Talk:2022 Laguna Woods shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why does this shooting have an article?

I saw a Discussion in the Wiki about the Weis Market's Shooting (Randy Stair), and people discuss about if that Shooting need's a wiki because the media didnt cares, but Randy it's infamous in the internet and because for the youtube videos and more, so he have a Recognition, a motive for do his wiki, but this shooting Went unnoticed, nobody talks about it, so why this have a wiki? 157.100.93.66 (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Can't comment on the Weis Market's Shooting - don't recall seeing any coverage of it, but this and the Buffalo shooting have both been in the news despite it being early days. As more information is released there will be more coverage. 人族 (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@157.100.93.66 and 人族: Perhaps you are looking for Weis Markets shooting which redirects to the article called Eaton Township Weis Markets shooting. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Jordin Davis

A "Jordin Davis" (possibly some far-right guy named in older socal news articles) just posted a status and a video of Vegas PD raiding David Chou’s room. Davis said that Chou was his roommate.

Not citable right now, of course. Gotta wait for the press to confirm these stuff. Just a heads up. Artoria2e5 🌉 04:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Why did a lot of the edit history get deleted?

i was just wondering why edit history got deleted. plus my innocent edit of saying the authorities hadn't found a motive yet got reverted. i know there is confusion over the current event but what ??? (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

See WP:REVDEL--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:C0C1:C814:5FEB:954F (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Lots of sockpuppetry shenanigans were happening. Love of Corey (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Move-edit war

@Jim Michael 2 and Amakuru: could we please stop with this move-edit war going on, and establish whether or not there is a consensus to move this page from its original title to another one please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: see WP:RM. The article should reside at its previous title until and unless a consensus for change is established in an RM discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that! I hadn't realised when typing the above that you were an admin. Watching this unfold in my watchlist, it's confusing how many moves there have been total as it looks like there's been more than three even though there has only been three. I wanted to get that to stop, before looking deeper into the situation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: ha no worries, and it doesn't really matter if I'm an admin or not, I still have to respect the edit-warring rules and consensus like anyone else so you're right to flag that up... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The usual format when there has only been one such event is to include the location & type of venue, not the year. Examples include Bahawalpur church shooting, Campinas Cathedral shooting, Fort Lauderdale airport shooting, Poway synagogue shooting, Quebec City mosque shooting, Sutherland Springs church shooting & Westgate shopping mall attack. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I've seen you and another editor make this same argument. Where was the consensus for that decided? Is it based on part of the MOS? Or was a it an implicit consensus on behalf of the page creator that was never challenged? Or was it a local consensus for each page? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I've seen several editors do so & it makes sense. During the past few years, there's been increasing support to disambiguate by venue rather than year. For example, Orlando nightclub shooting & Orlando factory shooting rather than 2016 Orlando shooting & 2017 Orlando shooting. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question. While those are more examples of the same naming pattern, it doesn't answer where the consensus for that naming pattern was discussed, assuming that it has been discussed somewhere of course. If it hasn't, then this may be something we need to discuss somewhere because there quite clearly is at least two different schools of thought on how these articles should be named, and they are mutually exclusive. So having a non-local non-implied consensus would help for these sorts of discussions going forward. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

During the late 2010s & early 2020s, many editors have given a similar explanation during edit summaries & on talk pages in regard to page moves, including when removing the year where unnecessary & replacing the year with the (type of) venue. Examples include on the talk page when 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting was moved to Orlando nightclub shooting & in the edit summary when 2017 Orlando shooting was moved to Orlando factory shooting. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, that doesn't really answer my question. "many editors have given a similar explanation" does not tell me where this apparent consensus for this naming scheme was discussed or decided. At best, it looks like it is a local consensus for each individual page that has replicated to other articles, and not something reflected in the MOS. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a trend, backed by good reasoning. Many things on WP that are common/typical/standard/usual practice aren't in the MOS. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

+1 Agree, please stop moving the page so much. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the title should be Laguna Woods church shooting. What do you each prefer? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the current title is fine, though given that the shooting seems to have been confined to the church, I would also accept "2022 Laguna Woods church shooting". The year as to when the shooting took place is informative, even if it is the only such event to occur in that area to date. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree, the year isn't important and will just make the title too long. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

improper rewrite

See SPI block. Vacosea (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Vacosea, stop making this sort of edit again. [1] I had already asked you in one of our discussions above to spell out what specific concerns you had with my previous edits but you have thus far refused to meet this request. List them here if you are now able to do so until then stop making these improper rewrites Thundercloss (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Per this edit [2], once again, please specify the new and old mistakes I have made in my edits on the article Thundercloss (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Their deficiencies have been pointed out since at least June 21 and mostly unaddressed. You have not been able to substantiate the removal of contents that have been covered by numerous sources. Despite hammering everyone else for proposals, neither have you proposed anything acceptable, even though your rewrites instigated this thread. Every time you run out of arguments, you open a new section. Please also refrain from edit warring [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Your edit summaries are at odds with reality, because there were no known inaccuracies in the old version. You have made accusations without basis in the past as well, as shown at the ANI. Vacosea (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC) You are the one making the allegation that I haven’t rectified the deficiencies in my edits so you are the one who has to present the evidence for this alleged lack of corrective action. Ironically, as I have told you on multiple occasions already throughout our discussions above, I have already provided lengthy justificatory explanations for the remedial actions which I have undertaken. For example we do not need a mini essay that records every little medical detail that marked Chou’s encounter with his two tenants who were in arrears when one sentence would suffice. This is an encyclopedia, not a hospital, a courtroom or a police station. Until and unless you drop your apparent refusal to read the things I’ve written, our discussions will continue to go in circles Thundercloss (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Thundercloss, you have been making a mess of the section on Chou, so let me add just a few words. You are making this extremely unreasonable. The points of disagreements have always been listed. I don't understand why you keep asking for new proposals when you personally removed or reverted existing edits. You are also making a strawman argument. Previous editors included even more about Chou, as evidenced by this automated edit. I already accomomodated your requests and summarized everything to the more relevant details. Sources have said "Chou was once friendly and well-spoken before the beating caused his life to unravel", "In hindsight, Orellana believed Chou showed signs of mental instability", and "Instead, the tenant beat Chou, fracturing his skull and breaking his arm." The extent of his injuries should be explained. His prior interaction with the police should be explained before introducing his complaint against them so that it doesn't appear out of nowhere. Just from the NBC article, "Pan said Chou appeared to enjoy the events at the church, particularly the musical performances." His wife appeared to enjoy the company of the Taiwanese, but Chou didn't, and they later were going through divorce. This is relevant. "And also David’s children. We pray for them, too. They are also victims.” So the Taiwanese association president even knew Chou had children, which you removed as well. Their impression of his life attitude was removed. The divide between him and the members who were pro-independent has been removed. The NACPU's impression of his attitudes and statement about the end of their association have also been removed. Your edits jump between time points and stitch them unnaturally, breaking flow. Landlord, injury, divorce, sales, eviction are all mixed up. Roommate complaint is placed before Las Vegas acquaintances. Banner photograph is now at the end. Everything is out of order and rearranged by you like an essay. Other facts of Chou's mental instability were also removed by you, including firing a gun inside, posing in photos, homelessness, giving up on life, turned down by local churches. It is extremely brudensome to list the problematic changes you make each time, because there are so many. You take so many issues with sourced edits that it defies common sense. You are impossible to please. Cobiexor (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC) They should be added back in the right order. Every time Thundercloss corrects something or put it back, they make other mistakes or deletions [8] [9] [10]. Where the article now says pro unification paper World Journal, divorce which Orellana said caused his life to unravel, felt misunderstood by the police all appear to have their own embellishment added beyond what the sources say. Vacosea (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC) those were minor mistakes which have been corrected. The “embellishments” are information that can be found word for word from the sources. Please stop engaging in hyperbole Thundercloss (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC) Please do not re-revert, delete, or make significant changes unilaterrally. Those embellishments are not in the source. You have a long history of making untrue statements and accusations. Vacosea (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC) the NBC source says, “Pan similarly said he had mentioned before that he ‘felt very, very misunderstood.’”[11]. The OCRegister source says “Balmore Orellana, a former neighbor in Las Vegas, said Chou’s life unraveled after his wife left him last year.” [12]. Stop wasting everybody’s time with these nonsensical assertions Thundercloss (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC) Sources did not say he felt misunderstood "by police" or divorce "caused" his life to unravel or World Journal was pro unification or pan blue. Vacosea (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC) the full paragraph makes it clear that the misunderstanding was in reference to the police even though it was not literally written out. There is no functional difference between the what was literally written in the OCRegister and summarizing it to say that the divorce caused his life to unravel (or that the divorce was the proximate cause of his life’s unravelling, if you want to be pedantic about it). The pro unification/pan blue description is not in the cited sources, but it has been widely used by other reliable sources (wp:label) and it gives the reader helpful context to understand the concomitant material. The “embellishments” you are bringing up are not just untrue but are so pointless that we are just killing time arguing over nothing Thundercloss (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC) That's some grand handwaving from an editor who adamantly insists on deleting otherwise sourced information they don't like. Even the World Journal article doesn't have sources supporting your pro unification label. When you create your own new ideas, you literally have zero source, which is even worse than undue. Vacosea (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC) this is ad hominem garbage and I’m not going to bother giving it a proper response Thundercloss (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC) The point of an encyclopedia is to summarize information and that involves filtering out stuff that’s not necessary while ensuring the ones that are stay in. We don’t need an wp:undue violating mini essay that explicates “the extent of his injuries” when one sentence that says he was nearly beaten to death would suffice. Likewise we don’t need an wp:undue violating mini essay that explores every single fact related to Chou’s mental condition when a couple would do. As for your complaint that my edits break the flow of the material, this does not make any sense. The first two paragraphs discuss his life events chronologically while the second two discusses his views thematically. There is no problem with the flow. I can separate out his views into a sub-section so that the reader can better see and apprehend the different way that the material is being periodized. But you should be aware that there are multiple ways for a material to flow, there is no obligation for paragraphs to only flow chronologically and you can’t remove material simply because you don’t like the way it flows.Thundercloss (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC) I have already answered this multiple times, but you keep returning to this. Only the most relevant information about Chou's life, such as being a landlord, association with Taiwan and China, matters involving guns, church, and his wife are kept. In fact, most of his background involves Taiwan in some ways. If we do create a separate section, it would make more sense for it to be about his mental instability, not politics. Cobiexor (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC) well yes only the most relevant information about Chou’s life is kept because that’s what an encyclopedia is supposed to do - keep the most relevant information, which if you bothered to read has been written in a way that demonstrates ample connections to Taiwan as well. The law enforcement authorities and the sources have all been saying that Chou’s political views has been the main driver of the shooting and this has to be reflected in the article. By way of example it is why Chou has had hate crime enhancements added to his charges. No source cites Chou’s personal issues as the main factor for the shooting and only a threadbare number of sources cite and frame those issues as a secondary, merely triggering factor for the shooting. In light of these facts it makes no sense to do what you are proposing and rewrite the article so that more weight is given to the “personal issues” perspective of the shooting as opposed to the “hate crime” one. Thundercloss (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Your argument is empty. Law enforcement, which only alleges a motive, does not decide what should be excluded. Secondary sources have not drawn any conclusion of their own besides repeating information. The politics you want to highlight are already in the opening paragraph, the Investigation section, numerous times in the Accused and Reactions sections. Facts from Chou's life have been covered by many sources, sometimes extensively, which I presented each time before you go on to make another new discussion. They have already been reduced down to the most relevant to the shooting. Chou's supposed views against American government, which so far lacks any additional detail, has not been blamed for the crime either, yet you have insisted on making that point ever since we began this discussion in June. This shows that Thundercloss does not genuinely believe even their own positions. What they happily use to exclude information by other editors, they themselves violate if doing so suites their purpose. Cobiexor (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC) it’s not about whether my or your material gets included in the article, it’s about the weight of the material. There are reams of articles which highlight the hate factor of the shooting in just the headline. (A sample: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]) There are virtually none which highlight the mental health factor in the same manner. Thundercloss (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Some sources that highlight Chou's life Boston Globe, NBC, NBC4, CNA, heavy.com, Fox5, Los Angeles Times, Press-Enterprise. Cobiexor (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC) that’s not the point of what I wrote. You need to read what I am saying before responding Thundercloss (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Vacosea, stop making this sort of edit again [20]. The changes were not “unilateral,” many of them were not “reverts” and the edit summaries were neither misleading nor at odds with the discussion. I’ve asked you multiple times what specific issues you have with my edits and all you’ve done is respond with vague answers like how they have been mostly unaddressed, it’s not in the right order and that they are part of a pattern of previous mistakes I’ve made. Since you are systematically refusing to answer such a basic question as part of what appears to be a larger strategy to stonewall inclusion of valid information which you just don’t like, I would suggest you find another article to edit.Thundercloss (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC) There has been consistent opposition to your rewrites. Vacosea (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC) I suggest you find another article to edit Thundercloss (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC) They should already know this because every time I address their argument or we reach some agreement, they initiate another round of discussion. Thundercloss is the engine that drives this. Cobiexor (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC) this edit by you [21] removed the “views” subsection which contained the statements that said Chou “ had expressed views against the Taiwanese and American governments.” and Chou “ held anti Taiwanese independence views and had links to the pro-unification movement.” Do you deny that the sources say this? Thundercloss (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Unlike how you actually removed information that is unique, I removed the label of views but kept the underlying facts. Cobiexor (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC) that is not what I asked. I didn’t say anything about “underlying facts.” I said you removed the statements that said Chou “ had expressed views against the Taiwanese and American governments.” and Chou “ held anti Taiwanese independence views and had links to the pro-unification movement.”Do you deny that the sources say this? Thundercloss (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Those appear to be no more than repeat references to the underlying facts Cobiexor mentioned without adding any unique information. Vacosea (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC) in summary Thundercloss is adamant that many facts from Chou's life in this version [22] are undue. In my view they make a great fallacy in claiming and using politics as the "primary driver". While it is a motive alleged by the police, no one has said it is the "primary" or only factor. Furthermore politics and hate were already covered abundantly in that version, first highlighted in the lede and the infobox, followed by the investigation, accused, legal proceedings, and reactions sections. Meanwhile Cobiexor has provided many different articles that delve into Chou's life [23] and supports inclusion of only information most related to Chou's mental, physical, and marital situations. Thundercloss' justification for deleting information is at odds with how the version they oppose already covers politics and life proportionately. It's also more informative, less repetitive, and less disjoint than the current writing by Thundercloss, which they have repeatedly reverted to. Vacosea (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC) prove it. Show me one article which highlights the mental health angle of the shooting in its headline in the same way which whole stacks of articles have done so for the hate one. Thundercloss (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Articles such as Highland Park parade shooting, Robb Elementary school shooting, and 2022 Buffalo shooting all include other relevant facts about the perpetrator's background. Even if the alleged motive or theme is racism or gun control, for example, there is still a significant amount of history on mental health, activities leading up to the crime, social circumstance, etc. The point, after all these rounds of discussion, is that my edit already coverd and highlighted the hate and politics you want to emphasize, but you are still being very aggressive by abusing unfounded arguments and removing background information that is sourced and relevant. Your unreasonable demands have become unworkable. Cobiexor (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC) (Thundercloss, your reply should go below existing replies such as mine, not cutting in front.) Here is the "proof" [24] that Thundercloss asked for. Had they actually bothered reading the discussion they have kept prolonging, they would have come across this and other sources: (listed here again for convenience) Boston Globe, NBC, NBC4, CNA, heavy.com, Fox5, Los Angeles Times, Press-Enterprise. As observed earlier however, this ignorance might not have been unintentional. Vacosea (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC) the headline doesn’t highlight the state of his mental health. It does not even use the phrase “mental health” which also means it is not a factor to which the headline explicitly attributes the shooting. It’s not like the hate factor (ie Chou’s hatred of Taiwan/Taiwanese people)to which reams of articles explicitly refer and attribute the shooting in their headlines. (A sample: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]) this edit by you [32] removed the “views” subsection which contained the statements that said Chou “ had expressed views against the Taiwanese and American governments.” and Chou “ held anti Taiwanese independence views and had links to the pro-unification movement.” Do you deny that the cited sources say this?Thundercloss (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC) There we have another repeat of already addressed arguments. They are just dragging this out in any way they can, from spamming the article with repetition to spamming the discussion. It has been pointed out several times just in the past couple of days that Chou's life has been covered by many sources that devoted almost whole articles to it, and that one alleged motive by police is not the only measure of relevance as evidenced by other articles on shooting perpetrators. Cobiexor (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC) these sources ([33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]) have said that Chou had expressed views which were critical of the Taiwanese and/or American governments. these sources ([40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]) have said that Chou held anti Taiwanese independence views and/or had links to the pro-unification movement. Do you deny that this is what the sources have said? Thundercloss (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC) You are simply copy pasting old arguments, right from the subsection above it seems. Those points have already been covered and included in this version [47] for which there is rough agreement that it highlights information fairly and proportionately as consistent with other articles. Vacosea (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC) that question wasn’t directed to you but since you are interjecting I’ll ask it to you as well. Do you deny that the sources have said what I’ve said they said? It’s a yes or no question Thundercloss (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC) all of the most important and relevant facts about his background has already been included in the article. His encounter with the tenant and the police, his wife’s health, his eviction - its already there. What more do you want? We don’t need a mini essay that goes into every single detail of his life. When almost all the sources cite the hate element as the main factor for the shooting, when no source cites Chou’s personal issues as the main factor for the shooting and when a threadbare number of sources cite those issues as a secondary, merely triggering factor for the shooting, it makes no sense to do what you are proposing and rewrite the article so that more weight is given to the “personal issues” perspective of the shooting as opposed to the “hate crime” one. Thundercloss (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC) The above is almost a verbatim repeat of what Thundercloss has asked and I have answered several times before. Cobiexor (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC) that’s not what I asked. all of the most important and relevant facts about his background has already been included in the article. His encounter with the tenant and the police, his wife’s health, his eviction - its already there. What more do you want? If you are not going to bother reading my comments then don’t bother responding Thundercloss (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC) revert Dumuzid, per your edit [48], please explain what specifically was in my version of the article that made you think it was not an improvement over the previous one Thundercloss (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Thundercloss, with all due respect, there's an entire wall of text above this section that strikes me as doing an adequate job of explaining this very point. The onus is not on everyone else to satisfy you; the onus is on you to persuade enough to form a consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC) You are the one making the implied assertion that I haven’t rectified the deficiencies in my edits so it is only fair that I ask you to present the evidence for my alleged lack of corrective action. The fact that there is a “wall of text” is all the more reason for you to precisely identify the issues that you’re referring to. Otherwise what you wrote would appear to me to be nothing more than (for lack of a better way of putting it) a drive by comment. i’ve never said everyone has an obligation to satisfy my demands but I will say that efforts at persuasion is futile if the other side has no interest in being persuaded.Thundercloss (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Perhaps you should consider that your arguments are not as persuasive to others as they appear to you. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC) if you don’t think my arguments are persuasive but you are interested in being persuaded, then let’s debate. Thundercloss (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Go right ahead. My mind is certainly open. Why should your version be preferred? Dumuzid (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC) you first. You’re the one who reverted me and said my version of the article was not an improvement over the previous one. So explain what specifically was in my version of the article that made you think it was not an improvement over the previous one Thundercloss (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Right then. When I am of the opinion that the article needs revision, I will return and attempt to convince you and anyone else on the talk page of the changes I should like to see. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC) so you had no interest in being persuaded in the first place. Exactly what I thought Thundercloss (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC) That's quite a jump! It's hard for me to be persuaded if you don't attempt to persuade. Your stance seems to be that "all deviations from my preferred version must be explained to my satisfaction," but that's not how things work on Wikipedia. There's a clear consensus against you at the moment. I certainly have an open mind, but demanding explanations is not a particularly effective way to sway opinions. Feel free to argue! But I apologize in that I don't feel it particularly necessary to rehash the arguments above or explain why I reverted to a consensus version. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC) you’re the one who made the accusation so it only makes sense that you’re the one who has to do the persuasion. Not hard to get Thundercloss (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Let's recap the above: you say if I am interested in being persuaded, we should debate. I say, in essence, fine, go ahead. You respond, again, paraphrasing: no, you persuade ME. I decline, at which point you say I "have no interest in being persuaded." I don't believe that logically follows from the preceding series of events. I will confess that I have little interest in persuading you. It does not follow that my mind is closed on the subject. Dumuzid (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC) “I will confess that I have little interest in persuading you.” now that’s something we can agree on Thundercloss (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC) But, you see, that's not really an impediment to me at the moment since I agree with the consensus and you don't. It's just another way of stating WP:ONUS.Dumuzid (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC) it’s not an impediment to me either. I’ll just work to change the consensus without your approval which you were never going to give anyway Thundercloss (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC) I assure you, I am open here -- but you are certainly entitled to work around me. Best of luck with that. Dumuzid (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Then prove it. These sources ([49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]) have said that the shooter had expressed views which were critical of the Taiwanese and/or American governments while these sources ([56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]) have said he held anti Taiwanese independence views and/or had links to the pro-unification movement. Should the two italicized statements be included in the article? Thundercloss (talk) Possibly! I don't think either is per se wrong for the article. How would you propose including one or the other? Dumuzid (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC) I would put both of them in the accused section. Either put both of them in the third paragraph or put the first sentence in the fifth paragraph and the second sentence in the third paragraph. Thundercloss (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Let's start with the first sentence, as that seems the easier one to me. Vacosea, Cobiexor, what are your thoughts on including the first of the italicized sentences as part of the background in paragraph 3 of the accused section? Seems appropriate and supported to me. I'd like to know your thoughts. Dumuzid (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC) The current version directly presents the material facts referred to by the first proposed sentence. They are neither long nor especially remarkable: "He complained about Taiwan as well as the U.S. government and law enforcement" and "Chou described the Taiwanese government as corrupt and disliked those who supported it." Adding another summary sentence would be repetitive. Vacosea (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC) Vacosea, I do think that might be underselling a bit. Thundercloss has a point (if not always presented with as much tact as might be desired) that "hate" is prominent in the coverage, and although it shows up in one of our quotes and in the hate crime enhancements, we don't really mention it in the section on the accused himself. While we could certainly attribute it to a speaker (such as the district attorney), it strikes me that more prominently pointing out this thread in the coverage would be WP:DUE. As ever, reasonable minds may differ on the subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC) Dumuzid thank you for joining in. Let me quickly add that the Investigation section right now is really just about alleged motive. It is the product of changes by Thundercloss and already highlights, following the opening section, Chou's hatred against Taiwan and Taiwanese, against independence, and against Taiwanese one more time, ahead of Accused. Is "expressed views which were critical of the Taiwanese and/or American governments" the sentence we're talking about? Chou's hatred is mostly directed against Taiwanese independence. I doubt he hates those in Taiwan who are pro unification or even just ambivalent, and I haven't seen any follow up details on any anti American government views, so we just have Chou's complaints against the Taiwanese government and the police in the U.S. due to the 2012 episode. They are not that significant compared to his anti independence views. Cobiexor (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC) ”They are not that significant compared to his anti independence views.” Says who? Certainly not the sources which widely reported what his roommate said Chou said about the Taiwanese government. But even if you were right that still is no reason for excluding the sentence from the article given the inherent significance of it in capturing the facts which constitute the rationale for the shooting and given how far more trivial information has been included in the article. Thundercloss (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC) It would be redundant because the same information about how he disliked the Taiwanese government is already included twice. Cobiexor (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC) no it would not. The summary sentence is about his dislike of the Taiwanese and us governments while the second sentence is about his specific grievances with the Taiwanese government. Thundercloss (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Yes it would because, as pointed out many times to you, the lede, the infobox, and the investigation already mentions anti Taiwanese sentiment many times. Vacosea (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Cobiexor, I guess that's the sentence nominally under discussion, though I am kind of going off on a tangent, as I am wont to do! I don't think the section is deficient as written, but I do think hatred is so prominently used in the sources that it makes sense to nod to it a little more. That particular term (to me, at least) suggests a sort of irrationality that "anti-independence views" does not. Obviously, there is a lot going on with the accused here, but I think the sources are telling us that at some level there was a sort of irrational emotional motivation, and I am not sure we're getting that across as clearly as we might. Cheers, and Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC) Other facts also suggest Chou might have been emotional. What do you think about folding the Investigation, or really motive, in under the Accused so we could include hatred there? Cobiexor (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC) That could certainly do it. As I say, I just feel that someone reading our "accused" section would get a rather different picture than someone reading the reliable sources. But as I am dealing with some objective observations and some more "feely" issues (I am definitely making some inferential leaps, though I think they are substantiated by the coverage), I am happy to hear what others think or bow to consensus if it takes a different view. Dumuzid (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC) Ok, I have seen both investigation and legal sections right under perpetrator if they are this short. Hatred and hate crime, findings from Chou's notes, and his manifesto seem to group well together. Older background information can remain directly under accused. Vacosea (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC) folding the investigation section into the accused one certainly would not help. The focus of the investigation section is on what the law enforcement authorities are saying while the accused section is on what Chou himself as done and said (as reported by the source). Almost all of the mass shooting articles are structured in a way which keep the investigations and accused sections separate. Thundercloss (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC) This case has seen very little investigation on the law enforcement end separate from the accused. Vacosea (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC) that makes zero sense. The facts that the first sentence summarizes are obviously “especially remarkable” as they constitute the rationale for shooting. If they aren’t, then nothing else in the ”accused section” is especially remarkable either. The cognate facts are also presented in a clearly disjointed manner as the first one is buried in the middle third paragraph where the focus is not on the Taiwanese government but on an unrelated topic (Chou’s views and activities pertaining to cross strait relations) while second one is banished to the final paragraph where it’s attached to another fact which is, again, not related to the Taiwanese government but Chou’s views and activities pertaining to cross strait relations. Centralizing the two facts around one master declarative sentence so that they combine to deliver important and impartial information, accurately represent historical realities and help with readability is a proposal that should not be controversial to anyone Thundercloss (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC) Or create a subsection for the accused section entitled views and put the two statements there as I did in my version of the article [63] Thundercloss (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC) That version was not only about your adding sentences but deleting information as well. It had been turned down earlier. Vacosea (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC) WP:HEADLINE is clear that headlines are not reliable sources, so you need to stop assigning any weight to them. Beyond that you may want to take a break from this page and read WP:BLUDGEON a few times. Slywriter (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Duzumid, given the comments above, do you have any rewrite proposals for either the third or fifth paragraphs of the “accused” section? 03:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Thundercloss (talk) I am coming more and more to be okay with the "hatred" stuff living in investigation for the time being, at least--though that may change with time. The only change that jumps out at me is actually in the fourth paragraph -- about working as a security guard and making insufficient rent. That just seems superfluous to me--and I would in turn perhaps give a little context to the eviction for shooting a gun sentence, if only something like "from the apartment in which he was residing," or some such. It seems to me that is not well established. As ever, happy to go with consensus whatever it may be. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Chou was evicted for not paying rent, but shooting a gun inside didn't help either mentally or with his new landlord. His work as a security guard played a part in the shooting, which is mentioned in that section. Vacosea (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Vacosea, then I certainly think this needs a major rewrite, as I got a very different impression. The shooting incident is not in any way tied in our text to the security job, and I am still not sure that detail is completely necessary. Moreover, while I see how "he wasn't making enough to pay rent" might be expected to sort of inform the eviction in the next sentence, this needs to be tied directly. The plain reading of the sentence is currently that "he wasn't making much money, and was evicted for shooting a gun." Apologies for not being able to dig deeper into the sources just now--busy time for me. As ever, just the way I see things! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC) I'm ok with rent and eviction tied more directly. Vacosea (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC) The gunshot report can go after mental instability, preceding his old Las Vegas memorial photograph farther in the past. Vacosea (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC) there’s a few things I’m unclear of. First when you say you’re ok with the hatred stuff going into the investigations section, can you be specific where this stuff is? I’ve identified the sentence He complained about Taiwan as well as the U.S. government and law enforcement. in the third paragraph and A former roommate recalled a conversation two weeks before the shooting in which Chou described the Taiwanese government as corrupt and expressed a hatred towards those who supported it. in the fifth paragraph of the “accused” section as candidates but I don’t know if thats what you’re referring to. Please confirm Second if we do migrate all the hatred stuff from the accused section to the investigations one then the investigations section will no longer be focused on what the law enforcement authorities are saying. Are you fine with this change in focus? Third are you still fine with the proposed sentence expressed views which were critical of the Taiwanese and/or American governments being incorporated into the article? Thundercloss (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC) investigations section Duzumid following your suggestion that information which touches on the hate dimension of the shooting should go into the “investigations” section, I propose the following rewrite: Chou’s animus against Taiwan took many forms. Investigators from Orange County’s Sheriff and District Attorney’s office and the FBI described the shooting as one that was motivated by hatred against the Taiwanese people, with Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes saying that handwritten notes allegedly belonging Chou recorded his "hatred for the Taiwanese people" which, Barnes surmised, stemmed from the fact that Chou was “not well-received” when he was living in Taiwan.” Barnes also said that the notes indicated his belief that Taiwan should not be independent from China In the wake of the shooting, the pan Blue newspaper World Journal said they had received a manifesto written and sent to them by Chou entitled Diary of the Independence-Slaying Angel (滅獨天使日記) while a 2019 photo of Chou surfaced which showed him attending the founding ceremony of the Las Vegas chapter of the National Association for China's Peaceful Unification and holding up a banner which called for the “eradication of pro independence demons.” Reports further revealed Chou’s hostility towards the Taiwanese government where a roommate of his recalled a conversation they had two weeks prior to the shooting in which Chou described the Taiwanese government as corrupt, and disliked Taiwanese who supported it. Thundercloss (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC) References Please sign and date. The information about hate, like other Except for the notes found, parts from accused has nothing to do with any work done by law enforcement. Paradoxically, when they were actually involved and made a mistake by identifying Chou as a mainland citizen or immigrant, you eagerly reverted that information [64]. Now you are trying to give them credit where it is not due. Moving information from accused into investigation appears to be your newest attempt to continue with your rewrites after they have been rejected [65] [66] [67]. You have opened seven new sections to continue your debate, five of them in the last two weeks [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]. You have also been warned of WP:BLUDGEON [75] [76]. Please stop. Vacosea (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Vacosea, I agree, as I have said that Thundercloss's approach is, to put it delicately, suboptimal. That said, I am confused as to why you say "the information about hate . . . has nothing to do with any work done by law enforcement." We certainly have reliably sourced pronouncements by law enforcement officials about hate that at least seems to me an argument could be made for inclusion in the investigation section--that does not mean it necessarily must be so, of course. I was hoping you could just explain that a bit more for me? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Good catch, I meant excluding the notes found by police. Vacosea (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC) I have had to open that many sections because of the numerous amount of problems with the current version of the article and your refusal to make any compromises to any of your changes. Unless my interpretation is proven to be incorrect, the term investigation does not need to just mean “work done by law enforcement.” It can also cover work produced by journalistic investigations which reporting by news agencies on the details of a shooting that align with the accounts of law enforcement authorities of the same event would fall under Thundercloss (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC) This appears to be a fork of another section below opened by Thundercloss on World Journal. Vacosea (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC) the two sections deal with distinctly separate issues. please debate on substance not style Thundercloss (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC) This mostly dupblicates the World Journal discussion and fails for the same reason because the information proposed is not police investigation. Cobiexor (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC) it does not duplicate the World Journal discussion. They are dealing with separate issues. The issue here is whether non police investigation material can be included in this section while the issue in the World Journal section is whether the focus is on Chou or on the actions of the newspaper within the context of the police investigation Thundercloss (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Accused section

See SPI block. Vacosea (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The current version of the accused section ([77]) is imbalanced because it devotes too much detail to his personal background and too little attention to his views and activities; more specifically his views on the Taiwanese government, the American government and Taiwanese independence, and his involvement with the pro-unification movement. There are also issues with style; examples include the lack of transitional material bridging the first and second paragraphs, sequencing issues in the third and bad prose in the fourth. These problems should get fixed as soon as possible so readers do not leave with a distorted understanding of what the facts and sources say about the shooter, especially as the fallout for him is ongoing Thundercloss (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC) It seems to me you have already made that point above, more than once. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC) which point are you referring to? Thundercloss (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC) So this is not about your edits being reverted? Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC) I have no idea what you are talking about. You said I had already “made that point above, more than once” and I asked you what point you were referring to specifically as I made a lot of points in my opening comment. This is about my edits being reverted but that’s obviously not the point (pun intended) Thundercloss (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC) second paragraph Further to the opening remarks above, there are serious issues with the second paragraph as it currently stands. The first sentence jumps right into how Chou was seen as a landlord in Las Vegas, but we aren’t told anything about how Chou ended up in Las Vegas, how he became a landlord and why someone would describe Chou as “friendly” in the preceding paragraph. Moreover there appears to be reliability issues with one of the sources(National File). The second sentence says too much and too little: it goes into unnecessary detail about how he lost consciousness, suffered a broken skull, etc when it already says he suffered a nearly fatal attack while also not providing enough details into the aspect of rent situation that caused the tenants to attack Chou. The third sentence suffers from contextual problems similar to the first one (we aren’t told anything about the police and a bag full of money in the preceding sentences and we are not told why Chou’s suspicions of the police’s alleged malfeasance matters), neutrality problems (it presents Chou’s interpretation of the effect of the prosecutor’s involvement on his encounter with the police detectives as fact) and sourcing problems (the LVCNN does not look like it’s a reliable source). Given these deficiencies, I propose this replacement paragraph: In 2009, Chou moved to Las Vegas and worked as a landlord with his wife. In the mid 2010s Chou was almost beaten to death by two tenants who were in arrears; the attack left him with scars all over his body.Thundercloss (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Time for an RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC) I’d prefer to exhaust all the other options before resorting to an rfc. Is this an issue you’re willing to discuss? Thundercloss (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC) I can really add nothing that has not been said in the treads above about your additions. This is why I say this is not needed, nothing more can be said. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC) You do not "work as a landlord", you become one (which the source says). We mention the attack on him. Your suggestion just adds words, but no real meaningful detail. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC) the discussions above never analyzed the issues affecting the paragraph at a sentence-by-sentence level of granularity. So i disagree, there’s actually a lot more that you can say. If my suggestion didn’t add meaningful detail then that’s a function of the previous version of the material which was even more lacking in meaningful detail. Thundercloss (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Thundercloss, you really do need to take a half step back, as your behavior verges on WP:BLUDGEON territory. For me it is not over that threshold, but others might disagree with me. By that I do not mean stop editing the article or stop making suggestions, but just give things some time to breathe. Slatersteven disagrees with you. Rather than seeking confrontation, give it some time to see if your proposal gathers some support. Especially when the issues at hand are not acute (your proposal here is more of a rewording than anything else) it simply does not pay to seek it so aggressively. And this is not merely about behavior issues: I daresay you're hurting your own cause in terms of persuasion far more than helping it. All that said, I would agree about National File. Better to simply drop the first cite and either find something to replace the second or omit the sentence. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC) i don’t see how I was seeking confrontation or seeking input aggressively. Certainly I had no intention of doing that. All I have been seeking is a resolution to these issues which in my view are numerous and need rectifying. Things should be given time to breathe but not so much time that they suffocate from a lack of attention and end up falling by the wayside. My initial plan was to get a third opinion to look at the issues I’ve brought up in this section since the discussion only involved me and slaversteven. But now that you’re also a participant i am not sure if I can do that anymore. I still prefer to avoid resolving this through an RFC though so if there’s anything specific you’d like to say regarding the proposed replacement paragraph that would be welcome and most helpful Thundercloss (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC) I could already tell that arguments repeating old points were coming our way when Thundercross first said to Slatersteven "which point are you referring to?" Vacosea (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC) The extent of his injuries, already reduced to half of a sentence, describes how nearly fatal the attack was. His suspicion, as currently phrased not as a fact, provides context for subsequent complaints against the police. The Guardian writes: Chou had been a pleasant man who used to own the Las Vegas apartment building. There is also Liberty Times, the sister paper of Taipei Times, reviewing media reports: robbed by a Hispanic couple, causing heavy impact to his head, fracture of left hand and ribs, loss of hearing in the right ear (被一對西班牙籍男女租客搶劫，導致其頭部受到重擊、左手和肋骨斷裂、右耳永久失聰). This was also said: because in the past Chou Wenwei always gave the impression of an amiable person, (his neighbor) believes that the beating might have caused his temperament to change significantly (因為過去周文偉一直給人和藹可親的形象，認為可能是在差點被租客打死後性情大變). The LVCNN was from 2012 before any of the controversies arised. Thundercloss supported the deletion of much of the "mini essay", but is now complaining that what little remains suffers "contextual problems". Vacosea (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Thundercloss, again, do not cut in front of timestamped replies that had been there before yours [78] [79] and do not to overwrite another editor altogether [80]. Vacosea (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC) you haven’t said anything in response to my proposed revisions for the first sentence so I will assume that you agree with them unless you explicitly say otherwise for the second sentence the two problems I initially identified remain. Without noting that the tenants were behind in their rent, we are given a decontextualized reconstruction of the encounter and left wondering what would have prompted the tenants to attack Chou in the first place. As for your justification for keeping the minute details of the near fatal attack, that could apply as much to what I proposed (“the attack left him with scars all over his body”) so that is no defence at all for keeping your material and removing mine. we can produce a following sentence that contains Chou’s former tenant’s opinion about the significance of the attack but other things that he said about Chou will need to be added to other parts of the paragraph for context (as reported by the sources) and some material in other parts of the section especially the fourth paragraph will have to be removed for redundancy. it’s clear from your response that you didn’t read my objections to the third sentence. I didn’t say his suspicion was phrased as a fact, I said the part about his assertion about the effect of the prosecutor’s involvement in the encounter is presented as fact. Contextual problems remain because nowhere in the rest of the article is there any elaboration of Chou’s “subsequent complaints against the police.” Sourcing problems also remain not just because the LVCNN source looks dubious and requires verification for its reliability but also because it is the only source that is used to substantiate the claim of police malfeasance. As that appears to be a exceptional-esque, certainly important claim it requires corroboration from multiple mainstream sources(wp:ecree) given the above comments, I propose this new replacement paragraph: In 2009, Chou moved to Las Vegas and became as a landlord with his wife. According to Balmore Orellana, a former tenant and neighbor of Chou, he was a considerate landlord as Chou did not raise his rent throughout the time that he lived there, but was verbally aggressive toward his wife as he would hear Chou yelling through the walls. In the wake of the shooting Orellana also recalled Chou telling him that he identified as Chinese despite his Taiwanese nationality, and believed that China and Taiwan were one country. In the mid 2010s Chou was almost beaten to death by two tenants who were in arrears; Orellana said the attack left him with scars all over his body and was a harbinger of the decline in his mental stability. Thundercloss (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Thundercloss, I think it would make everyone's life much easier if you stopped presuming what people were or were not reading. Just a suggestion. Dumuzid (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC) I don't see anything wrong with the current paragraph. Vacosea has provided additional sources for both the friendly claim and the beating. It sounds like the prosecutor's involvement was a part of Chou's suspicion, but maybe only that part needs to be cleared up. Does Chou identify as Chinese as in Communist China or something else? It's not clear and given that the police mistakenly thought he was a national from the PRC before being corrected to Taiwan, your addition would add ambiguity and confusion into the article again. We already know he agrees with unification anyway. There is this problem with your proposal again, just like the ones before, that you rearrange and present the events out of order. The attack happened first so that should go first. Orellana hearing Chou and his wife must have happened in a more recent building. Cobiexor (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC) you wrote the paragraph so naturally you would not think there’s anything wrong with it. But of course that does not then mean that there is in fact nothing wrong with it. Just the first sentence alone is proof enough of this - you say Chou was described as a friendly landlord in Las Vegas but you do not say anything beforehand or afterwards about how Chou ended up in Las Vegas and how he became a landlord, let alone why that description of ”friendliness” is even with mentioning in the first place. the article makes it clear that when Chou is identifying himself as Chinese he is doing it in opposition to his Taiwanese identity. That’s why the article says “he was born in Taiwan but considered himself Chinese.” We don’t need to split hairs trying to figure out what exactly he meant. In relation to the police misreporting of him, Chou’s self identification clarifies rather than obfuscates the situation because whereas the police description involved a mistake over his nationality/citizenship, Chou’s remark was about his personal identity. Identity/self-identity is not the same thing as nationality/citizenship. ”Orellana hearing Chou and his wife must have happened in a more recent building.” And you know this how? Thundercloss (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC) So in what sense is Chou identifying as Chinese if not politically? It's subject to misinterpretation because many English speakers assume Chinese means citizen of China not Taiwan. Vacosea (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC) politically, culturally, socially - it doesn’t matter. Point is he is identifying himself in opposition to his Taiwanese identity-cum-nationality as reported by the source and this reported fact is intrinsically significant to the event and by extension the article. There is no basis for you to assume that anyone reading that sentence wouldn’t know that there is a distinction between identity and nationality. Even if they didn’t the construction of the sentence which clearly bifurcates the two concept particularly with the use of the semantic marker despite would be enough for them to disabuse themselves of that hypothetical conceptual conflation. Thundercloss (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Sources may not care about what they report means, but Wikipedia should. Given that Chinese can be ethnic, cultural, historic, political, many "Chinese" outside of the mainland may or may not identify with the label depending on what different askers means. It is too complicated for this article. Vacosea (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC) it’s not the encyclopedia’s place to care about what “reports mean” because that would then be straying into original research territory (wp:or). How readers personally identify with the label isn’t relevant either to this discussion or the wider encyclopedic enterprise. The only thing that matters is how the label is reported in the source and sources. There’s nothing too complicated to understand except for the logic and arguments that you are using to keep the proposed sentence out Thundercloss (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Not including it avoids WP:OR. It helps that the article doesn't mention Chou being Taiwanese, Chinese, American, or citizen of Taiwan, mainland, United States.Vacosea (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC) it can’t be an original research issue thats what the source actually says.Thundercloss (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC) @Thundercloss, the Los Angeles Times article you used said "Chou was managing a different apartment complex". We should at least indicate that Chou identifies with a supposedly unified China including Taiwan, not any de facto country on either side right now, or we can come back to this after evaluating other lower hanging issues. Cobiexor (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Here is another coverage by Taiwan's mnews: after the incident (he) asked police where was the money, the officers said the prosecutor was keeping it as evidence, later (he) found out it was a lie and therefore became upset and disappointed by the U.S. judicial system (事後詢問警方錢去了哪裡，員警供稱被檢方當成證物扣押，事後才發現根本就是謊言，因此引發不滿，讓他對美國司法體系徹底失望). Vacosea (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC) We need multiple mainstream sources and preferably ones in English as this is English Wikipedia. I’d suggest consulting wp:rsp if you don’t know what counts as a mainstream source. Using yet another dubious looking source that isn’t in English and requires verification for its reliability isn’t going to work Thundercloss (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC) I have never heard that non-mainstream English sources are automatically dubious. LVCNN is technically an American source and we are using it only to reference its 2012 article, before any of this happened. Liberty and mnews are Taiwanese. Vacosea (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC) didn’t say non-mainstream English sources were automatically dubious. They can be used provided they have met the verification criterion. But in the main we need multiple mainstream sources, preferably ones in English as this is English Wikipedia and especially so for an important, controversial claim. I wouldn’t expect to see just English sources being used to substantiate an exceptional claim on Chinese Wikipedia so the same standard and expectation should apply here as well Thundercloss (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC) WP:NONENG says English ones are preferred if "they're available and of equal quality and relevance," which they are not. "If a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided", which I have provided. Vacosea (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC) using two, non verified, foreign language sources evidently does not meet the standard of “multiple mainstream sources“ that is needed to substantiate an exceptional claim. Even if it did the problem of the non neutral phrasing of the sentence still remains. This is an issue of weight,neutrality and sourcing reliability, not simply one of sourcing accessibility. Thundercloss (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC) I have said my piece, it seems to be there is no point in repeating the circular arguments on the threads above. To my mind this either needs to be dropped or a formal RFC is launched, as it is clear that this is not getting revolved. Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC) References world journal the part about World Journal submitting Chou’s diary to the police which he sent to them should be put under the “investigations” section. the focus is not on Chou but on the actions of the newspaper within the context of the police investigation into the shooting. I’ll be making this change if nobody has any objectionsThundercloss (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC) It's mainly about Chou writing and mailing it. The attorney himself said it was still in his custody, and the police has not taken any action. This would have been corrected had you not reverted me as usual [81]. Vacosea (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC) it’s not mainly about Chou writing and mailing it. That would have been the case only if World Journal received the diary and did nothing with it. Your corroborating evidence does not work because it actually shows that the focus of attention is on the actions of World Journal and not Chou. The edit which you provided the url for says the journal turned the diary over to its attorney awaiting police subpoena but you misread that to say the journal turned the diary over to his [Chou] attorney.Thundercloss (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC) "So far, police have not contacted him," "agency is aware of the documents, but would not comment further." "He had not fully read the lengthy document and did not believe that the newspaper had either. " No one has done anything with it yet, and the police did not discover this themselves during investigation, so the only notable thing is Chou writing and mailing it. If we fold Investigation in with Accused it would all fit more naturally. Cobiexor (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC) the edit with the url that shows that apart from Chou, others have have done something with the diary. The World Journal decided against publishing it and they turned it over to their attorney while awaiting police subpoena (hence why this material belongs under the “investigations” section). Either you didn’t read the changes made there or you did read it but chose to ignore them. Thundercloss (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Waiting by World Journal is not action by law enforcement, who do not even possess the document. Vacosea (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC) per your edit, they are waiting within the context of a police investigation. Whether the police are actually in possession of the diary or not is neither here nor there. The connection between the two phenomena and rationale for a recategorization the World Journal material could not be any clearer.Thundercloss (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC) The information centers on Chou. No action has been taken by law enforcement so no investigation. Vacosea (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC) World Journal is the one to whom Chou sent his diary and who is in possession of the diary while it awaits for the police subpoena. The information clearly revolves around not Chou but the World Journal within the context of a police investigation Thundercloss (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC) It says Lin "had not fully read the lengthy document and did not believe that the newspaper had either". There has been nothing for the journal to do. Cobiexor (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC) that quote doesn’t appear anywhere in version of the article with the above url Thundercloss (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC) You should read more closely. https://www.ocregister.com/2022/05/18/alleged-laguna-woods-church-shooter-apparently-sent-documents-to-newspaper Cobiexor (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC) I meant your quote doesn’t appear anywhere in version of the WIKIPEDIA article with the above url. [82] You misread that to mean that quote doesn’t appear anywhere in sourced article Thundercloss (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC) fourth paragraph This paragraph as it currently stands contains many problems. Among the most glaring is that it is missing information which undermines the logical structure of the article. It says that Chou became homeless in March but the following paragraph says he had a roommate as of late April/early May. Without bridging material, we are simply left wondering how this contradiction was ever resolved. Furthermore, the information which touches directly on Chou being homeless suffer from either neutrality (the statement Several local churches turned him down for a place to stay is presented as fact rather than an opinion as is the case in the source) or sourcing problems (the statement Chou's mental stability appeared to diminish, telling his former neighbor "I just don’t care about my life anymore. is cited to a source - National File - which does not appear to be reliable). Other issues include repeating details (the second sentence says Chou was a considerate landlord when the first sentence of the second paragraph of the current version of the article already says he was a friendly owner of a Las Vegas apartment building) misrepresenting details (such as Chou firing a gun which is presented as a fact rather than an opinion and as causal rather than incidental to his eviction as is the case in the cited source) while giving too little attention to relevant details (such as the those found in Chou’s eviction hearing). Given these problems, I propose the following rewrite In 2021 Chou sold the property he and his wife owned, rented out and lived in amidst a divorce and his wife’s terminal cancer diagnosis, which resulted in her leaving Chou to return to Taiwan. According to eviction hearing records, Chou alleged the sale was made by his wife and without his consent. He continued to live in the property as a tenant but could not afford the rent which prompted the new landlord to initiate evictions proceeding against Chou. Chou testified at court that he had sought rental assistance from Clark County authorities, but the court found no evidence that he had done so. Chou was ordered evicted in March 2022 but by this time he was already residing in a four-bedroom home in Las Vegas in February after having found enough money from work as a security guard. During this period Chou’s mental condition continued to decline; Orellana said the tenants who moved into Chou’s old unit found photographs of him at a memorial for the 2017 Las Vegas shooting posing with a gun and laughing hysterically, and heard from neighbors that he was caught breaking into his old mailbox a month after his eviction. References Thundercloss (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC) There's no contradiction because homelessness is not necessarily permanent. National File is corroborated by Los Angeles Times: “He told me, ‘I just don’t care about my life anymore.’” Your arguments are out of touch with reality. Recovering a bullet is according to you "opinion": "There was a bullet on one of my bedrooms," "the bullet entered Orellana’s apartment, although nobody was hurt." Your proposal is not an improvement and focuses too little on Chou's mental instability. You're now throwing a tantrum by seeking to rewrite almost every paragraph despite agreement against you. Vacosea (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC) References it’s a contradiction because without the bridging material which makes it clear that Chou has passed from a state of homelessness to a state of being housed, Chou would be both homeless and housed. We are talking about homelessness in the concrete and not the abstract. Just because homelessness is not necessarily permanent does not then mean we do not need to provide an explanation for how it has ceased to be a permanent condition when that has happened in reality the criticisms I raised were based on existing sources, not new ones that you introduced which ironically reinforce their validity. Your NBC and Fox news sources makes it clear that the gunshot incident is tangential to Chou’s eviction and cannot be presented as fact as the recollection of it is attributed to Orellana. Your suggestion that the material focuses too little on Chou’s mental condition is absurd. Nearly 1/3 of the paragraph is about Chou’s mental condition. In light of your comments and sources the material will be expanded further. Nobody is throwing anything here. The only thing that has to be thrown out are your defective content and your hardline, obstructionist attitude to preserve them. following your input, I propose the new rewrite In 2021 Chou sold the property he and his wife owned, rented out and lived in amidst a divorce and his wife’s terminal cancer diagnosis, which resulted in her leaving Chou to return to Taiwan. According to eviction hearing records, Chou alleged the sale was made by his wife and without his consent. He continued to live in the property as a tenant but could not afford the rent which prompted the new landlord to initiate evictions proceeding against Chou. Chou testified at court that he had sought rental assistance from Clark County authorities, but the court found no evidence that he had done so. Chou was ordered evicted in March 2022 but by this time he was already residing in a four-bedroom home in Las Vegas in February after having found enough money from work as a security guard. According to Orellana, Chou’s mental condition throughout this period continued to decline and cited several events to the media which he said exemplified this. They included tenants who moved into Chou’s old unit and found photographs of him posing with a gun and laughing hysterically while at a memorial for the 2017 Las Vegas shooting; a conversation he had with Chou after his eviction in which he told Orellana that he didn’t care about his life anymore; a gun misfiring by Chou which left a bullet hole in Orellana’s apartment and hearing from neighbors that Chou was caught breaking into his old mailbox a month after his eviction. References Thundercloss (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "Chou was ordered evicted in March 2022 but by this time he was already residing in a four-bedroom home in Las Vegas in February" this is self-contradictory and clearly false, and the overall writing is poor. Cobiexor (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC) it can’t be false if that’s what is in the source. Here is what the OC Register article says: Chou, a U.S. citizen who worked for years as a security guard, moved into a four-bedroom home in Las Vegas in February. there is no way to incorporate this information aside from the way that I’ve done it Thundercloss (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC) References I will remove the timing and homelessness for now. Vacosea (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC) please write your proposed paragraph in this section and incorporate those changes there instead of implementing them piecemeal into the main article. It will be easier to identify and discuss what the exact areas of contention are Thundercloss (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There is an impossible-to-resolve divide here on whether "church" or the year have better recognizability. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

---

2022 Laguna Woods shooting → Laguna Woods church shooting – Per Sutherland Springs church shooting, Charleston church shooting, Christchurch mosque shootings, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, etc., etc. Love of Corey (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 11:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support because it's the best & usual format. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - As I've said above in the section on the move war, the year when a shooting took place is informative, even if it is the only such event to occur in that area to date. Delineating it by year makes the most sense, when considering that we're writing for an encyclopaedia. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  Add: Per WP:NCE, the proposed article rename is inconsistent with the When, Where, What pattern that should be used when an event does not have a WP:COMMONNAME. Furthermore this event is far too recent, as it happened about a week ago, for WP:NOYEAR to be considered. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

That reasoning could be extended to say that the month & perhaps the day as well should be included in the title. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but only when the year, location, and incident pattern are insufficient to identify the event. If there were say, two mass shootings in Laguna Woods this year, then adding the month (eg May 2022 Laguna Woods shooting) would be in order. And if there were two this month, then further disambiguation to (15 May 2022 Laguna Woods shooting) would be in order. Thankfully we don't have that yet. However the pattern still holds that we should name this as "2022 Laguna Woods shooting" or "2022 Laguna Woods church shooting". Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, the day is only needed in the title when there's more than one notable event of the same type in the same place during the same month, the month only when there's more than one during the same year & the year only when there's more than one. They're disambiguators which aren't needed when it's a unique event. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

No, that is not what NCE says. NCE plainly says In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors: When the incident happened. Where the incident happened. What happened. It then goes on to say that some articles do not need a year when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. However with an event that took place a little over a week ago, we do not yet have that historic prospective for how this event will be described. Next it says The month or days should not be used in the title unless other descriptors are insufficient to establish the identity of the incident, giving an example of a tornado outbreak sequence from May 1995. As we are right now, 2022 is a sufficient When descriptor, because there have not been any other notable shootings in Laguna Woods this year. However without the historic perspective to inform us as to whether or not there is a COMMONNAME for the event, we should use the When, Where, What pattern for article naming. That compels us to use either 2022 Laguna Woods shooting or 2022 Laguna Woods church shooting, as those are the only titles that match the When, Where, What pattern. The rest of the text is less relevant to this discussion, as it covers neutrality in the What descriptor, which isn't being questioned in this RM. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Also because I suspect this may come up; why aren't the examples using that pattern? Lets take a look at each example:

• Sutherland Springs church shooting. A brief search of news pieces 4 to 5 years after the event do not demonstrate a common name [83] [84] [85] [86]. What they do demonstrate is that a disambiguator is required, as the media in each article says makes reference that the attack occurred in 2017.
• Charleston church shooting. Looking again at current media, so 6 to 7 years after the event. [87] [88] [89] [90], it appears as though we have a common name, which matches our article. Fantastic, the NOYEAR part of NCE now applies.
• Christchurch mosque shootings. Event took place in 2019, so we're now 2 to 3 years after. [91] [92] [93] [94]. Doesn't look like we have a common name, though one might be forming around either Christchurch shooting or New Zealand mosque shooting. We need a little more time before we can figure out what the historical perspective on this is. So we should follow NCE by adding the When to the name.
• Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. Event from 2018, so we're 3 to 4 years after. [95] [96] [97] [98]. Looks like we may have a common name here, Pittsburgh synagogue attack, though all still do make mention of the date. A more in depth look at enduring coverage is warranted here before deciding whether or not we should rename to Pittsburgh synagogue attack.

So, what is different in all of those cases? One now appears to have a common name, Charleston. Two of the others may have a common name or one may be forming, so more source analysis is required. And one has no evident common name. What they do all share though is a significant passage of time since the event in question; between 2 and 7 years, allowing us to look at the formation of what the enduring historical perspective of those events will be. And that is also the difference with this article, the formation of an enduring historic perspective, something which unless you've got a time machine or a WP:CRYSTALBALL you won't be able to guess for an event that happened a little over a week ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The only way that 2022 Laguna Woods shooting could become the common name for this attack is if another notable shooting happens there in a future year. Even then, they'll more likely be disambiguated by type of venue rather than year, as is the case with the 2016 & 2017 Orlando shootings. If no other notable shooting takes place in Laguna Woods, the common name will be Laguna Woods shooting or Laguna Woods church shooting. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the point I've made here. I have not said that "2022 Laguna Woods shooting" either is currently, or will become the common name for this event. I have said that we lack a common name for this event. Because we lack a common name the When, Where, What convention at WP:NCE applies to this article.

Right now it doesn't matter what the common name may become. We are forbidden by policy (see WP:CRYSTALBALL) to speculate upon future events. That does mean at some point in the future, when a common name does form we will have to reassess the name of this article, as we may now have to do for the Christchurch and Pittsburgh. However that is not now. And right now, in lack of a common name, we should follow the guidance at NCE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It was decided within minutes to name yesterday's mass shooting Robb Elementary School shooting. The suggestion to add the year was very quickly dismissed, with no need to wait to see what the common name will be. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

And that is a problem that goes beyond both this article and the one from yesterday. There is quite clearly a discontinuity between what the guidance tells us how these articles should be named, and the practice that editors are engaging on at the article level. I opened a discussion at the Village Pump policy about this yesterday. Either we have a bunch of improperly named articles, or we have guidance that has fallen out of step with practice. One of the two needs to be resolved. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Also @Jim Michael 2: could you please link me to the talk page discussion at that article, where the rename was discussed? I've checked both the current page and the archive and cannot find it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about the talk page but you can look at the page log. It also began as 2022 Uvalde shooting, but was renamed to specify the location. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I've made note of that over at the Village Pump policy post in relation to the wider issue here. There was also two other moves after that as well. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It may not be in the MOS or even a guideline, but there's a consensus that titles of articles about attacks at schools include the name of the school. As well as the very early move from 2022 Uvalde shooting to Robb Elementary School shooting, there was a move to add 2022 to the title, which was reverted a few minutes later. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Support If Wikipedia policy followed the opposite path then Orlando nightclub shooting and Orlando factory shooting would have both been renamed 2016 Orlando shooting and 2018 Orlando shooting respectively. But we don't. Adding the "church" also makes for a nicer-sounding title that runs more smoothly. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Strong Support Without the need for disambiguation, there is no need to deliberately add 2022 to the page's title. 寒吉 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - the current formulation, with the year, is the usual way of identifying such events and is a better handle for readers in the long term.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  According to your argument, September 11 attacks must also add 2001. 寒吉 (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  September 11 attacks, or 9/11 is the WP:COMMONNAME for that incident, and is explicitly named as one of the examples at WP:NCE. However this incident does not yet have a COMMONNAME, and it is as I've said above far too recent to try and guess what the historical perspective of this will be. As such, NCE is the correct guideline to follow which establishes the when, where, what pattern. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Support - Unless the incident develops a WP:COMMONNAME, Laguna Woods church shooting would be the expected name people would look for who are familiar with Wikipedia. We should leave a redirect from the current name as people might look for that as well. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Year, Place, Event is descriptive and helpful to readers. per WP:NCE. --Enos733 (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Redirect "Laguna Woods Church Shooting" to "2022 Laguna Woods Shooting". Urban Versis 32 (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Resembles other article names. Nythar (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Enos733. cookie monster 755 04:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support per nom. Those referring to WP:NCE seem to overlook how that article likewise gives priority to WP:COMMONNAME. The only reason to include year is to disambiguate (again, see WP:NCE), and I don't think that is the case here. —Caorongjin 💬 09:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  You're correct when saying that WP:NCE says to use a common name when one exists, and in my comments at 23:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC) I did say as much. However no-one here has demonstrated that such a common name exists for this event. In the absence of a common name, NCE is clear that articles should use the When, Where, What naming convention. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

disambig / redirect here for John Chen?

[Removed. I got John Chen and John Cheng mixed up. The question is thus moot. Sorry.] Herostratus (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Do nothing. John Chen is not central to the shooting. Very few, if any, readers would search for his name. WWGB (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)