|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bernhard Goetz article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on December 22, 2010 and December 22, 2014.|
|This biography of a living person is being discussed at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Please discuss policy compliance issues there.|
Goetz's demonstrated shooting speed could be added to the article
Shouldn't a statement about Goetz's demonstrated shooting speed be added to the article?
In 2010 Goetz was interviewed and did a shooting demonstration on the inaugural episode of The Biography Channel's documentary show Aftermath with William Shatner. This episode can still be seen on Cable TV. In the shooting demonstration Goetz fires 2 shots to his left and 3 shots to his right and the time from the first shot to the fifth shot is exactly 1.0 seconds (easily measured with cheap electronics). Presumably when he was 25 years younger and under the influence of adrenaline he would have been considerably faster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- The first part of the paragraph describes a simulation done 25 years after the event (who cares?) and the last sentence is unsourced speculation. --NeilN talk to me 15:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Neil, 2 things - Some people doubt a person can fire 5 shots accurately at targets in front and back of them in 1 second, but it is easy to understand if you see a demonstration. I did a re-enactment of the 1984 subway draw/shooting on the Aftermath show at 5 targets in front and back of me; the time for all the shots was 1.0 seconds. Instead they aired another similar but not quite as exact demonstration I did on the show because it was more dramatic; again all 5 shots took 1.0 seconds. (I preferred the actual re-enactment because it was technically more accurate, but I don't determine what gets aired.) The last sentence is logical; my belief is the actual time from the first to last shots in the subway was 0.6 - 0.8 seconds. Maybe you should see that Aftermath episode, its still available. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Bernie Goetz
- It's still a reenactment made, as you say, to emphasize dramatics. Were any third-party reports published analyzing the show? Any expert commentators on the show who's views we could use? --NeilN talk to me 15:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The re-enactment and then demonstration were not done for dramatic effect and I did not decide what was aired. The re-enactment was cold and professional and I would have preferred that was aired, but the later shooting demonstration conveyed the same 1.0 second shooting time. There was no published 3rd party analysis but anyone replaying the show can measure the shooting time to within 0.2 seconds just using a stopwatch or with real accuracy using a microphone feeding an oscilloscope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- And my main point is that with no critical commentary in reliable sources comparing what was shown on the show to real-life events, there's not much we can add to the article without it being unsourced speculation. --NeilN talk to me 01:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Mr. Goetz, just a friendly suggestion. You may want to consider creating an account here with a pseudonym (or even your real name if you like). Then when you sign, the signature will be your name or pseudonym instead of your physical IP address. That provides you a certain measure of security. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Better wording in beginning section?
The phrase "he was both praised and vilified by the media and public opinion." doesn't seem right. How about "he was both praised and vilified in the media and public opinion."? Or maybe somewhat different wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
This should be changed into an incident article
- 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 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 18.104.22.168 (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)
- 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)
The article says that Goetz used a S&W model 37 air weight revolver and gives two sources this, both saying a S&W 5 shot .38 special air weight revolver was used. To assume that it is the normal air weight model 37 was a safe move, but ultimately incorrect. Many sources include one key descriptor; the revolver had a hammer shroud. This would then make the revolver a S&W Model 38, the air weight version of the model 49 which is the hammer shrouded version of the model 36 (the model 37 being just an air weight version of the model 36). Here are my two sources: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1985-04-04/news/0290030045_1_goetz-ditchfield-buy-a-gun http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/17/lkl.01.html Also, I do remember reading somewhere that the gun was nickel plated, but could not find the article I read that in. If anyone finds it, it shall help. glm.moulton 14:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The gun was a nickel plated S&W 5 shot .38 special air weight with a hammer shroud. I don't know the model number. BTW, my recommendation for concealed carry or home protection is this model in plain black with the first shot being a standard load. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Bernie Goetz
Condense paragraph on recent marijuana arrest?
If nobody objects in a few weeks I'm going to condense the detailed paragraph about the recent marijuana arrest, while keeping the sources for those interested in more details. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)BG