Talk:2023 Monterey Park shooting

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

Min Zhou quote[edit]

should that really be here? it was clearly made before knowing who the suspect was.

there is no evidence this was "anti-asian" violence. 2601:19C:527F:A660:343B:4680:EDA7:7B11 (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the quote, but it was about violence against Asians, which this was, not "anti-asian", as you put it. —Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should remove the Min Zhou quote. She was talking generalities, and this was not a case of "violence against Asians", much less "anti-Asian violence", since the perpetrator was Asian himself. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I removed it. Some1 (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: I've got no strong opinion on the quote. But consider: "'But the shooter was Asian!' That doesn't negate the reality of anti-Asian violence." USA Today. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't "negate" the reality, but doesn't AUGMENT it either!
the article, like the zhou min quote, is a total straw man. 2601:19C:527F:A660:4D61:BD28:BA7F:4ADB (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I was responding only to the "since the perpetrator was Asian himself" comment with the USA Today link. I didnt intend for it to be a defense of the Zhou quote.—Bagumba (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Bagumba. Would you be willing to kindly help reword Zhou's statement so it is clearer? generalities and context is needed and important, especially as time passes and the nature of gun violence and violence against Asians changes.
I would do it myself, but this topic exhausts me. I do not want to make it personal, but it hurts that someone first said earlier in this very article talk that the dead were not particularly noteworthy beyond the sad circumstances of their demise (literal dehumanization). It also hurt when someone (pun intended) dismissed and erased the words of not only a scholar in a relevant field published by a reliable source but also someone personally impacted by the tragedy itself and the generalities surrounding it. [Edited to add: assuming good faith, but still. That hurt, and I need to step away from this.]
So I'd appreciate any help I can get. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rotideypoc41352: Editing current event pages can be exhausting, with so many editors involved. I usually find when the topic is breaking news, there can be wide disagreement on when text providing context is relevant or not. For example, I think the Goshen shooting has been removed and restored a few times here. My stock answer is to follow WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION; however, an alternative is to come back later when the news has subsided, and perhaps it's clearer what is or isn't relevant. Demonstrating WP:DUE, showing its presence in multiple sources, can be convincing. With respect to hurtful comments, Wikipedia is crowdsourced, drawing people with divergent backgrounds. I'd like to think most are simply unaware of the different perspectives their comments might be interpreted. Take a look at WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to reply. Admittedly, this is less this particular dispute: as you said, what is relevant or not will become clearer later. It's more Weltschmerz about general insufficient kindness and empathy in society. (Also for my own reference: Goshen shooting. Huh, there is a mass shootings of the 2020s navbox. Yay.). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the quote had no bearing on the shooting, and does not belong here. but i am more curious about your last line -- that min zhou was personally impacted? i had not read that. one of her relatives among the dead?
and, no, the victims in most murders are not noteworthy beyond the murders themselves. sorry u are triggered by this, but it is reality. this is an encyclopedia, not a memorial site for the individuals. 2601:19C:527F:A660:4D61:BD28:BA7F:4ADB (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Anyway, you can listen to this as you do the dishes or read the transcript: Chang, Ailsa; Levitt, Michael; Troop, William (January 23, 2023). "Monterey Park's long history as a bastion for Asian-American suburban life". NPR. Retrieved January 24, 2023. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that the killer was emboldened by gun culture is quite possible. that the killer was trying pile on to "violence against asian-americans" is ridiculous. did he make any quotes to that effect?
it is not impossible that a self-loathing asian[-am] could have that as a specific motive, but it is certainly not likely.
the fact that the victims here were all asian-american is incidental; he did not target them on that basis. unless you've read otherwise.
the town sounds otherwise lovely. but i'm sticking to ktown. :D 2601:19C:527F:A660:2977:276F:9512:AB4E (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetrator section: hatnote and/or bolding[edit]

 – — Mudwater (Talk) 01:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI: With this edit you removed the bold formatting from the perpetrators name against the guidance described at MOS:BOLDREDIRECT (After following a redirect: Terms which redirect to [a] ... section are commonly bolded when they appear ... at the beginning of another section (for example, subtopics treated in their own sections). As Huu Can Tran redirects to this section, it is customary to bold the name so our readers understand that they've arrived at the correct article. See also WP:R#ASTONISH. Please keep this guidance in mind in the future. Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 19:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Cole: Hello! Thanks for the note. Yes, I didn't realize that the name of the person redirected to that section of the article. I agree that MOS:BOLDREDIRECT says to bold the name in such cases. I just added a note about this to the top of that section, here. I believe that will help both readers who end up there via the redirect, and editors such as myself who don't realize that the redirect exists. (I would have used a {{Redirect}} template instead of text, but that seems to require a "for other uses" clause.) — Mudwater (Talk) 21:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure on the hatnote in this specific instance, but if you need to create a custom hatnote like that in the future, be aware that {{hatnote}} exists. Typically when I encounter bolded text that may be unnecessary I just make a habit of trying to go directly to the page named Bolded text and see if it kicks me to where I was just at. Failing that, I'll try searching for the exact bolded text term and see if anything pops (sometimes the bolded text is changed after having been set to the incoming redirect; like a middle name is added, or some other part of a prior company name is added/removed like LLC, etc. and searching may reveal those alternatives). If the hatnote is removed, we may just need to add an HTML comment in the source and hope it goes noticed by other editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole: Thanks for the tip on the hatnote template, I've changed the article to use that, here. I do think the hatnote is appropriate and helpful in a case like this. Then editors don't have to figure out what's going on, as you described, and it also makes it more obvious to readers why they ended up where they did. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB: Hello! About this, please see the discussion above. Basically the hatnote will help editors understand why the person's name is in bold, and it will help readers understand why they landed on that section. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need a hatnote AND a bolded name, it's one or the other. Please decide which one you support. WWGB (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB: Is that the usual practice? To have either a hatnote or bolding, but not both? If yes, I think the hatnote is better, definitely. (Pinging @Locke Cole: who posted above.) — Mudwater (Talk) 23:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I moved the above discussion here, from my user talk page. Please add additional posts below this line: — Mudwater (Talk) 01:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudwater: My understanding is hatnotes are generally used for providing readers with direction to disambiguation pages, articles with similar names, or for technical notes. MOS:BOLDREDIRECT and WP:R#ASTONISH don't indicate anything beyond the bolded redirect name. My preference is to follow the MOS. I would support an HTML comment so future editors might see the reason for the bolded name and not continually remove it as has been done so far. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Per WP:R#PLA, "it will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term" and "If the redirected term could have other meanings, a hatnote should be placed at the top of the target article or targeted section that will direct readers to the other meanings or to a relevant disambiguation page". Since "Huu Can Tran" does not have other meanings, a hatnote is not necessary. WWGB (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend to redirect to the top of the page, where his name is mentioned with an overview of why he is notable. Going directly to the "Perpetrator" section doesn't tell the reader why he's notable, and avoids the reader wondering "which page am I on"? —Bagumba (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that the perpetrators name is mentioned in the lead, however, the Perpetrator section is where one would expect to go if they wanted to learn about the person in more detail (and is the content that one would see if a separate article existed). This is why we skip there when coming from Huu Can Tran and bold his name in that section, not the lead. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's a lot better to have a hatnote at the top of the section, and not have the person's name in boldface, like this. That makes it more obvious to readers why they landed there, and it doesn't confuse editors about why the name is bolded. It's true that the name being in boldface is allowed by MOS:BOLDREDIRECT, but it seems incongruous and distracting in this situation. "P.S." Additional editors are encouraged to comment on this topic. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be as clear as I can here: MOS:BOLDREDIRECT is the appropriate way to denote a redirect target in a destination article. WP:HATNOTE is clear that except for a very limited handful of situations they are only to be used for purposes of guiding a reader to another similar topic (by name or subject); for disambiguation pointers. These conventions provide Wikipedia with a consistent look for our readers. Using a hatnote like this deviates from those guidelines. Additional editors are encouraged to comment on this topic. I'd like to direct your attention to WP:LOCALCON: a group of editors here cannot (by vote or consensus) override our sitewide guidelines in MOS:BOLDREDIRECT and WP:HATNOTE. If you want to change our conventions, the appropriate place to do that would be WP:VPR with links to the discussion left on the talk page of MOS:BOLDREDIRECT and WT:HATNOTE (with the discussion overall being an WP:RFC). Until you get consensus for such a change, I suggest restoring it to the manner we prescribe. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful explanation. But... (1) MOS:BOLDREDIRECT says "Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded..." That is, putting them in boldface is a common but not universal practice. It's allowed, but not required. And WP:HATNOTE says "The purpose of a hatnote is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for. Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because: · They were redirected...." That applies here. The article they are on is "2023 Monterey Park shooting", and the one they were looking for is "Huu Can Tran". (2) MOS:BOLDREDIRECT and WP:HATNOTE are guidelines. A guideline "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." For this article to be different than what the guidelines suggest, it's not necessary to change the guidelines themselves, we just have to get a consensus (or at least a majority) of editors to agree that for this article it's better to do something else. Though again, I do think that using a hatnote, and not bolding the name, does fall within the guidelines. (3) I agree that a consistent look for our readers should be one of our goals. But as a reader myself, the use of the boldface type here, without a hatnote, seems incongruous and inconsistent with what I've seen elsewhere. Admittedly that's a subjective judgement on my part. Therefore (4) I am hoping that additional editors comment on this topic, and the more the merrier. That would make it easier to see how a larger group of editors interpret the guidelines, and what they think would be the best course of action in this particular case. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be misunderstanding WP:HATNOTE. You even quoted the relevant portion, I'll emphasize it so maybe you'll notice it this time: The purpose of a hatnote is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for. Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because: · They were redirected.... You appear to be getting hung up on the last quoted portion (They were redirected), but that is only part of a list that is otherwise inapplicable to our situation because there is no other article. As regards guidelines, I appear to need to quote WP:LOCALCON: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. We here on a talk page cannot decide that MOS:BOLDREDIRECT is wrong, or that WP:HATNOTE applies to situations it doesn't. See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Levels of consensus: Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. But as a reader myself, the use of the boldface type here, without a hatnote, seems incongruous and inconsistent with what I've seen elsewhere. With respect, it doesn't matter what you have or haven't seen, MOS:BOLDREDIRECT documents what is commonly done. Your exposure, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. If you'd like to change how the project handles this, the correct forum for your discussion is WP:VPR, not here. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed response. I'd still like to see opinions from more editors, in addition to the four who have posted in this section so far (viz. Locke Cole, WWGB, Bagumba, and Mudwater). — Mudwater (Talk) 02:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mudwater:, you are correct that bolding a redirect on its landing page is not universal. For example, editors at Christchurch mosque shooting decided not to bold the redirected name of the perpetrator Brenton Tarrant. However, as User:Locke Cole explained, a landing hatnote is only used when the redirected name is ambiguous. For example, had the Monterey Park perpetrator been named "Will Smith", then the following landing hatnote would be appropriate:
"Will Smith" redirects here. For other uses, see Will Smith (disambiguation).
Since "Huu Can Tran" is unambiguous, a hatnote is unwarranted. I do not think any experienced editor will give you a different answer. WWGB (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB: Thanks, that's very helpful. What then would be the basis or criterion for deciding whether the name should be bolded or not, in general, and for this article? I see some discussion about that at [[Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 7#[Un]Bolding]] and at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 5#Remove Suspects Name, but nothing too definitive, though I might have missed it. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many New Zealanders detest Brenton Tarrant for what he did, so it is not surprising that many NZ editors would not even want to see his name in bold. In other articles, it just needs editors to reach consensus not to bold a redirect at its landing place, for whatever reason is considered appropriate. WWGB (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should unbold the perpetrator's name, and honestly we should get rid of the redirect. Valereee (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Page view statistics for Huu Can Tran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) show a sharp decline in views, but still a non-zero number daily. When you compare this page to the redirect in so far as page views (link; turn logarithmic on to see it clearer) there is a correlation between the declining pageviews here and the declining pageviews at Huu Can Tran. There are also a number of other redirects that link to this redirect (see WhatLinksHere). Nothing at WP:R#DELETE springs out as a reason to delete, and at least two items at WP:R#KEEP seem to suggest retention of the redirect. So long as the redirect exists, I'd oppose unbolding per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. All that being said: if we seriously want to consider deleting any redirects, WP:RFD is the place, not here. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is news?[edit]

Apparently the fact that a hero had never seen a gun before isn't news. Let us consider the following. 1. There is plenty of information available that shows people often "freeze up" like deer in headlights in stressful or dangerous situations. 2. An individual who hasn't seen guns helps save lives. 3. How is this not a significant part of this article and the overall story?Justanother2 (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reports that Tsay was frozen up or deerlike. This scenario is just your opinion. No evidence that Tsay never seeing a gun impacted on his actions. WWGB (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You did not read what was said. Often people "freeze up" or act like deer caught in headlights. That's why this was extraordinary and part of the reason to include it. He behaved heroically having never seen a gun. He acted quickly, deftly, and showed no inexperience.Justanother2 (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Names[edit]

Does including the Chinese names contribute to the article [1]? I'm not sure if they would all be comfortable with having them on Wikipedia, even if they have been released to the LA Times. Vacosea (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is needed, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL etc.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While foreign names are typically reported in biographies, there is no need to convert every naming of a person born in a country with a different character set. WWGB (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of "cite needed"[edit]

I just added a paragraph and citation needed tag, relating to the preemption of NFL studio programming on the day after the shooting. I wrote down that "this was frankly off the top of my head." This is not true; I did not even know that KCBS-TV didn't air the NFL studio shows until a poster on Discord told me. I'm sorry for getting carried away; however, it is true that the Discord post didn't come with an outside citation, therefore one is still required. - Desmond Hobson (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Monterey_Park_shooting&oldid=1196945203"