Talk:Christine Chubbuck/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Christine Chubbuck. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Appropriate?

seems almost cruel to put the Spouse:None label under her picture...

Thank you, removed it. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

source?

"The techical director of the broadcast had seen her pull out the gun, and somehow reacted quickly enough to cut the video to black a split-second before she pulled the trigger. But the sound of the gunshot was clearly audible to viewers."

The above was added by StanislavJ -- where did that information come from??? I've read everything I could find about Ms. Chubbuck and nowhere did it say anything like that.

Also, what happened to the picture of her????

It was deleted because it was under copyright. If you can find one that isn't, though, please add it --Clngre 00:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

While reading some Cuban history, I discovered that there is a precedent for this kind of public suicide, although this one occurred on the radio. I quote from "Fidel: A Critical Portrait" by Tad Szulc:

"On the evening of Sunday, August 5, 1951, Senator Eduardo Chibas shot himself in the abdomen during his weekly radio program, attempting to commit public suicide and changing the course of Cuban history when he died eleven days later".

Bad editing

"She then shot herself. While the technical director reacted quickly enough to cut the on-air video to black a split-second before she pulled the trigger, a Washington Post journalist later recounted viewing the continued footage on the line feed. However, there is evidence to the contrary."

AAARRRRGH!! I can't stand paragraphs like this. Please, everyone, if you know something is incorrect, change the information, and preferably (certainly in this case) back it up with some kind of citation. If you can't find citation to back up "your" version, simply leave it alone, but the one thing you definitely shouldn't do is have a conversation with the article. It drives me utterly nuts when an article makes a claim in one direction and then immediately follows it with "However, some say that is not the case, though." This is an encyclopedia, not a message board. I'm going to do some intensive Google research and try to fix this paragraph, but in the meantime, if anyone actually knows the extent to which the suicide went over airwaves, and has citation to back up their assertion, please rescue this article. MrBook 20:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad editing resolved - though the existance of the video still remains unproven. At least we now have a link to a PFD of the article. Rklawton 00:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice. It's looking good now. Nothing wrong with ambiguity, if that's the actual state of what's known about the case. It's the contradiction within the same paragraph that was driving me nuts. Apologies for the outburst. MrBook 13:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries. At least someone got a start on the article. Do we have some sort of tag people can use that would group articles into a "copyedit please" list? Some folks do great research; some folks write well; and we should try to pair them up... kinda like pairing up people who talk to themselves (at least they give the appearance of having a conversation). Rklawton 15:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Good question. The closest thing I can think of is the Cleanup tag, although that's used more for general article crumminess than for word trouble specifically. There might be an area like you're talking about, but I tend to get lost in the parts of this site out of normal article namespace, so I dunno. Anyone? Anyone? MrBook 18:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

MrBook what do you have against posting things like "a Washington Post journalist later recounted viewing the continued footage on the line feed. However, there is evidence to the contrary."? It shows that some say one thing while evidence points to another posibility, and is valid.

Without citing the evidence, it is useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.164.124 (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Birthplace

I removed the reference to Chubbuck's birthplace, as the edit had created an orphan sentence fragment at the beginning of the article. The information is probably worth mentioning in the article, but I couldn't find a place to put it when I fixed the fragment. If anybody can figure out how to re-add the info without making the first sentence unfinished or otherwise awkward, please do. Here's what I changed it (back) from:

Christine Chubbuck (also named "Chris Hubbock" by some sources) (August 24, 1944 – July 15, 1974).

Born in Hudson, Ohio, Chubbuck was an American television news reporter who committed suicide during a live television broadcast.

MrBook 18:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

FixedRklawton 15:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hollow point Bullets

I am taking out the bit saying that hollow points fragment on impact, which they dont, and replacing it with the correct function of hollow point ammo, greater expansion than other bullets = greater damage. Craig Humphreys, Not a member.

First name basis?

The article referred to its subject by her first name in far too many instances. This is not how things should be done in an encyclopedia, where we are trying to write articles, not letters to friends about other friends. I have left her first name in cases where two women are referred to in the same sentence and "she" would be ambigious and where the last name would appear twice or more in one sentence, but that's about it. Rlquall 13:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal information

It can be discovered that her brother Tim is an interior decorator, yes - likewise I recently spoke to her other brother Greg, who runs Chubbuck Oil - but neither of these facts are relevant to the article, and I'm going to remove mention of Tim's current-day profession from the article in the interests of privacy. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Her brother Tim was an interior decorator, but he died in 1987. There is an obituary in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. No reason his profession needs to be in there, go ahead and get rid of it. - Anonymous updater from the 17th.

Thanks for the updates, they did add some interesting new information to the article - any chance you have online sources that 'verify' the updates at all that we can insert as references? :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 09:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I can get a citation for the Valerie Rubin article and the article mentioning the forestry award; I have them available. I see the Rubin mention is gone, now, though, and a number of sentences have been reverted since last night. The Cronkite note is gone as well. The remainder of the extant "citation needed"'s are all from telephone interviews with former WXLT employees. I'm not sure about putting their names in here. Jean Reed, for example, passed away 3 years ago, so that's fine. Is there another way to cite interviews without names? - Anon.

Well the trouble is dodging the WP:NOR guidelines, since "technically" interviews you delivered yourself shouldn't be included unless you have them published somewhere - but I imagine on a non-controversial article like this, we can bend the lines a little bit. The forestry award article would be a great place to start, you don't need to even have the source online, if you can just say "New York Times, December 11th, 1984" or something, that works as well :) The one statement that seemed contradictory was that she had "had serious relationships before" - since it was my understanding she had "never been on more than two dates with a man" - any help clearing this up? Thanks. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 11:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I finally cleared things up with those article references, and, just now, with a reference to the source on the "more than one date." - Anon. 1/9/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.46.6.69 (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm a little confused by the reference to an E! show that apparently doesn't air for another six weeks? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I worked on it and put the citation in early because I know the content of the finished program as well as the research materials collected for it. - continued anonymous

Sorry...we can't use it. It's original research as it hasn't been broadcast yet, and it also violates the copyright to write about it before it is shown. See 24 (season 6) for a major war that erupted over people adding in plot summaries for episodes that hadn't aired yet. Hbdragon88 07:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

9-1-1

Was the 9-1-1 line avaialble there in 1974? Or did viewers simply call the operator and ask for the police/emergency authorities, or dial the police/emergency authorities directly? Sir Rhosis 16:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I wondered that, too. I looked at WIki's 9-1-1 page (sorely lacking in sources), and according to it 9-1-1 was first implemented in 1968. It may or may not have been available in FLA in 1974. The problem with newspaper sources is that they are difficult (or expensive) for Wikipedians to review. Cap'n Walker 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved to St. Petersburg, which is near Sarasota, in 1976 and they were just starting to roll out 9-1-1, so maybe the article is in error?? Mdell27 12:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote from brother to E!

I can't figure out what this sentence means:

He described her presenting herself as "dateless" to her ongoing depressive self-deprecation.

Since I haven't seen the program, can someone else interpret who or what she presented herself as "dateless" to?

It's confusing wording, I'll try to fix. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Recorded?

has a recording of the televised suicide been released to the public? NorthernThunder 22:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the video of her suicide was immediately seized by police as evidence. After the investigation concluded, the tape was turned over to the Chubbuck family. It is widely believed to have been destroyed. --HillbillyProfane (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Video of suicide

Can someone add a link to a video of her suicide? I would like to see it, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.183.219 (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no video. From what I've read, the police seized it as evidence and the family later had it destroyed to keep it from being seen publicly. Pinkadelica 07:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Word play and puns

The last sentence in the Depression section is "She was fond of word play and puns." That seems so random to me. Perhaps, if it is important at all to be mentioned here, it should be incorporated into the biography section? WDavis1911 (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC).

The video was stolen and put on my villife. Check it...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.79.248.43 (talk • contribs) 21:05, July 5, 2008)

11hrs Shot to Death or 14hrs Shot to Death

Description first lists death occuring 11hrs after the pistol shot, then shortly later it lists 14hrs. Which ever figure is published in the official account should be used. (TurboManiacal) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe her script (prediction) stated 11 hours, but it actually took 14. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.142.100 (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Footage

"The Sarasota Sheriff's Department file lists a copy of the tape seized as evidence and later released it to Christine's family along with her possessions." Have they destroyed it? Does any other copy remain on file? Coolgamer (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read "Recorded" and "Video of Suicide" above. --DangApricot (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

But is there proof that it was destroyed? Coolgamer (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read that the FCC has a copy of it. Marilyn Fletcher with E! News supposedly has a copy. At least according to documents I've seen. Michael556 (talk)

"Documents?" Elaborate, please. I'm not sure why the FCC would have had (or has) a copy. Despite the police seizure of the original 2" tape, it is entirely possible that copies were made before it was handed over. Yes, this was pre-Betamax as far as consumer machines go, but most TV stations also had 3/4" U-Matic videocassette machines (the technology that begat the 1/2" Betamax system) by that time, used not for broadcast, but internally to produce more convenient viewing/reference/archive copies when needed. Unless the tape was immediately impounded right after the incident (and I've never seen a timeline or chain of possession on it), someone could have easily knocked off a 3/4" copy. But if copies do exist, it is hard to imagine that the footage hasn't leaked out to the Net by now. StanislavJ (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thing that has always puzzled me is: why was this tiny station even bothering to tape a local public affairs show with a minuscule audience in the first place. There's no evidence from schedules of the era that Suncoast Digest was ever tape-delayed or rerun. Unless they routinely taped it for talent and crew to critique their performance, then the tape normally wiped and reused the next day? StanislavJ (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom for example all live broadcast material is recorded and kept for at least 60 days in the event of failure of compliance or any potential legal action, say for defamation. I would imagine the United States has a similar protocol and that would explain why such a programme was recorded From the North.

No one knows for sure if the family has THE ONLY available footage. Something like this just doesn't disappear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael556 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty well documented that the cops turned over the original 2" tape to the family. As I said above, the only possibility for footage to exist is if someone at the station, in the midst of the panic and shock and before the cops showed up and seized the original, knocked off a copy in whatever format and spirited it away. And given the extraordinary nature of the footage, and the number of ghouls who want to see it, if it hasn't turned up in the last 35 years, it ain't out there.StanislavJ (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I take exception and object to your characterization of people seeking the chubbuck video as "ghouls". Some people happen to be collectors of suicide vids or other types of death videos, and the Chubbuck tape could "complete the set" as it were, as it is easily the rarest one, or god forbid, may be lost forever. Wanting to see a famous and unusual video like this is human nature, and hardly "ghoulish".

I assume that you're just trolling, but in case you're not, you described a person so sick that he should consider himself happy to be only called a ghoul. 62.152.162.200 (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

See urban dictionary's definition of ghoul, particularly entry 6. StanislavJ doesn't necessarily imply that everyone who wants to see it is a "ghoul", but that there are a large number of "ghouls" who do. The fact that their collective enthusiasm for the subject has not led to the discovery of the film suggests that it cannot be found. 128.227.87.201 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, FWIW, I just deleted some comments that were somehow appended to one of my posts above, anonymously. (I didn't think that was possible, given SineBot, but someone figured out a way to do it...) If you can't sign your comment, don't post it at all (and for sure, don't try to "piggyback" it onto mine!).StanislavJ (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Howling

The section on The Howling misrepresents the plot of The Howling and offers no citation that the the event is a reenactment. In the film The character of Karen White does not commit suicide but is shot by another survivor.

I have removed the reference and it can be reinstated when an authoritative source (should be quoting one of the filmmakers) indicating that it was a deliberate allusion to the Chubbuck case. Verlaine76 (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Correction needed

There is an issue with this article. At the end it contains the statement:

Attempted suicide

Why would Chubbuck deliberately use the phrase "attempted suicide", and not just "suicide"? Was there any reason for that? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If her "notes" were an indicator, perhaps she didn't think she would die instantly, or might survive? Jill Orly (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. She had no way of knowing if her attempt would be successful, although she took steps to ensure it would. Raider Duck (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Spurious "shooting video"

People keep posting a link to an alleged Chubbuck shooting video, despite general Internet consensus that it's a fake. Please stop posting links or referring to its existence unless it is reliably determined to be genuine. As it is, the video appears to be a re-creation artificially "aged" to make it look genuine. Several key details are incorrect, such as the lack of a southern accent, video remaining on for several seconds after the suicide (contemporary reports stated the cameraman began fading to black as soon as she pointed the gun at her head), and a close-but-incorrect station logo. In addition, there would be no reason for a professionally-shot color videotape recorded on top-notch (for 1974) equipment to be grainy black and white. Raider Duck (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there would be a very simple reason for it to be in black and white: the original color tape being transferred/duplicated to another tape format that only registered in B&W. Tape degradation would account for any grain. I'm not stating that the tape is real, but you're making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. (Sellpink (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC))

Point taken, but there's another factor I didn't think of (or read) before: the videotape itself. The state-of-the-art in 1974 was two-inch videotape, which has not been produced in decades. When Led Zeppelin was producing its 2003 DVD, the producers discovered the 1975 concert footage from Earl's Court was shot on that same two-inch videotape. They had to literally search A/V companies and TV stations the world over to locate ONE two-inch videotape player that still worked. What are the odds of some poster on an Internet shock site locating a machine in working order over a decade later? It's much more likely (especially given the other inconsistencies noted above) that it's a re-creation of the event. Raider Duck (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2017

This edit request to Christine Chubbuck has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add a link to an article about the video on Youtube about her filmed suicide that was recently uploaded on the site. WikiInky (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 21:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2017

This edit request to Christine Chubbuck has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request permission to add a proper link to a video that has been recently uploaded on youtube showing the broadcast of the described person in the article committing suicide on air. WikiInky (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done. YouTube is not a reliable source, especially for this sort of thing, and especially if the uploader doesn't own the copyright. See also discussion above about the video likely being a fake. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2017

This edit request to Christine Chubbuck has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Eeag (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Chistine Chubbuck in an interview (3).png, File:Chistine Chubbuck in an interview (2).png, File:Chistine Chubbuck in an interview (1).png

Not done: All images are currently tagged for CSD due to unclear licensing. — IVORK _Discuss 06:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed copyvio images, captioned "Frame taken from a footage where Christine Chubbuck is doing an interview on her show called Suncoast Digest."

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2018

This edit request to Christine Chubbuck has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the aftermath section it states: In 2016, Greg gave an interview to The Sun newspaper, stating that he had gained possession of the videotape of his sister's suicide, but had never seen it and intended that it never be shown or released. It cites an interview with 'The Sun', but in that article there's no mention of him gaining access/possession of this tape, only that he got an injunction. That sentence should be removed. 2600:8801:2280:1170:4EA:9B7B:938:957B (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Done BillHPike (talk, contribs) 12:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Spurious Chayefsky connection - suggest removing.

There's a paragraph claiming that Nwtwork was inspired by Chubbuk and then another couple of sources refuting this. This seems pointlessly contradictory, wouldn't it be best just to remove this as it seems it's more supposition than anything else.Verlaine76 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Verlaine76 - I stumbled across Chubbuck's story yesterday and was immediately struck by the similarity to the plotline of Network (1976 film). Reading this wiki page I expected to find some reference to the similarity/connection. Rather than removing the text altogether I think the article needs some text actively refuting the notion that Chayefsky was inspired by Chubbuck. I'll have a go at working up some more appropriate text. Cabayi (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me.Verlaine76 (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Verlaine76 - Not so.

Cabayi (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry as was is already called out in that article for putting out such inaccurate speculation - encyclopaediae are usually not the places for active refutations. But if you must put such a reference to it in, and turn this into snopes.com, do so, I can't really stop you. I suggest an new heading, such as "Not in popular culture." or something similar.Verlaine76 (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Verlaine76 - I hope the hope the "See also" link I've added addresses your concerns about undue prominence just as it addresses my concerns about ignoring the similarity altogether. Cabayi (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)