Talk:University of Texas tower shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Format of table wrong

The following content in the sixth column in the victims list table:

Whitman knocked Townsley to the floor and split the back of her skull with his rifle ... etc.

makes the table look badly out of shape on mobile: this narrative squeezes out the other columns.

-》 let us move out this text out of this table. Zezen (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me, and how is the content of this one row different from that of all the other rows? EEng 12:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Casualties section

The current, elongated textual format of the casualties section seems difficult to navigate and somewhat exhaustive to read. When the info. on this page was morphed into the Charles Whitman article, it was presented in a table format. Basically, I just believe the information as it stands should be presented in either a table format like it once stood (directly blended alongside the text), or as a sortable table. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• If we're going to keep all the details of what they were doing when shot, where the wound was, etc., then it should be a sortable table, full width of page. If it's just a list of names and ages, then the old sidebar table is fine. The monotonous text narrative is impossible to read. EEng 23:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm almost ready to propose that, for the list/narrative of victims, we simply start over working from the giant page at http://behindthetower.org/the-victims/. But there's one issue I'm not sure what to do about: it's in alpha order (actually two alpha orders, one for fatalities and one for non-fatalities), whereas the narrative we have now seems to be in some kind of chronological order. However, I don't know how that chronological order was constructed, since the various victims are cited to a large number of sources from all over creation -- where's the source that sets the chronology? Does Lavergne, or some other source, give one? EEng 02:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Someone took a great issue with that several years ago, when the articles were still combined, stating beyond the 1st two shot (Wilson & Eckman), we cannot know the precise order. The sources I have chronologically structure the order of events. I don't have Lavergne's book but sections of it can be read online.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, the book reference I used (Mass Murderers) has an exhaustive, three-page collation of periodicals, books and 'other sources' cited as its source material for the text content at the end of the book. --Kieronoldham (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, you're saying you have two sources, each of which gives a chronological list? Are the chronologies completely or mostly consistent? What are the two sources? EEng 03:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I have more than two, but in my opinion, this and and this are the most exhaustive. The information chimes together almost perfectly in these and others (some sources state the Hernandez newsboy on the bike was the first shot however). I also have others, including the original 1966 Time magazine.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I must say it's a pleasure working with you. I propose we start the victim narrative over from scratch, working from BTTTV, paraphrasing it into a table in alpha order. As a separate step we can get the chronology from some source and use it to add a sequence number column, thus putting it chrono order but allowing reader to sort on name, age, etc. EEng 03:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

EEng You're welcome. I'm game for that, and can provide everything (or certainly nearly everything - referenced - to accompany what the reputable sources state). How do you propose we start this? (By the way it's Greenwich Mean here so it may be up to 24 hours before I can reply.) Kez--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Tmw or the next day I'll sandbox a table with a few entries so we can agree on the fmt. After that I'll be happy to paraphrase the victims from BTTTV and you can come after with the chronological order from one of your sources. EEng 05:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• OK, there's a sample at User:EEng/sandbox. What do you think? Open the source to see some comments. I elected to give joint "narratives" for groups of victims; that means sorting isn't possible, though they can still be in rough chronological order. I've come to believe the sorting isn't important. EEng 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• I think it's quite informative and detailed, and hope others agree. I too don't believe the precise order is that important either, EEng. As a matter of fact, initially people thought there was more than one gunman on the deck as me moved about in rapid succession. By the way, Herman was shot but I have never found any greater detail as to this. Kelley was shot in the leg. Here's a pdf file covering the case which clarifies this. As for information or references or sequence just ask me and I'll provide them.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Tah-DAH!

OK, I've put the victims in a table, and I'm POOPED. There are two things I'd appreciate someone checking: (1) Did I lose anyone? (2) Did I get any of the K/I codes (killed/injured) mixed up? Please check against BTTTV. EEng 05:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Referencing messproblems

I thought I'd get a start on putting the victims in a table (see prior thread) just to demonstrate, but I immediately ran into a big problem: the referencing is a big mess -- messed-up Harvard references, duplicated sources, and probably non-RS sources. I'm discouraged. EEng 00:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

EEng I can find/salvage references for most if not all. Reputable ones.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've cleaned up the broken refs anyway. To that I introduced the form of referencing that puts the page numbers in superscripts, because figuring out what was broken in the Harvard references was just too complicated. Now I have a question: why does the play-by-play text narrative of the individual victims draw on a zillion different sources? Surely one of the comprehensive sources e.g. Lavergne lists all that in one place? Same goes for the table of victims in the later section: doesn't Lavergne have a list? EEng 02:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I've also marked a dozen sources as . Most are clearly not RS, maybe one or two are merely borderline. Again, except for certain "color commentary", I wonder how much can't be sourced from a comprehensive work (at least it appears to be) like Lavergne. EEng 02:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to tag bomb to your heart's content. I'll give this some attention over the next few weeks. Right now I'm just piddling, alternating between dad, housekeeper and editor. But I will try to come behind shortly with my "content" hat on. TimothyJosephWood 16:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• BTW, I was being a little harsh when I called the referencing a "mess" -- bad mood. It's just got a mix of the sorts of problem you often see in new articles. I've sorted a lot of it out already and with the possible exception of the reliability question on some of the sources, it's good enough for now. EEng 16:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the sourcing issues, at least the ones that were tagged and anything I happened to catch in the process. TimothyJosephWood 21:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Types of firearms

Apparently Whitman brought five different types of firearms with him up to the clock tower (two repeating rifles, two semi-automatic pistols, a carbine, a shotgun, and a revolver). Does anyone know of any sourcing that identifies how many of the firearms were actually used in the shootings back in 1966? Given that it happened so long ago, I imagine that's hard to figure out at this point, but there might be a reference somewhere that would shed light on it. At the article subsection Mass shootings in the United States#Weapons used, we list "Multiple types of firearms" for the incident, without knowledge as to how many were actually used by the shooter. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

AzureCitizen This may be a start. I can only think a "Google advanced" search may help you. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to be of assistance. Been digging for awhile now, but for something that happened more than 50 years ago it's very difficult to find any sources that address this issue. From what I can tell, Whitman used the shotgun at the start, then relied heavily on the scoped Remington 700 from the top of the tower. For the other firearms, it's unknown and very difficult to pin down. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment

You, on User talk:75.68.250.246 are saying that there should be and currently is a redirect entitled Claire Wilson,redirecting readers to Charles Whitman at University of Texas tower shooting, and in particular to the list of victims. I say Claire Wilson is an athlete from Jersey and I want to create an article titled Claire Wilson about her. I am asking for an outside editor comment on the situation.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• You know what I'm sick of? People starting RfCs with no prior discussion or preparation and for the most trivial of reasons. You started an RfC because an IP reverted you once, 9 hours ago? WTF? Just set up an appropriate WP:DAB or whatever. No need for this sledgehammer-on-a-walnut. Jesus Christ, what a waste. EEng 23:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• On a related note, I changed the redirect to University_of_Texas_tower_shooting#Persons_killed_or_injured_on_the_University_campus which actually does mention Wilson. –dlthewave ☎ 10:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• I have removed the {{rfc}} template. First, this is not a WP:RFC matter - the repurposing of redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD. Second, Dthomsen8 (talk · contribs) seems to have created at least three identical RfCs on different pages (others include Talk:Charles Whitman#Request for Comment and Talk:Claire Wilson#Request for Comment), in clear contravention of WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Add crimes influenced by this tragedy

At least Rose-Mar College of Beauty shooting and Stoneman Douglas High School shooting are no doubt influenced by it, yet I've skimmed the article and surprisingly found out that these tragedies are not mentioned at all. I want to add but not sure what is the best way to do so. Should indeed be a section called "Contagion", or a subsection using that name under "Legacy and memorials" or just add these two events in the "legacy" section? I'm not sure, so I initiated this discussion.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

First find reliable sources explaining the link — and these need to be more than post hoc, propter hoc speculation. EEng 09:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

According to [1], the perpetrator of Rose-Mar College of Beauty shooting wanted infamy, and television stations' extensive coverage of Richard Speck and Charles Whitman made him do it. And according to [2], the victimizer of Parkland mass shooting wanted to mimic University of Texas tower shooting.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess I was hoping for something more authoritative than a blog post and a TMZ YouTube video. EEng 13:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Mental health

Charles Whitman demonstrated patterns of troubling thoughts and behaviors for years before the Tower shooting. He met with a psychiatrist, Maurice D. Heatley, at the UT Student Health Clinic a few months prior to the shooting and expressed thoughts of hostility and plans of homicide. He also expressed distress over his parents’ divorce, his marital troubles, and particularly his own feelings of failure as a student. Heatley’s analysis of Whitman was that he was an “‘an all-American boy’ whose troubles could be managed through a series of one-on-one sessions.” Whitman was given a follow-up appointment that he did not attend.

While speculation over what caused Whitman to commit these murders began on August 1, 1966 and has never ceased, a committee report ultimately concluded that “‘profound personal dissatisfaction’ and [a] range of personal and family problems” were the only precipitating factors that could be officially cited, because Whitman had not received a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation.

Mental illness is not considered a factor in the majority of mass shootings. However, the Tower shooting instigated a series of broader conversations surrounding the efficacy of available counseling services at the time as well as the responsibility of those employed by these services to intervene in such potentially dangerous situations as this one.

The Hogg Foundation for Mental Health

The Hogg Foundation for Mental Health at the University of Texas had been working to broaden conversations about mental health since its founding in 1940, over 25 years prior to the shooting, by bringing experts into the field to speak to Texans all across the state. Despite these efforts, resources for students on college campuses were limited in scope at the time.

In 1965, one year before the shooting, the Foundation’s national advisory council identified campus mental health as an “urgent and timely” issue due to the rapid growth of American collegiate attendance in the postwar era. In early 1966, a task force organized by the Foundation found that most students considered counseling services to be “too psychiatrically oriented” to meet the authentic needs of students, that these services were reserved for those experiencing significant psychological distress, and that they would not feel comfortable utilizing them.

Following the shooting, the Hogg Foundation has continuously sought to enhance services for students in efforts led primarily by Robert Lee Sutherland and Ira Iscoe. These efforts have included funding a three-year study to enhance mental health services within the University Counseling Center, creating a 24-hour telephone hotline for students in distress, and providing resources to underprivileged communities across Texas to address underlying challenges to mental health. Since 1966, the suicide rate at UT Austin has become one of the lowest in the nation.

|}

Personally, I think there's probably room for this aspect of the subject to be covered, but it should adhere to our key policies of neutrality, use of third-party, independent sourcing and only in due weight. SN54129 15:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

27th Floor

As I was looking at the edit page for the "Whitman arrives on campus" part, saw a little note stating

Someone check the "27th Floor", Please...

or something along the lines of those. I don't know what they mean by checking the "27th Floor" part.

Anyone know what they mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourlocaldude (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

2016 monument listing the names of the victims

It is interesting that on the 50th anniversary monument, instead of the word "killed," the Latin equivalent "interfecti" is used. (This can be seen quite clearly in the photograph that accompanies this article.)

I moved to Austin in 2019, and when I first walked past the monument, that was the first thing I noticed, and I wondered about it. It is the only Latin word on the monument. Everything else is in English. Toddcs (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I messed up the Archive when I adjusted things

Just a notice - yes I am aware I goofed. Am going to get it fixed, give me time folks. Shearonink (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Cleaned up. This was the problem. Courcelles (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Is this allowed to be posted?

I was wondering if in the catagory of media regarding this if its allowed to be added the song "The Tower" performed by Insane Clown Posse as it is based off of and tells the story of this event, albeit from the percieved perspective of the perpetrator? Onceinamoon (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)