Jump to content

Talk:Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Assassination

This article should entitled "Assassination of Alison Ward and Adam Ward". Both were public figures and were killed in an extremely public setting. 147.153.84.5 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Assassination is a word used to describe the murder of a prominent political figure or ruler. As tragic as these deaths are, they were not assassinated; they were murdered. --SpyMagician (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines "Assassination" as "the murder of a prominent person, often but not always a political leader or ruler, usually for political reasons or payment." The definition goes to say that "[a]n assassination may be prompted by religious, political, or military motives; it is an act that may be done for financial gain, to avenge a grievance, from a desire to acquire fame or notoriety, or because of a military, security or insurgent group's command to carry out the homicide." This event more than satisfies the requirements of that definition. 147.153.84.5 (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Murder is plenty clear here.Juneau Mike (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Murder is the correct term. What happened does not meet the definition of an assassination. 98.67.185.209 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
We should only begin to entertain using the term "assassination" when our sources do. --207.108.42.250 (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
“…when our sources do.” Exactly. Some loonball ex-coworker killing someone over a complaint to HR—sounds like that is truly the “reason/rationalle” for this horror—should not be elevated to level of assassin. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Should the "assassination" page be changed to preclude instances such as this then? Should the Wikipedia definition not include: "it is an act that may be done for financial gain, to avenge a grievance, from a desire to acquire fame or notoriety" if such killings are not to be classified as "assassination"? 147.153.84.5 (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Look, please reread what @207.108.42.250 has said; emphasis is mine: “We should only begin to entertain using the term "assassination" when our sources do.” Wikipedia is not a news source or comentator but a content aggregator that adheres to a neutral point of view. Your desire to characterize this as an “assassination” is baseless and based on what can be considered original research. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Just curious, but how many sources would it take? The newsroom here is distraught over the assassination of two beloved coworkers., and Flanagan recorded the assassination on his cell phone then posted it on his Facebook page. are two that already refer to it as an assassination. grifterlake (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with grifterlake.
Well now people are using the word “assassination.” So there is a valid argument to be made… NOW! It wasn’t before. --SpyMagician (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There we go again, hot from the press, full of emotion, can't/don't wanna wait a minute! WP:NOTNEWS, people... We have Wikinews for this stuff. Any estimation that this will have lasting influence requires a fully functional crystal ball. This should be redirected to the the appropriate section in the article on the station, WDBJ, where the few details that are relevant/known at this moment can be merged. In the unlikely case that this shootings attains lasting notability, the article can again be split off. --Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This post violates talk page rules about being polite and welcoming, "There we go again, hot from the press, full of emotion, can't/don't wanna wait a minute!" Two reporters were murdered on air, a third injured. And the suggestion is no lasting notability? Wow, take a breath.Juneau Mike (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep, lasting notability is highly doubtful. Unfortunately, shootings are a dime in a dozen and that this one happened to be live on air does not really change anything to that. A short section in the article on the station is all that is warranted at this point (and should be written once all details are known). I realize that you don't like hearing this, but that is no reason to remove comments from another editor. The merge proposal stands and if you oppose that, then please give your policy-based arguments here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I removed your comments because they are snarky, impolite and unwelcoming. Enough said. And keep your snarky comments off of my Talk Page.Juneau Mike (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Lasting notability is perhaps highly likely in this case (sad to say), for the simple reason that, unlike other shootings, this one has a gunman very deliberatly making certain that: (1) his murder will be broadcast live [note how he *waits* to open fire, until the news camera is aimed at the reporter) AND (2) he makes sure to immediately post his own "first-person-shooter" perspective video of the same event, to his social media. Hopefully this won't inspire copycats (very scary thought). Have there been any other cases where a shooter combined the "doing it in a live newscast" with the "posting his own FPS perspective"? I can't think of any previous murder cases where both types of clear videos were inflicted on we the public, at the same time. 71.190.6.66 (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Those are details of this case that may or may not lead to lasting notability. More likely, few people will remember this in just a couple of months. That's why an encyclopedia waits and only includes a subject when it is certain that it should be included. --Randykitty (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I very much highly doubt that people are going to magically forget about a double homicide broadcast on television. It will certainly fade to the background of public consciousness, but this is still a notable event.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I also wonder if anyone who's uttered "We have Wikinews for that!" has taken a look at Wikinews at all in the last few years. On any given day it has a half dozen folks active and a queue of stale articles in progress. We need to retire the trope that a Wikinews article is the rightful heir to a well written and valid Wikipedia article. It's not. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
If all the people inappropriately adding stuff about (very) recent events would go over to Wikinews where that stuff belongs, things would be very different, I'm sure. This whole article, for example, could be posted there in its entirety. And indeed "a Wikinews article is the rightful heir to a well written and valid Wikipedia article" is incorrect. It should be the other way around: a well written Wikinews article could, in the fullness of time, result in a valid WP article. And I am saddened that an admin throws policy like NOTNEWS aside so easily. --Randykitty (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not brushing it aside so easily, @Randykitty: - I was debating Wikinews at the start when it was proposed in 2004 [1] and I've given a lot of thought since then and gave my views to Harvard's NiemanLab here: [2]. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

How is something like this not notable? How often are reporters killed on live television in the United States? How often are reporters killed period in the United States? To me this wasn't just "another shooting", it was a notable event in television history. Not to mention the public outcry I've seen over this, and the huge news coverage that's been ongoing since early this morning, certainly make this feel like one of this year's biggest news stories. Benbuff91 14:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm glad that you are sure that nothing worse will happen this year. Anyway, forget the merge proposal, even though it would be the correct thing to do. In the feeding frenzy here, rational thinking is not wanted. --Randykitty (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I never said I don't think anything worse will happen, hell worse things already HAVE happened this year, but that doesn't mean this isn't a notable event. What is it with you? I agree the some of the other posters, you're just here to give people your unwarrented attitude while adding nothing to the conversation. What even would be a notable event for you? Nothing like this has ever happened here in the US like this. Benbuff91 18:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC).

This still is not so notable. Simply b/c two unknown television journalists were killed does not make it notable. Of course to the media it is highly notable. They cover their own. I've never heard of this station or these people before today's events. It is hardly necessary in an encyclopedia. This is not a newspaper. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Had you heard about Sandy Hook Elementary before the shooting or any of the children? Had you heard about that specific theater in Aurora, Colorado before the shooting? Had you heard about Columbine High School or any of the students there? What you're saying makes no sense, and as mentioned, this story does not meet any of the negative criteria of WP:NOTNEWS. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't even know those places existed until the mainstream coverage made them notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, in an event that dwarfs, to a mainstream group, the places themselves. Thus it makes more sense for there to be an article on the event, instead of taking the lazy route and stuffing it into a stub about the places itself.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how any of the four criteria in WP:NOTNEWS apply here:
  1. This isn't first-hand journalistic reporting by WP editors; instead it uses standard third party sources.
  2. This is not about a routine event, but rather a highly unique one that easily passes WP:GNG already.
  3. This isn't necessarily about the individuals involved, but about the events they were involved in.
  4. This has nothing to do with the trifling activities of a celebrity.
—Torchiest talkedits 20:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Two people murdered on live television will remain a notable event. To echo others, it's irrelevant that the people involved were unknown. Lee Harvey Oswald was unknown too, so I guess we should scrap his article or merge it with JFK's, if previous fame is a criteria. However, I'm not sure I'm 100% in agreement with this event (and every notable tragedy) having its own encyclopedia article either. I'm certainly not comfortable with minute detail about current events appearing in articles, but I guess this is how you organize what is important and what is not. Articles being composed as events are unfolding need to be reviewed and edited for clarity and length when the heat passes and the original editors are no longer interested. Just my twopenneth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.25.183 (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

An admin acting like some snarky teenager? Awesome image for wikipedia that is...(referring to the creator of this thread)--86.135.159.178 (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI - There have been over 30,000 page views of this article in less than 24 hours. To me, that says that it would be a significant disservice to WP users to get rid of it. KConWiki (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Google trends shows that there have been more than 10 million searches about the shooting. That's significant as it is the highest number the counter can show. It's front page news on every news site. It completely overshadowed the James Holmes conviction and wiped all the Trump and Ashley Madison stuff out of the public mind for now. So yeah, it's pretty notable. --GeicoHen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on times Parker and Flanagan were at the station needed

As of 26 Aug, the page has:

[Alison Parker] joined WDBJ in 2014
WDBJ announced their hiring of Flanagan ... on April 19, 2012. WDBJ dismissed him less than a year later
Flanagan filed an EEOC complaint against WDBJ, again alleging racial discrimination; he allegedly named Parker in his complaint

It looks as if Flanagan was out in 2013, so how could he complain about Parker who joined in 2014? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.64.35 (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And I know LinkedIn can't be used as a source but her own page says she interned at WDBJ7 from May 2012 – August 2012. https://www.linkedin.com/in/aparker91
I've added this internship to the "Victims" section. -12.180.133.18 (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Flanagan's accusations

-12.180.133.18 (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

How Did the Shooter Find the Victims?

I realize this teeters on an original research concept, but from all of the reports I have read so far, none explain how the shooter found the victims? I mean he was no longer a part of the station, right? Did he follow them from the station? The video where he just casually walks up to them seems odd. I’m not hunting for conspiracy theories here. But does any news source explain how this guy found the exact two people he wanted to shoot like this? --SpyMagician (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"Join me weekday mornings from 5-7!" narrows that much down. Newsvans are typically distinctive and eye-catching vehicles. The story so far suggests he was obsessed enough to follow it from the station, but just happening across it may have given him the final kick. In either case, TV reporters are easy to find by design. Fair question, but perhaps other reporters just find it too obvious to answer. Some blogger may inquire, though, and some blogs are reliable. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
At the risk of continuing speculation, I would respond that there is very little concrete evidence that these even are "the exact two people he wanted to shoot" per se. It could have very easily been that they were simply the ones who happened to be there, considering that (AFAIK) the bulk of the reasons he gave for shooting these individuals came after the shooting itself, not before it. He could have just wanted to shoot people from that station, they happened to be there, and he came up with the supposed reasons for choosing them specifically post facto, which would explain why the accusations he makes of them specifically are pretty vague and unsupported. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
“It could have very easily been that they were simply the ones who happened to be there…” Pretty much my thoughts at this point. But it would still be nice to hear some official report providing some pre-shooting timeline. --SpyMagician (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of vague and unsupported, Infowars is as convinced as it ever was (and Reddit Conspiracy is half-sure) that this was an inside job, designed to "take our guns". I wouldn't be surprised in the least if some say Vester "Professional Name" Flanagan II simply told the drone to track her phone's GPS from the Pentagon, while Obama sipped brandy and stroked his cat in an evil armchair behind him.
Seriously though, official investigation reports take time. In the meantime, as always, we can either wait or trust social media and anonymous CNN sources for the "latest developments". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Who cares what Infowars has to say? It's not a legitimate news site. They make up stories all the time and claim everything is a false flag. It's a conspiracy site run by profiter of conspiracies. Benbuff91 23:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Still popular, though, or they wouldn't profit. And when theories get popular, mainstream sources generally outline, scoff at and debunk them later. And thus they get more popular, until we have articles on them. This vague theory may one day be the backbone of one of those, so figured I'd note it with a "seriously though" caveat. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@SpyMagician: --DHeyward (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The broadcast from the Smith Mountain Lake started long before the shooting and there was at least one segment done inside by Parker prior to sunrise. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7iFRdcNT1QgJ:www.wdbj7.com/video/leaders-planning-smls-50th-anniversary-celebration/34922338+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us . The time stamp on the video is 5:43a.m. It is not the shooting. I suspect they also promo'd the event. --DHeyward (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@DHeyward fair enough. Still falls under original research. Would like to see if the issue of stalking a specific group of co-workers or randomness comes to light in the future as the dust settles. --SpyMagician (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't advocating adding it to the article but wasn't hard to find out she was there and that was after all the video had been taken down. These morning shows are pretty canned with the same feature segment reporter doing multiple shots at the same site. People want their traffic, weather, news at the same time every day. I don't think it's coincidence the segments were an hour apart (there may have even been another one but an hour is plenty of time to get there). It wouldn't require stalking, following or any detective work. There's a lot of them, too, that will be a bit on edge for a while wondering what psychopath is out there with a grudge. --DHeyward (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Has someone who works in the media, you're right: these morning shows usually send a reporter and cameraman out to one location where they spend the whole show. That video is actually harder to watch than the shooting one when you think that the reporter and the photographer only had an hour to live and the Chamber of Commerce person would be shot too. For all we know the killer might have been sitting in a car 50 feet away waiting. Frightening. By the way, it's very possible the link posted above might be "exclusive" to us as I haven't seen the "hour before" clip show up on TV or YouTube yet. Not arguing in favor of posting it, just noting. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe I have found a fairly massive clue as to how he was able to stalk his co-workers: His apartment was literally 500 yards from the station | according to this Daily Mirror article. That is literally about 2-3 blocks walking distance. --SpyMagician (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of where Flanagan lived, he could have hung around outside the TV station, eg sitting in a parked car, until his victims turned up. He then had to know that they were doing a live interview at Bridgewater Plaza. We may never know how he stalked his victims to Bridgewater Plaza, but somehow he did.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Birth date of perpetrator

I don't know how it was determined that the birth date of the shooter was January 19, 1974 as described currently in the article. I can't find any particular news source which states this as the case. I did, however, find a Vester Flanagan listed in the California Birth Index website (which I believe to be a reliable website for California birth records) and I did find someone who I think is the perpetrator in question listed there (http://www.californiabirthindex.org/birth/vester_l_flanagan_born_1973_11921659). I will go ahead and change his birth date to October 8, 1973. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogoodnamesleft426 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Horrible news but not for wikipedia

Horrible news. I agree.

Encyclopedia material? No.

I believe Alison Parker, Adam Ward, and Bryson Williams should be redirected to the article on the TV station and a blurb that they died after being shot (at least the first two). Is this event so profound that it becomes encyclopedic? No.

And I am a person who is very liberal about wanting there to be articles on everything.

Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This was a major news story, not to mention one of the few instances of an American news reporter being murdered on live televsion. If this was a common occurance I'd agree with you but this is a very layered, very notable event and has an impact. Thousands, perhaps millions of people have seen this footage now. It will be talked about for a long time when it comes to issues of racism and gun violence in the United States. I just think events like these make people uncomfortable and they think they don't need to be written about for some silly reason or another. I believe this is an event that needs to be known and remembered. Benbuff91 21:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it even one of the few instances, or just the one? If there were others, they should go in the See Also. See Alsos on recent events make me uncomfortable with their stretching for relevance. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You are right, it may be the only time this has happened. Christine Chubbuck is really the only similar incident that jumps to mind. The fact that hers was a suicide makes it substantially different of course, but it is the only other instance I can think of where a reporter dies during a live broadcast, and it is a good example of why this event is notable enough to merit an article UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSOR - it is not possible to gain consensus for which material should be published and which should be left out - in the absence of any 100% universal agreement on what material to include, the policy that Wikipedia is not censored means that individual readers are left to decide what they want to read. See this

Wikimedia Projects serve the Information Needs of Individuals, Not Groups "it is important to note as essential the principle that Wikimedia projects exist to serve individuals, as individuals, in their full autonomy, and consequently, the projects, as a general rule, do not and should not consider as legitimate censorious demands by institutions, of any kind, political, commercial or voluntary claiming to represent those individuals, or making demands, which, in the community’s opinion, represent only their own interests"

-- Callinus (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This shooting easily meets WP:GNG. It is like suggesting that the Charleston church shooting‎ should be mentioned only at the article about the church.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories

Because the shooter stated that race was a factor in his decision to go on a mass murder spree and that he was avenging the Charleston Church Shooting, I'm adding the following categories to the article: Hate crimes, Anti-white racism, and Racially motivated violence in the United States. Cla68 (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Not in disagreement, but there are delusional “revenge” aspects to this murder that seem similar to the 2014 killings of NYPD officers Bed–Stuy, Brooklyn. I believe aspects of the way that article was handled might be useful for this article as well. --SpyMagician (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Murders filmed from POV of perpetrators and victims

Have there been any other murders out there that were filmed from the point of view of both the perp and one of the victims? — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 02:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Great question. I imagine that would be a pretty tall order. But, I have no idea. I think the closest we'd see might be something along the lines of (a) the killer recording his murder, while (b) video from the victim's perspective is caught by perhaps CCTV or security camera or such. That's my guess. If you think about it, how often is a killer going after a victim that just happens to be recording a video at the time? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a great question. When I watched the initial video from the shooter’s POV (cellphone camera) I was—and still am—stunned. But honestly drone attacks are the closest thing I can think of. The nature of these attacks all point to the vanity/paranoia of the shooter; a failed career as a model/TV personality, making sure to post video of his attack as if it were no big deal. Psych majors might have a field day with this nutjob. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Toulouse and Montauban shootings

    He allegedly bought the GoPro video camera which he used to film the attacks, from a Fnac store in Geneva

  • Porte de Vincennes siege

    Coulibaly recorded seven minutes of his attack using a GoPro camera attached his torso, and emailed a copy of the footage using a computer at the supermarket. The video included the deaths of three of the victims

There's frequent helmet camera footage going years back used by military forces. -- Callinus (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but that was not the question. The question was asking if there were other reciprocal filming situations; two-sided filming, not just one-sided filming. In other words, the same event (death/murder) being filmed by the murderer and simultaneously being filmed by the victim. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
As far as one-sided filming (i.e., the killer making a video of his murder as he does it), that happens all the time. Think of ISIS, for example. They film everything. Many other sick and twisted serial killers have been known to video or film their murders. The "one-sided" filming situation is nothing new at all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
There's a number of videos from the Syrian Civil War where forces on both sides have units filming, and the side that gets overrun has their cameras dropped or their cameramen killed, then propaganda teams put together films of their units advancing, along with film by the other team's camera of their soldiers dying. There are film clips that have two snipers being filmed, one shoots, the other is filmed dying by being hit by sniper fire. -- Callinus (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Mazen al-Tumeizi was killed by a US army helicopter on the job. Not 100% sure the helicopter had a camera, but likely some sort of "imaging apparatus" or whatever. I vaguely recall a VICE documentary with a cell phone clip of a drone strike in Pakistan. That's not quite murder, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Vester Flanagan / football player

FYI - TMZ is reporting that the Flanagan II's father was a football player in the early 60s. His name appeared in several articles, and I redlinked those as Vester Flanagan (American football), if that becomes useful as this article evolves (assuming that the assertion that they are father and son is accurate). KConWiki (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

TMZ is great at half-truths, that's for sure. Drafted by the NFL, but doesn't seem to have played. Better headline than "college football player", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Should such stories get the free publicity on Wikipedia?

My view is that such tragedies should not be publicized if there is any evidence that publicity was one of the objectives of the perpetrator. I already feel that there is some evidence in this case, and ALL such publicity-motivated or even possibly publicity-motivated crimes should be de-publicized as a matter of public policy. I'm not saying they should be censored, but they should NOT be featured news. In this case, the Wikipedia link was already picked up by Google News, where it appears near the bottom of what is currently the top story. Of course this murderer cannot "benefit" from the publicity, since he is already dead, but my concern is with a copycat, even if his goal is merely to get his 15 minutes of Warholian fame on Wikipedia. Perhaps there should be a flag for "possible publicity-motivated news story that should be delayed until true newsworthiness is assessed" or something? Create the doubt in some perpetrators' minds? (Yes, of course it is crazy to worry about the motivations of crazy people, but...) Shanen (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Umm, WP is actually the smallest article of practically every news organization that is covering it. Virtually all workplace shootings in the U.S. are covered nationally regardless of whether there is a fatality or who the victims are. Covering it isn't the problem, it's the advocacy that comes later. Keeping this to a single article is the best WP can do. Already there are reports and statements by persons that agendaneer these incidents and we'll see stories on bullying, gun control, racism, harassment, mental health, LGBT discrimination, roles of social media and a plethora of other tangentially related items. The best WP can do is not be exploited as a platform for that and stick to the facts of this event. --DHeyward (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, you're talking in public about not talking about something in public. The Streisand effect will eat any genuine attempt at retraction alive at this point. Even if we could turn it back now, copycats will still have every other crime they've ever heard about in the news to copy. There's not enough black marker in the world to stop every seed from sprouting. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It is generally good to wait a few days, though, just to see what we're dealing with before we start influencing perceptions of the same thing. But that's never been the way Wikipedians work, so that's that. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
“…the Wikipedia link was already picked up by Google News…” Yes, because Wikipedia is considered a strong source of compiled information about current events. How is it not newsworthy to report on the death of news reporters on live TV that were also videotaped by the shooter and posted to social media. Also you will never prevent copycat attacks by preventing the core event did not happen. This is not the first murder of a human being to be reported in the world—let alone Wikipedia—so the idea that somehow pretending this didn’t exist now would not help anyone for any reason. This is tragic and news. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSOR - it is not possible to gain consensus for which material should be published and which should be left out - in the absence of any 100% universal agreement on what material to include, the policy that Wikipedia is not censored means that individual readers are left to decide what they want to read. See this

Wikimedia Projects serve the Information Needs of Individuals, Not Groups "it is important to note as essential the principle that Wikimedia projects exist to serve individuals, as individuals, in their full autonomy, and consequently, the projects, as a general rule, do not and should not consider as legitimate censorious demands by institutions, of any kind, political, commercial or voluntary claiming to represent those individuals, or making demands, which, in the community’s opinion, represent only their own interests"

-- Callinus (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't it say shootings instead of murders?

Just like all the other articles on shootings. Sandenig (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. In this case especially, given that one of the shooting victims didn't die, so "murders" is not fully accurate.--JayJasper (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
And the third dead victim wasn't murdered. By the move request, it seems "shootings" or "shooting" is going to win out, but the first bit's still up in the air. Maybe a partial move isn't controversial, for now? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree as well. But as you can see from the discussion about moving/renaming there is a lot of inconsistency as to how Wikipedia would handle the title description of such a tragic event. It might be worth it to add this opinion to that comment discussion. --SpyMagician (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

WDBJ article

For some reason the WDBJ article doesn't mention that Flanagan was a former reporter there who went by the name Bryce Williams. Maybe someone with editing privileges can address the omission. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point, @68.146.52.234. I have that detail to the WDBJ article. Unsure why you state “Maybe someone with editing privilege…” when there is no reason—at least from what I can see—that you could have not made that edit yourself. --SpyMagician (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This article is "locked", right? Maybe that editor thought the other article also would be locked and inaccessible. Perhaps? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Does this count as OR?

I noticed while looking at the video fro his POV that the reason he puts his gun away momentarily is because Ward was filming over the balcony, and he was waiting for the camera to be back on Parker before he opened fire. I think that could be wored in there in some way. 86.136.141.205 (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is original research so no, it should not be added. There is no way to assume or understand why at that moment the shooter did what he did or seemingly delayed his actions. --SpyMagician (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this is correct. Flanagan had ample opportunity to fire the gun on approaching the victims, but waited until the camera panned round so that it would be caught on camera. However, this would need a reliable source rather than a WP:PRIMARY interpretation of the phone video.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree it's OR if we're relying on the video but I'm sure a source could be found if we wanted, my own local TV news here in NZ said that. Nil Einne (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
A quick search found [3] [4] Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Of those two sources, New Zealand report states the best summary of what is seen; the key word is appears, “It appears the shooter then waits for Ward to pan his camera back to focus on reporter Alison Parker before opening fire.” You really cannot assume to know or understand the logic of the delay. For all you know simply the fact the camera panned back to the reporter caused the shooter to act simply because the victim would then be looking at him, see the gun and then he would have to act. Remember: Everyone was quite oblivious to the shooter’s presence until the camera panned back and the reporter was facing the shooter. There’s no definitive way to assume he was simply waiting to ensure the victim was in camera frame before acting. --SpyMagician (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
We'll never know for sure because Flanagan is dead, but a sicko would have been disappointed if all that had happened is that the shots had been heard off camera while the cameraman was filming over the balcony. It is pretty clear from the phone video of the incident that Flanagan waits so that he can avoid this and ensures that the moment of the shooting is captured on live broadcast TV.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
First you say this, “We'll never know for sure…” but then say this “It is pretty clear from the phone video of the incident that Flanagan waits so that he can avoid this and ensures that the moment of the shooting is captured on live broadcast TV.” Nope to the second assertion; it is not “pretty clear” at all. There is simply 100% no way to understand why the delay in shooting happened. Like I say, there is an equal chance he delayed until he had no choice because one of his victims was looking straight at him. --SpyMagician (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
We'll never get a first hand account from Flanagan explaining why he lowered the gun despite having an easy view of Alison Parker at the time. The logical explanation offered by some reliable sources is that he was waiting to ensure that the incident was captured on live television.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The Chicago Tribune says "He points the gun at Parker and then at Ward, but he waits patiently to shoot until he knows that Parker is on camera, so she will be gunned down on air."[5] The first time that the gun is pointed at Parker with a clear view from only a few feet away happens at 19 seconds into the phone video; the gun is lowered out of view of the phone camera and does not appear again until 41 seconds into the video, and this time Parker is shot. There is sufficient reliable sourcing to say that this is the logical reason for the 20 second delay.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
For clarity neither of the sources I presented above are from NZ. What I heard was on the local TV news, so I didn't bother to try and use it as a source. (I believe I also heard it said on BBC or Al Jazeera or something). I have no personal opinion on whether we should present it as fact, but one alternative would be to simply mention what is seen in the video, i.e. the gunman aimed the gun then pulled around slightly, and not long after the camera panned back, he started shooting. Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

Can someone clarify the sequence? I thought I read that the cameraman was shot first. But when I watched the killer's POV film, that can't seem right. Does anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The killer shoots at Alison Parker first. The cameraman falls to the ground, presumably when he is hit.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Doesn't the whole incident seem quite surreal and bizarre? He (the killer) is standing literally only inches from them. And no one knows he is there? All three victims seem completely oblivious of his presence. How can that be? I mean, he was literally a few inches from the cameraman. Also, they didn't hear him walking closer and closer, as he was approaching them? It seemed like a very quiet, serene, peaceful early morning. Any explanations? The only one I can think of is that all three were totally "absorbed" in their work (the interview). But even that seems not quite right. To me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It is WP:OR of course, but Parker, Ward and Gardner all seem preoccupied by the ongoing interview and do not give any attention to Flanagan. If they do see him out of the corner of their eye, he may have been regarded as as a bystander with a camera phone. He is silent, apart from muttering "bitch" at 18 seconds into the phone video. He does not run up to them shouting and swearing, which would have set off alarm bells.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, who knows? Apparently, they did not see him. It's just very odd is all that I am saying. Yes, he had a camera phone, but he also had a pointed gun in his outstretched hand. And, when someone invades my personal space by literally one or two inches, I notice it. And I turn around to see. Maybe the cameraman was deeply absorbed in his work at that moment. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a discussion for the article, but I presume reporters and their camera people are used to people getting in their way, trying to get in to the frame etc and most of their time do their best to ignore it, unless it gets top extreme like the recent fhritp phenomena. Unless they're in a very bad neighbourhood, they're not going to think they're going to be attacked. Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
BTW, in terms of the original question, I haven't paid much attention since the first 24 hours or so, but I'm not sure if we know who was shot first, and we may not know unless some sort of crime scene analysis is release. It's clear from the first person video he was shooting at Parker first (she was also the one he was aimining at the first time), but from both that and Ward's video, it seems like he possibly didn't hit he that severely (if at all) first. (I actually originally wondered based on some comments if he was some sort of jealous ex, but it's now clear this isn't the case and was probably primarily targeting Parker first simply because she was on camera.) Whether he continued to shoot her until he took her down, or turned his gun on Ward before going after Parker again, I'm not sure if we know. Of course sources do make mistakes. I saw one source which implied from the video person video he shot Ward first before even trying to shoot Parker which is clearly not what happened. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. I had heard the same thing (that Ward was shot first, then Parker). And that did not make sense at all, given the first-person POV video made by the killer. Obviously, if Ward were shot first, the camera would have fallen. The camera (frame) would never have been so nicely focused on Parker. Hence, my original question. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, another point (as to whether or not Parker noticed the gun and/or the shooter). The surviving victim (Chamber of Commerce woman) stated that she did not see the gun and/or shooter because she was "blinded" by the bright lights of the camera (the TV station camera held by Ward; obviously not the cell phone camera held by the shooter). So, that likely happened with Parker also. Plus, I think that when professional live TV reporters are doing a story/interview "live", they probably focus on that story/interview and try to "block out" everything around them (especially, everything and everyone in their peripheral vision). That can only be a distraction to their work. And I am sure that they "learn" to ignore it and pay it no mind. Especially so, if they are in a "safe" neighborhood where there is no cause for concern. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

United States

The words "United States" need to appear, in full, in the lede, and in the infobox. Wikipedia is an international project, and not all of our readers know where Virginia is, not even what "US" stands for. Will whoever keeps removing those words please desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I've re-added it to the lede. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Anybody in the English-speaking world who doesn't know that Virginia is in the United States is probably not informed enough to understand anything on wikipedia. Rycherr (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

African American/Homosexual Man

Would someone with editing privileges please remove the blatantly-biased "He was an African American, homosexual man" from the article? This is a neutrality issue, as well as an accuracy issue. The comment is sourced to Breitbart, which is well known for not being accurate in its reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rycherr (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

He was African American and homosexual, and this was a factor in the case, Washington Post article. Breitbart as a source may not be to everyone's tastes, so it was changed--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
How was this "a factor" in this case? Direct quote requested. The info was added by an anon [6] and needs to be deleted. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
He made several comments after the killings related to race and his supposed "sexual harassment". In fact, if he were alive and were arrested he probably would be charged with a hate crime at this juncture. 97.83.235.208 (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
A search of the WaPost article given as a reference brings up nothing at all related to "sex" or "sexual" or "homosexual" or "gay." Removed. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was a factor in the case. Many sources have reported this. The killer stated that he was discriminated against as a black man and as a homosexual. I have seen this in many sources. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Flanagan, rightly or wrongly, believed that he had been victimized for being black and gay. He says this in his faxed suicide note.[7] It would not be worth mentioning that he was black or gay if he had not brought up these things himself as part of the motive.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Quote: In a lengthy manifesto he sent to ABC News after the killings, Flanagan said he was bullied at work because he was black and gay. Source: [8]. Since he stated this in his manifesto, this info is in many reliable sources. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The Washington Post article saying that he was gay and considered himself "shunned" is here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Then it should be addressed in context of the prose of the piece, which is done in paragraph six. A declarative sentence, "He was an African American, homosexual man," is not Wikipedia's style and puts WP:UNDUE weight on this as the second sentence of the bio section. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree on this, the previous wording was clumsy.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I think it reads a lot better now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Vester Flanagan Sr. as dean at SFSU? Probably not

The line that says "Vester Flanagan, Sr., a one-time dean at San Francisco State University" is something that is very likely wrong, but a reliable source says it's true. This is a good example of Wikipedia as a victim of garbage in/garbage out. This one line from Washington Post reporting is sourced to a neighbor, Roxane Barker, quoted in this piece [9]. However, some Google searching shows that a Vester Flanagan was "director of operations" at City College of San Francisco and not a dean at SFSU.

  • City College of San Francisco, Board of Trustees minutes here: [10] - "President Berg commended Vester Flanagan for all of his efforts and congratulated him on his retirement. Mr. Vester Flanagan, Director of Operations, thanked the Board and prior Board’s for all of their support."
  • The Guardsman, City College of San Francisco school newspaper here: [11] - "Vester Flanagan, director of operations, said the administration has been concerned about El Niño, which meteorologists say may bring the strongest storms in 150 years to the Bay area this winter. Flanagan, who has been at City College since the mid-60s, said his experience tells him that wind, not rain, is the biggest potential problem."

It is fairly common for folks to get university, college, state, city all mixed up, even within academia. It's perhaps even more complex in the SF area where the name permutations are especially confusing. It's unclear what our best practice is here without venturing into WP:NOR. Perhaps keep it in there, but put a caveat. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I added a disputed-inline tag to that sentence in the article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It’s fair to say people get confused about who is what at a University. Heck, the main source of all of this is a neighbor. Have you ever tried to explain in one sentence your job to any neighbor? You tend to simplify and might even exaggerate/simplify depending on who you are talking to. In this case, I would like to add that the detail of Vester Lee Flanagan’s parents lives is irrelevant at best. Vester Lee Flanagan was a lone loon and whatever his parents did or did not do holds no bearing to the actions he committed. --SpyMagician (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Disagree. Obviously, one's parents have a huge impact on one's upbringing and formative years. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Just say he was an employee of the university. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher: You don't understand - the SFSU connection is most likely incorrect. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Race

If wikipedia, is going to note that Vester Lee was an "African-American journalist" then they need to update that Alison Parker was a "Caucasian 24-year-old news reporter" and Adam Ward was a "Caucasian 27-year-old photojournalist" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.31.155.202 (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

See the section Talk:Murders_of_Alison_Parker_and_Adam_Ward#African_American.2FHomosexual_Man above. It wouldn't be worth mentioning if he had not claimed discrimination while working at WDBJ, and as a motive in his faxed suicide note.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That's fine but I'm talking about the opening sentences next to the picture. Just say he was a journalist. With the photo right there, clearly we can see he's African-American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.31.155.202 (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, this was removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It can be put in here, when the first mention of discrimination is brought up. : "After losing his job in March 2000, Flanagan, who is African-American, filed a civil lawsuit against WTWC alleging racial discrimination." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.31.155.202 (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No mention of race even though he specifically stated he wanted to begin a race war.http://abcnews.go.com/US/shooting-alleged-gunman-details-grievances-suicide-notes/story?id=33336339

Is Category:Black supremacy relevant to this article, in light of the information available to date? Also, I was thinking of adding Category:Terrorism in the United States Ceannlann gorm (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Neither is suitable unless various reliable sources have made the connection, which they have not. Black Supremacy is not what Flanagan's rambling suicide fax is about, while terrorism is also unsuitable for the same reason. Categories should be clearly sourced by material within the article, otherwise they are are inaccurate and a form of WP:OR.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

The article should in some way mention the controversy among various news outlets to publish the shooter's footage, especially on the covers of their papers. [12][13] 69.73.10.197 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness background edited out?

This article came up in a Google search in which the result quoted the article as containing "He was raised as a Jehovah's Witness by his mother, a public school teacher." Wondering if some busybody has edited this out because it does not seem to be in the article any longer. Tim Riches, Mississauga, Ontario (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

BBC News says that he was raised as a Jehovah's Witness here. If true, it doesn't seem to have played a part in his real or imagined grievances that led to the shooting, unlike the references about him being black and gay. Saying that he was raised as a Jehovah's Witness is extraneous detail unless it played some part in the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
actuslly, he specifically said that jehova was the one who instructed him to kill parker.97.83.235.208 (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Correct, according to this ABC news report he says Jehovah spoke to him. But is the claim of an unstable murderer. By that logic we should blame dogs for the Son of Sam murders because dogs spoke to David Berkowitz, right? The only way his faith would play any role in this case is if somehow—for example—fellow Jehovah's Witnesses inspired this idiot to act in violence. There is no indication that happened. His faith is meaningless in this context. He could have been Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or anything else for all it matters and would have said, “Jesus spoke to me…” to the same results. That aspect is nonsense without a deeper real-world connection. --SpyMagician (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
We have no idea of the meaningfulness of his religion in his life or in this last bloody chapter of his existence. We only know what his religion was, and what he said told him to carry out his attack. I certainly don't believe anything this guy had to say about his religion -- or anything else. Sadly, what i believe is completely irrelevant.97.83.235.208 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The earlier content was this

He was raised as a Jehovah's Witness by his mother, a public school teacher

theroot.com "Earlier tweets from the Bryce Williams account claim that he was a nonpracticing Jehovah's Witness"
ABC news "He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act"
Note that The Guardian has memos on his workplace telling him to seek medical help. It's not known if there was any psychiatric diagnosis. -- Callinus (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@Tim Riches, Mississauga, Ontario: I have no knowledge of that specific edit, but the “some busybody” insult is unnecessary and unwarranted. The fact that he—or anyone on any article—is a Jehovah’s Witness holds little bearing to the tragedy that is outlined in this article at best and at worst taints all Jehovah’s Witnesses as somehow being complicit in this sick man’s actions. If it was in the article originally during the flurry of edits during the first 24 hours of this story unravelling, that is a fair mistake. But at this point, I don’t believe that fact is needed, necessary or worth highlighting. --SpyMagician (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. But if someone came here just to edit out that detail, they would indeed qualify for the label. It is not unheard of, and one of the most highly edited Wikis is the JW page. Tim Riches, Mississauga, Ontario (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

According to this[14] and other sources, he says that "Jehovah spoke to him after the Charleston shooting, telling him to act." Personally I think it is unlikely that Jehovah gives this type of instruction, but it may be worth mentioning in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
"unlikely that Jehovah gives this type of instruction" - if there's a source saying that he heard voices in his head then it's likely that there will be an RS linking Auditory hallucination to Schizophrenia - note that this isn't a normal part of mainstream religious experience and is widely recognised as a sign of mental illness. -- Callinus (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
If he considered himself a Jehovah's witness, and RS quote him as saying Jehovah was part of his reasoning, then it merits inclusion. To remove that fact because you do not feel that it reflects well on Jehovah's Witnesses is (a) only your own interpretation, and (b) a pretty clear breach of WP:NOTCENSORED as your are removing pertinent information so as to not offend a group of people. Whether his beliefs were ACTUALLY a motivating factor is not up for us to decide or speculate on, but he stated that they were, this is covered by reliable sources, and that is enough to include it. We do not get to say that his relationship with the Jehovah's Witnesses is not important just because we feel that would reflect badly on them. If HE said it was important to him, it gets included. We do not delete the religious statements and backgrounds of other people who's actions we do not feel are indicative of their stated religion. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This information should be included. If it's not, readers who don't know the connection between the use of "Jehovah" and the Jehovah's Witnesses organization may be unclear as to why that name was used. The linked article, Jehovah, does not make the connection immediately clear. Readers who do know will want to know whether or not he was associated with the organization in any way. As much as is known from RS can then be said. The incident with the wooden cross (Jehovah's Witnesses don't use the cross as a symbol) could bear some explanation if RS have caught onto it. I don't think mentioning the organization will offend or imply a connection. It provides context for the quotation, and it is necessary to do this even if he left the organization long before. Perhaps replace Jehovah with [[Jehovah's Witnesses|Jehovah]] (that is, Jehovah), if a minimal change is desirable. Roches (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Father's job

I am seeing no source that specifies the father had a job anywhere else. Where is this coming from? Versus001 (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be coming from this Daily Mail piece. --SpyMagician (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
First of all, the last time I used a Daily Mail piece for a source for this article, it was removed on the basis that Daily Mail wasn't a reliable source. Second of all, even if Daily Mail were allowed in, I'm still not seeing anything about Flanagan Sr. was the director of operations at the City College of San Francisco. Versus001 (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Daily Mail often has the best (and most) pictures. That's the extent of their usefulness, for anyone who gives a damn about how they see the outside world. I'd advise against even reading the photo captions. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Versus001: From the Post: “Barker said Vester Flanagan Sr. at one point was a dean at San Francisco State University. His wife, Betty, was a schoolteacher, according to an online obituary.” And Barker refers to “Roxane Barker, 54, lived across the street…” So this all seems unreliable and gossip if not verified elsewhere. --SpyMagician (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
See the above section on this. The only source for "dean" at SFSU was a neighbor. And it seems wrong, because all factual evidence (but it's original research) points to him being director of operations at City College of San Francisco. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that? I'm not seeing it anywhere online. Versus001 (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Did you see the section above? -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murders_of_Alison_Parker_and_Adam_Ward/Archive_1&oldid=1216792736"