Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Victor9876 (talk | contribs) at 03:00, 21 October 2008 (→Note: removed my personal info). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello!

Your NOR point might be valid if the Martinez book was being used as a reference for a fact or quote being used otherwise in the article. However, all that the reference is being used for is to verify the statement "In 2003, Martinez published his memoirs, entitled, They Call Me Ranger Ray: From the UT Tower Sniper to Corruption in South Texas." It makes no difference whatsoever whether his memoir was published by a vanity press or by the most prominent publishing house in the world. It's only being used for issues of verifiability of the statement and would not qualify as spam in either case, which is the reason you gave in your edit summary for its removal. The portion of the edit summary regarding quotes refers to your having made bold quotes here, which has nothing to do with the Martinez book. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your reply to Martinez quote.

I understand your points, however, the quote actually adds nothing to the Whitman page except one officers point of view. If I may suggest, Martinez, as well as McCoy, both have pages of their own. To move Martinez's point of reference onto his page, I think, would be the better place for it. His book can then be put in the further reading section of the Whitman page. This way, the other officers can't blame a bias towards Martinez (which I assure you there has been for over forty years), and eliminate future conflicts with all of the officers who were in the tower. Sound O.K.?

I'm not really sure where you are coming from, but what I do know is that there is nothing wrong with keeping the Martinez quote in the article and that it shows no bias one way or another. Your edit tonight pointedly removed the reference to the Martinez book and disguised it with a misleading edit summary - "removed hypothetical - civilians have been publicly commended by authorities." The Martinez quote simply states that the civilians should be commended, which reinforces that they were. There's no bias in that. There is no reason that this article cannot contain a reference to something in that book. I have to question your purpose in this, you've endeavored several times to eradicate the mention of that book, giving different reasons, twice calling it spam , , here removing it without addressing its removal, and above (here) using anti-Martinez bias in Texas as a reason. I don't accept your statement that there might be future conflicts with officers. This article has been here for a number of years, the Martinez book was mentioned in it all along. There has been no issue regarding bias or conflict with other officers. Martinez is not the only officer mentioned in this article, just quickly scanning, Houston McCoy and Jerry Day are mentioned as well, more than once. You currently appear to have a single purpose in editing this article, which is to remove the Martinez book mention. The problem is, there is no good reason to remove it save that you don't want it in the article. Misplaced Pages requires that material have a verifiable source, the Martinez book is used twice, once to verify a book was published and the other as source for his quote. There is no policy or guideline that prohibits this use. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

First, for your edification, this is inappropriate in its implication: "Here Wild****, I put Martinez' quote back." As for your response on your own talk page, besides coming back to check your talk page everyday, why would I know you had responded? Did you go to my talk page to say "I responded on my page"? Nope. Meanwhile, the history of Martinez and the other officers isn't really relevant to the Whitman article and from the sound of it, would fairly much amount to a violation of WP:BLP, which is taken quite seriously on WP. Self-published sources can be used in specific cases, a couple of which are true for the Whitman page. The book isn't being used to reference any points of fact regarding the events of the day, or who did what. It is being used to reference the fact that Martinez wrote a book and to reference something Martinez specifically said. Proof that something was published and a specific statement are acceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Note

I fixed the reference you added. You might want to look at how they are formatted. As an aside comment on your edit summary for the reference addition, WP:V begins with the statement "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." Truth tends to be more ambiguous. I have often cited a lyric from a song in Jesus Christ Superstar: "But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We all have truths. Are mine the same as yours?" Just a passing comment that is good to keep in mind when dealing with everything that goes into an article on Misplaced Pages. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I once watched the 4th of July fireworks from the top of the Empire State Building. It was special. Funny, I've never thought of my pages as self-profiling, but I suppose that's true. I'm an old hippie - liberal, socially conscious and somewhere quite left of center. I also have a Master's in Clinical Psych that does me little good but does fill out a space on the wall nicely. I'm not all that keen on the Whitman story to start, his pathology isn't all that intriguing. I realized you had more inside knowledge on this story quite early. I'm mostly interested in the article being well referenced and neutral, which is a slippery slope. Be careful about CoI though. I love Sweet Baby James, balding and all. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh! But the Whitman story is an "Everyman" story. An "All American Boy" story. The media and the University of Texas has quelled and covered it up. True, his deeds were heinous, but his psychosis is an American psychosis, shared by most, but benign in terms of shared actions, his motives were personal. As a former hippie, liberal moderate myself, I find his pathology fasinating, but then, I do have a long history of research and personal involvement with those who were in involved. You might say, I was there in a vicarious sort of way. Check out my Youtube account, a work in progress.

Why the bias against Ramiro Martinez?

According to Houston McCoy's own interview on "Deranged", Martinez shot Whitman. Whether or not he fired the fatal shot seems immaterial. Both of them shot him - I would think that Martinez would have hit him at least a couple of times while emptying his revolver - therefore both got official credit for the kill. You seem to have some sort of monomania about removing any mention of Martinez from the Whitman article. Please stop before you get blocked for vandalism. BassPlyr23 (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. See for yourself at http://www.popsubculture.com/pop/bio_project/sub/whitman_autopsy.pdf - he was shot at least six times - once in the head, four in the chest, once in the arm. Considering the injuries described, I'm sure at least one of the chest wounds could have been fatal in and of itself. BassPlyr23 (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)