Talk:Wichita Massacre

Tags

There are some serious issues with this article. First, who calls it the Wichita Massacre? If the name derives from an attributable source, we should cite it. Second, much of the language is overwrought tabloid phrasing, e.g. "saw the horror". The article should be rewritten in encyclopedic tone. If there is horror to be expressed, it should come from sources, e.g. "The Wichita Star called it 'the most horrific crime in Wichita history'", or "Judge Smith told the defendants they were the worst scum he had ever had the pleasure to send to prison" (hypothetical examples). Third, the importance of the incident should be made clear. If it's important because of the Supreme Court case, that should be made clear. If it's important because of media coverage, that should be made clear (in this case, it can't, because media coverage was limited for whatever reason). -- Dhartung | Talk 04:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but can you cite a Wiki guideline on your suggestion? No offense to you but if someone can not see the inate "horror" of this crime then I would wonder about the humanity of the reader. But if there is some specific guideline then of course that would prevail. Jtpaladin 22:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The cbsnews.com source states that it "has become known locally as the 'Wichita Massacre' and the 'Wichita Horror.'" so I don't think there's anything wrong with that title. --P4k 21:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Locally" to whom? In Wichita it's invariably "the Carr brothers murders." I'm pretty sure only people outside of Wichita refer to it as "the Wichita" anything.

Some issue with this article

One: The references are being numbered (1, 2, 3, 4) in the text of the article, but there are no corresponding numbers in the References section.

Two: The picture of the victims has one victim incorrectly listed as Heather Miller (instead of Muller). Is there any way to correct the text in the photo? (JosephASpadaro 05:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

Apparently the photo has already been corrected. Thanks to the uploader for that. (I don't know if we'll get to keep the photo if the copyright elves get around to checking it, though.) As for the numbering, JosephASpadaro, that's how MediaWiki works; see Help:Link#External_links for more information. If the links are converted to Cite.php format as in Help:Footnotes, they will appear in a separate section; they do not correspond to the External links, except by chance. --Dhartung | Talk 17:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. All of the other articles that I have read in Wikipedia seem to format the numbers and references differently than this article. Then what, exactly, do the reference / footnote numbers (1,2,3,4) in the article refer to? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 01:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

They are just links. When you do not give an external link some text, you get a number.

[1] <-- number

text <-- text

As I said, this article does not have its references formatted. There are four or five different ways to do references on Wikipedia and they don't all work the same way. Many editors do it this way because it's simpler. Please follow the Help links provided. --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Great - thanks for the helpful info. (JosephASpadaro 02:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

Criminal Sentence

Were they sentenced to death or life in prison? It's not very clear. Or, were they sentenced to death, and that was appealed, and since then they have been sentenced to life in prison? Have they been executed yet? It's not clear at all. Someone who knows please clarify. Thanks. As of now, it says "they were sentenced to death [...] They were also sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 20 years [...] Reginald Carr was sentenced to 47 years in prison for his conviction on other crimes, and Jonathan Carr was sentenced to 41 years on other convictions." What does this mean? -Bluedog423^Talk 17:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Let me try to answer your questions here. I hope I can help. Remember -- during this crime spree, the brothers engaged in (and were convicted of) many different charges. Various charges received different sentences. So, they were sentenced to death (on some of the charges) ... and they were ALSO sentenced to life (on some of the other charges). In addition, they received prison sentences of X number of years (41 years for one brother and 47 years for the other brother) on still other charges. So, to answer your Question #1 ... they were sentenced to death AND they were also sentenced to life in prison. As far as your Question #2 ... (Or, were they sentenced to death, and that was appealed, and since then they have been sentenced to life in prison?) ... the answer is "no." That was not what happened. They were sentenced to death independent of the life sentence, and they were also sentenced to life independent of the death sentence. In summary ... separate charges and separate crimes led to separate sentences. Question #3 -- no, they have not yet been executed. If they are ever executed, I am sure that will be many years down the line. Question #4, I think, has been answered (above) in my responses to your Questions #1 and #2. I hope this clarifies. Basically, prosecutors will try to get many different sentences on the many different crimes so that -- if any one sentence is appealed and reversed, at least the other sentences might "stick." For example, let's say that the death sentences were reversed, at least the brothers still have to serve the life sentences. And, let's say the life sentences were reversed, at least the brothers still have to serve the death sentence. And, let's say that BOTH the death sentences AND the life sentences are appealed and reversed, then at least the brothers still have to serve the 41 and 47 years in prison. So, prosecutors will try to insure that -- no matter what a higher level appeal court does -- the brothers cannot ever step foot in free society again. If you have any other questions, please ask. The article states exactly what I have stated above, but I can understand how it might not be clear and might confuse you. (JosephASpadaro 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for all the info. It will do good inside the article by the way.

Black Profiling on this page

the first thing you see when you come to this page is two BLACK men. this is misleading because it makes people think that ALL blacks commit massacres. pleas fix the page with a better picture that doesnt make people thing black people commit massacres.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.236.113 (talk • contribs)

They were some black mother fuckers who killed decent white people. How does that sound for you? Because it's the truth. You're the only one implying racism.

Maybe it would please you if their faces were painted blank? Your point is ridiculous. This article is only stating facts. It isn't implying what you're rambling about: racism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.149.15 (talk • contribs)

Somehow I think if it says "two WHITE men", 64.24.236.113 wouldn't say anything.--Anthonysenn (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It was that exact kind of thinking that kept this story out of the national media. If it HAD been two white men with white victims, it would have been a nationwide story. If it had been two white men with black victims, it would have been international news.131.61.211.15 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The OP is mentally retarded; the Carr brothers are black, it would only be reasonable to portray them as such. Would he rather see us portray them as South Korean Albinos with 3 heads and 4 arms? - rock8591 03:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

I got rid of disturbing POV material and will be watching this page for reverts. Somebody please read WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:SYNTH, pretty please.Simonm223 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

sorry but stating clearly defined facts of thier race isnt profiling and they are clearly referenced in their news articles so im reverting them back. thanks. infernalpact5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.49.10 (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no viable reason to mention the race of either party in the lead of this article. Looking at the article Assassination of Martin Luther King, I see NO mention of race in the lead. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"Some observers protested that if a similar outrage had been perpetrated against blacks by whites, it would have been assumed to be racist. The question asked of H.G. about whether or not she had previously had sex with a black man suggests race was on his mind." -trutv refrence number 1. @kansasbear if this was the martin luther king article that would be true. but it isnt. clearly refrenced material has a right to be stated. theres no racisim involved just your opinion. and pov isnt allowed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.49.10 (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I'd concur that Sowell meets Wikipedia criteria as a WP:RS but the other two... talking heads... referenced in the section wouldn't be reliable sources that it was raining even if they were sitting next to an open window.Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd leave them included, they both maintain a moderately popular column/website and they've both written a detailed article on the incident in said outlet. Incidentally I also find it interesting to note that considering the whole controversy section is about race, that these three people of different races have all reached the same conclusion. However I do agree they are not nearly as notable or respected as Sowell, so if you choose to remove them I won't appose you further. Freikorp (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I will wait for a third party to comment on reliability. However a graduate from a community college english program who maintains a blog and who became notable for being a talking head on conservative news programs is not, in my opinion, a reliable source for discussion of race relations regardless of her skin colour. Notwithstanding that Sowell appears to have valid credentials for the topic at hand and would constitute a RS so the Sowell referenced material will not be removed by me regardless of the status of the confirming references.Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)