Talk:Moscone–Milk assassinations

Archives
2006 - present

Disputable cause and effect

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.[1] 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)

GAN quick-failed

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)

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)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dan whitesf.jpg

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)

Feinstein

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)

Discrepancy in number of shots fired

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)

Added refs and clarity. -- Banjeboi 22:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

POV language and related

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)

• 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)

Homophobia?

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)

Opening sentence

Note: This is a friendly discussion started between anon IP editor 98.82.22.169 and User:Anowlin. In retrospect, the conversation should have started here, and not on the latter's talk page. It is moved here to solicit additional input.

I don't understand this edit. I think I explained my edit clearly, but perhaps not. This article is about an assassination. While Milk's sexual orientation is almost certainly relevant to the reaction to both the assassination and the trial, it is nonetheless (hard as it is for many to see, I suppose) not so relevant as to warrant inclusion in the first sentence of the article. We don't mention that Moscone was straight. Why not? Because what matters is that an angry man killed him. The same thing applies to Milk. Now of course Milk's orientation will come up in the article. But at the very beginning? That would only make sense if White was motivated because Milk was gay. But they how do we explain the killing of Moscone, as well as the fact that he wanted to kill two other persons (neither of whom is known to be gay)?

Look, I'm more than willing to leave in most of the references to Milk's orientation; his assassination is undoubtedly one of the most tragically historic days ever for the gay community. But that doesn't mean you put Milk's orientation in front of White's actions. That's what I think, anyway. 98.82.22.169 (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about censorship, and removing the information about his supervisor being "gay" (while, I don't personally believe it's entirely relevant, Wikipedia administrators have seen no reason to remove the content) could be considered censorship. Unfortunately, we will never know what was in the mind of White, nor in the mind of any other serial killer. We can not assume motivation, nor can we assume relevance of homosexuality in the article. I am undoing your edits, assuming good faith as you have made a valid point, but, the article should remain in its original state (prior to your edit), in the interest of full disclosure and non-censorship. --ANowlin: talk 02:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you appear to have completely misunderstood me. This isn't about censoring the fact that Milk was gay; that is central to his significance as a major figure in 20th century American history. If I wanted to censor that fact, I would have taken it out of the other dozen or so places it was in the article (to say nothing of his own article).

No, my point is this: The article—this article—is about the assassinations, not about Milk's sexual orientation. Let me make an analogy: If Harvey Milk had worn a maroon tie every day, if he had been known to have publicly stated that he just felt more natural wearing a maroon tie instead of navy blue or some other color, if this "maroonophilia" of his was a documented fact, would we start of the article with this:

The Moscone–Milk assassinations were the killings of San Francisco mayor George Moscone and maroon-tie loving Supervisor Harvey Milk, who were shot and killed in San Francisco City Hall by former Supervisor Dan White on November 27, 1978.

You say that's ridiculous, the color a tie wears is NOT a part of his identity in the way that his sexual orientation is. Well, yes, that's true. But the point is, the color of his tie is simply irrelevant to the fact that he was murdered. (Unless, of course, he was murdered because he wore maroon ties.) That's also why Muscone's heterosexuality is not relevant.

ANowlin, you tell me that we shouldn't assume what was in White's mind. But I'm the one who is avoiding such assumptions. It is those who say he did it out of homophobia who are making the unfounded assumptions. Nowhere in my edit am I making any assumptions. And my edit does nothing to limit "full disclosure", as Milk's sexual orientation continues to be mentioned prominently in the article. My only point is that the article is supposed to open with the thesis of the article, and that thesis should be that these two public servants were killed by Dan White. Placing Milk's sexuality in that particular sentence violates WP:UNDUE in a way that is not violated when Milk's sexuality appears a bit later. At least, that's how I see it.

Which brings me to this final point: I am quite sure that there will be other editors who will disagree with me, but perhaps less politely than ANowlin. Let me just say this: If you think that Milk's sexuality needs to be in the opening sentence simply because he was gay, I ask you to ask yourself if your stance is based on emotion or editorial logic. It won't surprise me if a majority overrules me, but I'm well versed in Chapter II of Mill (which unfortunately, the Wikipedia article basically ignores), and I won't have a heart attack over it. I will say this to you, ANowlin: Your willingness to maintain good faith is refreshing for one so new to Wikipedia, ANowlin. I think you will go far here. For now, though, I recommend that you read WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD.98.82.22.169 (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it has been nearly a week, and there seems to be no further argument against this point, so I shall go ahead and make the article read with the notation of Milk's orientation placed in the lead, but outside of the first sentence of this article on an assassination. 98.82.21.78 (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Murder or ?

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)

Assassination?

Really? That is a loaded term that seems to try and turn this into a galvinising event after the fact, when in reality they were seemingly killed by an angry co-worker over labour relations...I'd strongly say this warrants renaming the article. When has an "assassin" ever been convicted of involuntary manslaughter? 142.167.76.147 (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As a broad point, I'll agree that whether a specific killing qualifies as an "assassination" can certainly be a subjective call and the term itself can definitely be "loaded". But what specifically do you think disqualifies this from that term? The fact that they were co-workers? Why would that make a difference? Indira Gandhi was killed by two men who worked directly for her. So that means it was not an assassination?

As for the specific crime for which the person was (or in some cases, was not) convicted, that seems a rather inadequate criterion upon which to base the determination. John Hinckley was not convicted of anything, and his motive was even less political that were Dan White's. Nonetheless, Hinckley's shooting of Ronald Reagan is almost universally referred to as an attempted assassination.

A better criterion in our context would be that Wikipedia's usage should reflect the usage found in its WP:RS sources. And in this case, there is no question that the killings of Moscone and Milk are commonly referred to as assassinations in such WP:RS sources. And a simple check of contemporary newspaper articles will reveal that that was the term used all around the country right from the day it happened, not only "after the fact", as you are claiming. Mwelch (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Inflammatory?

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.[2] 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)

Requested move 22 May 2015

Moscone–Milk assassinations → Moscone–Milk killings – Incorrect use of the word assassination (which means politically motivated). These killings were done by one man acting on his own - as revenge for a perceived wrong. AFAIK, there is no evidence that there was political motivation. If there is, it needs to be provided to warrant the current naming. Rebroad (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Looks pretty political to me. "Revenge for a perceived wrong" and assassination are hardly mutually exclusive, and in this case the perceived wrong was certainly political in nature. The term is used in reliable sources present in the article, as well as some of our other pages covering these events. This LA Times obituary for White, for example, calls him an assassin. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose There are two issues embedded here:

The first is what defines assassination and distinguishes it from murder. The definition of assassination is not exclusively political motivation, though it is largely and casually associated with political motivation. The debate over what constitutes an "assassination" is reflected in the various legal definitions of the term. As an example, George Washington University has an archived document from the Army[3] discussing the various legal definitions of assassination, which includes definitions that are ambiguous about motivation, but specific to target ("killing of an internationally protected person", "killing of a public figure...by someone who kills in the belief that he is acting in his own private or the public interest"), while other definitions are more explicit that the motivation be "political". While not a RS, Wikipedia's own definition includes "to avenge a grievance" as one possible motivation in a list of many that characterizes an assassination, such as the pursuit of fame, notoriety, or financial gain. James Fallows of The Atlantic published a column after the 2011 Tucson shooting where he argued that "the shooting of political figures are by definition 'political'"[4] and lists several events in history that are largely considered assassinations, despite their murky or entirely apolitical motivations, such as the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley Jr., whose motivations were merely his obsession with Jodi Foster and that killing Reagan would make him famous enough for her to notice him. Indeed, if someone attempted to assassinate the president because they thought he was a space alien or moved by insanity, the motive may not be considered "political" (or at least reasonably so), but it would still be characterized as an assassination attempt. In essence, it seems that what defines an assassination is ambiguously determined either by the motivation of the killer or the nature of the target, but not just one or the other, and, mixed in there, as a matter of perspective. If one were to characterize White's motivations as strictly personal and private, there are definitions that would consider it assassination based on the fact that he chose to target Milk and Moscone, both well-known political figures.

The second issue is whether White's motivations were strictly motivated by personal revenge and not political at all (which is the claim here). Sources indicate that it is much more complex than that. White, Milk, and Moscone were all linked by local government, and Milk and White's disagreements arose while serving on the board as supervisors. Likewise, the most frequently cited motivation for White's resignation was that he found the board to be politically corrupt, particularly after he thought Milk would vote against the Youth Campus, but Milk voted for it. He had resigned because of those frequent political disputes and interactions. When he reversed his resignation, lobbying from Milk and others prevented him from being reinstated by Moscone, and White confessed that his motivation was to kill them for lobbying against him. In fact, he had also planned to kill California Assembly Speaker and later S.F. mayor Willie Brown, and Supervisor Carol Ruth Silver, and claimed, "I was on a mission. I wanted four of them. Carol Ruth Silver, she was the biggest snake ... and Willie Brown, he was masterminding the whole thing." Could these be construed as purely personal revenge? I think it would be difficult to make that claim, considering that the political is tied up in nearly all of White's interactions with the two victims, and his premeditated plan to kill all four. From White's statements, his motivations involved the dispute over his political reappointment, rather than something purely personal (for example, if he had claimed that they were his friends and they betrayed him). At best, I would describe it as personal fallout and possibly mental health issues[5] from within the realm of political disagreement and, from White's perspective, the sabotaging of his personal aspirations (allegedly, he needed his supervisor position to support his family after his failed business attempts), combined with the reality that Milk and others lobbied against him for political reasons. Even though it's not purely political, it is not purely personal either, and article[6] after article[7] after article[8] characterizes the shootings as assassinations (not that it necessarily needs to be anyway re:Reagan and John Hinckley Jr.).

To make this move happen for the reasons stated, one would have to meaningfully demonstrated contrary sources that definitively tackle the issue of whether the shootings are assassinations or just a matter of personal disputes leading to murder. A good analysis may be out there, and would possibly be able to support this move, but without one per WP:V, that would otherwise be a move to claim that reliable sources, publications, and political experts have been wrong to refer to it as an assassination for over 40 years. And even then, per WP:WEIGHT, I can't see one source effectively changing the entire way that Wikipedia approaches all related pages to the topic, unless there were a significantly large number of those sources.Luminum (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Luminum and BDD - there is more support for the use of the word assassination - and from more neutral point of view - than those arguably supporting a move. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 17:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)