrrrggggghhhhhhh

I put the article in the chronilogical order. Moving on.--Victor9876 (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I would like arbitration on two matters concerning edits of February 27th:

1. Whether Victor9876 is the sole owner of this article, and 2. if the answer to #1 is "no" then I'd like impartial editors to evaluate my edits, compare them to the "undo" by Victor, and determine which is better writing.

If the editors want me to go away, that's o.k. Snipercraft (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you just registered a week ago, it might benefit you to first familiarize yourself with some basic Wikipedia etiquette principles such as assuming good faith and civility. As for dispute resolution procedures, we don't generally request arbitration the first time someone reverts our edit. That is an end venue when dispute resolution hasn't been successful. It might also benefit you to look over the talk page and realize that issues regarding the article are ongoing and are being discussed on this page. You've put forth essentially "choose me or choose him" sort of challenge, which doesn't quite work, as in most situations, editors won't decide on "one or the other", but some sort of consensus on the overall section. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Snipercraft, why did you wait a week to edit? Was it to wait and see what the final outcome of the Whitman talk page would be? And if so, why did you follow my edits exclusively? One on the Lavergne article and three on the Whitman article? Are you an alter ego of Carrt81 who was warned for stalking me after explicitly warning me that you would? Your writing is fine, the removal or altering of facts was the issue. Not the edits themselves. Everyone can edit, but as it says at the bottom of the pages, don't write anything that you don't want mercilessly edited on Wikipedia. You appear to have come in with an agenda, me. Just like Carrt81. That would be re-inforcing the stalking threat if true, and after being warned. I'll concede for your purposes that you are a good writer, but to come in for the purposes of getting someone in trouble, is just wrong.--Victor9876 (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeppers, this is a weird one to be sure. Snipercraft, you must know that this whole issue is being followed as a postscript to a WQA and other subsequent 3O observations. I find it a bit odd that you would create an account, and then jump right in to a hotbed issue like this. My concerns here might be moot, there may be a valid, logical explanation for this. On the face of it however, it appears quite odd. Edit Centric (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Snipercraft, IMO your edits here were quite good. They strengthen some very awkward language, and should be examined on their own merit. For this reason,

1. If you are an existing editor who has not previously edited on this, and the reason you created this account is to avoid retaliation on your main account, you have my sympathies. But please be SURE you're in line with alternative-account policy. It's strongly recommended that you notify ArbCom and/or a checkuser by email (see link for how); doing so won't "out" you to anyone here. If you've already done this, it might be a good idea to say so.
2. If you are an existing editor who has previously edited on this and has stopped editing here from your main account for the same reason as above, both my sympathies and my admonition go double.
3. If you are an existing editor who is currently editing on this page, you're way out of line. Sockpuppetry to create artificial consensus by seeming to have more voices is never justified. arimareiji (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious I am new at this. I am one person with one account. The rest of what you guys are saying is very confusing. I asked for arbitration because I've seen it done before and the history of edits and discussion pages make pretty clear that Victor and Wildhartlivie are two names for the same person who have claimed ownership of this article and all others related to it (like the McCoy and Lavergne articles) and that almost no edits are acceptable to them. I don't have the stomach for the namecalling that will follow. The edits I made did not change the information in the article. This is a very good article with great information, but the writing is awful, even incompetent. For example, in the fourth paragraph there is the "between the brain tumor..." phrase that has no antecedent. What brain tumor? All I was trying to do was polish it up, beginning with the first paragraphs and then working my way down as I had time. Law enforcement is in my background, I've read SNIPER IN THE TOWER (which is a very good book), and I started using my account to contribute to the articles I am interested in. You guys are rather unwelcoming. It's probably best for me to just let you guys have it and wish you luck. I have other things I can do. Is this what Wiki is supposed to be?

I still call for a review of impartial editors. Just to see what would happen. Snipercraft (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)