Talk:Binghamton shootings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fourteen dead[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. --candlewicke 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? --candlewicke 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. --candlewicke 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. --candlewicke 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. --candlewicke 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... :,/ --candlewicke 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. --candlewicke 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..." [1]"
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[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

This Yahoo news AP report states that he had worked for IBM before he moved to California. 65.170.234.10 (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

CNN stated (with some detail) that he had worked for Endicott Interconnect at some point (which could quite plausibly account for any confusion with IBM, as EI occupies part of IBM's former Endicott facilities). Or has the EI claim been fully debunked as well? I know that inaccuracies are pretty much the norm when reporting on these sorts of stories, but it does seem like there have been an unusually high number of contradictory claims flying around regarding this incident. (I personally feel it has a lot to do with the sorry state of journalism in Broome County, something that's bothered me for ages.) But anyway, might it perhaps be best to hit the brakes a bit on this article until more can really be confirmed? 74.67.86.61 (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This recent article [3] describes Wong working at IBM also. WWGB (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's a transcript [4] that includes the CNN claims that he worked at Endicott Interconnect. 74.67.86.61 (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Surname[edit]

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)
98.226.161.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Many media outlets are instead referring to his name as "Wong" [5]. 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)

So the Yuuzhan Vong came from China? I guess Skywalker is an American name, then. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Vong was a nickname Jiverly Wong came up with. He was Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.215.179 (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Skywalker is an American name. I have a friend and his last name is Skywalker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonbourn48 (talkcontribs) 16:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wong was born in Vietnam to a Chinese family. He moved to the U.S. in the early 1990s and soon afterward became a citizen, friends and relatives said." (per today's AP news) - 70.253.67.123 (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Asian American Categories removed[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 14:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
This is what you added [6]. 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 (talkcontribs) 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 [7], but I reckon some mention should be made that the Taliban claimed to be behind the incident. Muzher (talkcontribs) 19:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like they're busy claimers. At the moment there are 4600 results in Google News for Taliban claimed, although most are duplicates. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why it is not added. At least, it should be said like it was claimed no matter it is true or not.

He called local newspapers such as Dawn and BBC urdu office.All located locally.So so many claims.It should be mentioned after which FBI denial.--yousaf465' 10:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
One of the victims was a Pakistani citizen, Parveen Ali, from northern parts of the country, that's not just a coincidence I persume. After all, Waziristan is located in north-western part of Pakistan. I would rather stay clear from hasty conclusion but the this looks like quite an proof that Pakistani Taliban PROBABLY COULD do something about this. Who knows what truly has happened there in Binghamton.
I know this sounds quite ridiculous and much like some conspiracy theory but what if officials just try to "keep it low", you know. What if they just declared Mr. Wang a shooter to avoid panic? What if they just shot Mr. Ali, alleged Taliban's agent, and declared Wang a shooter? You know, people of the USA as well as the whole world wouldn't be surprised by another-psycho-with-a-gun scenario, while an alleged attack by a known terrorist group is quite a shock.
Another strange thing is how Mr. Wang's name was changed and the reports that police pursued another alleged shooter, which supports the claim by Pakistani Taliban's leader when he said that he sent two men to the USA. The sky news said that the name of the shooter was not Jiverly Wang but Linh Phat Wang instead. Another strange thing is that he was said to be a former IBM worker, but IBM denied it.
Well, I just think that we need to include the responsibility claim in the article anyway. Whether it's true or not it's still news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.46.212.78 (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Was Wang provoked?[edit]

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)

The argument is that Jiverly was a "targeted individual" (see the letter where he talks about long term police harassment and "ultramodern technique" of putting noises in his ears, could be an unwitting reference to the Microwave Audio effect). I don't know how that would have translated to him going after the people he did. Some have suggested that his targeting was linked to his ethnic background and that his fellow Chinese were recruited to harass him. However, none of this can really be backed up, whatever provocation happened was off the record and all we have to go on is what happened on the record. It's an interesting peek at a "black world" of information that can't be seen by Wikipedia due to systemic bias, and I can only speculate. It's why I put my remarks here instead of on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.234.161 (talk) 20:12, 2 December 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[edit]

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 copyedits[edit]

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[edit]

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)
If the sources are so reliable why do they contradict themselves? I hardly think these conjectures, which is what they are, as they were redacted, need to be documented, as all that serves to do is show the confusion and rush to get the information out quickly, rather than support the substantive matter. So I want you to think about the article being a FA as well, in this new light. We are concerned with the facts of the matter and what went down, not documenting the discombobulation of the media. I hardly see your argument as strong. I fully admit when I am wrong, but I still stand by my initial argument. --Lightbound talk 23:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
You're not seriously suggesting that all of the major news outlets in the country and elsewhere are not "reliable sources" as we use that expression on Wikipedia? Come off it. If that was true this article should be at AfD since its numerous sources are all "unreliable". The point has no traction. As for it being tabloid material, saying it is doesn't make it so. So, what makes it tabloid? The very fact that the mistake appeared in hundreds of newspaper articles, and hundreds later also actually detail the error as an error ([8]), seems to present a not inconsiderable problem for your position. Perforce of that those sources are not tabloids (I hope we can agree that the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Associated Press and Washington Post, etc. are not tabloids), the material they report on is not tabloid material. Half the country thinks he used to work for IBM because of that breaking news error. Of course it merits a mention in the article and its absence would fail the comprehensiveness prong of WP:FACR.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Very well. Then we need to add sections regarding the botched statements for the following:

  • The 90 minutes, redacted to 39 minutes.
  • The IBM job, and denying (already there).
  • The high powered rifle claim and its redaction.
  • The confusion over having a "critical hostage situation."
  • The terrorist claims of responsibility.
  • The numerous errors in his name vs. alias (already there).

And at the end of all this, we'll have an article that looks as confusing as the people attempting to follow the story in the first place. If thats what you want, you can have it. I am done with this article. :) --Lightbound talk 15:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You're overgeneralizing. We analyze matters not in a reflexive way but on a case-by-case basis, exercising discretion and intelligence. The form of your argument (applying a reductio ad absurdum analysis to my position) is false because it is not my view nor did I imply that every error that any newspaper made, no matter how few and how minor the detail, is required to be in the article. Wong's employment by IBM and being disgruntled by the loss of his job was a major part of the initial news story; it was reported in hundreds of newspapers, online reports, television broadcasts etc.(actually it's more like thousands; a Google news search showing hundreds of results usually indicates a tip of the iceberg matter). When it was learned that it was untrue, that too became a subject disclosed in hundreds of media stories. It's very much a part of the heart of this story because of what happened, how much it matters, how wide its coverage was and so on. And we give it the weight of a sentence or two, not five paragraphs. Some of the other things you mention are worth a sentence too, once the dust settles and there's enough material for a larger article to be written.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I officially retract my opinion on removing the IBM statements, but the other matters are trivial (the high powered rifle). I was laughing and smiling at the time you took to reply and use logical declarations, but I will save us the time: The point is, IBM denied the claim, not another police official. This whole section was about conflicting police statements, not IBM denying it. There is a section for the IBM debate, which I never cared or entered into. I was concerned about sorting out what the police agreed on and only reporting that. The IBM case is moot because the police never argued or conflicted about IBM; it was IBM who "denied" he worked there. Which is interesting, and worthy of report. So there is no need to overly obfuscate. We agree. --Lightbound talk 04:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Motives[edit]

The chief constable said, “We have no idea what the motive is,” [9] 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)

"Also known as" vs. "also known by the alias"[edit]

How are the meanings different and how is the difference important? So Yuuzhan Vong was known as Yuuzhan Wong or something like that. How does calling it an "alias" help? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. His name is Jiverly Wrong, isn't it? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Jiverly WONG. Ah. I'm trying to figure out why I called him "Yuuzhan Vong". 192.12.88.7 (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Ahhh. So they're a bunch of lurkers from "Star Wars" that conquered a galaxy. Well, next time, Mr. Anon Luke Skywalker, get your head out of the clouds and back onto the ground... 192.12.88.7 (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC) (Mr. Anon Luke Skywalker)
Here's a strong vote for removing the "alias". I'm changing it back now, and please explain what is wrong with "also known as", compared to the potentially not NPOV "alias". My motivation is that, to me, alias implies bad intentions, and it looks like innocent alternative spellings to me. Just because the ref wants to sensationalise it, doesn't mean the impartial wikipedia should. 77.12.40.224 (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wong is Chinese name - From AP[edit]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/ap_on_re_us/binghamton_shootings
"The road that took Wong to his demise in a classroom at the American Civic Association in downtown Binghamton began 41 years ago and half a world away in Vietnam, where he was born into an ethnically Chinese family. He moved to the States in the early 1990s and soon afterward became a citizen, friends and relatives said. He worked at IBM for a time, friend Hue Huynh said, but decided to move to California..."
JJPX (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

He is a Vietnamese of Hoa ethnicity. Quite a significant number of Vietnamese Americans are of Hoa ancestry actually, and Hoa is one of the larger ethnic groups in Vietnam.--Teamjenn (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
No, you are clearly misleading others. His ethnicity has been shown to be Chinese. Moreover, the letter W does not exist in the Vietnamese alphabet so it is rather impossible for his surname to be Vietnamese. (JAR88 (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

The best and most easily understood description I've seen in the press is simply "Wong was a naturalized U.S. citizen and an ethnic Chinese native of Vietnam"!!! Suzietta (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wong was born in Vietnam to a Chinese family. He moved to the U.S. in the early 1990s and soon afterward became a citizen, friends and relatives said." (per today's AP news) - 70.253.67.123 (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

He is a Vietnamese immigrant, but of Hoa (ethnic Chinese) ethnicity, that is how most sources identified him.--Teamjenn (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
No, you are clearly misleading others. His ethnicity has been shown to be Chinese. Moreover, the letter W does not exist in the Vietnamese alphabet so it is rather impossible for his surname to be Vietnamese. (JAR88 (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

Evidently the "Hoa" identity is very different from Vietnamese. Every Vietnamese person I've talked to said this guy was "Chinese". They did not consider him "Vietnamese" - just from the family name alone. I guess that's why the media had to add that little disclaimer about him being born into a Chinese family etc. KJaworski99 (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If he was born and raised in Australia (or any country), but of French ethnic background, any reports would still describe him as an Australian. The official sources and police reports from the start stated him as a Vietnamese immigrant, because that is his nationality (former); his families' ancestry doesn't factor. Plus, in term of personal perception, such opinion also varies, many Hoa in the US are considered to be Vietnamese American as well, it just depends on the individuals.--Teamjenn (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It is obvious that you are trying to mislead others for reasons that are unclear. His ethnicity has been shown to be Chinese, but you continue to maintain that he is not Chinese. Your own biases do not constitute fact. (JAR88 (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

FWIW, Xiu Ping Jiang is his wife's name. That is a Chinese name, just like Wong. TenuredProfessorAtPrivateUniversity (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Context?[edit]

Including the other shootings in the context section is clearly original research: authorities have stated they do not yet know the shooter's motives (edit: or that he even knew about them), therefore you can not say the other shootings fit into the context of this event. There is absolutely no way the Pittsburgh situation played any part in this, seeing as it happened after this shooter was dead. 65.170.234.10 (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, what is the point that is trying to be made by this context section? I think it should be deleted. I call for a poll. Let me know if any disagree. --Lightbound talk 23:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll to delete context section[edit]

Support. I feel the context section is an example of post hoc and is spurious and is merely pointing out a series of events in an attempt to imply something. What that something is, is neither stated, nor clear. Thus, as prose it is weak in its own right, and as an impetus towards convincing the reader of something, whatever that "something" is, it is misleading and irrelevant unless it makes a concrete point. --Lightbound talk 23:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Disagree with Lightbound that it's implying a perspective; this is only telling the whole of the story as it occurred. If there's something specifically suggestive in the way these sentences are formed and ordered, then by all means I support an alteration. However, to blank it entirely would be to conceal a part of the actual story, as it has been understood by various media. Most stories I'm seeing on the topic are mentioning this context.[10] Governor Patterson also made this connection.[11] Cheers, DBaba (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Are you saying there is an actual connection, or that there is substantial evidence of a connection? If so, I am open to having it listed and if that is the case, a new article should be drafted, and all the corroborating shootings added to it; however, I doubt that there is such sufficient evidence to show this. Now I see someone has blanked the section, so this might be moot. It was not me, but I still stand by my original argument. That is, unless, someone can show the citations. --Lightbound talk 01:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear what I'm saying, Lightbound. I'll restore the paragraph and restructure it to center on the governor's words. DBaba (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Just remember I did not blank it. Check the history log. And what your trying to say isn't clear. Isn't this article about the shooting itself? The user that deleted your comment in the log tagged it as soap boxing. I am not sure I would go that far; however, the lead in introduction states a sentence that it is in relation to a string of recent violent events. I guess I was not the only one that felt that was sufficient. The thing is, if we all put in everything that has been said between the various sources, the article would be full of very confusing, conflicting, and polarized views on the incident. Your words do seem unclear and the intention is implied: it is just a deduction based on the governors words. Is that person the end-all authority on trends of violence and statistical reporting? I would highly doubt it. Why should we present that as truth about this particular shooting's cause. Perhaps an impact section would be more clear. The Columbine article had a impacts section and this seems more like an effect. If we have documented that all of these shootings have occurred, then we really do not even need the governor citation or his quote. We can leave it up to the reader to decide and show the chronology in a very neutral way. --Lightbound talk 13:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Lightbound, this isn't complicated. Most news articles on these killings contextualize them with the recent violence. Clearly, it's not me who is doing this, it is these sources. It seems like you are being deliberately obtuse, when you carry on about the governor or ask me to demonstrate corroboration, beyond the thousands of news items which contextualize Binghamton among these events, of which I've highlighted several. But I'll leave it to your judgment. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
How human of you to deject me personally ("obtuse") because I have a view point. Thanks.--Lightbound talk 15:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The wounded receptionist[edit]

I saw someone changed it from 90 minutes to 39 minutes. I read all the citations and they all mention 90 minutes and none mention 39 minutes. Therefor I reverted that statement back to what the citations claim. If you are going to redact it, please find a reference that states otherwise, or we can dispute to have it removed entirely. Its meritorious enough that she managed to stay on the line at all after being shot, so I believe it is vital that it be documented here that she managed to do this, especially given her seniority. I also added her name and age, as reported by the Washington Post citation, as that is important exposition regarding the situation. Finally, I removed the quote from the chief, as the citation states that. We make the claim here and say she stayed on the line and then back that up with the citation; a sufficient enough prose. --Lightbound talk 00:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The 2nd citation on that very sentence states Police initially said it took 90 minutes to rescue her. On Saturday, Zikuski said it was actually 39 minutes, and he said the police response followed all proper procedures. In this afternoon's press conference, the police chief made a point to correct his prior statement. 65.170.234.10 (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed, corrected, and updated. The other changes still stand. --Lightbound talk 01:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Background section[edit]

I am blanking the sentence about the police chief talking about the bank robbery plans and the addiction. The words "may" and "possibly" are unacceptable. It does not matter that the source said it or not and we have validity to that claim. The issue is that he is even admitting the uncertainty of his own claim. Therefore, it should not be included. It also appears to be foreshadowing in an attempt to "paint a picture" of the victims life, which may be an interesting tidbit of triva, but ultimately can not be proven from the available evidence--especially given that the chief himself isn't absolutely sure. The point here, is that we should stick to the facts. --Lightbound talk 01:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I blanked the sentence regarding the apparent conversation between him and his coworker. What are we trying to say here? That he hated the USA? And it being under the Background section, are we further implying that, that is the reason he did it? First of all, if we are going to say something, we should concretely write it out. This is all just speculation. Even if he-said and she-said is documented by the press, that does not guarantee it is substantial. The motivation and supporting statement that he was frustrated about his language barrier is at least corroborated by the targeted building's purpose: teaching language, among other things. --Lightbound talk 02:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

To anyone undoing that blanking. If you can't argue your point here on the talk page, I am going to undo your revision. I really am bothered that we are using hearsay from a co-worker. I do not care where the citation came from, it is still just an opinion. He could have said he loved America the next day, or the day before. We just do not know exactly why he did it. Its already a stretch as it is, lets not take a mile with the inch that has been provided. --Lightbound talk 02:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Shooting Section[edit]

The shooting section's chronology has been tampered with and is not very unclear clear. It says he entered, took hostages then killed himself within 2 minutes of her making that phone call. Then it goes on to say he was communicated with via translator. Then hostages were released at noon and then more later. Then some escaped. Its very confusing. --Lightbound talk 14:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think its the verb "release" that's the real problem. It implies that Wong released hostages, rather than that the people in hiding learned in whatever manner that it was okay to exit or were led out by the police.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Then change it to escaped, fled, led out, whatever. WWGB (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Do we know who let the hostages out? Or were the police interviewing each one to make sure it wasn't Wong, and that was the reason they were not let out until noon, despite arriving 2 mintues after the 10am call?--Lightbound talk 14:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is great work. This reflects much more closely to what the news has reported; however, there is that last sentence where they summon the translator to attempt to communicate with Wong. Was he dead at this point or did they actually establish contact? Not looking for exact time, but rather, relativity to the rest of the sequence of events. The references are very vague to this point. --Lightbound talk 15:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear they never estabished contact, but called a translator in the event of negotiation. He killed himslef when he heard sirens, not long after entering the building but that he had and that he was the sole gunman was not fully known. We can guess that the authorities knew there was [at least one] perpetrator who was Vietnamese, probably from the receptionist, though how they learned this is not stated in any source I've seen and we can't speculate in the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite so. Given that Wong was a student there, it is feasible that Ms DeLucia recognised him and informed police that he was Vietnamese. WWGB (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else think 41 were taken hostage in the lead is confusing for readers? I certainly think it's fuzzy. 13 of the 41 were killed outright, 4 wounded and some hid, with Wong killing himself very quickly; does this all fit well under "hostages"? Another issue. This source (citation 6) indicates he also worked at "Endicott Interconnect Technologies, a high-tech electronics company in Endicott, New York, where he was an engineer." This would be good to include somewhere, if true, but I'm wondering if this is part of the initial confusion. There was a source that implied the IBM mistake occurred because it had a worker with a similar name (can't remember which, I looked at too many). Maybe that other person worked at Endicott and this is part of the same mistake. It doesn't seem consistent with 7 years working as a delivery man when he was an engineer.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Another discrepancy. Some sources list the receptionist's name as DeLucia; other as DeLucca.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Background: Endicott Interconnect was split off from IBM during a downsizing around ten years ago. It's conceivable that he was among the thousands that IBM laid off in Endicott back then. If so, I don't think the connection is important to the article. I am skeptical about the engineer part, though. 65.170.234.10 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "41 hostages" in the lead should be removed. He killed a room full of people and immediately killed himself - he never directly threatened anyone else in the building. He was already dead when police arrived. Taking hostages implies that he was in control over the 41 people and using them to negotiate with police 24.94.37.90 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Update: I just checked the citation for the 41 hostages, and the page now makes no mention of hostages. I'm going to go ahead and change it for now. 24.94.37.90 (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual?[edit]

We don't even know anything about the guy, and someone added this in about him. I checked the sourced material mentioned for him being gay, and it wasn't in any of 'em. I suggest we semi-lock this page before vandalism is rampant, but that's just me. Blindeffigy (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that pages are only locked when vandalism is already happening, not when it might happen. If you read Wp:ROUGH, you'll see that one of the things that has to be considered is, "how much vandalism is taking place?". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, then it's just me. I'd still do it anyways if I could. Blindeffigy (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The "letter" he wrote to the TV station is eerily similar to the Homokaasu report in many ways...creepy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The apparent 10:30am calls to police[edit]

Someone added this sentence from an anon IP, to that section, but without a citation. I edited the grammer and flagged it for citation. It is also dubious; because all 911 calls are mandatory to respond to and the address gets automatically traced. If its from a cell phone, that is a different story. Who called? Where did you find this information? --Lightbound talk 02:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's basically true, though some of the details are dubious: http://www.wbng.com/news/shooting/42499947.html 65.170.234.10 (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I read the reference and it doesn't seem to quite cut it, but lets see what the others think; because I am pretty stern in my view and I think it should be noted, but not affirmatively stated. For example, like in the IBM mention. --Lightbound talk 03:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough... here's another story from the same local TV station after interviewing the 911 dispatchers http://www.wbng.com/news/shooting/42550222.html 65.170.234.10 (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Letter[edit]

Someone added a massive add about a letter. I almost did a roll back, but I checked the reference. Notwithstanding that it needs major copy editing and citation injection, it does provide the missing info everyone has been wanting to know about the motivation. I suggest we work to condense it and then merge it into the perp section. Now we can finally settle the matter of neutrality about claims and hearsay; we have a letter. --Lightbound talk 03:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not see the letter text in the article. From the News 10 Now site: Transcript of letter from Jiverly Wong Geo8rge (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that person is paraphrasing the source very closely. This could just be the result of not making original statements and citing the source material, rather than just paraphrasing it very closely or almost quoting the sources and only having a few citations. I am sure it wasn't the editors intent, but its on the edge. If it gets merged, it will get condensed to the most critical statements, and will have citations, thus fixing it. Also I am merging this comment into the section above it. --Lightbound talk 03:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I basically did the merge but there was no way to make it flow logically with the order of the article. The text of the letter should follow the first mention of the letter but that would have meant placing the entire letter before the shooting section and the shooting section is really the very heart of the article, and details about Wong should follow. So that's what I did:

  • I reordred by moving the shooting above the perpetrator section, just after the lead. That left the introduction of Won hangin, so I merged the first sentence from the perpetator section into the shooting section so that he is introduced a bit, as this is now his first real post lead mention (Jiverly Wong, a 41-year old from Johnosn City...l").
  • With that done, the perpetrator section could flow right into the letter section with the text following. I fixed the loss of job/poor English existing "motivation" material to flow with the letter material and I think its works relatively well now.
  • However, all of the material about the photographs was a pure copyvio. Certianly we should have that in here, but I had to remove it for the moment entirely.
  • I also fixed all the sources in the section which were naked links.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
All the changes are good, but currently missing is any mention of the other contents of the package, such as the photographs, licenses etc. I can add them later, but if someone else has some time it will improve the article. WWGB (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the information regarding the contents of the package. I also reworded it to show these are apparent facts, as the sources themselves state so and that the authenticity of the package is under verification at this time. The source states the latter explicitly. I also removed a middle bit saying that it confirmed prior speculation. For now, that can not be true, as it is not confirmed itself. Is there any way we can get these photos? This article could really use them! Great work, by the way, on the cleanup of that injection from the night prior. --Lightbound talk 16:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Also just added the info about the stamps. --Lightbound talk 16:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The article says that the TV station package contained Wong's license and gun permit. Was it the actual license and gun permit? I thought Wong mailed a photo-copy of these items ... and not the actual items. But, I could be wrong. Anyone know? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

The TV footage showed the actual license and permit with the letter. 65.170.234.10 (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I wasn't sure, either way. Can anyone tell me why the "issue" of the 3 stamps is in any way important or relevant? I think I am missing something here. Who cares, and why, about what stamps he happened to use on the envelope? Am I missing some key point? The significance is lost on me. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
Seconded, tempted to remove the part about the stamps. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the origin of the name Jiverly Antares?[edit]

What is the origin of the name Jiverly Antares? Geo8rge (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Category Glitch[edit]

I added a link at the bottom of the page to the category "Spree shootings in the United States" yet no link is showing up on the actual category page found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spree_shootings_in_the_United_States. 99.231.130.188 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Works fine for me. (Lord Gøn (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Phrasing[edit]

The article says the death toll has since been "outranked" by the recent school shootings in Newtown. Is "outranked" really the best word here? As opposed to "eclipsed by", or something else that doesn't suggest competition. Maybe it's just me nitpicking, but it seems out of place. 149.125.187.175 (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the entire statement, because it was unsourced and plain wrong. There were quite a few more mass shootings in the United States with a higher body count, than the two mentioned. (Thusz (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC))

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Binghamton shootings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Binghamton shootings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Fourth deadliest mass killing in New York State[edit]

While this goes down as the deadliest mass shooting to occur in the state of New York it isn't the second deadliest mass killing the state has suffered from. In 1974, 24 people were killed in the Gulliver nightclub arson attack, and in 1990, 87 people were killed in the Happyland Fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulliver%27s_nightclub_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 00:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Binghamton shootings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)