Talk:Covina massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Objection to the deletion[edit]

I think the number of deaths from one hand in this case makes it notable. It's a spree killing, basically, and we've got articles on a number of those on Wikipedia. I don't see that there should be any difference here. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 00:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use speedy deletion because I knew that there was a possibility that there was more to this. That said, I don't think 6 people automatically makes this a notable event in encyclopaedic terms. I also don't think that the existence of other articles is always a good guide, as some of them my be misconceived themselves. If you really think that there is notability here then take the PROD tag off but please make sure to add proof of the notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, I think the at least six (and possibly more, it seems) deaths, along with the horrific nature of the crime, are in and of themselves enough to make this notable. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 01:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable. The fact that it happened on a holiday in a big city, and how the perpetrator wore a suit of a character related to said holiday makes it seem interesting and different. If there are articles on every single suicide bombing attack in Iraq or flooding in some poor country that kills one person, then this should have its' article. This event has reached attention of media sources such as BBC and European sites. I'll work more on this article but I'm lazy and I wanted to see if others could help. Cyanidethistles {Tim C} 02:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's notable but I would rather the article were called the "The Santa Claus Slayings" because that's cool 86.170.25.109 (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was on the BBC this morning. I agree that it may turn out to be notable in the longer term but this is not yet clear. The general principle is that not everything that is newsworthy is encyclopaedia worthy. I am happy to give it time to develop. In the meantime, I would like to point out that "interesting", "different" and "cool" are not part of the inclusion criteria. I would also like to warn against using other bad articles to justify what might be more bad articles. Please see WP:OSE. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a start spree killings which result in the deaths of 8/9 people are NOT that common. Secondly, I didn't say I thought the incident itself was "cool" or that it should be included in wikipedia for that reason. I think you're clearly in a minority here. 86.170.25.109 (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title change[edit]

Many commentators seem to be settling on "Covina Christmas Eve massacre"--Kiwipat (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Covina, California massacre is broad enough, shouldn't be too specific like "Covina, California Christmas Eve party house shooting" but Covina, California Christmas Eve massacre might do. Cyanidethistles {Tim C} 16:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CNN is using Santa massacre, but we already have an article with that name about a totally unrelated event. --201.230.150.71 (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Santa Claus Murders" or "Christmas Eve Massacre" are more appropriate titles. 5 years form now, no one will remember the name of some nondescript L.A. suburb. Ronstock (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But we shouldn't christen the event with some name like that - it would be a neologism. That said, the current title isn't that good; "Covina, California Christmas Eve massacre" is much better, I think. Unwieldy, but it works. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 01:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Psycho Santa Christmas Party Murders - do a google on that. When is the movie coming out? It probably would be better than the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. See Charlie Lawson for more on this. Also Black Christmas (1974 film). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.125.125 (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what happens if there is a second massacre in Covina, California? What are we gonna call it? Covina, California Massacre II?? Come on guys, call it what it is. Christmas eve massacre. Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what if another Christmas Eve massacre happens? Will we call that Christmas Eve Massacre II?

Cyanidethistles {Tim C} 02:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why not? I'd prefer Santa Clause Massacre though. --71.107.94.226 (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what's going on Herring! I am very glad the originator opted for the delayed deletion. He is indeed correct in his assertion that there is a lot more to this, and I will attempt to hopefully shed some light on this.. 'light', AlbertHerring.. You like that..

The suspect was tepid at most about the break up, and "left her bags on the doorstep.. He didn't fight over her or 'nothing'..!" according to his wife's friend.. - They were only married two years, no children. - His alimony payment of less than $2000.00 a month was revoked over his sudden unemployment. - He arrived with a 'package', which later turned into a flame-throwing device.

.. And much more. Consider there was a racehorse bestowed to a 'non' family member after the incident, and that horse won it's first race shortly thereafter.

And listen to the audio recording of the 911 call. In which case due to this attention, the 911 call 'may' be revoked. If this occurs, I have a copy for anyone interested.

Shall I proceed? I have emails from people giving me permission to publish their e-mails. They may not remember, nonetheless.. They claimed they had nothing to hide, and I believe there are sanctions when murder or 'conspiracy' to murder is the issue.

Thanks Wikipedia! I knew I should place my faith in you guys, the second I saw all the dirt these guys defecated all over the internet about you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baymaz (talk • contribs) 10:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Additions[edit]

CNN is now reporting that the alleged killer took his own life because he was severely burned over much of his body. He had $17,000 and plan tickets to Canada on him when he died.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/26/santa.shooting/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronstock (talk • contribs) 23:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If you're reading this, please help. Thanks. Cyanidethistles {Tim C} 02:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Can somebody please add an image or two to the article? The gunman's ID pic would be very necessary, and firefighters putting out the fire would be the next best thing. Cyanidethistles {Tim C} 05:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about these? AFAIK pictures provided by police are copyright free, someone would have to upload them though. (Lord Gøn (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Under what license should it be put under? Cyanidethistles {Tim C} 01:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I was wrong about the pictures being copyright free, but work by the U.S. government is. You might be allowed to upload a picture under the fair use rationale, though then they must not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. (Lord Gøn (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
It's possible that California has some sort of law stipulating that works by public officials are in the public domain. --201.230.150.71 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I live in CA, but no sure about that... can anybody help me with the flamethrower pic's copyright status? I have no experience with commons and it's damn confusing. I'd like the pic to stay, and if anyone can assist I'd appreciate it. Cyanidethistles {Tim C} 01:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To know for sure you could write an e-mail to the Covina Police Department and ask them about the copyright status of their work. Maybe they are nice enough to help you out. (Lord Gøn (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Background sec[edit]

Do you guys think there should be a background sec placed here? There's some info about the perp in new articles. Here's a source: LATIMES 12/29 The motive may cover some, but a background subsec would be necessary for a family-related mass murder. Cyanidethistles {Tim C} 01:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that depends on what kind of information you want to provide in that section. Though I'd just go ahead and write it. (Lord Gøn (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Titling...again[edit]

I see three different titles used - one in the article title, one in the lead paragraph, and one in the infobox. Shouldn't we pick one and go with it? If so, which one? --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 18:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we should show some consistency and go with the article's title. If it will be decided to move the page, well then it can be changed again, but until then ... I'm gonna fix it! (Lord Gøn (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I apologize, I placed a comment in the wrong section. Please tag the words 'PAC' and Studio equipment. Perhaps even drummer would be appropriate.. Also, AbletonLive and Reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baymaz (talk • contribs) 10:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Lord.. I have no patience for coupe' de coque and 'man behind the curtain' huffed in between legitimate exchange. If you want to show 'consistency' to a flacid title of which you obviously exploit towards the more flacid and narrow, than I guess we shall have to change the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baymaz (talk • contribs) 10:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Smoke[edit]

I could tell something was wrong because I saw smoke from my house when we answered the door. It's in the exact same spot on the map so I know it was this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosiahMKP (talk • contribs) 04:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autopsy[edit]

I don't know if the autopsy was ever hosted anywhere else but I found it at http://murderpedia.org/male.P/images/pardo_bruce_j/PardoAutopsy.pdf

Also I archived

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Covina massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naming the child and other living victims[edit]

I'll admit that I'm very new at editing, but is there a good reason for including the full name of living victims, most particularly the (then) 8-year-old child? EasyAsPai (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the names of the dead victims is contentious, and requires consensus for each article. Naming the survivors is even more arguable, and is unlikely to gain consensus. WWGB (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I do not see a discussion here on whether or not to name them, but the victims' names, living and dead, are fairly prominent in this article. So I'm going to be bold and take out the names of the living victims, but that leaves a broader question of "should we have a whole table listing victims' names and ages and specific injuries." I think no. EasyAsPai (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for input: can we remove the table of victims?[edit]

Honestly, I think it's a little sensational to include a whole table of victims with names, ages, relationships to the murderer, and cause of death. Most of this can be summarized, and I think it can be done in a way that does not name the victims, who are only notable because they were murdered in such a shocking way. I'm working my way through the article now, trying to de-sensationalize it a bit, and wanted to get input on whether there is consensus that this table remain or whether I can remove it as part of my reworking. EasyAsPai (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Covina_massacre&oldid=1202093191"