Talk:2022 Laguna Woods shooting

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You have removed altered or misrepresented these information again. Why? Cobiexor (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Agree, especially regarding deletions. Cobiexor (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

What needs improvement? Be specific instead of using cryptic remarks. Thundercloss (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

For one, hate crime enhancements and manifesto date as explained at ANI. Vacosea (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

anything else? Because you made a lot more changes to the article in your reverts Thundercloss (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I undid both your and Cobiexor's changes to an older version, quite similar to one of your own [1], 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 [2]. 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)

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)

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)

It has been pointed out repeatedly information was removed by you [3][4]. 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)

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)

Terrorism links for the shooting are premature. Vacosea (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

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 [5] Thundercloss (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

RFC: Accused section, second paragraph

The following discussion 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.

---

Which version should be used?

Option 1: In 2009, Chou moved to Las Vegas and became a landlord with his wife. According to Balmore Orellana, a former tenant and neighbor of Chou, he was a considerate landlord as Chou did not raise his rent throughout the time that he lived there, but was verbally aggressive toward his wife as he would hear Chou yelling through the walls. In the wake of the shooting Orellana also recalled Chou telling him that he identified as Chinese despite his Taiwanese nationality, and believed that China and Taiwan were one country. In the mid 2010s Chou was almost beaten to death by two tenants who were in arrears; Orellana said the attack left him with scars all over his body and was a harbinger of the decline in his mental stability.

Option 2: According to his former neighbor, Chou was once a friendly owner of a Las Vegas apartment building. In 2012 he suffered a nearly fatal attack by two tenants over rent that led to a loss of consciousness, a broken skull, elbow, and partial hearing loss. He also suspected that police detectives tried to withhold a bag with his money before the prosecuter was involved and his bag was finally recovered.

The background to the rfc can be found in the “second paragraph” subsection of the accused section Thundercloss (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Poll

Option 1: as explained in further detail in the subsection, this version is better worded, more informative and more neutral. The deficiencies in just the first sentence of option 2 should be enough to disqualify it. Chou is described as a friendly landlord of a building in Las Vegas but there is no information either beforehand or afterwards about how Chou ended up in Las Vegas, how he became a landlord, why someone would describe Chou as “friendly” and why that’s even worth mentioning in the first place. Thundercloss (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3: There are many ways to rewrite this, and an RFC may not be the best way to decide all changes. Thundercloss is also verging on WP:BLUDGEON for pushing to make changes again, but since they have made a proposal, it's only fair that I am able to make one as well.

According to his former neighbor, Chou moved to Las Vegas in 2009 and was once a friendly owner of an apartment building. In 2012, he suffered a nearly fatal attack from two tenants over rent that led to a loss of consciousness, a broken skull, elbow, and partial hearing loss. He also suspected that the police detectives tried to withhold a bag with his money before the prosecuter allowed it to be finally returned. The incident is said to have altered his temperament and view of law enforcement negatively.

Chou considers himself and Taiwanese as "all Chinese" of a single country without border. In the past, immigration documents from Taiwan often showed China as the place of birth. This might have led law enforcement and the media to initially mistake Chou for an immigrant from the mainland.

Acquaintances who knew Chou and his wife through the Taiwanese Association of Las Vegas and the local Taiwanese Presbyterian Church were surprised by his pro-unification stance, because most members there were pro-independent. They recalled his wife enjoying the groups' events, but Chou was very negative about life. He complained about Taiwan as well as the U.S. government and law enforcement ...

Chou's identification is common for his generation of waishengren and should be explaind due to the complexities of Taiwanese nationality. It should be made very clear that claims of him being a mainland China immigrant is false, since a quick search still turns up major newspapers that have not updated that mistake. It also helps to show how devastating the attack incident was, so that his later negativity about life and law enforcement do not appear abrupt. Chou's yelling at his wife is not that remarkable. Vacosea (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

References

what would be fair is that your option is disregarded as this is not how an RFC works. The time for you to put forward your version of the paragraph was before the start of this RFC when we were discussing the issue at length in the subsection above, not after it has begun so that you can short circuit scrutiny of your proposal. You had more than enough time to proffer your proposed wording beforehand, but you made the premeditated decision not to. That is nobody’s fault but yours. Thundercloss (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I mean, you can try to constrain the RfC as much as you like, but if some other version of the paragraph achieves consensus, that is what will be included in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

they had their time to discuss their version of the paragraph beforehand and they chose not to. Now they’re bringing it up here to distract from the original prompt and thereby short circuit scrutiny of their proposal. That isn’t how you achieve consensus, but it is how you disrupt and distort it. The fault is theirs, not mine. Don’t make it look as if I’m the guilty one Thundercloss (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I am merely running through a scenario per WP:CONSENSUS. Procedural niceties will always yield to a clear consensus. Dumuzid (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

you can’t develop a clear consensus if people are deliberately not following the proper procedure for consensus building. Are you going to ask the other editor why they didn’t discuss their version of the paragraph beforehand or are you going to keep going in circles and pretending that I’m at fault? Thundercloss (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not inclined to do anything you say or wish me to. Dumuzid (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

you wouldn’t because you can’t handle the truth that you screwed up by shifting the blame on me even though the other editor was at fault. Typical Thundercloss (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thundercloss, amazing! I have been persuaded to support your views! Your strategy worked brilliantly! Dumuzid (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Duzumid, amazing! I have been persuaded to support your views! Your strategy worked brilliantly! Thundercloss (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

...and there we have it. Dumuzid (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

same. And there we have it Thundercloss (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thundercloss, you started an RFC unilaterally and already has the first move advantage. Why would you, of all people, complain about not having more discussion or scrutiny? Vacosea (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

All RFC’s are by nature “unilateral” since they are dispute resolution mechanisms.

Why won’t you answer the question? Why are you waiting until now to bring up your proposal? You had an eternity to do so during the discussions in the “second paragraph” subsection and yet you chose not to. The only plausible explanation you’re doing it now is because that was part of your strategy all along to force through your proposed paragraph.Thundercloss (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

so the neighbor describing Chou as friendly is important but the same neighbor also saying he was verbally aggressive towards his spouse isn’t? Yeah that’s not going to work. This is an encyclopedia, not legal aid Thundercloss (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Friendly before the attack supports Chou's change in temperament after the incident. Vacosea (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

that doesn’t prove that him being verbally aggressive to his spouse is unimportant Thundercloss (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

What you wrote is wrong because you deliberately switched the order of events again to highlight verbal aggression, even though the beating took place first. It's your own fault that even though I told you, see @Thundercloss above, you choose not to fix it. Cobiexor (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

the verbal aggression part is highlighted because that’s the way the involved material was ordered in the sourced article. Here is what the Los Angeles Times said:

He described Chou as a considerate landlord: He never raised the rent in the five years that Orellana and his family lived there, and when the COVID-19 pandemic swept into Las Vegas, Chou often asked if they needed a break with the rent. He tended a small garden on the side of the building, and he’d regularly bring fruit, vegetables and cookies for Orellana’s family.

But he was “verbally aggressive” toward his wife, Orellana said, and he’d hear Chou yelling through the walls. By the time she left for Taiwan, diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer, “you could tell she was just tired of him.” With her gone, “he took it pretty hard,” Orellana said.

as usual, its clear you didn’t read was written but just looked at it.Thundercloss (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The beating happened first when "Chou was managing a different apartment complex", then COVID and yelling at his wife, which is what the Los Angeles Times that you yourself referenced said, but you chose not to fix it even after I told you about it. Cobiexor (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

References

The yelling is closer to Chou's divorce than his beating. That could be a good place to put it for now. Thundercloss has been blocked. Vacosea (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

by the way your proposed material ends on an ellipsis which means your proposal is incomplete. This means that nobody can actually vote for your option because it is literally unfinished. Yet another example of how much effort you are putting in to undermine this RFC based on what little respect you have for the process. Thundercloss (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Ellipsis means the paragraph continues as exists with no change proposed. Vacosea (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

then you should not have included the third paragraph in your proposal instead of leaving it literally unfinished. The fact that you didn’t once again demonstrates how much effort you are putting in to undermine this RFC based on what little respect you have for the process Thundercloss (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The only one who appears to be undermining this RFC would be you Thundercloss, editors are welcome to propose new options after the start of the RfC. Its important to work with others to build a consensus instead of shouting them down. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

but they aren’t a new editor. A new editor yes but not one who was involved in the discussions from the very beginning. Unless this maneuver is part of a larger stratagem it simply does not make sense for them to be bringing their proposals up now Thundercloss (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Achieving consensus often means evolving proposals until one is agreed upon. There is nothing unusual about that. Dumuzid (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

can’t achieve consensus if people aren’t following the rules. Nothing unusual about that either Thundercloss (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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.