Talk:Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Serious error in Perpetrator section

In the Perpetrator section it states that he worked for Pacific Gas & Electric in Greenville, North Carolina. Pacific Gas and Electric IS a West Coast utility provider that operates and provides gas and electric service products ONLY in the State of California. Accordingly I'm going to remove this information. YborCityJohn (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that some of this comes from his self-penned LinkedIn profile; the article should make this clear. The LinkedIn profile was here, but it has been removed and I can't find an archived version.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

editors should not be using his profile in such a way if that's the case. without a corroborating reliable source any other materials that appear to be from there should likewise be removed.97.83.235.208 (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There isn't a problem as long as it is stated as such. Here in The Guardian it says that he worked as a customer service representative in the fraud investigations unit at the Bank of America, but it does say that it comes from his LinkedIn profile.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, but the Guardian article clearly specified that. I don't know if it changed anything when I looked away, but that's what I read from it, and I didn't see a source. Versus001 (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2015

Page incorrectly states reporter Alison did not see shooter Vester in the Flannigan point of view clip. It is clear 18 seconds into the video she gives him a quick glance, just before he calls her a bitch and raises the gun. Nhg10736 (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This is WP:OR because the media has not discussed the phone video in great detail. It is correct that Alison Parker appears to give the gunman a very quick glance at the 18 second mark, but it was not enough for her to see that it was Flanagan, or that he had a gun. I think that the wording in the article is broadly accurate, but other comments are welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of stolen pictures

The pictures of the people are not rare so they shouldn't be stolen and be in the article. The freeze frame of the actual gun or shooting may be a rare exception, but that is not here. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Stolen" is looking for drama. They both have a properly written WP:NFCC template.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Anyways, I have uploaded smaller versions of both images to ensure WP:NFCC guidelines are followed correctly. I still believe that both of these images are within fair use guidelines. An admin can delete the previous larger versions as they are no longer in use.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• They cannot be in the info box. They can be inline with the text that describes the picture (i.e. official photo from their employer in the section about their employment.) NFCC rules are pretty clear and this is well settled. Also, it's more likely that a free image will be made available if people don't see one in the infobox. There are many photos of all parties.. --DHeyward (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay so put the picture in with their biographies. I feel it weirdly wrong for there to be a picture of Flanagan but not the victims. Benbuff91 13:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This needs a consensus, otherwise we are going to end up with edit wars and no pictures in the article at all, which would be a pity. Would anyone object to having the images as long as they were not in the infoboxes?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed both, and no, it doesn't need consensus. Infobox fair use fails our NFCC policy. It's the reason the Caitlyn Jenner infobox isn't the NFCC "fair use" Vanity fair cover. That article has a few NFCC pictures but the infobox, per policy, is free. --DHeyward (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This has happened before in articles about mass shootings and people have argued that a free image might be found. In practice, this rarely happens. I would argue in favour of removing the images only if an extensive search for free images of the same content had failed. Again, does anyone object to having the images outside the infoboxes?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. Benbuff91 14:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Prior discussion is not relevant as this is policy. Those images have context as the official station released images and they need to accompany the contextual description in the article regardless of whether a free image will be available. See WP:Non-free content#UUI. The image is released by the studio. The only appropriate place for that image is in the section where their employment is discussed. Depicting the person using fair use without context is not allowed, whence why wwe don't put them in infoboxes. They can go in the article but in the section where the source of the image gives it context. Note that it is the picture that is copyrighted, not the subject of the picture. It's the same rtionale as why we can't crop a rose out of a record album art and use it to depict a rose. The album art is what's protetcted, not what's depicted. Without context, these images cannot be used and the infobox doesn't provide context on the copyrighted image, it provides context on the subjects depicted in the image. --DHeyward (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, how about this as an image of Flanagan? It is more contextual, as it shows him, his Twitter profile, and the words "I filmed the shooting see Facebook" which is the most notable part of the case. TBH, I never really liked the infobox image of Flanagan with him grinning.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

there is no free images of these people, there will never be a free image of them because they are all dead. the images are copyrighted that's why it is used as "non free fair use" to identify the people involved. these people are no celebrities they are all local journalists I seriously doubt we will ever find a free image of them. these images are from their news station and are used through out the media to identify them so they are appropriate to use here. Redsky89 (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Never" is hard to prove, as one may turn up. Also, I agree that non-free images need sufficient context in the surrounding text to meet WP:NFCC#8. Infoboxes are not the best place for non-free images and they usually get removed at some point.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Media Controlled Suicide Note?

I heard a CNN news anchor say that she saw a related video "so you(the audience) don't have to". That strikes me as paternalistic arrogance. I've also heard on CNN many anchors saying they've read the entire 23 page fax and go on to relay selected excerpts to the viewers. Are we in a world where media people get access to news that the public does not? Am I missing something by wondering about this selective reporting? We have the Unabomber manifesto[[1]] for our Readers, what's going on ? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This has always been the way it works. There are only so many hours in a day to fill, and since (most) viewers don't watch the full 24, CNN has to repeat itself and stick with what's trendy, lest someone surf by and not see the big red "Developing Story" box. Entire stories are lost to this strategy, not just pieces of them.

It's also commercial television, first and foremost. Likely a sponsor (or several) doesn't want to associate its brand with murder videos. For all its scary stories about death, American TV has always been shy about showing it. Videos are clipped, euphemisms are used, battlefield map graphics replace footage. People fear what they don't understand, so keeping death in the dark allows the station to fill in our blanks with stuff that suits the narrative. CNN says sponsors don't make the news decisions, but omit any mention about how sponsor money talks (or doesn't talk). Is it still mainly insurance and cash for gold ads there? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The Unabomber went on a 17 year spree of anonymous/unsolvable bombings from 1978 to 1995 without detection. He sent the manifesto to the The Washington Post and the New York Times with the following terms: “The author threatened to send a bomb to an unspecified destination “with intent to kill” unless one of the newspapers published this manuscript. The Attorney General and the Director of the FBI recommended publication.” Meaning the publication of the Unabomber manifesto was not done as a journalistic endeavor, but rather as a way to avert another tragedy from a known—and unstoppable—terrorist. As The Washington Post clearly states, “The manifesto appeared in The Washington Post as an eight-page supplement that was not part of the news sections.”

In contrast the shooter in this case was a mentally ill idiot who simply faxed rambling pages of nonsense to news outlets after he had already committed a crime and—according to what we know—did not threaten to do more harm based on a publication avoiding publishing his screed. Which means in this case, the shooter was a schmuck seeking attention. To publish the raw contents of his rambling fax would only elevate him and give him respect he does not deserve. In the case of the Unabomber, the publication of the manifesto was done to avert tragedy, was done under the guidance of the FBI and was clearly presented as not a part of the “news” section of the publication. There is no news value to the raw fax from what I can see other than he sent it. --SpyMagician (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I agree in principal, I have to ask, do you feel now that the Unabomber is no longer a threat there is some moral obligation to remove his manifesto from the public record? Unfortunately I think it boils down to a "If they wanted this information read, then he wins if it gets out there and we win by not allowing anyone to read it", but I think that that attitude greatly hinders our ability to understand what motivates people to commit such crimes. Just because someone is crazy, it doesn't mean that the reasons why they themselves believe they did what they did had no significance. To hold that nothing can be gained from the careful analysis and scrutiny of someone's stated aims and beliefs seems to be to be a rather naive, and somewhat moralistic, stance. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the difference between a terrorist and a terrifying killer, in case that "issue" arises for this one, too. Violence and demands. So far, this talk page is clean of that (possibly because gun violence is now "officially" distinct from terrorism), but if it comes up, I'll point them to your post. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

What @SpyMagician: said: "To publish the raw contents of his rambling fax would only elevate him and give him respect he does not deserve." News organizations have largely resisted releasing these types of manifestos or video messages in full, based on the principles of responsible speech. Journalists need to balance the public's interest and need to know versus the moral hazard of encouraging the next unhinged individual to get worldwide amplification of their message through the news media. Where is the line between "censorship" and "responsible speech?" It's not so clear. But you have to see there is a difficult equilibrium that has to be struck. A blanket policy of all information needs to be free all the time is too simplistic in cases like these. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@UnequivocalAmbivalence “I have to ask, do you feel now that the Unabomber is no longer a threat there is some moral obligation to remove his manifesto from the public record?” Specifically to this point, that is quite possibly the stupidest free-speech debate point I have ever heard. The Unabomber’s manifesto has already been printed. It is already a part of the public record. You cannot “remove” it anymore; it’s out there in it’s original form as well as copied versions from those original versions. To even attempt to remove it at this point decades later would only add more validity/weight to the importance of the manifesto by creating some conspiracy theory buzz; “Why get rid of it now? What is so important about it?” Also journalism has very little to do with just dumping raw source material on the public.

By nature journalism is a process of digesting facts and then reconstituting them into a format that is more easily digestible by the general public. Case in point: Many government records are free and easily accessible by the general public. But have you ever done your own taxes in the U.S.? The stuff can be incomprehensible even to the most intelligent of us. Journalists report the news; they do not just dump raw material. This case, I cannot conceive of anything in the rambling writings of a crazed murderer that the general public would benefit from. So having news agencies read it themselves and then pass along the best bits is the best way to go. And FWIW, the nutjob shooter clearly knew how to use the Internet, right? If he really wanted this junk read by the whole word he could have just uploaded his screed—maybe even in PDF format—to any number of online file sharing sites. So I have no worries about the content of this pile of junk being “suppressed” in any way. I am more concerned about paranoid conspiracy theorists applying far more depth to this shooters actions than need be. At the end of the day there is no complexity to this loons actions; and that is what needs to be at the forefront. Not the details of a rambling, hate mongering, justification seeking murderer’s logic where everyone else is blamed but himself. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer that ABC News had reported none of the suicide note rather than cherry pick excerpts to release; but I guess that's what we're stuck with. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hate crime against heterosexual category

I notice that we have a category for hate crimes against LGBT, but not vice versa. The shooter's manifesto in this case mentions that he was lashing out at his straight co-workers because he felt they were persecuting him as a gay man. So, we probably should have it categorized as a hate crime against heterosexual people. Cla68 (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories should be uncontroversial and sourced within the article. The motive seems to have been a grudge caused by Flanagan's general wackiness rather than hatred of white people or heterosexuals.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no proof he was lashing out at them because they were straight. It was more he was lashing out at them because he felt discriminated against as a gay man, not because of his hate of straight people. Also keep in mind LGBT on straight violence is extremely rare and hardly needing of it's own category. Benbuff91 13:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

:Is Cla68 seriously suggesting that heterosexuals have a hate crime category? The fact that heterosexuals aren't a protected minority class excludes them from hate crime legislation. *face palm* --Cagepanes (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be interesting. I doubt reliable sources exist on the subject, but if they did you might have something. If not, you don't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

:::Really? Please read Hate crime before supporting this ridiculous suggestion. --Cagepanes (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah not sure, they don't appear to have read the article they linked. Arkon (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a couple of you are saying that there can't be a hate crime against a heterosexual because it isn't a protected minority. Although white people aren't a protected minority, there have been hate crime charges leveled against people who committed racist attacks on white people. Anyway, if it turns out that there are a series of hate crimes committed by gay people against heterosexuals, as happened in this case, then we will need that category. Cla68 (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Media delays

Re this edit: I'm not sure if this has a great deal of WP:10YT notability; these delays have not picked up widespread media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I was the editor who made the edits. I think it's worth noting, just to give people the idea of the zeitgeist at the time. We have a similar section about the entertainment's impact after the 2012 Aurora Shooting and we have a section in Modern Displays of the Confederate Flag about the reaction to the 2015 Charleston Shooting, which covers similar media events. I might agree that putting the section where it was may of been the wrong spot, but I do think it might be useful to have a "media reaction" or something of that nature. --Deathawk (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No doubt many TV shows were canceled or rescheduled after the Assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963, but it is not considered notable to list in detail what they were today. After a tragic event like the deaths of Parker and Ward, it is also slightly disrespectful to list U.S. TV shows and advertisements that were pulled. There would need to be major and lasting notability to do this, which the sourcing given did not provide. Also, please bear in mind that this shooting received worldwide media coverage, and most people outside the U.S. will not care about the media delays within the U.S.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: When you say, "it is also slightly disrespectful to list U.S. TV shows and advertisements that were pulled," it makes no sense to me. How is it disrespectful to say that shows were pulled? The shows were pulled to be sensitive to the public and to show respect to the victims and family. And 10 years from now, I think it'd be of immense value to sociologists or anyone interested in our mainstream pop culture and how this generation of folks reacted to this. I think @Deathawk: edits were just fine. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It is giving the impression that this was a major part of the shooting when it is not. Perhaps disrespectful is not the best word, but it is bordering on WP:POPCULTURE trivia on the basis of the sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:POPCULTURE is just an essay, and on top of that, it doesn't seem to run afoul of it. The downside of trivia in WP is that it is an "indiscriminate collection" of info. The fact that TV shows were cancelled in reaction to this to be sensitive to the family and to public is directly tied to the impact of this tragic event and is not indiscrimately included. Your concern about the issue is appreciated, but including this info is useful in that it contributes to showing the notability of the incident. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that these things have great long term notability, but I'm not going to edit war over it. The mainstream news media reports have not highlighted these delays, which has led to rather soft sourcing. The current wording is also vague about why the delays occurred, citing "similarities" without what saying what they were. This needs to be improved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Left hand placement of Flanagan's image

Not sure why this keeps getting placed on the left hand side of the page. There is no immediate or obvious need to do this, per MOS:IMAGELOCATION, and left hand placement of images generally looks non-standard and weird. Please can this go back to the right hand side of the page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It says to alternate in MOS. People keep moving it to infobox which is policy vio.. I don't care much about left or right. Left puts it astride the hiring announcement where the image originated making its context clear for user per policy (click on source and image is there). Right puts it under the infobox and away from the hiring paragraph, The main infobox, map, victims, perpetrator infobox plus perpetrator image on the right makes it harder to read (at least on my browser). The left location aligns the hiring announcement photo with the hiring announcement paragraph. That's my only reasoning. Alternating left/right is compliant with MOS. --DHeyward (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Two glocks and connection to 9/11 terrorist attacks

From Reuters via Yahoo for consideration. http://news.yahoo.com/virginia-television-journalists-shot-heads-bodies-medical-examiner-150707364.html

One statement Flanagan, a former station employee, fired 17 rounds from a .40 caliber Glock pistol

Me:I find it a little problematic as 17 rounds is the standard capacity for the full-size 9mm Glock. The full-size .40 cal has a standard 15 round mag. It's possible to do it, but someone that isn't particular about firearms would load the magazine, and chamber a round. That's 17 rounds for 9mm but would only be 15 round in .40 cal. The frames of the two models are virtually identical. He would have had to reload or have a special magazine extension as well as chamber a round, remove the magazine, add a round and reinsert the magazine. Off-the-shelf 9mm is just pulling the trigger 17 times with no additional action. Also no mention of .40 cal ammunition.

The statement said two Glock pistols were recovered from Flanagan's rental car. No other firearms have been found. Me:This I believe but would suspect either both were 9mm or the .40 cal was not used and was in the case they found.

In the car, police found a pistol, 9mm ammunition, more magazines and a pistol case. Other items included stamped letters, a to-do list and briefcase with three license plates, a wig and sunglasses, the warrant said.

Flanagan had legally bought the handguns. He passed a background check despite his apparent emotional problems

Evidence and his writings show that Flanagan "closely identified with individuals who have committed domestic acts of violence and mass murder, as well as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S.," said the statement. Almost 3,000 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks.

Don't know how this figures in but if it is true, the murder weapon is incorrect in the article. --DHeyward (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Good info on the weapon. But unclear about the 9/11 connection and the weapon. It just says he identified with the 9/11 attackers… As well as pretty much anyone evil and death obsessed. Do we know if he had an allegiance to Darth Vader? What about Frankenstein? Did he understand why Frankenstein wanted to seek revenge in Bride of Frankenstein after the events of the first film? Seriously, just confused as to what the 9/11 aspect has here. --SpyMagician (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Meh. The 9/11 connection is interesting only because a prominent agendaneer mentioned gun violence are more of a threat than terrorism. Ironic if terrorism inspired the violence or contributed. Same with mass shooting sensationalism creating more mass shootings. Also the call for background checks when they already exist and this guy passed is another point. It's a horrific Streisand effect/positive loop. In contrast, this week a man shot both his children (both younger than 11) and then himself. Double murder, suicide and the press doesn't blink even though this event is a double murder/suicide - they just knew the victims. --DHeyward (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

People namedrop 9/11 all the time. That's the whole point of Post-9/11. Not particularly notable, but the reliable sources will disagree with me, so I surrender! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC) InedibleHulk (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

A 9mm Glock 19 was used in the 2011 Tucson shooting and it had a 33-round magazine. Flanagan's gun was also reportedly a Glock 19.[2] I'm not a gun expert and will leave it to the people who are. Early news reports are often confused or wrong. It wouldn't be surprising however, if any discrepancy of this kind was used to create conspiracy theories surrounding the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

My wife is a LEO and carries a .40 cal glock 22. We have a couple variations for her work. I'm also a certified glock armorer. These features are available but the 17 round 9mm makes a lot of sense. A 17 round .40 does not. My wife carries 16 rounds in her .40 cal Glock 22, 2 spare mags with 15 rounds each and a backup glock 27. All .40 cal. Her holstered duty weapon has 16 rounds because she chambers a round and adds a round to the mag. She has to carry the maximum rounds in the magazine because if she ever has to use it, they start from that count and every round is counted - 46 rounds are mandatory and counted and she can never be short or over. Glock sells "Blue Label" guns to precisely meet this criteria for leo.. Other options are available but unless he's looking (and the pictures didn't look modified). He had standard stuff. Larger magazines extend beyond the grip, ar eexpensive and are a seperate purchase. A 17 shot Glock 17 9mm is out-of-the-box. The mags are interchangeable. I'm not sure how they would know the model without finding it. They found two in his car. A glock 19 with a glock 17 mag is fine. But a .40cal glock 19 is not. If they found 17 rounds and two glocks, chances are he had two 9mm glocks - one a glock 17, the other a glock 19. Here's what loughners glock 19 looked like with 33 round mag http://abcb.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Glock_19_33_round.jpg Pure OR but good for research. No other transcript mntioned .40 cal.--DHeyward (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, @DHeyward: glad to know we have such expertise in our midst. I also saw that Reuters report last night and thought it was odd. It's the only one I could find that mentioned a .40 S&W Glock. It's also weird because later in that Reuters piece, they describe finding 9mm ammo. It's also unusual to make a mistake of mentioning a .40 gun, as that's not something the average reporter would know about. So I agree it's confusing. I saw the .40 reference last night but wrote off the Reuters piece as an outlier/error. I looked up the reporter's Twitter handle, but it seems that he's idle and probably wouldn't respond. [3]. I still think it merits getting in touch with the reporter to double check this, and also to keep our eye out for other references to it. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of confused reports, I'm not sure if something was lost in translation on their end or on Google's, but SINDOnews in Indonesia seems to say this guy was "linked to terrorist groups that carry out attacks on 11 September 2001". Also "associated with" and "correspondent with" them. The sheriff's quote with "identified very closely" translates fine ("diidentifikasi sangat erat"), so something's fishy. I hope this isn't a reliable source. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"“My issues arised after I was attacked by white females!! And black males!! ... most of my haters have been from these two groups. I have a right to be outraged!!!”

This quote, from Vester Flanagan, is taken from a recent New York Times article. Why is Wikipedia systematically suppressing the hate-crime aspect of this shooting? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/us/vester-lee-flanagan-grievances-homicidal-explosion.html 71.45.150.48 (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Because the shooter was a lunatic and lashing out at everyone and even claims that Jehovah told him to carry out these horrible murders. This is a “hate” crime in a sense that this guy was filled with hate. This was not a targeted attack just against “…white females!! And black males!”; it was just blind rage. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

So he said Jehovah told him to do it. Big deal, just sounds like he was religious, not insane. The Westboro Baptist church says "God hates Fags", do you deem them to be insane as well, and not indulging in hateful activity?

Flanagan stenciled the bullets he used with the names of the Charleston shooting victims. And was open in his desire to ignite a race war.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shooting-alleged-gunman-details-grievances-suicide-notes/story?id=33336339

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gunman-vester-flanagan-said-he-acted-in-response-to-charleston-church-shooting-10473642.html

Compare with the Wikipedia coverage of the Charleston shootings. The first paragraph has the words "race war", the second paragraph is about hate crimes and Roof's confederate leanings. Wikipedia's neutrality is being damaged by not having Flanagan's stated reasons more prominently mentioned in this article.

71.45.150.48 (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You can’t even sign your posts and you cannot even figure out how to properly add these details on your own, so please bark up another tree. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I made some valid and reasonable arguments. I'm still waiting to hear some valid and reasonable response that addresses why this article is blaringly silent on some uncomfortable (to certain people) aspects of this crime. Every other mass shooting is used to shine a spotlight on the sick minds of the perpetrators and their misguided ideologies, but I only hear crickets chirping on this one. 04:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I hear a guy on a soapbox, loud and clear. YouTube or Reddit could use another voice like yours. That's not even to say you're wrong, you're just in the wrong place. Instead of ranting about suppression and crickets, propose something for the article. Do you just want the words "hate crime" thrown into the lead? "Race war"? Should we blockquote that quote? Where's the beef? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• SpyMagician, that is a rather dumb response; kindly lay off the personal attacks. IP, settle down. There is no systematic suppression. Whether this was or was not a hate crime can not be based on the killer's own rants (please don't call it a "manifesto"), nor should it be based on an editor's say-so ("it was just blind rage")--the IP's question needs to be taken seriously and it is, farther below. InedibleHulk, you also, please lay off the personal attacks. Also, InedibleHulk, can you please remove the wikilinking around the dates in your signature? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No can do on the signature, and I didn't attack anyone. I told someone what a talk page was for, trying to help make this a proper request. Can't start to find consensus until something specific is proposed. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, you got a really stupid signature then. And "I hear a guy on a soapbox, loud and clear. YouTube or Reddit could use another voice like yours"--that's a personal attack. The IP knows very well where they are: on the talk page, discussing article content. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And not at all about how Wikipedia is censoring "the truth", eh? What do either of those Baptist churches have to do with anything? A little off-topic noise isn't bad, but when it's the overwhelming majority, that's a soapbox. And YouTube and Reddit are better suited to that. Talking about dumb responses and stupid signatures isn't getting any us any closer to improving the article, or understanding how the OP wants to change it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Kind of stunning how you are at one moment asking me to lay off perceived personal attacks and then the next directly requesting another user change their signature for what valid reason? Look, my response to 71.45.150.48 was based on the fact this IP user posed four comments in a row and is clearly looking to “hate harvest” his own pile of nonsense including accusing Wikipedia of potentially suppressing an anti-white “hate crime.” Such nonsense. People who have valid points make them. In the case of a tragic article like this, I don’t think anyone has time to deal with wingnuts popping out of nowhere claiming this/that/other about the supposed “real story” behind these actions. There is no depth here and there is no conspiracy. So please, back off. All of you. --SpyMagician (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

SpyMagician, you're kind of inexperienced, so I suppose you're not familiar with WP:DATELINK. It's alright, as long as you understand that (as an admin) I am perfectly in my right for someone to stick to guidelines. WP:SIGNATURE suggests we not clutter signatures with stuff, and this is clutter. I asked him nicely. You said that someone shouldn't be talking here if they couldn't even sign their messages--that's a personal attack. I'll be glad to post a template on your talk page, if you need me to. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That definitely wasn't an attack. Now and then, someoneone complains about the signature, but it's always been polite and I've always politely declined. You're the fifth. Read the explanation, if you'd like. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Has anyone mentioned that wiki-linking your sig date breaks this very useful gadget - Wikipedia:Comments_in_Local_Time? I can see everyone else's comments in my local time, while yours is still in a non-useful UTC. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The first guy. I feel sort of bad for people who use it, but I also feel bad for me having to see backwards time every time I post. Only a minor irritance to the others some of the time. I'm biased, but the math works in my favour. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: How about this signature discussion head over to InedibleHulk’s talk page? --SpyMagician (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@SpyMagician: Looking up two year old talk page discussions for such a trivial issue isn't exactly my idea of a scintillating Friday evening, so you'll have to excuse the lack of interest in tracing the history of a signature. :) I still find it quirky that anyone thinks those date wikilinks are useful or interesting, but as long as InedibleHulk's contributions are good - c'est la vie. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

If spending Saturday night with slightly newer petty squabbles is more your idea of a good time, feel free to swing by the main reason historical anniversaries sound duller than they should. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Let me make this even clearer/blunter… This whole signature discussion is off-topic and wasting space on this talk page which is specifically for Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward. So I could care less about anyone’s signature styles or the pedantry of some other users who are telling you to change your signature style. Perhaps you two should just discuss this personal user-related issue on each of yours mutual personal user pages? --SpyMagician (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it wasting space or gaining points between the spaces? Was this thread ever on topic. Could you care less, or couldn't you? Are these questions small enough for the font, or is the font small enough for the questions? Seriously though, you're right. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The main coverage in media characterizes this as a case of workplace violence by someone with issues against just about everybody they encountered, but especially with that particular videographer and perhaps the reporter. This article describes the shooter as an "injustice collector" [4], rather like his role model Seung-Hui Cho who was similarly mad at everybody, and who prepared a media package blaming everybody. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Fun Fact: After the typical person kills someone, especially for the first time, guilt kicks in hard and cognitive dissonance creates all sorts of far-fetched reasons to make it go away. Especially when they precede a suicide, these perfectly natural defense mechanisms can look surprisingly like the ramblings of a lunatic, and probably don't reflect the mindset of the person they were before shit got real. Justifications after 6:46 should be taken with a grain of salt, horse's mouth or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

What everyone else said. Flanagan was a classic grudge farmer who tried hard to be offended by everything and everyone around him. Official discrimination bodies found no evidence to back up his complaints. The article should not play into Flanagan's hands by implying otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Idiomatically speaking, things are pried from, not played into, cold, dead hands. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

He does openly state that his crime was motivated by hate, like Eliot Rodgers, so the Hate Crime category is appropriate for this article. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That's some dandy logic, but it's up to an authoritative source to make the same jump before it's appropriate. They decide, we report. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You mean the shooter's manifesto isn't authoritative enough for you? It is for me. I'll take Mr. Bryce's word for it and classify his act as a hate crime. You would rather take someone else's word over his? Cla68 (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's not. It's a primary source from a broken man broadly accused of making stuff up since 2000. Herbert Mullin killed 13 people to save thousands from an earthquake, but he's not in Category:Earthquake and seismic risk mitigation. David Berkowitz isn't in Category:Human–animal linguistic communication despite the conversations with that dog allegedly causing 13 attacks. Best to leave determining criminal matters to people who are paid and trained to do so, not strongly biased killers.

And even if he somehow counts as a reliable source, his word was just "hate", not "hate crime". You putting two and two together is the original research problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There has been a tendency for some commentators on the Internet and talk radio to try to portray Flanagan as a mirror of Dylann Roof, which the OP seems to be echoing. With respect to Flanagan, most sources have consistently drawn a distinction between motivation (rage against nearly everybody and particularly against co-workers) and justification (racial and sexual-preference discrimination), or to put it more broadly, grudge-farming. Roof's motivation and justification coincide, which is not the case here, at least as the main emphasis of reporting stands at the moment. I don't see a problem with reporting his justification, but we should not confuse it with or portray it as motivation. Acroterion (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

We will also never get the same kind of objective reporting as this is workplace violence fostered in journalism culture. It would require a level of introspection that the press is simply ill-equipped to deal with. This happens rather frequently though usually without as much trauma. They won't rub salt into wounds of colleagues, management, editors, owners, etc. Consequently, the focus of the coverage will always be what is wrong with Flanagan rather than what kind of environment pushed a gay, black man to kill two of his coworkers. Even the Charleston shootings led journalists to probe culture that displayed the confederate flag. Any other industry or company would be facing a lot more scrutiny of environment in addition to the scrutiny of the shooter. For example, what type of counseling did the station offer him? What kind anti-bullying/anti-harassment training did they have? After having him removed by police what other security precautions did they take? - They aren't equipped to ask those questions in an industry where networking and personal reqlationships exist so we will never see anything more than "deranged former employee." And there's nothing for Wikipedia to do about it as we rely on that coverage. --DHeyward (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's already in the article (not as a quote) and has been since the day of the shooting. I added it. It's a single point, though, not the only point. --DHeyward (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Taking the shooter's word for it seems unwise considering that he planned to murder people in a way that would attract the greatest amount of attention. A lot of theories, opinions and possible connections will appear even in reliable sources. When everybody is covering a story, there is a need to stand out by presenting something different from what's already been said. So, present the story as a comparison with other murders, look at it from the hate crime angle, link it to Colin Ferguson or the Ferguson unrest, and so on. It's necessary to sell the story. This article should contain what the news outlets are presenting with approximate unanimity.

For reference, under the law of Virginia, the appropriate charge would have been capital murder because more than one person was killed; the sentence is death or imprisonment for life. Virginia hate crime laws might apply to hate crimes against white people, but the state has no additional protection for anyone who is the victim of a crime just because they are heterosexual. Roches (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes to job history

I have made the following edits to the job history information in the Perpetrator section. It seems to be pieced together from LinkedIn via reliable sources, so it is essentially self-published. There is a lot of speculation and a lot of attempted story-weaving by the reliable sources. The story seems to be that Flanagan had a history of making false allegations about discrimination and then murdered people. This article should not tell a story.

"Small-time actor and model": Not changed. There's information that suggests 'small-time' meant single-person audiences, as it often does, so I'm not removing it.

1993 KPIX internship: Not changed.

1997-1999 WTOC: Not changed.

1999-2000 WTWC: Bold editing. Flanagan was dismissed in March and the news department was closed amid "budget cuts" in November. The article then insinuates that he made a baseless, crazy discrimination claim, and states that his coworkers said he was fired for "poor work ethic" (a meaningless and empty phrase). The allegation of fabrication is also not acceptable. His former coworkers obviously wouldn't admit to anything and wouldn't implicate their colleagues in anything, so no conclusions can be drawn from what they said. It seems likely (and perhaps obvious) that the station needed to fire someone, and Flanagan was the newest hire and the logical choice. There was an out-of-court settlement, so the allegation cannot have been entirely baseless, and other "threatened" litigation is not relevant.

Bank of America: Removed; originates from Linkedin and is not relevant because it's not in TV.

WNCT, KMID: Not changed.

WDBJ: Reporting the Times' interpretation of the documents (about standards being breached and so on) is not really objective; the breach of standards was about putting a church's phone number and email address on air. This article could say that, but it should not say that he was generally a bad employee without saying specifically why.

The edited version is shorter. I think I have removed statements that are not adequately supported, that are inappropriately subjective, or that can be interpreted in a number of different ways. Please don't revert it; if anything was removed that should be there, it should of course be replaced. But editors here should be very careful to ensure they are not stating opinions as facts, even if the opinions are from the best sources. Again, the article doesn't tell a story. Roches (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent changes. Nice work @Roches. --SpyMagician (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Photo request

Please could someone who lives in Virginia take a photo of Bridgewater Plaza shopping mall and upload it to Wikimedia Commons? This would be more on topic than some of the images that have been added so far. I tried to find a free image and could not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected Edited Request for 29 August 2015

As per this article from CBS News, it was revealed that those at WDJB were still watching Adam's camera after it cut off that the editor watching it, Michael Episcopo, had known that Adam Ward was already dead due to the fact that his (Adam) hand was not moving and he could see his watch. Also, Episcopo didn't recognize Flanagan, but their chief photographer did - "That's a pretty big guy. Do you think that's Bryce?"

Also, this article from Richmond, VA's WTVR-6 mentioned that WDJB had implored the public not to share Flanagan's video on the Internet, with Chief Meteorologist Brent Watts of WDBJ telling them that “Our #WDBJ crew was literally ambushed this morning [...] Please DO NOT share, or post the video.”Ashura Blaze (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't add a great deal to what is already known. Episcopo would have known that Ward was seriously injured, but would not have known that he was dead. WDBJ's plea not to post the video has been overtaken by events. Facebook, YouTube etc have removed all instances of Flanagan's phone video because it violates their policies, but some sites are still showing it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I put something at the end of the Media Coverage section that mentions Brent Watts' request. I think that does address the second part of the edit request. WP:BEANS does apply, but, strictly, people won't put beans up their noses unless they're specifically told not to, and they're going to share and post the video regardless of what others say. The bit I added has a link to WDBJ's memorial site and to a Twitter feed, #westandwithWDBJ. Normally links to Twitter feeds are not used, but it may be appropriate here. The logic I used to decide to include these two links in the article is that viewing any video or doing anything on social media generates revenue for someone, and either the article should not link to anything at all or it could direct readers to resources that are maintained by (and that benefit) WDBJ. To anyone who wishes to edit that section, please do not add more links. If there is a better link that I missed, that's fine, but two is enough. Roches (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Web pages that ask people to leave their condolences and Twitter hashtags are generally unsuitable as links as they are not adding anything of significant news value. WDBJ's plea not to share Flanagan's phone video was made on the day of the shooting, when people were sharing it on Facebook and Twitter. All of the major social media sites have now banned the video, eg YouTube here. However, some sites will always host the video.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Mr Robot

I'm not sure how the community feels about mentioning trivia on articles like this but this source notes that the finale of the USA Network show Mr Robot got pushed from the night it was planned to air because of similarity between its content and these murders earlier in the day. [Edit: Since am here, I'll note my prayers and sympathy for the families. Nothing's good about this but do uphold their memories.] — LlywelynII 08:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Mentioned here above except not by name and mostly supported for inclusion but needed better treatment. I suppose it'll be easier to create a tight and clear mention once the episode airs and whatever's similar either appears or is noted as having been pulled. — LlywelynII 08:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Perpetrator article split

I propose that the perpetrator section be parsed down and Williams' background be moved to an article about him specifically. He's worked at a number of news stations, modeled, and acted in some small bits. With a background in the public eye, there should be enough to split the article, and that section is too long. Much of the info doesn't even provide context for the shooting, ie: where he went to school, etc. Thoughts? --Cagepanes (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No, pare down his section. A lot is irrelevant. He doesn't need to be immortalized. When these nutcases start referencing each other, the less irrelevant details the better. I don't particularly care about his odd jobs, parents, upbringing, etc, etc. More harm than good comes from this. I really don't want the next one citing the make model and caliber of gun that they got from WP as the reason they picked it. Nor do I want some revenge nutcase finding his middle school and think he's solving a future problem. Get rid of the cruft. --DHeyward (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

::But if there's enough coverage on him, and he's been in the news world, shouldn't he be getting his own article rather than us just paring this one? --Cagepanes (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

He's in the news solely because of the shooting. The fact that he didn't have a Wikipedia page before shows that he wasn't considered notable by Wikipedia standards before and that doesn't change just because he shot up a place. Furthermore people looking up info on him aren't interested in his career, they're interested in why he committed the crime. --Deathawk (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This comes up a lot. Google News offers many "What do we know about...?" type stories, so the perpetrator section gets bloated. Someone mentions splitting him off, someone else notes WP:ONEVENT and how dead people can't do further notable things (trials, appeals, jailhouse interviews). After the hubbub, the perpetrator section unbloats just in time for another shooting hubbub, then most of us forget the last guy's name by the time the hubbub after that rolls around.

If Wikipedia bios really "immortalize" people, the key to immortality is not dying during your fifteen minutes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you not see that the irrelevant information is present because certain authors wish to obscure the shooter's stated motives of starting a race war, and his victim complex involving his black gayness? If it is buried in lines and lines of boring text talking about his odd jobs and other pablum, most Wikipedia readers are unlikely to see it.71.45.150.48 (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

So, we should continue starting the imaginary gay race war in the more visible world? Or what? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

As above, no. WP:ONEEVENT. If it looks to be taking over the article, then it falls under WP:UNDUE and needs paring. — LlywelynII 08:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)