Talk:2023 Half Moon Bay shootings

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

BLP non-notable uninvolved person[edit]

I've removed the name of a non-notable co-worker/roommate as a BLP violation. Valereee (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

car[edit]

@ImDeadAsADoornail, I'm not finding this content in the source that follows: here. I'm not sure it's more than trivia, anyway. Valereee (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying how we create articles[edit]

We absolutely do not add into an article about a current event every detail we can dig up from anywhere on the web. We include content that helps a reader understand the subject. If a detail does not do that, it's probably simply bloat. For instance, in almost every instance it will not matter what make or year a car is. Valereee (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage[edit]

the fact that the 2023 Monterey Park shooting and this one both featured elderly asian men targeting other asians, within days of each other, has gotten some media coverage, which I think should be reflected in both articles. Its certainly noteworthy how it deviates from the usual mass shooting patterns in the US.

NBC: Back-to-back California shootings reflect an American tragedy, not an ‘Asian issue,’ experts say

LATimes: 3 California mass shootings force grieving Asian Americans to ask painful questions

The Guardian: ‘It perpetuates fear’: Monterey Park shooting compounds trauma in Asian American communities

USA Today: 'But the shooter was Asian!' That doesn't negate the reality of anti-Asian violence.

--jonas (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe appropriate at Mass shootings in the United States or Mass shooting contagion. Until someone starts talking about an actual connection between the two, it feels like synthesis here. Valereee (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
not synthesis when all those articles are mentioning it. even chinese media is commenting on the similarity.
i'm with jonas, some mention should be made in both articles. in a restrained manner. 2601:19C:527F:A660:D99B:962D:3F02:8816 (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT is specifically saying it 'isn't' an Asian issue. The Guardian doesn't even MENTION the Half Moon Bay incident, much less make a connection. The USA Today is an opinion piece that only uses the fact both shooters and most victims were Asian to discuss the fact that there's been a lot of violence against Asians for the past several years and that the fact this time the aggressors were Asian too doesn't actually provide comfort to the Asian community; they're specifically pointing out that saying "But the shooter was Asian" is kind of a racist thing to use in that way. I can't get to the LAT, behind a paywall, but the sources I can get to aren't connecting these crimes to each other. They're simply discussing them in the same article.
Adding to this article something "People commented on the fact there was another mass shooting of Asians by an Asian a day later, but experts say there is no connection" or "Even in Asia people commented on the coincidence" just seems kind of bizarre. I wouldn't even have a clue how to approach it "restrainedly". If you want to try to come up with something reasonable to add that improves the article, post it here and we'll discuss, but for me it's weird in too many ways to connect these crimes by the simple fact they were committed within Asian communities and happened in quick succession, and therefore the similarities provoked comment. Valereee (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what's wrong with "...a day after a similar shooting in Monterey Park, CA" or the like? i agree there's no particular "connection", just statistically odd. if a plane crashed into a skyscraper somewhere the day after 9/11, people would certainly take note, no matter how unrelated. 2601:19C:527F:A660:4D61:BD28:BA7F:4ADB (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the Monterey Park shooting is currently alluded to in the "Reactions" section. —Bagumba (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Valereee (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
alluded to like as if it were no more similar than Goshen or Columbine or the Pulse Nightclub. misses the entire point. 2601:19C:527F:A660:4D61:BD28:BA7F:4ADB (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of mass shootings every day in the US. Who is saying these two are statistically odd? Valereee (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
plenty of places saying that. some even calling the second one a "copycat" (which i am not). but statistically odd it certainly is. how many elderly asians have EVER done this? maybe two?
u seem to think i am asian-bashing. quite the reverse; it is the RARITY of such a shooter being asian and/or elderly which makes two back-to-back noteworthy.
coupla starting off points:
How two elderly Asian men became mass shooters (ktvu.com)
Two mass shootings in three days. Are these copycat crimes? - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
also California shooting suspects are senior citizens. Here’s why its rare (San Francisco Chronicle) but that's paywalled. 2601:19C:527F:A660:4D61:BD28:BA7F:4ADB (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't suggested a specific edit to be inserted into a specific place, and the post to my talk is making me think you're just trolling us here. Valereee (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how about just putting in the OBVIOUS, that they were "similar" shootings, per any one of those sources.
comparing it to goshen is a bit silly. that had nothing in common, besides the body count. 2601:19C:527F:A660:2977:276F:9512:AB4E (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't suggested a specific edit to be inserted into a specific place. And I didn't compare it to Goshen, that was you, wasn't it? Valereee (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i was complaining HERE (talk) about the mention of goshen in the article itself. but now i don't even see that, so i guess the point is moot. 2601:19C:527F:A660:5026:C459:698B:972A (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly there'd be no reason to include it in this article. Nor Columbine, nor the Pulse nightclub shooting. I don't think any of those were in the article when you made that comment. They're included in a navbox at the bottom, but so is every mass shooting since 2020, including Monterey Park. Valereee (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no, forget the navbox. i meant in the article itself. we're in agreement on this one. 2601:19C:527F:A660:5026:C459:698B:972A (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Policy discussion at BLP mentioning this article[edit]

There is an ongoing policy discussion at WP:BLP entitled Naming accused perpetrators of crimes debating the question of whether articles about high-profile criminal cases should name any known suspect(s) prior to conviction, especially when they are only known for their involvement with the event in question. This article is featured as one example of twenty fitting these criteria which named the suspect(s) after being published by reliable sources. I will be copying this message to the other articles so that interested editors have an opportunity participate in the debate. Xan747 (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Half_Moon_Bay_shootings&oldid=1196941773"