Talk:1995 Greater Pittsburgh bank robberies

Notability and Citation

Hi all. I am the original poster of this article. I would like to post a bit here about why I believe this article meets notability, citation and NPOV requirements.

Wheeler is a convicted bank robber. While bank robbing is not in and of itself notable, his MO of avoiding notation is VERY unique and possibly one of a kind. Wheeler's exploits have inspired articles in numerous news papers including New York Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and New York Post, as well as academic journals like Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. In fact, the academic journal entries have lead to a niche field of social psychology research dealing with the meta-cognition of competence. As far as POV, I hope this article remains free of any comments attempting to disparage Mr Wheeler's intelligence or education, neither is relevant to any of the above sources or social impact. What's relevant is Wheeler's competence vis a vis the specific act of robbing banks. I am fairly incompetent at this task as well, having had no experience in the matter. Saying that one is not a competent bank robber is not disparaging IMO. Finally, the article is not an orphan, as it now links to and from the main article on Dunning–Kruger_effect which has existed for 7 years and been a high traffic target article.

Where this article continues to need work is in obtaining additional sources that speak to Mr Wheeler's DOB and other activities. Finding such (reliable) sources are proving initially difficult.

I hope this helps with further work on this article or decisions re: relevance. While I make no claims of ownership, I believe I have established that the article meets bare minimum criteria to avoid Speedy Deletion. I would only ask that deletion be submitted for a proposal or that justification for avoiding that proposal be posted here. Thanks. Jaydubya93 (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

To say that "Wheeler's exploits" inspired papers in academic journals like Journal of Personality and Social Psychology is unsupportable and misleading. The Dunning-Kruger paper briefly quotes news coverage of Wheeler but that doesn't mean that his exploits, rather than similar research going back decades, inspired those experiments. Since you talk about "academic journal entries" in the plural, you should provide the other examples that you think exist, in addition to this one passing mention.

Similarly, to say that Wheeler inspired articles in the New York Times and New York Post is similarly misleading. Those articles were about the D-K research whose write-up mentioned Wheeler in passing. They were not about Wheeler or "inspired by" Wheeler and they would have happened if Wheeler had never committed his robberies.

In the article itself, "Social psychologists Justin Kruger and David Dunning were inspired to use his case..." is unsupported by the given reference and highly implausible given that Kruger and Dunning are social psychologists who would know about the prior research.

If these statements you've made had been true, Wheeler might have been notable, but since they're not, the article is a very clear violation of WP:PSEUDO and WP:BLP1E. The merger of this article is being discussed at Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect#Merge_McArthur_Wheeler_to_here and I think the case is very strong. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not create the claim. I will provide the quote from the source and add it to the reference. Jay Dubya (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"David Dunning, a Cornell professor of social psychology, was perusing the 1996 World Almanac. In a section called Offbeat News Stories he found a tantalizingly brief account of a series of bank robberies committed in Pittsburgh the previous year. From there, it was an easy matter to track the case to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, specifically to an article by Michael A. Fuoco: "ARREST IN BANK ROBBERY, SUSPECT’S TV PICTURE SPURS TIPS" At 5 feet 6 inches and about 270 pounds, bank robbery suspect McArthur Wheeler isn’t the type of person who fades into the woodwork. [...] As Dunning read through the article, a thought washed over him, an epiphany. If Wheeler was too stupid to be a bank robber, perhaps he was also too stupid to know that he was too stupid to be a bank robber — that is, his stupidity protected him from an awareness of his own stupidity. Dunning wondered whether it was possible to measure one’s self-assessed level of competence against something a little more objective — say, actual competence. Within weeks, he and his graduate student, Justin Kruger, had organized a program of research. Their paper, “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties of Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-assessments,” was published in 1999." SOURCE: New York Times, The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Something’s Wrong but You’ll Never Know What It Is (Part 1) By ERROL MORRIS JUNE 20, 2010, 9:00 PM http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

In addition, Wheeler is mentioned directly in the study. Morris references the study itself within the New York Times Justin Kruger and David Dunning, “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties of Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-assessments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999, vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 1121-1134. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydubya93 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a genuine surprise to learn that he was the inspiration- thanks for correcting me. I don't know why you point out that Wheeler is mentioned in the D-K paper since I've already repeatedly said this myself in the text you are responding to.

Do you now accept that it was false to say that Wheeler's exploits "have inspired articles in" the New York Times and New York Post? Are we only talk about one academic journal article or multiple papers? Your original claims still seem to be unsupportable and misleading.

For the question of notability, it still seems a very clear case of only being notable for one event. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"Do you now accept that it was false to say that Wheeler's exploits "have inspired articles in" the New York Times and New York Post?" No, I am not sure why that would be the case. Wheeler inspired Dunning. Dunning and Wheeler are both covered in depth in the Times, Post and elsewhere.

Here are quotes from the NY Post story I believe you are referring to: "Charles Darwin observed that “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” That was certainly true on the day in 1995 when a man named McArthur Wheeler boldly robbed two banks in Pittsburgh without using a disguise. Security camera footage of him was broadcast on the evening news the same day as the robberies, and he was arrested an hour later. Mr. Wheeler was surprised when the police explained how they had used the surveillance tapes to catch him. “But I wore the juice,” he mumbled incredulously. He seemed to believe that rubbing his face with lemon juice would blur his image and make him impossible to catch." [...] "The story of McArthur Wheeler was told by social psychologists Justin Kruger and David Dunning in a brilliant paper entitled “Unskilled and Unaware of It.” http://nypost.com/2010/05/23/why-losers-have-delusions-of-grandeur/ Here is GQ Magazine on Wheeler: "In 1995, a criminal called McArthur Wheeler did something stupid: he walked into two banks in Pittsburgh with a gun and demanded money, in full view of the cameras. When police arrested Wheeler that evening, he was incredulous. "But I wore the juice!" he said. Detectives realised that Wheeler believed scrubbing lemon juice on to his face would hide his features on CCTV. When psychologist David Dunning read about Wheeler's story, he was intrigued by one facet: Wheeler was so confident in his abilities, despite his stupidity. Could other people have similar blind spots about their incompetence?" http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/comment/articles/2014-01/10/stupidity-for-dummies Here is Cognizance Magazine on Wheeler: "The story above is from Unskilled and Unaware of It – the psychological study behind the Dunning-Kruger effect. Even though it sounds like a story from D.A.R.E. class, the authors cited Mr. Wheeler’s sober adventure to communicate that incompetent individuals are competent at two things – failing to recognize their shortcomings and overestimating their abilities." Here is the Telegraph on Wheeler: "In 1995, McArthur Wheeler walked into two Pittsburgh banks and robbed them in broad daylight, with no visible attempt at disguise. He was arrested later that night after videotapes of him taken from surveillance cameras were broadcast on the 11 o'clock news. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/4755925/Netlife.html Here are studies and books other than the ones cited that mention Wheeler: There Is an I in Team, Mark De Rond "McArthur Wheeler who, in 1995, robbed two Pittsburgh banks in broad daylight. He had made no visible attempt at disguis. Aided in surveillance tapes, the police were able to arrest him later at night" I can't easily copy+paste these but he is mentioned in the following also: Improving Student Achievement, 2005 Lewis C. Solmon, Kimberly Firetag Agam, Tamara Wingard Schiff Profiling and Serial Crime: Theoretical and Practical Issues, Wayne Petherick Coverage of Wheeler went international and was mentioned in 20 Minutos and in Germany.

I'm trying my best to understand the complaint at this point - I believe you are concerned that Wheeler was non-notable prior to Dunning's work. While prior to Dunning Wheeler was certainly one-issue, I do believe he was noticeable (although of course, less notable). The robberies occurred in 1995, and as a result most of the coverage is in newspapers that are not on the internet. That is one of the reasons why further time is needed for this article; I noted problems with notable references at the beginning of this talk page and what I meant was that most of the information is in newspapers and other non-digital sources. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote multiple front-page stories either devoted to or prominently featuring Wheeler from 1995 to 1997. Here is one of the few that has been digitized (which is separate from the story I cited in the article): http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19960321&id=ZNlRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DXADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6777,3720310

He was also mentioned in the 1996 Almanac where Dunning found him. Jay Dubya (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I discussed one-event notability on the other page briefly, however let's review the one event test so I can demonstrate why in my view Wheeler passes.

-"If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Reliable sources, as noted ad nauseum in sources above I have not had time to actually add to the article, cover the person in the context of two events: #1 Wheeler's bank robberies #2 Dunning's research inspired by Wheeler

-"If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." IMO Wheeler *was* a high profile individual. It is my hope that his mentions in the sources above and in the article help establish that. The coverage of Wheeler extended from 1995 and has continued through 2012.

-"If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented." Hinckley is a great example as a one-event person who deserves his own article, and for largely the same reasons as Wheeler. Wheeler's role in the robberies was #1 substantial, as he was the only robber and the inspiration for a high profile and widely-cited research paper and #2 those events were well documented by multiple sources as cited above.

Jay Dubya (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

In short, BLP1E says: "Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." Wheeler is high-profile, as a result BLP1E does not apply. Jay Dubya (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent work finding citations and expanding the article. If Wheeler is indeed a "high profile" individual, then this dicussion is moot (and the justification for the article is completely different from what you've given at the top of the page), but I don't think you've demonstrated that yet.

You describe these as "two events: #1 Wheeler's bank robberies #2 Dunning's research inspired by Wheeler" But the second one is not a separate event: it's news reportage of the first event being read and then cited by someone else. It's stretching things too much to say that this means Wheeler is famous for two events, because the D-K research is not something that Wheeler did in any sense. On the other hand, it reinforces the idea that it's the anecdote, not the person, which is notable.

You admit yourself that "prior to Dunning Wheeler was certainly one-issue". I don't think his one issue being read about by somebody and inspiring their work is a separate issue in itself. The research did not actually involve Wheeler, and involves tests of skills like people's ability to tell funny from unfunny jokes.

The New York Post, GQ Magazine, Cognizance Magazine, and Telegraph quotes that you reproduce at length are just cases where journalists have reproduced the anecdote from the D-K paper in the context of discussing the D-K research. It is false to say that Wheeler inspired articles in the New York Post and New York Times, as you do at the top of this page: the articles mention him but are not primarily about him, but mention him in the course of talking about something else. Those citations add nothing to what's already in the D-K paper. The same goes for the Improving Student Achievement book and Profiling and Serial Crime book (which can be previewed in Google Books). The latter is just a verbatim copy of the paragraph from the D-K paper.

The general notability criterion requires significant coverage at least three different sources. I hope you realise that if one paragraph of coverage is cited and quoted by lots of people, it's still one piece of coverage.

I accept that there was a lot of coverage of the robberies, even international coverage, but it's coverage of the robbery not the individual and this seems to be exactly the case where BLP1E warns against creating a biographical article. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

At this point I don't have much more to add to the conversation - it doesn't make much sense to spend more space and time defending the article then writing it or working on the other articles on my list. I guess whatever the next step in this process is we should do. Here's the last of what I have :

1.This conversation is taking place 3 days after the article was created and approved by an administrator. At this point the article has 13 citations from reliable sources. Other editors should be given an opportunity to review and contribute to the article before it is removed; additional content can be provided given a reasonable amount of time. 72 hours is unreasonable for a referenced BLP of a public figure (while we are debating whether he's notable or high-profile he is certainly public by any measure). For example I have not been able to acquire his BOP number yet, which will provide a great deal of direct biographical information like his place of birth, family history, etc and which we know exists. 2. All newspaper sources place Wheeler in the lead. Most articles cite Wheeler with the study, however multiple sources cite Wheeler only without the study. I imagine he is placed in the lead because Wheeler and his one event is more compelling to readers than a psychology study, and places it into context. Its my contention that as a result of this repeated media exposure, Wheeler became "high-profile". 3. The study happened in 1999. The robberies in 1995. Most of the Wheeler coverage pre-study is either not online or behind a pay-wall. I have only a few of these pieces. Googling does not provide an accurate account of notability. 4. I have created a new section for impact on subjects other than meta-cognition research that has four examples with citations. There is more available that again requires time to compose and edit. 5. MacArthur Wheeler is similar in many ways to John Hinckley, Jr who is explicitly mentioned in WP:BLP1E as a counter-example. Hinckley just shot the one president, but he has an extensive article here on Wikipedia. The one thing he did sparked public outrage, concern and discussion. The one thing made him high-profile. The argument for ditching Wheeler is akin to saying we should fold Hinckley's article into Reagan's article - because Hinckley is never mentioned without reference to Reagan and would be a nobody without the Reagan shooting. Similarly, using the logic here we should also dismiss our current Hinckley references like "Doctors: Reagan shooter is recovering, not a danger" and "Man who attempted to assassinate Reagan wants more visits to Williamsburg" as irrelevant because they contain no biographical information about Hinckley that is not related from his one notable event (the Hinckley shooting). Jay Dubya (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI this is what I am looking at to determine High Profile status. Spec. "High-profile: As of the writing (or review/editing) of the article (or as of the article subject's death) is (or was) engaged in high-profile activity, as described above, with or without a lifelong history of such activities. Or was engaged in high-profile activity as a lifelong endeavor, but is now (or at the end was) attempting to be low-profile. Typically notable or would-be notable for roles of various levels of importance in more than a single major event, or for a major role in one major event."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual#Behavior_pattern_and_activity_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydubya93 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Notability again in 2022

@IceWelder: Since you've turned this from a redirect into a full article, you seem to think that Wheeler is notable, and not a case of WP:BLP1E. Or maybe you want to move the article to be about the robberies and not the person? Either way, could you set out your argument here on the Talk page? MartinPoulter (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I principally reverted a merge performed without proper consensus that resulted in the subject losing all coverage on Wikipedia. I seized this opportunity to enhance the article with additional details from old newspapers.

As for BLP1E, I don't think it fully applies here as the subject has had sustained coverage in some form over three decades. WP:GNG should be met.

Regardless, I would not oppose moving it to a title more representative of the event than the person. The copyedited article is more about that anyways. IceWelder [✉] 14:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Dubious citations

While the story described in the article is well known and often repeated, it's notable that only one citation on this article can really be considered an "original" source that backs up the claim of lemon juice being used as a disguise, and even that article does not itself provide a source for that information.

Other (online) citations which mention this aspect of the story either mention articles that only confirm a robbery took place or simply assume the information as known fact.

Admittedly, I am aware that just because I've been unable to find reliable proof that the robbery proceeded as described, does not mean that it didn't, so I thought I'd make a topic rather than wordlessly plastering the page with the tag. But the point still stands that the citations provided on the page itself do not prove the information contained is factual.

TL;DR this pages' citations don't seem to provide satisfactory evidence for some of its claims SleepyPrincex (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The January 1996 source cites the persecution in the case against Wheeler for the lemon juice claim; the March 1996 piece furthered this with additional research and interviews with involved police officers. Both are contemporary sources (Wheeler's case as ruled in January 1996), so I don't think there is much of an issue here. All later-published sources are used for analysis and commentary. IceWelder [✉] 19:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)