Talk:Moscone–Milk assassinations

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

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Calidum T|C 01:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

---

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)
• Oppose. I need evidence that most reliable sources use "killing" instead of "assassination". I don't even see the local San Francisco media doing that.[9][10][11][12] Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, per all arguements listed above.--Dmol (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
• Approve. Firstly, I don't think the count of how many other articles refer to the killings as assassinations should be a factor in this. If they were, however, this would be an argument for NOT using the word "assassination" based on Google search results, which indicates 5 times as many articles refer the killings without using the word "assassinate"/"assassinated"/"assassinations". Use of the word "assassination" is potentially political, and thereby is using Wikipedia to further political causes when in fact Wikipedia should be attempting to remain neutral and impartial. It is a word that should be used CAUTIOUSLY for this reason, and used only when CERTAIN and without dispute that it is the correct word to use. Given that 5 times as many articles omit the word, this is proof that the majority of the internet is not attributing this word to the killings. So perhaps we should ask why not. And Perhaps we should ask which reliable sources (if any) are choosing to use this word. --Rebroad (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Except you then risk misattributing the author's generic use of the term "killing" with an author intending to use killing specifically to avoid characterizing it as an assassination, which may not be the case. It would be your interpretation that this is the author's motivation when describing it. It would then be necessary to demonstrate that the sources describing them as "killings" are doing so specifically because they do not observe the killings to be assassinations. If not, it violates WP:OR, as you would be assuming the use of "killing" to have analytical meaning where it does not. There is no such ambiguity when an article refers to the killings as "assassinations". The only question in those cases is whether those sources are using the term correctly, in which case, one would have to demonstrate reliable sources that counter such a characterization/analysis and call the use of the term into question. Those reliable sources using "assassination" must be countered with reliable sources. If not, it is the opinion of an editor (not a reliable source) against the use of the term by reliable sources. While your argument is that it is "potentially" political or erroneous is possible, it has also been demonstrated that the definition of "assassination" may indeed allow for its use in this case (and others) may therefore be entirely appropriate and lacking in bias in its use. Therefore, you would need to provide reliable sources that support such an argument.

Given the number of reliable sources that refer to the killings as "assassinations", the burden of proof for editors making the proposed argument is 1) to definitively demonstrate that the definition of "assassination" is only to be used in exact situations where the motive is strictly political and non-personal using reliable sources, 2) to then demonstrate that the events that occurred in the Moscone-Milk killings were likewise apolitical using reliable sources, 3) to also demonstrate that the characterization of the killings in numerous reliable sources as assassinations are questionable (i.e. politically biased characterizations or erroneous) using reliable sources. The first task is an abstract argument using a stringent definition that has already been demonstrated not to be true (as shown by examples like Reagan and John Hinckley Jr., assassinations are not strictly defined by the impersonal and strictly political motivations of the killer). The second task is rendered moot by the invalidation of the first task (if assassinations are not strictly defined by the specified motivations of the killer, then it does not matter if the killings are proven to be apolitically motivated), though it seems one would be hard pressed to find an article that would characterize the events that resulted in the killing and the killings themselves as apolitical anyway. The third task is the most valid one to be achieved, and if it can be so achieved, would likely result in a section describing the contention about calling the killings "assassinations", per WP:WEIGHT, but would be very unlikely to be of sufficient weight to result in a wholesale changing of the terminology across all articles. And again, those articles would not need to merely describe the events as "killings". They would need to specifically describe them as killings (or some other way) intentionally so as to characterize the killings as apolitical in nature, i.e. not an assassination, but rather a personal dispute. (An even better article, given current analysis, would be a reliable source that specifically refutes the characterization of the killings as assassinations and tackles the proposed argument that such a characterization is politically biased.) Reliable sources are numerous that already characterize the killings as assassinations. The burden of proof on that end has been fulfilled by way of reliable sources. The claim being laid out here is that the use of the term "assassination" in reference to this event is politically biased and/or erroneous; the burden of proof is now needed to support such an argument.Luminum (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Luminum, you are using a Russell's_teapot argument here, as it's going to be very difficult to prove, perhaps impossible, that uses of the word "killed" are due to people disagreeing with it being an "assassination". Also, we don't need to find any examples of arguments against it being an assassination to justify not using the word. You've quoted WP:WEIGHT and yet don't seem to be following it. 1/5th is a signifant minority claiming it was an assassination, therefore this should be made clear in the article. The only reason we need to find Reliable Sources arguing against it being an assassination is if we want to include a section of why his death was NOT an assassination. I am not proposing this. I am merely proposing it be shown that the use of the word assassination for his death is a minority held use of the term - which it is. --Rebroad (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There is also the Chinese Whispers effect that we need to be careful of. It may very well be that many of the articles online use the word "assassination" for the very same reason you are proposing Wikipedia uses it - i.e. that it's the word other people use. We as Wikipedia editors need to be better than this, and filter information we use to ensure it is accurate. In the same way that Stephen Glass's articles were widely used for their information, and then later found to be fictional, we should be wary of how words are used for political gain or to mislead, and when in doubt (which I think can safely be said to be the case here), be cautious, and use more generic words instead.--Rebroad (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Doesn't it sort of go without saying that you approve of your own suggestion? --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 06:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In Rebroad's defense, I once started an AFD discussion fully expecting it to fail. My rationale was that people were talking about how the article should be deleted without doing anything to move the process formally forward. In short, I started an AFD which I then opposed. DonIago (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, WP:RMCM says you should add "as nominator". --BDD (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: What I am proposing, User talk:Rebroad, is that you must substantiate your claim that the accuracy and neutrality of referring to the event as "assassination" is in doubt. You say that you can "safely say" that the description is in doubt, but based on what? What indication do you have that doubt exists? So far, your only arguments about doubt are that the killings don't line up with your personal understanding of the definition of "assassination" (which has been disproven), that the characterization of the killings as assassinations have a political agenda (which you have yet to provide evidence for), and that articles referring to the events as killings are evidence that "assassination" is disputed (which is a, so far, baseless assignation of authorial intention). Your claim is that calling the killings an "assassination" is disputed, but you've offered no reliable indication that it is disputed. I am asking that you provide some, which is the most basic action under WP:V. It is not an issue of "Russel's teapot", because your claim is that "assassination" is a minority (i.e. disputed) characterization because other sources refer to it as a "killing". That would suggest that "killing" be an intentional word choice (i.e. that calling them assassinations is POV and that the language used is intended so as to be neutral and avoid POV). But one can say "JFK was killed" and be correct, and saying so is not an indication of a disputed viewpoint about his assassination. It does not suggest that calling it the "JFK assassination" is a matter of POV. It could just be a more generic way to describe the incident, with no concerns at all about neutrality. In a broader example, stating that JFK died is not necessarily an indication that claims he was murdered are disputed. In essence, you are assuming that a more generic description is contrary to a more specific description, when that may not be the case. And as far as WP:WEIGHT goes, 600 articles referring to JFK being killed would not be contrary to 120 articles that refer to JFK being assassinated. The statements are not contrary to one another, nor do they purport a different understanding than the other, and therefore are not subject to WP:WEIGHT. I am unconcerned about 4/5ths of articles referring to the event as killings, because they do not suggest a different understanding of events than articles that refer to the event as assassinations. If 4/5ths of the articles disputed assassination or implied that "killing" is a more neutral term than "assassination" (thereby contending that assassination is a potentially biased term to apply here), then it would be an issue of WP:WEIGHT.

Simultaneously, your "Chinese Whispers" argument also hinges on the notion that reliable sources are inaccurately using terminology or purposefully doing so in order to advance some political gain. That is a pretty large claim to make about articles and publications ranging from 1978 to present. But if you want to make that argument, again, you're going to have to provide some reliable source. You cannot lay the claim that these reliable sources are contentiously inaccurate or politically biased without providing some contrary evidence of either.

Considering how many reliable sources have been provided in this discussion (and how many are already included on the pages potentially affected by this discussion) and your continued call for us to find reliable sources demonstrating that assassination is an accurate description, I'm not sure what it is that you consider to be a reliable source. The LA Times is a reliable source, as are San Jose Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, The New York Times, UPI, Trials of the Century: An Encyclopedia of Popular Culture and the Law, Volume 1 by Scott P. Johnson, etc.

As editors, it is not under our authority to decide whether reliable sources are wrong and change content based on our opinions. Our editorial opinions are not reliable sources. It is our responsibility to use reliable sources to support content per WP:V, and if content is to be changed or challenged, it must be done using reliable sources to justify those changes. We, as editors, are not de facto authorities on content; the reliable sources are authorities on content, and Wikipedia should reflect that. If you have concerns about bias, that reliable sources are "uncertain" that the killings are considered assassinations, then provide reliable sources that demonstrate that bias is possible, that the issue is contentious, that it is in doubt. Simply claiming, as an editor, that content is in doubt is insufficient. Make the claim as an editor with reliable sources that demonstrate why. I'm not trying to roadblock you. I'm asking you to give me something reliable to go on as a fellow editor that isn't just your own doubt.Luminum (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in Moscone–Milk assassinations

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: "San Francisco Chronicle obituary of founder Roland Schembari (February 24, 2000)". sfgate.com. Retrieved 2015-04-13.
• From Charles Gain: "Mayor picks Arizona chief as S.F. top cop". sfgate.com. Retrieved 2015-08-27.
• From Carol Ruth Silver: Sam Whiting (April 14, 2011). "Carol Ruth Silver: Freedom Rider 50 years later". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 6, 2015.

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)

Misleading and inaccurate "On This Day" entry on the main page

"1978 – San Francisco mayor George Moscone and openly gay supervisor Harvey Milk were assassinated by supervisor Dan White."

• Harvey Milk's homosexuality is unrelated to the assassination and should be removed from the entry
• "supervisor Dan White" should be changed to "former supervisor Dan White"

Reference to Congressman Leo Ryan's death at Jonestown.

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)

How is that relevant to this article? DonIago (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Contradiction?

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)

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)