Talk:Matthew J. Murray

Letter to God and original research

Thanks everyone for your work to finally keep this to the facts and provide good sourcing. I notice an addition to the Letter to God section. The observations about the letter in the last sentence seem to be original research, and I read it as implying that KMGH did not know firsthand that they were indeed expletives before censorship occurred. Neither source makes this observation. I could also surmise from the letter that the censored words read "stupid cunt" "fucking cunt" and "stupid cunt", but to say so in namespace would also be original research. Rather than arguing over what the letter actually says or drawing our own conclusions or making our own observations in namespace, shouldn't we just stick to what the journalists have noted?

I know it may be difficult to trust those sources, especially after the "Hate mail" retraction, but eventually I think the process works itself out and we should just stick to what these sources claim to know, while attributing clearly so the reader can decide if these source are reliable. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intended implication is simply what KMGH reported: That the letter was "laden with expletives". Were these four words expletives? Probably, but we can't say for certain as the source did not say. However, KMGH does present a letter, with four words blacked out. That much is sourced, and I provided that source for readers to view. There is, after all, a difference between an observation and a conclusion: Every claim in namespace is an observation, whether based on cited sources or not. -- JeffBillman (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I propose this article be merged to 2007 Colorado YWAM and New Life shootings, as this article deals almost exclusively with that event. -- JeffBillman (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The shooting and the person who committed it are separate subjects and must be handled in separate articles. As there appears to be no further support for the merger, I am removing the merger proposal template. Dgf32 (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be any support for much of anything concerning this article. *shrugs* It's just as well. In another five years, both articles will probably make it to AfD for insufficient notability. Until then, two articles on the matter aren't going to kill us. -- JeffBillman (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should be merged. The shooter does not have notability independent from the event. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]