Talk:Wichita Massacre

message: There are some serious issues with this article. First, who calls it the Wichita Massacre? If the name derives from an attributable source, we should cite it. Second, much of the language is overwrought tabloid phrasing, e.g. "saw the horror". The article should be rewritten in encyclopedic tone. If there is horror to be expressed, it should come from sources, e.g. "The Wichita Star called it 'the most horrific crime in Wichita history'", or "Judge Smith told the defendants they were the worst scum he had ever had the pleasure to send to prison" (hypothetical examples). Third, the importance of the incident should be made clear. If it's important because of the Supreme Court case, that should be made clear. If it's important because of media coverage, that should be made clear (in this case, it can't, because media coverage was limited for whatever reason). -- Dhartung | Talk 04:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but can you cite a Wiki guideline on your suggestion? No offense to you but if someone can not see the inate "horror" of this crime then I would wonder about the humanity of the reader. But if there is some specific guideline then of course that would prevail. Jtpaladin 22:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cbsnews.com source states that it "has become known locally as the 'Wichita Massacre' and the 'Wichita Horror.'" so I don't think there's anything wrong with that title. --P4k 21:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Locally" to whom? In Wichita it's invariably "the Carr brothers murders." I'm pretty sure only people outside of Wichita refer to it as "the Wichita" anything. 108.67.115.103 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: the first thing you see when you come to this page is two BLACK men.  this is misleading because it makes people think that ALL blacks commit massacres.  pleas fix the page with a better picture that doesnt make people thing black people commit massacres.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.236.113 (talk • contribs) 
::Maybe it would please you if their faces were painted blank?  Your point is ridiculous.  This article is only stating facts.  It isn't implying what you're rambling about: racism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.149.15 (talk • contribs) 
:::Somehow I think if it says "two WHITE men", 64.24.236.113 wouldn't say anything.--Anthonysenn (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was that exact kind of thinking that kept this story out of the national media.  If it HAD been two white men with white victims, it would have been a nationwide story.  If it had been two white men with black victims, it would have been international news.131.61.211.15 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The OP is mentally retarded; the Carr brothers are black, it would only be reasonable to portray them as such. Would he rather see us portray them as South Korean Albinos with 3 heads and 4 arms? - rock8591 03:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I got rid of disturbing POV material and will be watching this page for reverts.  Somebody please read WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:SYNTH, pretty please.Simonm223 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no viable reason to mention the race of either party in the lead of this article. Looking at the article Assassination of Martin Luther King, I see NO mention of race in the lead. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black profiling on this page 

message: I'd concur that Sowell meets Wikipedia criteria as a WP:RS but the other two... talking heads... referenced in the section wouldn't be reliable sources that it was raining even if they were sitting next to an open window.Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd leave them included, they both maintain a moderately popular column/website and they've both written a detailed article on the incident in said outlet. Incidentally I also find it interesting to note that considering the whole controversy section is about race, that these three people of different races have all reached the same conclusion. However I do agree they are not nearly as notable or respected as Sowell, so if you choose to remove them I won't appose you further. Freikorp (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will wait for a third party to comment on reliability.  However a graduate from a community college english program who maintains a blog and who became notable for being a talking head on conservative news programs is not, in my opinion, a reliable source for discussion of race relations regardless of her skin colour.  Notwithstanding that Sowell appears to have valid credentials for the topic at hand and would constitute a RS so the Sowell referenced material will not be removed by me regardless of the status of the confirming references.Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to feed the controversy, but I note that there was a four-victim homicide just four days earlier. You'd think that would be noteworthy, but they get called the "Forgotten Four." Race may be a factor, or maybe just income level. http://www.kansas.com/2010/12/07/1621722/a-vigil-tonight-will-unveil-a.html They should probably get at least a footnote in this article, but I'm not quite sure how to address it. Probably someone with a less local perspective should do it. 108.67.115.103 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. That is certainly very interesting. The fact this article compares the media coverage of the massacre to this one should be enough to include a brief mention in the controversy section. I'll give it a couple days to hear other editors opinions then if no-one objects I'll add it myself. Freikorp (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be in favor of the material staying.  The media coverage of this event vs. others was notable, in and of itself, and Sowell (at a minimum) is a WP:RS, with the other two sources as support.  Since the references from Malkin and Horowitz were from their syndicated columns, and not their blogs, they should probably stay as well.  I think the local article that mentions the "forgotten four" can probably be added as a reference, as well, though care should be taken not to make it's addition carry WP:UNDUE weight.--Lyonscc (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  From reading about the Forgotten Four, I would suggest that one reason the case got less coverage was that the killer and at least one of his victims, his girlfriend, knew each other and were known to have a violent relationship. Unfortunately, male violence against and killing of girlfriends, ex-girlfriends, wives and ex-wives is relatively common, including killing their children. In this case, Oliver killed her friends who happened to be at the house. It is awful for all involved, but basically a local story, not likely to grab national attention like a crime spree over a week against random victims. Random crime arouses more fear.Parkwells (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section