Talk:1984 New York City Subway shooting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Bernhard Goetz)
Jump to: navigation, search

This should be changed into an incident article[edit]

It's not really Bernhard Goetz's biography, even "Activities since the incident" is mostly about the four other persons involved. --Niemti (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a bad suggestion. Its a comprehensive article the way it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.36.83 (talk)

I would probably leave it where it is as per point three of WP:BLP1E. --NeilN talk to me 02:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Goetz may qualify for a BLP article per that point, but this article is not that article. This is clearly focused much more on the event than the person. support rename and tweaking of article to convert to event. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree and see little difference between this article and John Hinckley, Jr.. --NeilN talk to me 15:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree in renaming and tweaking the article accordingly. As for Hinckley, note that the incident he is known for has its own article: Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. So there you have two articles, both incident and bio. In this case, like in most other criminal cases, I believe we just need an incident. And at least as long as we just have one article, it should be about the incident (with some biographic info in it). The incident is clearly more imporant than the person per se here. Is there anyone who has a suggestion to what an incident article should be called? "New York City Subway shootings"? Regards Iselilja (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • support rescoping. The article is about the incident, and this person has little notability aside from the incident. 1984 New York City subway shootings sounds reasonable to me, with Berhard Goetz redirected here. We should probably just start a formal RM.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course the article is centered the about subway shooting. Its taken many years to write this comprehensive article and its now considered the reference on the subject. If its not broke why fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.234.3 (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting a rename, and slight rescoping, framing it as an event/incident article. A smaller article could be written focused on Goetz' biography if needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
You'll probably have to start a formal RfC before you do that. --NeilN talk to me 13:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I support this renaming proposal, as the article isn't mostly about Goetz, but about the incident. Lithistman (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done I moved the page. Kylo Ren (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Other guys[edit]

This article is about Bernhard Goetz, not about the shooting, or anything else. This material isn't about Goetz:

Barry Allen was convicted for two robberies after the shooting. The first was a 1986 chain snatching in the elevator of the building where he lived.[1] The second arrest, in May 1991, brought him a sentence of three and a half to seven years for probation violation and third-degree robbery. He was released on parole in December 1995.[2][3][4]

After a number of minor arrests for petty offenses, Troy Canty was ordered to undergo an 18-month drug treatment program at a rehabilitation center, which he completed in 1989.[4][5] He was later charged with assault, robbery, and resisting arrest in an altercation with his common-law wife in August 1996 but was not convicted and did not serve time.[6]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference NYT_1986-01-17 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference NYDOCS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Purdum, Todd S. (April 9, 1986). "2 Of Those Shot By Goetz Face New Jail Terms". The New York Times. 
  4. ^ a b "Where Are Other 3 Now? In & Out Of Jail". Daily News. April 24, 1996. 
  5. ^ "Goetz to Get His Judgement Day". Newsday. July 13, 1986. p. 4. 
  6. ^ McQuillan, Alice (August 10, 1996). "Cops Arrest Goetz Target". Daily News. 

Since this material isn't about Goetz I'm gonna delete it. Felsic2 (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


That sounds like disingenuous editing from the political left to sanitize the article.

Your first statement is nonsense. However the stuff about Canty's martial troubles is irrelevant and should be deleted.

Whoops .... I see charges on this martial dispute included robbery. If so, this should be included based on the standards in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.5.131 (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how this sanitizes the article (I assume you mean in a politically correct sense). I would go further back and remove from "In May 1985, Ramseur held a gun..." I think it would clean the article up by removing a good chunk of content that reads more like a "What ever happened to..." section than anything that's related to Goetz, the topic of the article. Willondon (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree. This article oughta stay focused on being a biography of Goetz. Felsic2 (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Disagree. The content of the article was fine, but should be moved to be an WP:EVENT per WP:BLP1E. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Both those Wikipedia guidelines discuss notability to determine whether or not something deserves its own article, not whether they're notable enough for inclusion in another article. All of the stuff listed happened after Goetz' confrontation on the subway, and he was not involved in any of it. I don't understand why it would show up in an article about Goetz. Especially with an article of this size, it shouldn't grow into an unwieldy bush of endless trivia. Willondon (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Disagree::: There was a lot of controversy about the motivation for the shootings. Ramseur being involved in a rape and robbery and fraud is directly relevant as it indicates a pattern or violent criminal conduct that could lead to this little boy being shot by someone in self defense. Someone originally started this article about "Bernard Goetz". Now look at the dumb statement above "This article is about Bernhard Goetz, not about the shooting, or anything else. This material isn't about Goetz". This was obviously written by a dishonest or careless at best writer. The article is about Bernhard Goetz and everything related to the subway shooting. It is recognized as an authoritative article on the subject and should not be casually edited by disingenuous people or people unfamiliar with the topic. The statement "this article shouldn't grow into an unwieldy bush of endless trivia" might have merit but not in this case. A lot of media trivia was deleted. Basically everything else in the article is relevant and is there for a reason and should be included. Only writers unfamiliar with the history of the case, or biased writers, would want to delete material from the present article. This section reminds me of the attempt last year to gut this recognized informative article by breaking it up into separate articles. If its not broke don't fix it. The article as written is the most informative article by far to serious readers and probably should not be modified by casual writers as is suggested above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.5.131 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


See the title of the article: "Bernhard Goetz". That's the topic. Unless Goetz was involved in later crimes committed by his victims then it's hard to understand why we'd include them except to attack them. WP:BLP applies to them. They are not notable people. I am going to delete the material again on BLP grounds. Per WP:BLP, no one should restore the material until there's a consensus for inclusion. Felsic2 (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
---
When you say "directly relevant as it indicates a pattern or violent criminal conduct", I understand now what you mean about political sanitizing. My objection is that it all happened way after the subway incident, doesn't involve Goetz at all, and Goetz couldn't have known this future fate at the time of the shooting. Willondon (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thats nonsense. So "Barry Allen was convicted for two robberies after the shooting." is not relevant to the article? Anything the boys do after the incident isn't relevant because Goetz didn't know about it and wasn't involved in it? Thats typical biased left wing censorship, although others do it too. If Goetz did something violent before or after the incident would it be relevant? If only the train ride is what its about, Goetz does a shooting demonstration on the link: Biography with William Shatner http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1702034/ There was a link but it wasn't working so I will fix it. Unless someone sees the shooting demo they don't understand the shooting. The shooting demo is consistent with the Mark Lesly book and the article too. Someone should post a video of Goetz with a gun on this show.

Also Willondon, I think you are acting in complicity with Felsic2 to dishonestly edit this article. If you continue I will request administrator attention. I'm going to restore the stuff on the Allen robberies and Canty drug rehab but leave out the maritial stuff.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.60.186 (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I've not had any communication with Felsic2 before this, or outside what you see here on this talk page. Cease with your unfounded accusations, and assume good faith. You are assuming others' motives and jumping to conclusions. It makes you look paranoid and foolish. And please don't waste administrators' time with this nonsense. Willondon (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to edit war, but there's no consens for this material. Since it concerns BLP, I'll keep deleting it. Felsic2 (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Until and unless this article is changed to "Bernhard Goetz subway shooting", we will continue to remove content which is not about Bernhard Goetz, according to our rules regarding biographies of living people. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Which I think we clearly should, per WP:SINGLEEVENT. (Although Goetz may be notable enough for a stand alone article, most of the content of this article doesn't belong in his BLP) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Please also see WP:NPF: "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." --NeilN talk to me 15:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You are all talking nonsense and are either ignorant of the subject or biased. This is a comprehensive article that includes all significant material related to the subway shooting or B. Goetz. The "boys" criminal conduct is relevant to the article as is Goetz's. Will restore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.60.186 (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"You are all" indicates you know you are editing against consensus. Please do not edit war, especially with contentious BLP material. --NeilN talk to me 14:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

NeilN - I loath childish edit wars. The article is about Goetz, primarily focusing on the subway shooting of course. Look at the George Zimmerman Wiki article for example. It contains both details of the Martin shooting and about involved people deemed to be relevant. Should the material about Matthew Aspersion be deleted because its not part of the Zimmerman shooting? The Goetz article deleted material directly reflects on the credibility of those shot by Goetz. If Ramseur falsely reports to police that two men hired by Goetz had kidnapped and attempted to kill him, and also participates in a rape/robbery, doesn't that reflect on his credibility? If Barry Allen is a career thief, isn't that relevant? Doesn't that suggest Goetz's version that he was being robbed is correct? In my opinion most of the comments about deleting the "victims" criminal conduct are ignorant or in bad faith. Please brush up on this article/subject before jumping to conclusions, and let me know what you think. If I don't hear from you in a few days I'll restore the deleted material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.60.186 (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Zimmerman's article is not solely about the Martin shooting. It is about Zimmerman's life and the Aspersion events directly involved Zimmerman. --NeilN talk to me 01:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Break[edit]

So here is where I come in and propose that this page actually be moved to 1984 New York City Subway shooting, or split into two articles so this page doesn't look like a coatrack on the shooting. This way, the content above can be re-added if possible. Anyone agree or disagree? Kylo Ren (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Actually, I have the split article here. I'll move it now. Feel free to revert if you disagree with me. Also, I realize that people may disagree with me, but this article is more about the shooting, and the perpetrator has his own section (not his own article) per WP:BLP1E. Kylo Ren (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"Goetz's activities since the incident"[edit]

Now that the article has been shifted to focus on the incident rather than the person, the section on Goetz's life after the shooting seems overly detailed. Squirrel rescue, vegetarianism, pot legalization - these all seem irrelevant to the shooting. The stuff related to the shooting, like interivews and recreations, seem relevant. I am incliened to reduce the material that isn't about the shooting. Felsic2 (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


I reverted a number of major changes to the article done without any discussion.[1] Among other things, it's standard to have mini-bios of the perpetrators and (sometimes) victims in articles on crimes/shootings. Felsic2 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The Perpetrator section should be combined with Goetz's activities section. Mini-bios of the victims would be appropriate, particularly in an article like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.212.93 (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

There was duplicated material, which doesn't need to be in both the intro and the 'perpetrator' section. Yes, short bios of the victims would be appropriate as well. Felsic2 (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Copying from Time magazine[edit]

This edit appears to be almost a direct copy from Time magazine.[2][3] While short excerpts, clearly indicated as quotations, are fine, this is too big a chunk to use, and it's not even marked as being copied. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. Felsic2 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Just marked this section as being copied. Yes its rather long but probably only four short sentences could be delated, and its probably worth keeping them to keep the flavor of the article. As-is, its a good example of 1985 media reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.212.93 (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's still wrong to copy from Time magazine though. That's called plagiarism. I suggest reading the Wiki policy on copyright violations. epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't you understand what putting the exact copy of the Time Magazine shooting description was about? Its a great example of media misinformation. Anyone familiar with the shooting facts knows the Time Magazine description is BS and deliberately misleading. It is written as if this shooting description is from Goetz .... it starts with "According to Goetz". For example wherever did they get the statement from "He assumed a combat stance, gripping the revolver with both hands"? The article as it is written now is seriously degraded. How can you call it plagiarism when a source is quoted exactly for the purpose of showing their dishonest reporting? Clearly you do not understand what is going on here in terms of the article and shooting details. It would be wrong to imply Time Magazine was doing grossly inaccurate reporting of the shooting and not quote them exactly. 207.237.87.163 (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)BG

According to Goetz, he is providing a first person perspective of what is going on. However, you didn't put quotes around this first person perspective to indicate that it is a quote. epicgenius (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

"According to Goetz, he is providing "? From Time Magazine? According to Goetz he shot holding the pistol with both hands? I don't know what you mean. Please elaborate.207.237.87.163 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)BG

Heading[edit]

Why is Goetz's biography under the Victim section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.193.213 (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone just changed that. I changed it back. Felsic2 (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)