Talk:Howard Unruh/Archive 1

Archive 1

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Category: American murderers of children

I noticed that an IP user removed "Category:American murderers of children" from this page's categories, but I'm adding that category back. It seems like this person should fit under that category since he did knowingly murder children, along with his other victims. --Apollo1758 (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, the issue was resolved. The category "American murderers of children" is for murders targeted specifically at children. --Apollo1758 (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death

Does anyone know the cause of death? If it emerges in news stories it should be added. DQweny (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the Associated Press,[1] he died after an "extended illness". No other news articles seem to specify any more additional details about the death. -Apollo1758 (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Worst mass murder?

The opening paragraph contains a factually incorrect statement: "At the time, this was the worst mass murder in the history of the United States." Unruh killed 13, which is tragic, but Andrew Kehoe had previously killed 45 in the Bath School disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SumnerH (talk • contribs) 06:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that you are right according to the Wikipedia definition of Mass murder in the eponymous Wiki article. I tried to reword it as "mass shooting," but the mistaken reference in the 2009 newspaper article definitely says "mass murder," so I've had to remove it. DQweny (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Then simply quote the paper for that phrase with, you know, quotation marks, indicating it's their word choice. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the following statement to the introduction: Although his killing spree has been described as "the nation's worst mass murder at the time", the 1927 Bath School disaster had claimed 45 lives. (The following AP source is included: New Jersey Mass Murderer Dies at 88.) I think that this statement acknowledges that Unruh is generally "credited" (by the Associated Press) -- albeit erroneously -- as the worst mass murderer as of 1949. Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

Furthermore ... adding to the confusion (of the above issue) is this: Unruh was considered the first single-episode mass murderer in U.S. history. (Source is: Suspect in historic mass murder dies at 88.) The 1927 Bath School disaster consisted of several separate episodes (three, if I remember correctly), with a total of 45 deaths. Unruh's spree consisted of a single episode, with a total of 13 deaths. Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

Good work. The article still isn't perfect (for example, I don't like the wording of "he hung around the house") but it's on its way to going up in classes of quality. DQweny (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree ... thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

Um, no. What you're doing now is considered original research. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What part exactly is considered "original research"? Statement A - His killing spree has been described as "the nation's worst mass murder at the time". This is a fact, and it is sourced. Statement B - The 1927 Bath School disaster had claimed 45 lives. This is a fact, and it is linked to the full Wikipedia article that is fully sourced. So, what part exactly are you objecting to as constituting original research? Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC))

The merging of those two facts is pretty much the definition of WP:SYNTH; "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 reach conclusion C." The conclusion, in this case, is the implicit assertion that the source that called him the worst is wrong. Leave out the comparison to Bath. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the source that called him the worst is wrong. What do you propose be done about that? DQweny (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It would seem silly (and irresponsible) to keep Statement A, without adding in Statement B. Even though Statement A is sourced, it is indeed incorrect ... and, thus, needs Statement B for some added context. The problem/issue is that Statement A is perpetuated by the Associated Press ... and, thus, largely given credence by many readers ... despite it being factually incorrect. As DQweny asks, what is the solution? I don't think that the proposal by IP 98.248.33.198 is a viable one (that is, keeping Statement A, but removing Statement B, by "leaving out the comparison to Bath"). Thoughts? I liked my original version ... and don't necessarily think that it amounts to synthesis or original research. It is merely the recitation of two sourced statements. As an alternative, I'd say that we can keep out altogether the AP's false statement (Statement A) ... although, to me, that is the less desirable alternative. Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, but WP:SYNTH hasn't anything to do with it. This is just using common sense, because the statement that Unruh's mass murder was the worst in US history at that time is simply wrong, no matter how often this was published or by whom. If the New York Times reported that Mr. X is the tallest person on Earth, being 2,15 m tall, while there are reliable reports about Mr. Y, measuring 2,30 m, then the Times article is just plain incorrect.
Here it says: "Eighty years later, the Bath massacre still ranks as the deadliest mass murder ever at an American school." 45 people died that day, so common sense tells me that a mass murder with 13 people dead happening 20 years later could not have been the worst mass murder in US history at that time. It wasn't even the worst single-episode mass murderer. Both the Los Angeles Times bombing and the Wall Street bombing claimed more lives. The only thing that might be true is that it was the deadliest mass shooting at its time. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC))

External links

The 2009 Philadelphia Inquirer article is listed as both a reference and an external link. It should be removed from one of those two places but I can't decide which. Does someone else want to do the honours? DQweny (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Why can't it be listed as both? I believe that it can. If not -- and if I had my druthers -- we'd keep it as a good external link ... and we can find another source that says essentially the same thing as a reference. Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

Unruh's competence

The obit here states that Unruh was found competent for trial but never tried: "Diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, he confessed to the killings and was judged mentally competent but never tried for the Sept. 6, 1949, massacre." The Wiki article says he was found incompetent and therefore not guilty by reason of insanity (in the infobox). What's the true story? Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Good question. The article that you cite ends with the following statement: "He was eventually pronounced insane and put in a unit for the criminally insane at Trenton Psychiatric Hospital." That was the final disposition. I imagine that -- at the time -- they had conflicting doctors, some assessing Unruh to be competent and some assessing him otherwise. (There were probably political motivations at the time, pressuring some doctors to judge him "competent" so that he could stand trial for the terrible crimes and, thus, assuage public opinion.) In any event, the final disposition was that Unruh was not competent. The original Wikipedia article was incorrect, on this point. I went in and made some edits to correct the inaccuracies. Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC))

File:Unruh 200.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Unruh 200.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)