Wikipedia

Talk:Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward/Archive 4

< Talk:Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Ianmacm in topic racially motivated
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Would anyone object to me removing the screenshot?

Latest comment: 7 years ago72 comments5 people in discussion

I guess I could be bold and remove the screenshot of Parker reacting to the gunman, but I want to know what others think. I know Wikipedia isn't censored, and the following is just my opinion, but the screenshot isn't adding anything of value to the article. I feel like there is nothing to be gained by having the screenshot. Looks wise, it looks like something a tabloid would use. Also you there is this information in the article- "Head of the American Psychological Association PTSD Guidelines Development Panel Christine Courtois warned that anyone watching the footage was likely to be upset, and some, particularly children and trauma victims, would be more susceptible to this leading to acute stress disorder than others.The New York Post and New York Daily News, along with British tabloids including the Daily Mirror and The Sun, were criticized for their decision to publish still frames from Flanagan's phone video of the murder on their front pages.". Right above this information is the screenshot. It makes Wikipedia look laughable. 2601:483:100:CB54:65D1:D947:6835:84D3 (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, I added the portion of the double standards issue from other sources. Can you reread it? Also, how must the issue be different from other articles, like death of Eric Garner? George Ho (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Ahh... we have two admins accepting the image as the body image. Can you do that also? George Ho (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

George Ho, I will wait to see what others think of the screenshot. Also, the image of Eric Garner, did other people criticize newspapers for using that photo? Like they did about Allison Parker's screenshot? Did anyone have a problem with the image that's on Eric Garners Wikipedia page? I understand that Wikipedia isn't governed by what the head of the American psychological association thinks, etc. 2601:483:100:CB54:65D1:D947:6835:84D3 (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Some editors criticized File:Eric Garner facebook.jpg as redundant because it's used in a non-biography article and voted "delete". They do not mind readers seeing the choking image. George Ho (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
If you are discussing criticism on the media, Jon Stewart ranted against the coverage of Garner's death. Or maybe he was joking? George Ho (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
At the moment, it seems to be mostly George Ho insisting on having the image while others have expressed disagreement or caution. Wikipedia isn't LiveLeak or a tabloid newspaper, and it isn't necessary to show this. If I had to choose a screenshot it would be one showing a few moments before the actual shooting. Anyone with modest Google skills can find the entire video without any problems. Also, I don't think that the long attempt to say "media hypocrisy" in the article is achieving very much, and is simply trying to justify the inclusion of the image on the grounds that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It runs into problems with WP:NPOV and WP:TOPIC by harping on about this at great length. This case is not a direct parallel of ones where white police officers have shot black Americans, setting off huge controversy. It is right that the police will come under scrutiny in these situations. Flanagan deliberately set out to kill Ward and Parker, with publicity for himself being the main goal.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
You mean this image? If that is more helpful than the "reaction" image, let's go for it. --George Ho (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
This image is Ok, but I wouldn't add it in case it got nominated for deletion on NFCC grounds. It isn't essential for a reader's understanding of the case.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with the trimming, not the removal of the image without consensus yet at FFD. I don't think a talk page is adequate enough yet. Also, we are still having both the Ward/Parker press photo and the reaction photo. However, hold off on nominating the Ward/Parker one as FFD because the Eric Garner bio pic is still under discussion. Meanwhile, we have a proposal to change from "Murders of" to "Killings of." --George Ho (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the article is running into WP:TOPIC problems by spending a great deal of time on the media reactions. There are arguments for and against showing the screenshot, but media organizations that did show it ran into criticism of poor taste. I don't see any direct parallels with the death of Eric Garner, because that is one of many controversies about police brutality towards black Americans. This incident is more like Sandy Hook and other shootings in the USA where an unsuitable person had easy access to a gun. Flanagan knew exactly what he was doing and the deaths he caused were in no way accidental or a screw-up.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia may not be a place for critical thinking. Wikipedia may not be a news organization. Wikipedia may not be a tabloid. However, not showing the image in the article—just the section, not the top of the article—would hamper readers' critical thinking (and probably grasp) toward the article's subject itself and the media coverage of the subject. "WP:NFCC#8" doesn't mention "article quality"; just the "article topic". To make the use "fair", I am not using a video (a lot more shocking than the frame shot) or a non-free image of the living person (the interviewee). The video and the image are "offensive". However, if I used the video, I would be violating WP:offensive material. Also, because it has the living person, the interviewee, I would be violating WP:BLP. The cropped "image" is less shocking than the full image of Parker and the interviewee and less than the video itself. Flanagan's motive aside, but using the Parker image shot will help readers see why it is considered offensive... just in the "Media response" section. George Ho (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree with the following "However, not showing the image in the article—just the section, not the top of the article—would hamper readers' critical thinking (and probably grasp) toward the article's subject itself and the media coverage of the subject". I understand that this is an online encyclopedia, but is Wikipedia really concerned with readers "critical thinking"? I'm not offended by the screenshot, I just think it makes Wikipedia look like a tabloid, or like liveleak. 2601:483:100:CB54:65D1:D947:6835:84D3 (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No, showing the image doesn't make the Wikipedia article a tabloid or a symptom of sleazy journalism (using metaphors here). A tabloid would be writing some sleazy article on the newspaper or WikiNews or emphasize something. Actually, the article here is providing general knowledge about the whole topic, and the image would be part of the knowledge. I did not intend to sensationalize the topic or Wikipedia. And I'm not using the image to trivialize the topic. George Ho (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

George Ho, Why can't we just have general knowledge without the screenshot? I feel like the article is now more focused on how some media were criticized for publishing the video and screenshots/pictures. 2601:483:100:CB54:65D1:D947:6835:84D3 (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The definition of "general knowledge" is a little loose and has some definitions. Nevertheless, one definition disregards a lot of expertise in one area or another and great knowledge from specialists. Somehow, the article also says that such knowledge is associated with general intelligence, whose article is... [let's read its lead first because the rest of it is a little] complicated [to read]. Back to this article article, is showing or would omitting the picture pervert the meaning of general knowledge? Am I dumbing down readers by showing the image, or would we be dumbing down the readers by omitting the image? George Ho (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
At first intent, I did put the image in the lead to help readers understand the topic. However, I was convinced that the image is more appropriate as a body image. Per MOS:LEAD, people can read the lead section, including the infobox, and then either read the rest or not read the rest and then move on. If they read the rest, then readers can understand the details. Speaking of the lead, I already mentioned at #Lead section that it needs rewriting. --George Ho (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that it is anything to do with dumbing down. In the past few days, the article has wandered off at a tangent over the controversial media coverage, to the point where it now has WP:TOPIC issues. The controversy over some of the media coverage has to be looked at, but the article is not a PhD on Reactions to the Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward, which is how parts of the article now read. The PhD style material seems to have been added to justify the inclusion of the image. The media knew perfectly well that Flanagan had committed the crimes to gain publicity for himself, and was cautious about going along with this wish, which Catherine Bennett described as his "vanity script".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
What is a "PhD-style material"? Is it an expertise writing or something? Anyway, I see that you removed the opinion by Linda Stasi. Also, I re-read WP:NPOV. (Saying "Read WP:NPOV" sounds like a second-person narrative.) The viewpoints by black writers may have been prominent, though one or two would be enough. However, since re-reading the policy, I am trying to find similar sources matching the views of the removed content (Stasi). If I can find another one similar to Stasi's, then I'm proving further that I'm not trying to make it more like an expertise. Also, I'm not making either the murders or the media more or less important than the other. However, the media is mainly responsible for the notability of the murders. I don't know why other murder cases, like Edmond post office shooting, murder of Sherri Rasmussen, etc., are notable other than high media distribution. With a lot of details in those pages, however, I would never be able to nominate them for deletion. If the media made those cases meet WP:GNG without having their articles mention media coverage, then I'm astonished.

If the balance of the article is an issue, maybe we should head over to WP:NPOVN and then wait for other parties to get involved. George Ho (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The text of the article seems to have been skewed into saying "OMG censorship" if it does not show the reaction image of Alison Parker being shot. Many media organizations decided not to show this because it is upsetting and plays into Flanagan's hands. How he must love having a Wikipedia article with this image in it. Of course, in the age of the Internet, anyone can find the entire video easily. But I still don't think that the screenshot is needed here, or a lengthy discussion of media coverage which has nothing to do with the shooting itself.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Sadly, I see so many sources discussing "White privilege" and black trauma. I can't remove what the paragraph says about that. How did I search it? Use her name and either "Eric Garner", "African Americans", "blacks" or something else related. It's almost everywhere. Nevertheless, I'm still finding sources discussing double standards not related to black vs white thing. George Ho (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
This can help in case of doubt. --George Ho (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
One of the videos that has stuck in my mind is the one where a Dallas police officer shot a mentally ill black man in March 2015. CNN here has shown the full video even though it is disturbing, but the news anchor makes clear that the man's family wanted the video to be shown "to spark reform". Alison Parker was shot to give Vester Flanagan the lasting notoriety that he so dearly wanted. I don't think that this case has parallels with ones where police officers have shot black men in controversial circumstances. This runs into WP:TOPIC issues by attempting to discuss something that is not directly relevant here. This would be more on topic at Police brutality in the United States.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Better essay you are looking for is WP:relevance, which has links in "See also" section. The two sources in the "Media response" section discussing white vs black also used the Parker footage as an example. By the way, how would you fit in the examples of police brutality footages in that article? Create "Media coverage" section or something? George Ho (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... I found one from HuffPost to verify your matter. I'll add that soon to please you, but I'm not removing the image just because of that piece and your opinions. George Ho (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Some journalists have made comparisons with the death of Eric Garner but I beg to differ. It is right for the police to come under scrutiny if their actions are controversial. Vester Flanagan was a flake who wanted lasting notoriety and knew perfectly well what he was doing. I don't think that the media was cautious about showing the Alison Parker video because she was white, but because they knew this was a game that Flanagan wanted them to play.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm still not motivated by Flanagan's "game" enough to remove the image. Whether he was posthumously doing that or not won't change my decision about the image. With enough content of the section, I still believe that, without the image, the readers might not see why every individual piece or station made its decision to either post or not post the footage. Readers would be believing in media's opinions rather than their own. George Ho (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Moreover, without the image, readers would not adequately understand the murders itself, though they can read the lead and then move on... unless they can read further and fully understand how and why the murders are notable. George Ho (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Again, you may take the issue to NPOV noticeboard if balancing is your concern. George Ho (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I found Mary McNamara's column saying that Flanagan would win if people avoid watching the footage. George Ho (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it is about anyone winning or losing. It is pretty silly to say "you didn't watch the video, you lose". I've watched the live on air video and Flanagan's phone video, and don't consider myself to be a "winner" or a "loser". The choice about whether to watch this type of material is always a personal one. At the moment, the text of the article is being turned into a laundry list of reactions that justify the inclusion of the screenshot. "Look, here's another source I found that justifies the inclusion of the screenshot." This is a clear WP:NPOV problem--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
...How about tagging it with either {{POV section}} or {{undue weight section}} and linking any discussion? Or maybe {{off topic}} or {{importance section}}? When you said "laundry list", you mean data-hoarding, to whom "WP:laundry list" redirects? George Ho (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
And... ahem, McNamara didn't imply that not watching it makes you a loser, did she? George Ho (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

George Ho, you wrote "I still believe that, without the image, the readers might not see why every individual piece or station made its decision to either post or not post the footage. Readers would be believing in media's opinions rather than their own." I have an opposite opinion. I think without the image, readers can read the huge, vast amounts of information you've written about other media showing the image/video. I also believe that we don't need to list every individual instance of which stations and media showed the image/video. I feel like the Wikipedia article is getting off topic about the killings of Parker and Ward and focusing more on the opinions and controversies that resulted from stations showing the image or video. I also don't understand why you keep comparing this Wikipedia article about Parker and Ward to Eric Garner. Just because the Eric Garner Wikipedia has an image of him being killed, doesn't mean the Parker and Ward Wikipedia article needs one. 2601:483:100:CB54:65D1:D947:6835:84D3 (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

In order to understand Mexican drugs gangs on Wikipedia, we don't need to show a screenshot of the video of two men being beheaded with a chainsaw, and then cry "censorship" when it is not included.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Why are the gangs related to this? Also, I searched sources mentioning both simultaneously and found none. George Ho (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, readers will see various opinions of journalists and columnists. The paragraph about media's opinions was either slanted or one-sided, even when looking short yet less complete. A lot of content added would diversify the opinions of writers and broadcasters. A read would see a paragraph of writers comparing Parker and Ward to others. George Ho (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The whole media reactions section is becoming an exercise in self justification for the editor who is determined to add the image of the screenshot. It is now way too long in proportion to the rest of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I've trimmed the article because it is giving excessive detail about journalists' op-ed pieces when a few short quotes would suffice.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
How does removing the op-ed pieces about white vs black by African Americans help? I can add back Jamilah Lemieux and Julie Posetti and Twitter user's opinion if that is enough for you. --George Ho (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
People are entitled to say whatever they like in an op-ed piece and it isn't necessary to launch into a laundry list of "A said B" and "C said D" and "E said F" and "G said H". This type of thing isn't standard practice in articles about mass shootings because it runs into WP:TOPIC issues.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You keep citing the essay over and over. Any part of WP:NPOV issue that we are dealing with? If NPOV noticeboard is not enough, what about WP:DRN? George Ho (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
This article has gone off the rails. Articles about mass shootings may need to look at the media coverage angle and this one certainly does because of the controversy generated by some of the media coverage. However, it isn't necessary to raid Google to quote umpteen op-ed pieces at great length. This is becoming the tail that wags the dog.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Somehow, we have reached our peaks of disagreements. I don't know why we can't take this to a noticeboard. They can help us better, right? George Ho (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

George Ho, I still don't understand what Alison Parker and Adam Ward have to with Eric Garner. One was killed by police, the others were not. Just because one Wikipedia article has a photo, doesn't mean that this Wikipedia article needs one. I also don't understand why when myself and Ianmacm tell you there is too much information in the media response section of the article, you keep wanting to ad more, even after Ianmacm trimmed the article you wrote "I can add back Jamilah Lemieux and Julie Posetti and Twitter user's opinion if that is enough for you". Why do we need twitter reactions? 2601:483:100:CB54:65D1:D947:6835:84D3 (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Two others said they don't mind the reaction image. How do they not count? George Ho (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
When op-eds compared the incidents, they did not mention police brutality or motives by the murderer. They simply mentioned how footages would affect the demographics. --George Ho (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

(canvas note) George solicited my opinion on this. I don't really have one. I think that if there was a "free" image, it'd be largely harmless, but the news image is not free. I'm not closely familiar with the law, but the perpetrator's own cell phone video might have lost copyright protection? I dunno. I don't think it adds very much to the article so it'd be a stretch to meet NFCC, so I'd see if a free replacement image could be found. SnowFire (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Masem and Acroterion, if I remove the image, would the readers still understand the murders without the image? George Ho (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Daniel Case, what about you? George Ho (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

In any case, I made a sandbox version without the non-free images. You can read and tell me whether you understand the topic without the non-free images. George Ho (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC); made another update. 02:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

If no one else chimes in here about keeping the screenshot, Im going to be bold, and remove the screenshot tomorrow. Worse thing that will happen is someone will revert me I guess. Im tired of going round and round, and never getting straight answers from some people. George Ho, are you absolutely serious when you ask Masem and Acroterion, " if I remove the image, would the readers still understand the murders without the image?" While I can't answer for Masem and Acroterion, Why in the world would anyone not understand the murders without the screenshot? I'm going to guess that the majority of people that visit Wikipedia can read, or they wouldn't be here, so of course they would understand the murders without the screenshot. I've said this repeatedly, I know Wikipedia isn't censored, it's just that in my opinion, the screenshot looks like it's in the article for shock value, and makes Wikipedia look like a tabloid. 2601:483:100:CB54:65D1:D947:6835:84D3 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC) George Ho, Sorry, we had an edit conflict, so I'm just now reading your sandbox revision. I'm just glancing at it quickly because I'm tired, but I will read it more closely tomorrow but It's seems ok. Another opinion, I don't think you need so much info in the media response section. I'm not trying to nit pick, It's just my opinion, that you don't have to include every single opinion in the universe under media response. If it were me, I would just list a couple of examples of notable people/press who had a problem with the image, and a couple of examples of those that didn't think showing the image or video was harmful. I'm going to bed now. I will read it with fresh eyes tomorrow. Have a good night. 2601:483:100:CB54:65D1:D947:6835:84D3 (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Did I sound like "I don't hear that"? If so, I apologize for making a misunderstanding. I do grasp your understanding the topic without the image. Nevertheless, having just two oppositions against the image wasn't enough for me to form the consensus. SnowFire's opinions did persuade me to reconsider the image... well, he said that a free replacement is possible, so there. Still, I can wait for either two admins or just one admin and another editor. There you have a consensus. By the way, have a fresh sleep. George Ho (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC); another one of sandbox versions. When you wake you, maybe you can use either <br/> or <p> to make your separate messages well read. Okay? Again, good night. 02:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
A freshest sandbox version. George Ho (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, of course people would understand the shooting without the inclusion of the reaction image. I still think it has dubious NFCC8 status and images have been deleted for less. The battle to include the image has led to a lot of text being added to the article to justify including the image by quoting in great detail op-ed pieces mentioning that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This has spoiled rather than improving the readability of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
No, even without the image, the section did need some expansion. Also, the lead section needs improvement, and Reactions section still mentions gun contrl. Umm... I want to hold back, but I can't any longer. I still don't know why the IP is solely interested in this article or this image. The IP comes from Tennessee, verified by Geolocate. Is that Tennessee IP person interested in other parts of Wikipedia, like Main Page? George Ho (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
A bit worried about WP:AGF here. I've never seen this particular shooting as a gun control issue, as there was nothing in Flanagan's criminal record or mental health that prevented him from owning a gun. Also, the weapon was a Glock pistol which could fire fifteen shots at a time. He emptied the magazine during the shooting. Unlike some mass shooters, Flanagan did not own enough weapons and ammunition to start a small war, but the pistol was still deadly enough for what he wanted to do on that particular day.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Why citing AGF? Was I biting the newcomer? Anyway, maybe we can skim down the gun control passage at the Reactions page rather than expand it. Or what else? George Ho (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I removed Mr. Robot as less relevant to the topic itself. I thought about removing Documentary Now! and Immortalized as other articles mention it; I even added the portion into Immortalized page. The rest of the section is relevant to the murders partially due to the broadcasting of it and the disturbing nature of it. I don't know why Cooke's opinion was added before I identified the person who said it. I didn't add it when the article was developing last year; I removed it this year. Media discretion is relevant because... obviously, the murders are disturbing. The suspect was disturbed as well. ...Come to think of it, if you are concerned about Flanagan winning, why not skim down the "Perpetrator" section? I did read most of it, and I'd rather read about Media reactions than the section about Flanagan, which might have a lot of emphasis with his online posts. Also, he was... or became disturbing as f***ed. His "Personal background" is okay. His "Tenure at WDBJ" is... kinda okay, though I can do without too much on the third paragraph. Yes, Flanagan was part of the article's topic, but there might still be too much detail. However, I can understand the murders without having to learn too much about Flanagan, right? In fact, I thought Flanagan sections is a lot too much more than "Media response" itself. And... I hope the readers can understand the murders without too much on Flanagan, right? George Ho (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Re-reading "Shooting and motive", I don't know why it's a subsection of "Perpetrator". Maybe it can be an independent section; the whole content is very comprehensive and too valuable to be skimmed down. George Ho (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that the op-ed pieces need to be used sparingly as they are only one person's opinion, albeit published somewhere. The link with incidents like Eric Garner's death is tenuous at best, because Flanagan's ranting fax "motive" made clear that his own mental instability was the primary cause of the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I removed the "Eric Garner" instances already. I reinserted the op-eds but reinterpret them and rephrased their words into more about the murders. George Ho (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe this. All I wanted to do was one edit, remove a image. Sounds simple. If I were in the wrong, I figured all that would happen is someone would replace the image. Instead this has turned into a million paragraphs of text. and this, takes the cake- "I want to hold back, but I can't any longer. I still don't know why the IP is solely interested in this article or this image. The IP comes from Tennessee, verified by Geolocate". George Ho, since you can't "hold back" (whatever that means). I'm not just interested in this article or image. If you must know, Before I went to bed, I went to the page actress Kristy Mcnichol and removed something that was vandalism or didn't have a source.( you can check the Kristy Mcnichol page if your curious) My other interests are music, ASL, notable events, and just about anything one can think of. I don't understand why you need to know if I'm interested in the main page? The answer is no. How I came about this page, and any others that I edit, is that I happen to think about whatever the subject is, and come to Wikipedia to read about it. If I see something wrong, like vandalism, something without a source, or bad grammar, etc, I attempt to correct it. I'm a 43 year old woman who lives in Middle Tennessee. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2006. I had an account I started in 2006 with my daughter who was in jr high at the time. I don't log into the account because I don't remember the password and I don't have the same email as 10 years ago to reset the password for my account. I also don't understand this whole thing to be honest. You say the community is divided, yet it seems like IanMacm, me and you are the only ones discussing whether to remove the image. I can't speak for IanMacm, but reading through everything, it seems he and I share pretty much the same opinion. (IanMacm, I apologize if you don't share my opinion about the image/screenshot, as there are a million paragraphs to read through on this talk page) anyway, it's like IanMacm and myself have written a several times on here why we don't like the image, listed our reasons, and you George Ho, are the only one that wants the image/screenshot to stay. I also think it's odd that when I asked if I could remove the screenshot, I was told I would that you object and "This needs real consensus before removal". Yet you, can remove the image just by asking Masem and Acroterion, "If I remove the image, would the readers still understand the murders without the image?". Both myself and IanMacm pretty much said that readers would understand the shooting without your screenshot, yet you still wouldn't agree to removing it. I know that by not having an account anyone can see my IP address, but George Ho, why did you use Geolocate and announce to everyone on this talk page that my IP goes to Tennessee? What does that have to do with me wanting to remove the screenshot? 2601:483:100:CB54:65D1:D947:6835:84D3 (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. George Ho (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Now that she accepts my apologies for the debunked, blatant accusations, let's go past the IP situation and get back to the image. I'm been thinking about the reaction image. I captured other images and saved them in my hard drive: one different shot from the broadcast, another from the killer's cam showing the gun in his hand, and one shot in seconds before the gun thing appeared in the cam. I thought about replacing the reaction image with one or two images. However, if other editors whom I mentioned can still understand the article subject without any non-free image, I won't stop the removal, and I won't add replacements. For now, I'm still awaiting other opinions. George Ho (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

George Ho, are you sure she accepted your apologies? I didn't see such a thing, at least, not on the user-talkpage for her which is linked above. Perhaps I missed the diff though -- it looks like she was using a dynamic IP address, with a different IP at the helpdesk. According to the question she asked at the helpdesk, however, she just gave up and stopped editing wikipedia entirely. Not a good outcome. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
She did: here it is. And no, she probably did not leave Wikipedia. She used a newer account eventually: Paige Matheson (talk · contribs). George Ho (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, then my worries were unfounded, and everything turned out well. Thanks for responding calmly George Ho, I was a little prickly with you there. I'm glad I was wrong about the outcome, apologies if I came off as too stern. I too was a bit exhausted after reading this long thread :-)
Paige Matheson, if you wish, George and myself are in the midst of launching another exhaustingly-long discussion, about what the proper page-title for the article should be... see below, a couple sections down, your input would also be most welcome, should you have anything to say before that new thread gets completely out of control! <grin/> I've been spending too much time over at Talk:Donald_Trump unfortunately, so I'm used to horrendously long talkpage-discussions now, as the norm 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I notified Ian at the user talk page that I removed the image. Thinking about it, I guess I should use WP:MCQ next time before I upload something offensive but not related to police brutality. --George Ho (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This outcome, by which I am specifically referring only to the actual removal of the picture (not any of the other thoughts), I do agree with. Per reasoning below, in a new subsection. And although I theoretically support keeping the section about the media reaction (I came here via New York Post which features the Alison Parker killshot at the top of the page -- sheesh), in principle, in practice I would be hard-pressed to support it as a way to justify keeping an imagefile! Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what is FACTUAL in the reliable sources, and what is important in an encyclopedic sense. Just because a lot of scandalmongering sources, printed tasteless gruesome photos, does NOT mean that wikipedia must also print those things. Wikipedia has pictures of all sorts of pornographic subjects, all sort of violence, all sorts of atrocities, all sorts of things, but they are for an encyclopedic purpose, not for a decorative purpose. If the imagefile is not *absolutely essential* to understanding the topic-matter, then it probably does not belong. See my comments below for more on this matter. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

imagefiles (not an arbitrary breakpoint)

Agree with the current layout: map at the top in the infobox, to explain to people that don't know where the town in Virginia is located where exactly this happened (especially important for international readership). Also, in the section about the victims, small photos of the two victims that died, as they were killed and died at the scene (distinct from dying due to self-inflicted gunshot wounds as the killer did), and furthermore they were the premeditated targets. Garner survived, good for her, and was only shot for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, which the news media give only passing mention unto. Scandal and gore, front page, survivor who was lucky to be alive, passing mention, that is the modern media in a nutshell for you. No picture of the killer, I was perfectly able to understand what happened without that. No picture of the shooting as filmed by the killer, I was perfectly able to understand what happened without that. No picture of the shooting as filmed by the one of the victims, I was perfectly able to understand that the killer purposely waited until the television-footage *was* being live-broadcast before opening fire. The encyclopedic material is about the coverage, in reliable sources, of the factual events (the shooting and the deaths), the backdrop (the motive and the employment history of the killer), and the aftermath (the media coverage and the media reaction TO the media coverage). We don't need photographs for understanding these things. I would even be happy to see the photos of the victims removed, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but I don't think they are hurting anything being in there, and I presume they are a standard feature of such articles, especially given the article-title. But definitely no tabloid-churnalism stills from the attack itself, and definitely no autoplay stereo sound movie of the fatalities. As an encyclopedia, the focus here should be on the encyclopedic content: the facts of the notable event, the historical backdrop, and the social and legal reactions the event caused. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggested a new article-title, which has only the map, no imagefiles required. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Current title

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I've been thinking. After reading the whole article (minus the screenshot the I added), is the article more about Parker's and Ward's murders, or is it more about Flanagan's shootings? It contains info about the survivor, Vicki Gardner, but it is very brief. Parker's and Ward's bios are very brief. Flanagan's section is larger than other bios. Also, he committed suicide on the day of the shooting, resulting in no charges and then no trial. There was investigation, but that's all. And I don't think "Media responses" spoiled their learning about the horrific incident. Maybe the focus weighs on either Flanagan or the dead victims. Shame that "Media responses" is scapegoated when, in fact, the current title should have implied it's more about their murders. --George Ho (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I reread Talk:Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward/Archive 3#Requested move 26 August 2015. The previous consensus disagreed with the current title but did not form an agreement together. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, there is Ariel Castro kidnappings, which had previous titles before the current one. George Ho (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Recommend Deaths of Alison Parker and Adam Ward (or 'Homicides of...' but that does not roll off the tongue very well), changed my mind: Televised shooting in Moneta, Virginia (2015) which is what makes the event notable in the WP:N sense -- they were the victims killed on live television, in a premeditated fashion (both the killings and the on-television-setting were premeditated as evidenced by Flanagan's contact with ABC about the unspecified story he wanted them to air prior to the shooting). If you take out the deaths (shootings which led to deaths more precisely) of Parker and Ward, during a live broadcast, you have a story about workplace violence; this article is about premeditated perceived-racism-motivated violence by a media-savvy journalist against perceived-racists-in-a-symbolic-sense, on top of also being about workplace-related violence in a literal sense. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking "Vester Flanagan shooting(s)", 47.222.203.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). By the way, I think you are too good for this IP address by looking at your contributions. Do you have an old account already? If not, why not registering for a new account? George Ho (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I always just edit anon, and always have, I like it better thataway. Keeps the experienced username-based editors like yourself on your toes ;-)
I would be loath to put Flanagan's name in the title of the article, but I don't think that is a policy-backed-loathing, just a strong personal gut reaction. Do most of the sources say Vester Flanagan, or do they mostly use his pen name Bryce Williamson? Unfortunately, in terms of what the bulk of the sources usually say, if we wanted to be literal about reflecting what the television and newspaper coverage of the incident was like, we would have to title the article something like Large Man SHOOTS Blond Female News Reporter LIVE ON TELEVISION which is pretty much ___exactly___ how most of the media covered this event. When they weren't sniping at each other, about how those *other* journalists are even less ethical than we are, looky look, clicky click.... gotta sell more adverts, gotta attract more eyeballs....
Luckily, we wikipedians get to be more encyclopedic about things, and we don't have to follow what the news media used for their headlines. I do personally not think that Flanagan the killer was the main thing that made this story national news, nor was it Parker and Ward the victims (let alone Gardner who lived and therefore gets little media attention).
In my mind, the long-term significance of this incident is how Flanagan became a modern example of the Herostratus syndrome, the infamous arsonist who burned down one of the wonders of the world solely as a means to achieving everlasting fame. Which worked, despite strenuous efforts to erase him from history. If you are correct, and the article is eventually re-titled to be Vester Flanagan (famous killer), then it will prove that wikipedians have learned little since the days of Herostratus...
With that unfortunate outcome firmly in mind, my recommendation is that this article be titled something impeccably neutral like Televised shooting in Moneta, Virginia (2015) (as distinct from 'televised killings' since the shooting was televised but the deaths were subsequent off-camera events), stripped bare so as to contain no imagefiles whatsoever except the map showing where the encyclopedically-notable event happened, and furthermore reconsider the whole article as one entry within a broader series of articles on fame-driven and/or racially-charged crime-events, probably which in turn would be a WP:SPINOFF of the criminal justice article about motive. But personally, though I can suggest such a plan, I don't have the expertise to write such things. Maybe you will take a crack at it, User:George Ho, or mayhap someday in the future some third wikipedian will read our conversation here, and become inspired to do so? Time will tell. Best, 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Or a natural format for your proposal: 2015 televised shooting in Moneta, Virginia. Here is WP:NCE. George Ho (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Chris Hurst

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Alison Parker's boyfriend and co-worker, Chris Hurst, has just been elected to the Virginia House of Delegates, representing the 12th district.[1] He's frequently said that her death was what led him to run for office.[2] Should this be mentioned in the article? Is he notable enough to merit an article of his own yet? Normally I'd just add it myself but I don't want to get out in front of someone who's more experienced in this area. Reschultzed|||Talk|||Contributions 03:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this. I think it is running into WP:TOPIC and WP:NOTNEWS issues for this article. It isn't directly related to the shooting and is somewhat tangential.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It’s highly relevant and we’ll do the reader a disservice if we leave it out. —Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary fact

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

From the lead: "Parker and Ward were the seventh and eighth journalists killed on the job in the United States since 1992." Is there some significance to the 1992 cut-off that isn't obvious to me? 80.2.41.198 (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It comes from this cite, and I agree that the 1992 cut-off doesn't make all that much sense. It may have come about because the Committee to Protect Journalists doesn't have records going back further than 1992, see here. In any case, Parker and Ward were not killed because they were journalists working in a repressive country on a dangerous story, they were killed by a former colleague who was a wacko with a grudge. This could be removed from the WP:LEAD without any great loss. Thoughts?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
You're right, their deaths had nothing to do with their field, absent some evidence-supported claim that U.S. journalists suffer a higher-than-average on-the-job murder rate (this rate is about 0.038 per year per 10,000, by the way). I suspect that the rate per population is not significantly higher than many other fields in the U.S. Even if highly visible journalists are at higher risk from the general public simply because they are highly visible, this is not such a case. Therefore it's hardly noteworthy in this article, and this is what often happens when we ignore WP:WEIGHT and allow content on the sole basis of one or two sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

News coverage about video

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The video of my daughter’s murder is still on YouTube and Facebook. They should have to take it down. Should this be in the article?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

racially motivated

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've removed the categories relating to racially motivated violence, as they don't seem a good fit. I've found this prior discussion which didn't really go anyways, but neither did it contain an comprehensive rationale for including them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Reinstate the categories. These mureers WERE racially motivated. 77.248.235.127 (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Flanagan was a crank who developed grudges against people. It isn't a clear case of racial motivation.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murders_of_Alison_Parker_and_Adam_Ward/Archive_4&oldid=1215726310"