Talk:1993 Long Island Rail Road shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Okay, it says: "In 1991, Ferguson started renting a room in the Flatbush neighborhood of Brooklyn from an elderly Haitian woman.[1]" then later in the same paragraph: "However, his landlord Patrick Denis said..." So, unless Patrick Denis is an oddly named elderly Haitian woman, somethings missing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.137.116 (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Is it Long Island Rail Road or Long Island Railroad? -- Zoe

both are used. Vera Cruz

Only the former is used by the MTA[1], however. On the other hand, Wikipedia has the latter. --Calieber 13:28, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have fixed the Wikipedia article. Rail Road is the correct usage for the LIRR (about the only railroad in the world for which it's correct, in fact) --Morven 17:20, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The use of the term "Rail Road" for the LIRR is accurate and emphasizes the antiquity of the line. It is currently the oldest railroad in the country still operating under its charter name.

Other lines that uses "Rail Road" include the very old Strasburg Rail Road and the Indiana Rail Road Company. Cecropia 17:48, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

so is that 5:33 am or pm? Vera Cruz

It was a PM train. Not much call for 5:33 am ones even on the LIRR-- Someone else 06:19 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

the article doesnt say am or pm. Vera Cruz

ludicrous is not an npov term Vera Cruz

---

The cross examinations were bizarre. They were surreal. Colin: Did you get a view of the killer? Witness: Yes, I saw YOU. Colin: And what did the killer do next? Witness: YOU pointed the gun at me. -- Someone else 12:56 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

Bizarre is a pov. There is nothing bizarre about arguing that he is innocent. Vera Cruz

Yes. And in this case, a neutral one. It's not bizarre that he claimed to be innocent, it is bizarre that he intentionally called witnesses that identified him as the killer, and spoke to them in such a way as to provoke them to reiterate that identification time and again. -- Someone else 12:59 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

What happened to the bit about him having been detained by the victims? That was useful information (if true) and it isn't in the current version anymore. Tannin

Its your opinion that its bizarre. If you want to add the transcript of the trial, thats fine. But you aren't allowed to say whether u think it was bizarre or not. Vera Cruz

Is there any dispute that he "called witnesses that identified him as the killer, and spoke to them in such a way as to provoke them to reiterate that identification time and again"? If there is not, then any reasonable person would unhesitatingly use the word "bizarre". NPOV does not mean "bland" or "use only meaningless generalisations". Tannin

It was completely bizarre. Every newsperson covering the trial remarked on how bizarre and surreal it was. Some saw his crossexaminations as evidence of his insanity. -- Someone else 13:14 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

A few words from CourtTV's coverage: "Some people think that was precisely what happened in 1995, when Colin Ferguson defended himself in a courtroom in Mineola, New York. Ferguson, who shot six people and wounded nineteen during a rampage on the Long Island Rail Road, was found competent to stand trial and represent himself.

Ferguson punctuated what many considered a lucid defense with some surreal moments, such as his diatribe about how the state devised ninety-three counts against him because his shooting spree occurred in 1993, or his cross examination of his own victims. It may have been odd behavior for the courtroom -- and possibly damaging to the court's dignity -- but it wasn't enough to keep Judge Donald Belfi from allowing Ferguson to defend himself. "

Most coverage used the word surreal or bizarre for these moments. --Someone else 13:32 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

Thankyou. I think that makes it perfectly clear. Tannin

Ahh, so some moments were "surreal", but the conduct as a whole was "lucid". That's subtly different from the claim that the trial was "completely bizzare", no?

I wrote in the article that the crossexaminations were bizarre, rather than the whole trial, and they were. -- Someone else 14:56 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

I've done a moderately large copyedit here, mainly for greater readability, but also to clarify a few points. For starters, most instances of "killer" have been replaced with "shooter", since Ferguson was tried and convicted for other shootings as well as the killings. I've also removed the scare quotes from "black rage" and added a link to "innovative defense". I've put Kunstler & Kuby's arguments before the trial, rather than during, since the Ferguson did his own arguing once the trial started. Could someone clarify if Kunstler & Kuby remained as his advisors during the trial, or were they fired by Ferguson and replaced with a court-appointed counsel? Thanks. JHCC 14:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Wouldn't the gun purchase have been *illegal*, not legal, if the license was fake? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.139.142.18 (talk • contribs) Superm401 - Talk 21:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC).

Just what I came to this page to say. I think it was really illegal because he used a temporary location as a proof of residency. Superm401 | Talk 21:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The Intro

The line " Motivated by phantom prejudice he saw as the reason for the failings in his life..." seems POV. What evidence do we have that the percieved prejudice was trully "phantom". Isn't it really the case that the claims of prejudice he cited as being resposible for the failures in his life were simply unproven or lacked any supporting evidence. As such the word phantom seems to be making a judgement on whether the pervieved prejudiced was just in his head or not. While it may have indeed been phantom, such a claim would seem difficult to prove sufficiently for it be NPOV as far as Wikipedia guidelines are concerned. Is their evidence available that justufies the use of that adjective? Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. --Cab88 10:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

--Cab88 10:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I am going to attempt some cleanup here, at least of the top section. I must say this is a very odd article, considering that it is about a newsmaker, but fails to actually say up front exactly what he did, when, where, how, etc., or to cover the basic biographic details of his life. Instead, all there is is one sentence speculating about the motives of crimes which are, bizarrely, not mentioned except in passing. MCB 22:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Question about Quotes

Question: To whom should the quote at the bottom be attributed?

"I hope somewhere down the road I will be forgotten...that I will just be able to live the life I had before, a quiet life unknown to the world."

Parole date

I have removed the sentence about Ferguson being eligible for parole on a particular date, whether it's 2039, 2041, 2309, or 2214. I have been unable to find a reliable source; Google links make reference to all four of those. The only quasi-reliable source is The Smoking Gun, but that site is really only considered authoritative when it reproduces actual copies of official documents (and this is not the case here). Therefore, under WP:RS and WP:V, the sentence should be removed unless an authoritative and reliable source is found. MCB 05:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop moving the page

The assertion in the edit summary for the page move that "The incident is better known as the long island railroad massacre. i know this because i googled ferguson and the term long island railroad massacre had more results)" is not even remotely true. You did remember to quote the phrase, right? Otherwise the result will be wildly skewed with irrelevant results.

The following are direct cuts and pastes from my browser:

Results 1 - 10 of about 142,000 for "Colin Ferguson".

Results 1 - 10 of about 9,150 for "Long Island Railroad Massacre"

That's more than an order of magnitude difference. So, please leave the page name alone, OK? --MCB 06:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Three years have passed, I was no part of the original dispute, and I don't care what the page is called; but the first Google return for "Colin Ferguson" is the actor Colin Ferguson, the fourth is an event photographer, the fifth, sixth, and seventh are the actor, the next is a blog by another Colin Ferguson, the rest of the top hundred are predominantly the actor. Ferguson the murderer only has half a dozen entries in the top fifty, and Wikipedia isn't even one of them. A search for "colin ferguson" "long island" returns 7,040 results. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate article redirected here

Apparently someone started a duplicate article title "Long Island Rail Road Massacre" unaware that this article was formerly named that (well, a slight variation, "Long Island Railroad Massacre"); I have redirected it here. --MCB 06:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Gun Rights Advocates...

"Gun rights advocates frequently cite the Ferguson attack on the commuter train as an example of the danger of disarming the population, arguing that Ferguson was able to shoot as many victims as he did because no other person on the train was able to return fire."

That sounds pretty stupid to me. Almost too stupid. Is there some sort of source to back this up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.132.145 (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

The above unsigned comment is a totally biased POV. Back-up sources are not needed for common sense anyway, i.e., mass murderers tend to be the most lethal by preying upon unarmed victims. Kepiblanc 02:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Undiscussed page moves

Please do not move pages unless there is a compelling need to do so, and then only after proposing the move here, on the article's Talk page. In this case, all that is needed is a simple disambiguation note redirecting those looking for the actor:

{{For|the Canadian actor|Colin Ferguson (actor)}}

Posting on the Talk page for discussion would have also avoided the problem of having made three page moves (plain -> (criminal) -> (murderer) -> (mass murderer)) which, unfortunately, leaves a mess of redirects and double redirects.

Also, there is no particular point in performing a page move of that type unless you also create a disambiguation page for the name, instead of just leaving the automatically-created redirect.

I have undone the page move and added the disambiguation note, and if you still think a page move is necessary, propose it here on the Talk page for discussion. Given the disparity in the notability of the people with the name, I don't think a disambiguation page is necessary, thus no need for the page move. --MCB 23:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Colin Ferguson was a delusional paranoid schizophrenic

It was pretty clear to the vast majority of US psychiatrists living at the time that Colin Ferguson was a delusional paranoid schizophrenic. Despite manifesting all the classical symptoms of delusional paranoid schizophrenia, he was tried as if was a normal, healthy human being. See: "Criminal Competency on Trial": The Case of Colin Ferguson by Mark C. Bardwell (Author), Bruce A. Arrigo (Author)

You can't say "vast majority of US psychiatrists living", or "It was pretty clear", unless you have the statistics to back it up. --Knulclunk 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In order to (hopefully) end the edit war, I added a single NPOV sentence on the Bardwell & Arrigo book, after the mention of the competency issues, and made a proper bibliographic citation for it. We should not make conclusions about what a hypothetical group of psychiatrists might believe about Ferguson's mental condition (that's original research), but the book clearly meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources and should be cited in the article. --MCB 01:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Much better! Thank you. --Knulclunk 01:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ferguson only shot whites and asians

Very few details about the incident are given in this article. Ferguson started shooting all of the white and asian passengers while passing over the black passengers. Ferguson had a duffle bag full of ammunition and it appears that his intention was to kill all of the whites and asians on the train. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.194.108 (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That is my understanding. It would be great if we could get sourced news stories from the event to use as a reference. --Knulclunk 00:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Biography

Any backround information on him? Where he lived? What he did for a living? Any other miscellaneous info to beef this article up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlushinQwnzNyc (talk • contribs) 02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Any one have/know of any videos of the court room trial? If so please leave it on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlushinQwnzNyc (talk • contribs) 02:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

White Passenger Shooting

I removed the race of the passengers as white because there were victims who were NOT white. 75.20.203.231 07:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think that information would be suprising, as race was such a factor in the crime and the case. Can you help elaborate the racial aspects of the event correctly? Obviously we need sources for this... --Knulclunk 19:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

He only shot white and asian people. There were black people on the train and he did not shoot them and they did not try to stop him or defend the other passengers.

It is true that he shot Asians. This doesn't prove he wasn't a racist. Blacks hate Asians, their hatred is not limited to whites. There is nothing which prevents blacks from hating more than one race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.10.64 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Were any of Colin Ferguson's victims black? I don't think so. Kepiblanc 03:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly he shot those with white skin, correlating that with "rulers and oppressors". So technically yes, he specifically targeted whites because he shot those who he perceived as white, if only in skin color. It would still be accurate to say he targeted whites based on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.13.92 (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Formal request has been received to merge: Black rage defense into 1993 Long Island Rail Road shooting; dated: May 2017. Proposer's Rationale: That article is pretty short and can fit into the shooting article. That term was only used for that one case anyway. unsigned. Discuss here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)