Talk:2009 Binghamton shooting

Fourteen Dead

diff True, but need to find a reference.

Judicatus | Talk | Contributions

21:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thirty-seven survivors reported.

Judicatus | Talk | Contributions

21:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the number of wounded is not 26, but four. See here (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Inaccuracies

At the recent press conference, the chief of police stated that all surivors were removed at the same time, instead of gradually as this article says. He also says that there was no rifle involved. I don't know if the press conference can be found online yet to cite it. Anyone else know?

24.94.37.90 (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations do not have to be online... you can cite the TV news coverage of the press conference. Go to [[1]] and scroll down to television to see the format. It can be replaced with an online citation later, if desired. I agree that the rifle claim should be removed from the article. 65.170.234.10 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Gun culture link irrelevant

This article is about a current event of a shooting. It is not about American gun culture. Shooting is not gun culture. Gun culture is not shooting.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I was about to remove it when you beat me to it, I agree that it is irrelevant. The fact that it was in the article about the shooting does not automatically make it relevant to the subject.

Judicatus | Talk | Contributions

23:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Shooting arrives from gun culture. Please tell me why a respected organisation like the BBC would choose to associate the two? I'm following the sources rather than making my own assumptions about what is what. It is clear that both have guns in common. --candle•wicke 23:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Shooting arrives from gun culture" is your opinion, it is not verifiable, nor relevant to this article which is about a current event of a shooting. BBC reporters can editorialize any way they want. "It is clear that both have guns in common" is irrelevant, for example, why not include links on antique gun collecting? History of firearm manufacture? The connection is irrelevant.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course shooting is carried out with a gun... what else would anyone do with one? --candle•wicke 23:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Use it in self-defense. The obvious you did not consider.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And, indeed, the US. --candle•wicke 23:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The BBC is not suggesting that by encyclopedic value the two are relevant, it is presenting an article to it's viewers that is related to guns, not to the shooting directly.

Judicatus | Talk | Contributions

23:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

An entire section on gun control is fine but not one external link to a BBC report on American gun culture? That makes no sense whatsoever. --candle•wicke 23:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no section on gun-control. Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Every event like this always stirs up lots of media discussion of guns and gun control, and the article should reflect that. See Virginia Tech massacre for one example of a wikipedia article that covers this topic. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a summary of some statements with a link to Gun politics in the United States would be appropriate.

Judicatus | Talk | Contributions

23:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Because antique guns clearly are nothing to do with this? That is over-generalisation. --candle•wicke 23:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And the link to the article you inserted is not an over generalization?--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That article is just as relevant as the link I've provided... :,/ --candle•wicke 23:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And the link to the article you inserted is not an over generalization?

I wouldn't think so, no. --candle•wicke 23:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I never suggested that the gun control section should be left in the article

Judicatus | Talk | Contributions

23:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Gun control debate is irrelevant to this article.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

1 For reference, Fahrenheit451.

Judicatus | Talk | Contributions

23:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The article should reflect what's in the media. If the media reports on gun control in relation to this event, the article should reflect that. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Who specifically is "the media"? --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"The media" is any reliable source.

For example, I already added this to the article, but someone else took it out:

"In response to this incident, John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, wrote, "Time after time multiple victim public shootings occur in 'gun free zones' — public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The horrible attack today in Binghamton, New York is no different. Every multiple-victim public shooting that I have studied, where more than three people have been killed, has taken place where guns are banned... We want to keep people safe, but the problem is that it is the law-abiding good citizens, not the criminals, who obey these laws. We end up disarming the potential victims and not the criminals. Rather than making places safe for victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal..." "

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This article should reflect this incident, not a political argument. 65.170.234.10 (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely!--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Every incident like this always stirs up lots of media discussion of the gun debate, and the article should reflect that. See Virginia Tech massacre for one example of a wikipedia article that covers this topic. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The article should reflect its subject. Articles like Gun politics in the United States should cover the media and others views on such subjects. An article about a shooting should cover that, not the politics behind gun control. This is an article about an event, not a view.

Judicatus | Talk | Contributions

00:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Or Political arguments of gun politics in the United States.

Judicatus | Talk | Contributions

00:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Until the media's analysts start doing it, drawing connections between the guns here and gun culture is original research. --68.161.161.7 (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I quoted someone from the media. That's not original research. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Lott is from the media? He might talk in media, but he's no reporter.

The Lott quote isn't original research, but it gives off waves of undue weight.

Anyway, I stand by my statement. You haven't shown a big debate yet (thus the name "Impact on..." doesn't work), and your only source shown was one real-life POV warrior without an opponent. --68.161.161.7 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, the shooting is very relevant to the gun-control debate, but not so much the other way around. --24.57.19.247 (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Any occurance of someone shooting someone else with a gun most certainly warrants relation to any discussion of gun control, abolishment, culture, etc. Nick carson (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's usually a one-way relation. --68.161.161.7 (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. Keeping the article absolutely neutral would require only reporting on the incident and not about the issues at hand. Regardless of any of your or my own personal opinion, the article must meet WP:NPOV standards. Period. Someone said above that the article should report what the media reports. That is not a cart blanche truism; Wiki is not a tabloid or a journalism column. Journalists and news agencies often have spin and this is where they differ greatly from an encyclopedia. The important issue is that we must document what happened and essentially nothing more. Anything less would be an untruth and anything more would be a bias. I agree with everything everyone is saying, but this is both a Wiki policy and guideline and there is no room for the discussion. Lets keep it neutral, thanks. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 13:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

redirects

Linh Phat Voong and Voong Linh Phat should redirect here (also Wong Linh Phat, Linh Phat Wong, since news organizations seem to be using "Wong") 76.66.193.69 (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Those news organizations are using the Wong name. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

yes he was employed at IBM. I have a friend who lives in binghamton.

Employed at IBM?

The cited article [2] says: "Officials who initially said Voong worked for IBM and had been discharged later said they believed that was false. At IBM, there was no record that Jiverly Voong ever worked there." --Big_iron (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed from article. WWGB (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

According to ABC news, there are no records of Voong working at IBM. --EditsEditorBinghamtonWaverlyNY (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

according to the press conference they just held, he worked at a "shopvac" store, nnot IBM and they had no knowledge of him working for IBM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Surname

Voong isn't a Vietnamese surname. Linh Phat though, is Vietnamese so it is not very likely he came from one of the minorities in Vietnam (though he could also have been Chinese-Vietnamese). I suspect his last name was misspelled and should be Vuong (Vương). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.169.142 (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

he did work at IBM. I have a friend who lives there and hears all about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.161.70 (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Many media outlets are instead referring to his name as "Wong" [3]. WWGB (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

His name is supposedly Wong. However, there have been three different spellings. An editor should check that out and see what's the true story. Quinn (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Says alot about the quality of the mainstream media if they can't even get someone's surname right. Nick carson (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Wong (or Voong) is a Chinese name, not Vietnamese. I believe he was an ethnic Chinese with Vietnamese citizenship. Ttdole (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Asian American cats removed

Somebody removed the Asian American categories and project. This is the biggest mass murder committed by an Asian American since the Virgina Tech incident, and this time it's by a US citizen. The perpetrator and most of the victims appear to be Asian - they had to get a Vietnamese translator to talk to the victims Bachcell (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And so that makes it relevant to Category:Asian American history? Why is it so newsworthy that Asians were in an immigration center? Seems pretty obvious to me. WWGB (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not often Asians commit such high profile crimes, and much less often against members of one's own community. Famous gang massacres also fall under Asian American history, as do assasinations of presidents fall under US history. Please restore the category, and the project. Bachcell (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know yet if this quite falls in with "famous gang massacres" and "assasinations of presidents". Let's wait to see what the fall out is, and what impact it actually has on Asian American history before deciding if it is notable enough to be added to that category. SGGH ^ping! 10:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If this starts showing up on Asian American-related news media, will editors currently opposed to such categories agree that it should be thus categorised? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Responsibility claim by Pakistani Taliban

According to Geo TV (Pakistan) leader of Taliban in Pakistan Baytullah Mahsud claimed responsibility for the shootings. As he said the shooting was executed by two pakistani immigrants, who were members of Taliban movement. He also said that this action was a response for bombing of Waziristan by US army's drones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.169.198 (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No doubt nothing more than an attention-seeking false confession. Let's wait for reliable independent confirmation before this is taken into Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is true or false, it deserves to be noted. If it is confirmed or proved wrong, it should be accordingly mentioned. Sabre (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I added mention of the claim, as I feel it does warrant mention. I disagree with you, WWGB, that Baitullah Mehsud is an "insignificant individual." He is the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, has planned/ordered many attacks recently, and there is a large bounty placed on his head by the US. Muzher (talk • contribs) 13:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is Al Jazeera not considered a reliable source? Because they're not based in the West, with mainly white newsreaders? Muzher (talk • contribs) 13:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, al Jazeera is considered credible when it tells they got a claim from mashud. It is mashud that is incredible.the chances a vietnamese would shoot exactly vietnamese for mashud is small at best. Also btw that is rather a strong argument against claims about his dissattisfaction with his english. I guess mentally retarded people don't get gun licenses in NY , or do they? most logic guess for some reason he was angry over support he expected from immigrants like him, when he already felt socially excluded in usia. 24.132.170.97 (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is that since Al Jazeera is a reliable source, it should be mentioned that they received a phone from Mehsud claiming to have ordered the shootings. I'm not saying to edit and write "it was ordered by Mehsud" rather, "Mehsud CLAIMED to have ordered it." Big difference, I was quite careful when I added the info to make it clear that he was claiming to be behind the shootings as opposed to making it out that he was definately behind it. Muzher (talk • contribs) 14:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is what you added [4]. It includes the statement "perp = Jiverly Wong (acting on behalf of Pakistani Taliban)<ref name = baitullah_claim/>". That looks unequivocal to me. WWGB (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I mistakenly didn't make it clear in that box. My bad, I accept. However I was clear in stating that it was only a claim from Mehsud when I wrote in the lead and rest of the article proper. Though you conveniently ommitted mention of that.

Anyway, I see now that an Israeli source has been found, mention of the Mehsud claim is now allowed. I'll bear that in mind when citing news sources in future. Muzher (talk • contribs) 14:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• He called BBC urdu office.They reported it first.yousaf465'

Actually, the Jerusalem Post is repeating the AP story and stating the Post could not confirm. There's nothing informative in people who seek publicity seeking publicity. Removed. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if the Taliban claim is proven to be false isn't the fact that a major terrorist organization is making a claim of responsibility notable itself? --PiMaster3 ^talk 16:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. FBI has now rejected Mehsud's claim [5], but I reckon some mention should be made that the Taliban claimed to be behind the incident. Muzher (talk • contribs) 19:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Was Wang provoked?

I think there should be a section detailing what the so-called "victims" did to provoke the poor Mr. Wang. Clearly he didn't just "snap", there is OBVIOUSLY a history of mistreatment on the side of the community center and the individuals killed. I think it is unfair of people to rush to judgment when we don't know the whole story. Wangsympathizer (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't know anything about Wang's motives yet, and I don't think any of the former hostages have talked about mistreatment by the community centre, so there's nothing we can mention yet. Sabre (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

We should still keep it in mind. Wangsympathizer (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the "obviousness" of the history of mistreatment? I am not familiar with that organization. Could you be more specific? --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 13:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wangker is just trolling. WWGB (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked indefinitely.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Sister's Statements

I checked both the references one editor provided regarding the claim that his sister made statements. Reference 12 does not even have sister in the search text if you do a search on the page. Let not even mention that it is not coming from a reputable and mainstream source. The other reference only mentions the sister saying, "He shot them? No no." and does not mention her saying he was this or that or any such statements. Then there is the issue that this is grammatically bad. If you read this back to yourself out loud, no one talks this way: "His sister said he was a (nationality) and a (how he came to be) on his way to (place)." After we resolve this dispute, I will attempt to move that to the section regarding the info about him, and not as part of the story unfolding on how the shooting took place and only when someone finds credible and actual references that state these claims. Otherwise its just a downright untruth. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 13:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Major Copy-Edits

I have made major flowing copy-edits to this page to give it more structure and temporal consistency. The prepatrator section still needs work. It should provide nothing regarding the shooting and everything relavant to Mr. Wong. Likewise, the shooting section should have everything about the event and nothing spurious about why or other comments except what and how. I will be making more edits and it has been difficult as there are event sequences mixed with bio information and vice-versa. Also, the citations are weak, and need to be verified. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 14:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I have tagged the page. We need to get this right and I want to make sure this page gives credit to those that died and were wounded by at least getting the facts strait and making sure all the sources are valid. It also needs to flow consistently and the prose should be clear. I have been using the Columbine shooting as an example template. We do not have enough content here to fill out that sort of structure, yet, but the idea should follow. I will keep an eye on this page. I hope to see some other editors come in. I'll let it sit for now and see how it develops. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 14:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting Police Statements Deleted

If the police statements conflict and cancel each other out by the highest official redacting the statement, then we leave it out. Lets not document tabloid dialog. If there is a high powered rifle, we put that in. If there isn't, then there is no need to say we thought there was one, and now there is not. Lets leave this article as clear as possible and let the journalists sort that mess out. We have the official statement from the highest police official saying there was no high powered rifle, therefor, we concede to go with that. It follows, because of this, that I have deleted that part. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 15:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

By the same reasoning, any mention of the false IBM connection should also be removed. WWGB (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, lets get it out. I wasn't the one who added it, I have only copy-edited this article. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 15:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I want you to think about the state of this article one day being a FA. Of Course that eventual article will provide information on things like that numerous media outlets first reported he had worked for IBM and that it was initally reported as a high powered rifle later found to be incorrect. These are not tabloid matters at all but facts that are cited to reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Motives

The chief constable said, “We have no idea what the motive is,” [6] were any of his relatives not allowed to immigrate to Canada? The reason I ask is because reading this article did not satisfy my curiosity. It is pointless to hear about a shooting, and then ignore the cause, because then you're not doing anything to stop public-shootings. Maybe immigration-services should give free courses on (non-violent) lobbying methods, if there are people who have not received that invaluable education?

Hello there, please sign your posts and comments. To answer your question, no one truly knows the motive right now, as the article disclaims, it is an active event and is subject to change over time. Our job here is to make sure what is known is reported as accurately, reliably, and without bias, as possible. I am sure Wikipedians will continue to update as more information becomes available. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 16:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)