Talk:Security guard for Scientology building shoots, kills man

Comment by Shutterbug
"comments=Oh how dragon loves to hate on CoS --[[User:ShakataGaNai| Shakata''' " Yeah, obvious, isn't it.

- "killed the man after he allegedly approached the officer" - per source that was on video tape and the police confirmed to the media it was self-defense and that the man was close enough to injure the guard (missing in the article, I wonder why).

- "began to run at the guard with the sword" - waving two swords, per source

- "but it is not known how many fired shots" - one single shot, per source.

- "taken to a local hospital, where he died of his injuries" - died on the way to the hospital, per source.

- "and have closed off the building" - the parking lot, not the building, per source.

The last time I tried to make a professional article out of dragon's stuff I got blocked as a "response", mainly based on the assumption that I am a Scientologist not on the quality of my contribution. So here you have a proposal what should be changed. Shutterbug (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't think the sources might have been updated? Adambro (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually there is some new info and new sources that have come out since then, see Guard fatally shoots man armed with swords at Scientology building for example. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the edit times. I am not going to stay awake all night to update an article, or start a new one. At the time I wrote this, the above list was what it was. If it changed, then write a new one. But don't accuse me of hating anything. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I checked the edit times and those sources you put under your piece. That's why I pointed out which parts you left out of the article. I am sure it's only accidental that leaving out those facts gives your piece a certain slant. This: "Oh how dragon loves to hate on CoS" is a conclusion of your "reviewer" not me but I share his observation. Will you update the article? Shutterbug (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are new developments, then a new article should be created. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Misleading
The title for the article is misleading, as it makes it seem as if the guard shot him for no reason (being that it's from Scientology), rather than for self-defense --199.190.223.190 14:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See examples of article titles selected in mainstream media sources:

Cirt (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Only one of those doesn't mention that the man that was shot had a sword with him, which is kind of an important detail --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

New developments - man identified
See above sources. Cirt (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

New updates in secondary sources
See above sources, interesting info. Cirt (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)