Jump to content

Talk:2022 Laguna Woods shooting

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cobiexor (talk | contribs) at 15:55, 15 July 2022 (→‎revert: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See WP:REVDEL--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:C0C1:C814:5FEB:954F (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of sockpuppetry shenanigans were happening. Love of Corey (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [1] [2] [3] [4]. 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. [5] [6] [7] [8], 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. [9] [10] [11] [12]. 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. [13] [14] [15] [16]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]


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.

Recent rewrites

I want to draw attention to a series of rewrites by Thundercloss since June 17 or earlier. I notice that their edits, for the lack of a better word, are edgy and keep spamming certain ideas or cite a string of sources (5 or more) to draw attention to certain ideas visually, at the same time omitting other information. I tried to make changes here and there, but they have already restored everything as I type this.

I vaguely remember them first trying to showcase the hate crime aspect of the shooting in the top section by linking a lot of citations. It was a slightly odd thing to do.

In the Investigation section, they want to list each law enforcement agency to say this could be hate crime or something to that effect. There's no reason to list each one. They are all law enforcement or criminal justice saying the same thing. I think they also reworded to say Chou allegedly used the vehicle for the attack, which is silly. Had he ran over people, then it could be a vehicular crime, but that is not the case here. Presumably Chou also used his shoes and other items as well to get to the church.

They also called hate as Chou's motivation for the shooting. Usually that kind of certainty is justified only after the verdict. Not to mention they have already repeated hate crime in the opening and everywhere else.

In the Accused section, they removed almost everything about Chou's negative situation in life, being attacked by tenants, recovering his money from police, all heavily referred to by the NBC article. Statements from his neighbor, roommate, about his eviction, mental state and wife's illness are all removed. These are important aspects of the shooter's background. I already summarized everything so this would be like other article's bio section for perpetrators.

Then they went on to write that Chou supported pro-unification movement itself, which is a bit misleading, because he appears to be a lone wolf and at most supported the idea, not the movement. They wrote Chou has views against United States, which is a gross generalization. He specifically complained about law enforcement, exactly due to the incident that Thundercloss removed.

They have also removed references to Chou's involvement with Taiwanese Association of Las Vegas, which is important because the NBC article interviewed people who knew him there. He also identifies as Christian and was at the Las Vegas Taiwanese Presbyterian church a few times, another potential clue, which was removed as well.

About Chou's relationship with NACPU, there isn't too much conflicting report. Most reports say he has not been involved, so that should be the main message unless we have new information. The staff there also had their impression of Chou's personality, which was also removed by Thundercloss. The editor then added a bunch of citations after "pro independence demons". We can refer to the banner if it is that important, but Chou's political position is quite clear already. I don't want to overuse incendiary words, such as pro independent demon or monster or destroying them redundantly.

There were a bunch of other things they reverted, in the Reactions for example. I don't understand why they would have an issue with every single thing to undo all of them at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobiexor (talk • contribs) 17:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the hate crime aspect of shooting is central to how the event has developed and been understood. Your assertion that highlighting that fact gives it undue attention is for lack of a better word absurd.
the investigation section only records the views of the most important authorities involved in the investigation. I have made no attempt to list what each and every criminal justice agency has said about the shooting
the hate crime charges come from the sources, not me. I’m simply documenting what they say
we don’t need a mini essay that goes into every little detail of his life which is what the previous version of the involved section did. If my constant references to the hate dimension of the incident was “spamming” then the wanna-be biography of Chou’s life was bootlicking
whether Chou supported pro unification ideas or the movement is a distinction without a difference. The point is he is pro unification and this is corroborated by the sources, as is the assertion that he held anti US views
as documented through the article, the reporting in some of the sources over Chou’s relationship to the LV chapter of NACPU contradict each other. Some say he was an executive, others say he wasn’t a member at all. This discrepancy meets the literal definition of a conflict.Thundercloss (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is your source for Chou being an executive? After your edits, the article now has the word hate or hatred once in the opening, once more in the Reactions, and five more times in the brief Investigation section, despite hate being a very simple idea. On the other hand, what you removed were actual concrete facts adding important information, not just repeats of a generalization or simple idea without further substance. Cobiexor (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
just because an idea is simple (assuming that the idea is simple) doesn’t mean it isn’t significant. As I explained to you already, the hate element of the incident is central to way the proceedings after the shooting has developed and been understood. To give but one example, as reported by the preponderance of the sources, it is the main factor that explains why the shooting happened in the first place. Completely unlike the trivia that I removed which at best served as a distraction and at worst was constituted disinformation. Thundercloss (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is significant but the article is already giving it significant mention. I disagree with your assertion that other facts were distraction or disinformation. I think I'm starting to grasp what you are trying to do here. Instead of presenting everything factually, you are writing a thesis. You open with hate crime, repeat it every section or chance you get, and wrap up with the same theme. Every fact is subsumed to support your one and only thesis. I don't think that's the way to write an encyclopedia. It's wrong to define what elements to emphasize, what to gloss over, how to break facts up, recombine and reword them, just to form your own personal essay. Cobiexor (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. As for your speculation about what I’m personally trying to do I won’t even waste my time responding to that sort of nonsense. Thundercloss (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of sources cite Chou's circumstances. Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and Boston Globe are just some examples from mainstream media. You are confusing hate as a major factor with politics, which is not the only factor leading to hate. Cobiexor (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said those sources cite his personal issues as a secondary, merely triggering factor for the shooting. The preponderance of the sources cite Chou’s hatred of Taiwan, US, their governments, people, etc as the primary factor for the shooting. This is exemplified by the headlines of two of the articles (USAToday and the Boston Globe) you cited. Nothing you say contradicts my argument that your proposal to rewrite the article so that more weight is given to the “personal issues” perspective of the shooting as opposed to the “hate crime” one should be rejected Thundercloss (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no classification between primary or secondary in the sources. Politics or circumstances can contribute to hate, crime, or both. You are removing almost everything except for politics. Cobiexor (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Different aspects from Chou's life related to the crime have been more than adequately covered. These are some of the quotes sourced from above and NBC4 Los Angeles National File and Fox5 Vegas. “He told me, ‘I just don’t care about my life anymore.’” "found photos of him posing with a gun, including one that appeared to have been taken at a memorial to a mass shooting at the Route 91 Harvest music festival in Las Vegas. He looked like he was laughing." "He said he wanted to make a big event, and in doing the big event he will die and other people will die with him because this world is not fair to him." "He always talked about crazy stuff and so people listened, but didn't even take it seriously." "suspects he was going through some mental issues." "gunmen had been declining mentally after nearly being beaten to death several years ago." "Chou was once friendly and well-spoken before the beating caused his life to unravel." Cobiexor (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have removed altered or misrepresented these information again. Why? Cobiexor (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven’t misrepresented anything. As a compromise gesture I have not only retained but prominently highlighted in the summarizing paragraph the basic content that captures what you say is the crux of the articles (his deteriorating mental condition was a significant factor in the shooting) from where you have sourced your “personal issues” perspective of the shooting on both the discussion and the main pages Thundercloss (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm replying because I have encountered a similar situation with Thundercloss' repeat deletions and edits on the Michelle Bachelet article, primarily regarding her statements about China following her visit in her capacity as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. This can be observed on Talk:Michelle Bachelet.
I think you are correct to scrutinize these edits. I do not have any specific suggestions as I am not currently familiar enough with the subject matter of this article. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, especially regarding deletions. Cobiexor (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A number of issues have been raised, and most still appear to need improvement. I left a message for Thundercloss so that they could review WP:BRD before reverting. Vacosea (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What needs improvement? Be specific instead of using cryptic remarks. Thundercloss (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For one, hate crime enhancements and manifesto date as explained at ANI. Vacosea (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
anything else? Because you made a lot more changes to the article in your reverts Thundercloss (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I undid both your and Cobiexor's changes to an older version, quite similar to one of your own [17], so that discussion could take place before proceeding. You have had plenty of time to engage however you see fit, but the subsequent events speak for themselves. Please stop blaming everyone else for the problem you started and explain the transformation of correct information into another inaccuracy by you [18]. Vacosea (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC
You are right about the incorrect information I put into the article and I have rewritten the text to correct the error. However, this still does not address the much more substantial changes to the article which you made in your reverts Thundercloss (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was restored to a state similar to your older version because you first made a series of extensive deletions and changes such as this. Vacosea (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is very simple. You said in the beginning that “a number of issues have been raised, and most still appear to need improvement.” So I am asking you what are these issues and which one of them still needs to be improved. If you can’t meet that basic request then there is no point to continuing this discussion. Thundercloss (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has been pointed out repeatedly information was removed by you [19][20]. If you cannot defend your extensive deletions, cannot understand a basic challenge as this, or continue to deny your own actions that prompted this thread, then there is no point continuing this discussion. Vacosea (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have defended my deletions in the discussions above and below at great length already. Your apparent refusal to read them does not give you the license to distort reality. In addition please be aware of wp:onus which says “the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content” Thundercloss (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorism links for the shooting are premature. Vacosea (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specific rewrite proposals

Cobiexor, since your initial complaint of my changes to the article comprised of vague allegations and unclear proposals, I have created this section to try and rectify those two problems. List what specific issues you have with my latest rewrite of the article and what specifically you want done to resolve them [21] Thundercloss (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reverting or removing the information listed specifically and extensively above, both before and during this discussion, so you should know already. Cobiexor (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No I don’t actually. If I did I wouldn’t be asking you to enunciate the criticisms you have of my edits. I can’t read your mind, I am not a mind reader and I don’t have the time to become one.Thundercloss (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then undo your removals first. The title of this makes no sense because I was not the one making major edit changes. You were. Cobiexor (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you’re the one who started this thread. The responsibility lies on you to present your case, not me Thundercloss (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility lies with the editor who initiated substantial rewrites and is being challenged, which is Thundercloss on both counts. Vacosea (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

improper rewrite

Vacosea, stop making this sort of edit again. [22] 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)[reply]

Per this edit [23], 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)[reply]
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 [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
They should be added back in the right order. Every time Thundercloss corrects something or put it back, they make other mistakes or deletions [29] [30] [31]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
the NBC source says, “Pan similarly said he had mentioned before that he ‘felt very, very misunderstood.’”[32]. The OCRegister source says “Balmore Orellana, a former neighbor in Las Vegas, said Chou’s life unraveled after his wife left him last year.” [33]. Stop wasting everybody’s time with these nonsensical assertions Thundercloss (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]) There are virtually none which highlight the mental health factor in the same manner. Thundercloss (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Vacosea, stop making this sort of edit again [41]. 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)[reply]
There has been consistent opposition to your rewrites. Vacosea (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you find another article to edit Thundercloss (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
this edit by you [42] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

in summary

Thundercloss is adamant that many facts from Chou's life in this version [43] 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 [44] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(Thundercloss, your reply should go below existing replies such as mine, not cutting in front.) Here is the "proof" [45] 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)[reply]
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: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52])
this edit by you [53] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
these sources ([54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]) have said that Chou had expressed views which were critical of the Taiwanese and/or American governments.
these sources ([61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]) 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)[reply]
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 [68] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

revert

Dumuzid, per your edit [69], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Go right ahead. My mind is certainly open. Why should your version be preferred? Dumuzid (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
so you had no interest in being persuaded in the first place. Exactly what I thought Thundercloss (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
“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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Then prove it.
These sources ([70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]) have said that the shooter had expressed views which were critical of the Taiwanese and/or American governments while these sources ([77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
”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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [84] Thundercloss (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Accused section

The current version of the accused section ([85]) 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)[reply]

It seems to me you have already made that point above, more than once. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
which point are you referring to? Thundercloss (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So this is not about your edits being reverted? Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Laguna_Woods_shooting&oldid=1098386561"