Talk:Moscone–Milk assassinations

message: From the current lead section:
:"White was subsequently convicted of voluntary manslaughter, rather than of first degree murder. That verdict famously became vilified as being the result of "the Twinkie defense". It sparked rioting in San Francisco the so-called White Night Riots and ultimately led to the state of California abolishing the diminished capacity criminal defense."
Some of these claims are quite questionable.  I will try to sort them out here:
* "White was subsequently convicted of voluntary manslaughter, rather than of first degree murder."  True.
* "That verdict famously became vilified ..."  True, but --
* "as being the result of "the Twinkie defense"."  Misleading.  Firstly, the actual "Twinkie defense", as people understand the term, is an urban legend.  Secondly, while the mistaken belief that the defense had used a "Twinkie defense" certainly resulted in vilification, the verdict would almost certainly have been vilified anyways.
* "It sparked rioting in San Francisco the so-called White Night Riots ..."  Which "it" is meant here?  The "Twinkie defense", or the verdict?  It's pretty clear that the verdict sparked the riots; it's not at all clear whether the urban legend of the "Twinkie defense" had even gotten going at that point.
* "... [It] ultimately led to the state of California abolishing the diminished capacity criminal defense."  Again, which "it" is meant here?  If it's the "Twinkie defense", that point is adequately sourced -- in Twinkie defense.  Is it really appropriate here?  If it's the verdict itself, where's the sourcing?
I think this deserves careful examination. -- 192.250.34.161 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputable cause and effect 

message: I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have quick-failed the article at this time. The article is currently undersourced, with most of the information presented lacking inline citations. I'd recommend going through the articles and adding sources for all statements that may be questioned over the verifiability by the reader. Additionally, all three of the images are copyrighted and do not have a fair use rationale to explain their reason for inclusion in the article. They also need sources for where the images were found. There are some single sentences that should either be incorporated into another paragraph or expanded on, as single sentences shouldn't stand alone. Many of these problems were mentioned in the last FAC review, and have not been addressed. Once you have corrected these issues, have an outside editor look it over for a copyedit and check the rest of the GA criteria. When this is completed, please consider nominating the article again at GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Good work so far, but keep working at it. --Nehrams2020 21:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unfortunate this article was submitted for GAC prematurely, but thanks for the review. I just started looking at this article, and I think I might work on it. I'll re-submit for GAC soon. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GAN quick-failed

message: The image :Image:Dan whitesf.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      Image:Harvey milk.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Dan whitesf.jpg

message: I was surprised to read the uncited description of Diane Feinstein as "one of White's allies" on the Board of Supervisors.  What is the evidence for this assertion? fishhead64 (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Feinstein

message: Citing the New York Times, Harvey Milk#Assassination states that "White shot the mayor once in the arm, then three times in the head after Moscone had fallen on the floor" and describes Milk as having been "shot five times, including twice in the head at close range."  By contrast, Moscone–Milk assassinations reads, "White pulled his revolver and shot the mayor twice in the abdomen, then twice more in the head" and "White shot [Milk] six times: three times in the chest, once in the back, and two times again in the head."
Does anyone have a source for the version of events in Moscone–Milk assassinations? --Rrburke(talk) 17:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Added refs and clarity.  -- Banjeboi 22:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy in number of shots fired 

message: I have made several changes to remove minor, but repeated, instances of POV. I ask future editors to bear in mind that it is Wikipedias job to report on the facts in the case---not to interpret the facts.
94.220.247.191 (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *It is Wikipedia's obligation to report what sources say. If, for example, a source claims that Milk was killed "execution style," then that may be included in the article and cited properly.  You, as an individual, cannot remove that information.  If that information runs afoul of Wikipedia guidelines on indiscriminate collections of information or undue weight, then you may have a case to remove the content. But that case must be made on the Talk page first, and consensus reached. (But note that Wikipedia notability guidelines do not cover article content per se.) If you find a neutral, reliable third-party source which contradicts the cited fact, you may follow Wikipedia's rules in handling such things: Add (to the text or in a footnote) the contradictory information, cite the contradictory information, and note in the article (in the text or in a footnote) that neutral, reliable, third-party sources disgree on the fact in question. It is not a contributor's role to judge which facts are correct and which are not. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV language and related 

message: The article in its current form states at least twice that many consider this event to be charged with homophobia.  
*Milk is widely considered to be the first openly gay man elected to any substantial political office, leading some to consider his murder a hate crime.
*Since Milk had been homosexual, many felt that homophobia  had been a motivating factor in the jury's decision.
Setting aside that fact that White had four people on his hit list, and only one was known to be gay, this seems like a bit of a stretch.  Still, I imagine that, some people being the way they are, this logic is meaningless to them, and they really do believe that White's murder of Milk was an anti-gay act.  Fine.  But at least let's get some sources backing up these statements.  That shouldn't be too hard to do, should it? 98.82.22.169 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homophobia? 

message: Am changing to new category :Category:1978 murders in the United States as it is categorised as a murder, though noted that White was convicted of "involuntary manslaughter" not murder according to the article Hugo999 (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder or ? 

message: I added sourced information about the firearm and bullets used in the shootings. That seems like basic information which should be included if known. But someone deleted "[[hollow-point bullet]" on the grounds that it's apparently inflammatory to mention them. I don't get it - how is it inflammatory and who would be inflamed by this information? Unless there's a better explanation I'll restore the information. Rezin (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflammatory? 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Moscone–Milk assassinations's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "sfgate":
From San Francisco Bay Times: 
From Charles Gain: 
From Carol Ruth Silver: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Moscone–Milk assassinations]] 

message: Recommended Edit:
On November 18, news broke of the mass deaths of members of Peoples Temple in Jonestown. Prior to the group's move to Guyana, Peoples Temple had been based in San Francisco, so most of the dead were recent Bay Area residents, including United States Congressman Leo Ryan, who was murdered in the incident while on an investigatory visit. 71.34.10.60 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that relevant to this article? DonIago (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Congressman Leo Ryan's death at Jonestown. 

message: Did the defence claim that the "twinkie" was the cause of depression or just a symptom of it?  The article makes both, contradictory, claims!  Guinness2702 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed that. In October an editor changed the text of the lead so that it no longer accurately reflected events. DonIago (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction?