While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I know it's not complete. I actually can't believe nobody has created it already. Fxmastermind ( talk) 17:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for the raw unfinished version. It's been so long since I created or edited anything here, I forgot most of it. But the beauty of wikipedia is the crowd effort. Fxmastermind ( talk) 17:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
You know, instead of adding tags, you could, you know, do some editing and clean up and fix the things you tagged. Because it actually takes less time. Just saying. Fxmastermind ( talk) 18:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
When did an actual video of an event, posted on Twitter, become "not a good source"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxmastermind ( talk • contribs) 03:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
THIS edit removed key info which showed that 8 church members responded to the assailant with their own guns. The video which was included as the reference highlighted seven armed responders after the shooter had taken two shots, and did not count the first armed responder who was killed while attempting to draw his weapon after having stood up. So it is clear that the total number of armed responders clearly shown in the livestream was 8. The edit summary offered by WWGB was this:
The rebuttal I presented in the subsequent edit included this:
Simple observation of a source video does not constitute WP:OR. Anyone can watch the livestream and count this themselves. I myself have no current plans to make any more edits to this article. But it is clear to me that important and accurate info got deleted under improper interpretation of the OR policy. And that proper action will be to re-add the info that this livestream clearly showed 8 church members responding with their own guns. I will leave it to others here to improve this article. My opinion is that removal of those words was not necessary, nor useful.-- Concord19 ( talk) 08:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the exact timing of how long it took for all 3 shots to be triggered. The shooting was over after 2 seconds. I know this because I took the source audio, and timed it. And NO, it does not constitute Original Research to apply something as simple and basic as a stopwatch. When an editor takes a source, and examines it in the easiest of ways that absolutely anyone else can check on their own, then it is not "research". It is simply documenting facts. -- Concord19 ( talk) 16:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Exactly wrong. This is the very definition of OR in it's most basic and obvious form. There is some allowance made in a situation where (for example) an Editor wants to convert "two minutes and twenty one one hundred seconds" to "2:21" (or similar). You are not a "reliable source". Nothing you "measure" yourself can be used in the Wikipedia. If the information doesn't exist in a reliable source, it cannot be used in the Wikipedia. There's a lot of really good reasons for this, but you have to spend some time thinking about what any alternative would look like in actual practice. Example, I measured the audio and according to me the shooting takes 2:23:05. Now we have a dispute. Who's correct? Should we compromise? Ask a 3rd party to measure the audio to see which of us is correct? Then Wikipedia goes from the information reporting business to the information manufacturing business. 68.206.249.124 ( talk) 15:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
An actual video of an event, or what somebody on the TV tells you happened?
One might ask the same question about a wikipedia article.
Fxmastermind ( talk) 18:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
The Governor gave the "highest civilian award" to Jack Wilson, for his role in the shooting. This should be added to the article. Source: Parishioner, 71, who shot dead church gunman is honored with Texas' highest civilian award but claims he's not a hero, he's just 'not one to walk away'. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 06:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Given the shooters criminal history, it would make sense to have that information in the article. YatesTucker00090 ( talk) 22:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know where it's stated, or if it is Wikipedia 'policy' now, but it seems there is some sort of organized effort, both on Wikipedia, and in the actual world, to not mention the name of anyone who kills a bunch of people. Nor to have an article about the person, but rather bury them inside an article that is just about the murders.
By this reasoning, Stalin, Nixon, Hitler, Mao, Genghis Khan, and a whole bunch (like, a really big bunch) of other people should not have a Wikipedia page. Just bury a short note about them inside an article. Eventually we might not even need that. Just refer to them as "the murderer".
Like how we call somebody "the shooter" now.
Fxmastermind ( talk) 12:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I know it's not complete. I actually can't believe nobody has created it already. Fxmastermind ( talk) 17:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for the raw unfinished version. It's been so long since I created or edited anything here, I forgot most of it. But the beauty of wikipedia is the crowd effort. Fxmastermind ( talk) 17:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
You know, instead of adding tags, you could, you know, do some editing and clean up and fix the things you tagged. Because it actually takes less time. Just saying. Fxmastermind ( talk) 18:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
When did an actual video of an event, posted on Twitter, become "not a good source"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxmastermind ( talk • contribs) 03:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
THIS edit removed key info which showed that 8 church members responded to the assailant with their own guns. The video which was included as the reference highlighted seven armed responders after the shooter had taken two shots, and did not count the first armed responder who was killed while attempting to draw his weapon after having stood up. So it is clear that the total number of armed responders clearly shown in the livestream was 8. The edit summary offered by WWGB was this:
The rebuttal I presented in the subsequent edit included this:
Simple observation of a source video does not constitute WP:OR. Anyone can watch the livestream and count this themselves. I myself have no current plans to make any more edits to this article. But it is clear to me that important and accurate info got deleted under improper interpretation of the OR policy. And that proper action will be to re-add the info that this livestream clearly showed 8 church members responding with their own guns. I will leave it to others here to improve this article. My opinion is that removal of those words was not necessary, nor useful.-- Concord19 ( talk) 08:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the exact timing of how long it took for all 3 shots to be triggered. The shooting was over after 2 seconds. I know this because I took the source audio, and timed it. And NO, it does not constitute Original Research to apply something as simple and basic as a stopwatch. When an editor takes a source, and examines it in the easiest of ways that absolutely anyone else can check on their own, then it is not "research". It is simply documenting facts. -- Concord19 ( talk) 16:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Exactly wrong. This is the very definition of OR in it's most basic and obvious form. There is some allowance made in a situation where (for example) an Editor wants to convert "two minutes and twenty one one hundred seconds" to "2:21" (or similar). You are not a "reliable source". Nothing you "measure" yourself can be used in the Wikipedia. If the information doesn't exist in a reliable source, it cannot be used in the Wikipedia. There's a lot of really good reasons for this, but you have to spend some time thinking about what any alternative would look like in actual practice. Example, I measured the audio and according to me the shooting takes 2:23:05. Now we have a dispute. Who's correct? Should we compromise? Ask a 3rd party to measure the audio to see which of us is correct? Then Wikipedia goes from the information reporting business to the information manufacturing business. 68.206.249.124 ( talk) 15:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
An actual video of an event, or what somebody on the TV tells you happened?
One might ask the same question about a wikipedia article.
Fxmastermind ( talk) 18:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
The Governor gave the "highest civilian award" to Jack Wilson, for his role in the shooting. This should be added to the article. Source: Parishioner, 71, who shot dead church gunman is honored with Texas' highest civilian award but claims he's not a hero, he's just 'not one to walk away'. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 06:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Given the shooters criminal history, it would make sense to have that information in the article. YatesTucker00090 ( talk) 22:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know where it's stated, or if it is Wikipedia 'policy' now, but it seems there is some sort of organized effort, both on Wikipedia, and in the actual world, to not mention the name of anyone who kills a bunch of people. Nor to have an article about the person, but rather bury them inside an article that is just about the murders.
By this reasoning, Stalin, Nixon, Hitler, Mao, Genghis Khan, and a whole bunch (like, a really big bunch) of other people should not have a Wikipedia page. Just bury a short note about them inside an article. Eventually we might not even need that. Just refer to them as "the murderer".
Like how we call somebody "the shooter" now.
Fxmastermind ( talk) 12:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)