Talk:2023 Monterey Park shooting/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2023

In the "Perpetrator" section, "lose" is misspelled as "loose". 192.234.197.154 (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 21:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Unable to edit page

I was going to make an edit to this page, but found it impossible to do so since it appears to be locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 76.190.213.189 (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it is only locked to anonymous editors without sn account, probably due to vandalism. You can either open your own account to edit, or ask here for specific changes you want made. WWGB (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Casualty count

Thanks @Love of Corey for removing the exact numbers at this time, as we do not have a reliable source for that number. The LA Weekly source does not really back up the "10" in the headline, and NY Times and LA Times are not providing a number. We should wait for a real reliable news report first. Courtesy ping Marleeashton - Fuzheado | Talk 10:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. The fact that LA Weekly is an alternative newspaper made its reliability as a source dubious in this instance too. :) Love of Corey (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree, and the previous source used in the prose was this tweet, that seems to be using police radio for an estimate, but we should wait. https://twitter.com/TrafficNewsLA/status/1617082711105208322 - Fuzheado | Talk 10:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
At this point NYT LATimes and WaPo all are reporting 10 dead. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Another victim has died, so the article now correctly states eleven killed, not counting the gunman. Let's hope there is no further need to increase the count. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Weapon not an "assault rifle."

The shooter was not using a “a high-powered assault rifle,” Luna said, while a witness told the Los Angeles Times the gunman was using a “long gun” and appeared to be firing “indiscriminately.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2023/01/22/monterey-park-mass-shooting-police-conclude-standoff-with-barricaded-suspect-amid-search-for-la-area-shooter/ ProxA (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This still doesn't clarify much - a long gun is a general classification, in which an "assault rifle" or a typical assault weapon (an AR-15 or AK-pattern rifle) would fit. Also, The Guardian said, "The Los Angeles county sheriff, Robert Luna, said at least one of the guns used was 'not a high-powered assault rifle'." [1] So this doesn't mean a rifle wasn't used, it's just that ONE of them wasn't. - Fuzheado | Talk 01:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Our source The Guardian quotes the sheriff: "The weapon recovered from the Alhambra location where the shooter was disarmed was described as magazine-fed semiautomatic assault pistol with a high-capacity magazine attached, Luna said. He said it initially appeared that weapon would be illegal under California law." -- MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it seems the sheriff misspoke. The term "assault pistol" is not typically used in the firearms community. Police getting the weapon name wrong is not unusual, as it may surprise some that many LEO are not experts on firearms. In this case, it is somewhat understandable since the MAC-11 is not a very popular weapon and is also banned in California. - Fuzheado | Talk 22:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"worst since 2008"

if it's MORE than 2008 (10+gunman vs 9+gunman then), then it's not the "worst since", it's WORSE.

"worst since" must go back further, to whichever event had a count HIGHER than the present one.

the wiki on mass shootings contradicts the figures, btw. it lists them both at 10. not clear if they're including the perpetrator, but since they BOTH committed suicide, the figures need to be 9 vs 10 or 10 vs 11, no?

List of shootings in California

moreover, what about 1000 oaks? isn't that considered LA? that was 2018 and a higher count than either! 2601:19C:527F:A660:D94A:ECD9:C37E:3734 (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The Covina massacre & this shooting happened in Los Angeles County. This one has a death toll that's one higher than that of Covina. In each case the killer committed suicide the day after. The Thousand Oaks shooting has a higher death toll than both, but happened in Ventura County. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
oic. 1000 oaks article says "greater LA", but i guess that's wider than LA county proper.
either way, this one is higher than covina, so the section is wrong. this is now THE WORST in LA county history, is it not? 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
so just for my own clarity, monterey park and covina are not suburbs but "boroughs" of LA, same as "west hollywood" or "wilshire district"? 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
minus Removed the Covina massacre. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thank u, but i didn't have a problem with it being there, just the "worst since" misnomer. perhaps "...the worst shooting in LA county history, topping previous high covina 2008..." yadda yadda would be appropriate.
pending, i guess now, RS on both of these per bagumba's objections. 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the deadliest mass shooting to have ever occurred inside of Los Angeles County's physical borders. Oscarjohnson1981 (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Should that fact be included in the article? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
It needs reliable sources stating it as such. It can't be based off of the WP list, which is not assured to be comprehensive. —Bagumba (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
not only is it not comprehensive, but the numbers there for either covina or this one are WRONG. one includes the perpetrator; one doesn't.
i posted under talk there, but have failed to draw attn to anyone who knows which it should be (and correct it!). 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
You could be bold and fix it, while annotating the technicalities of what is or isn't included. —Bagumba (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Well now there are news sources that confirm that it is indeed the deadliest mass shooting in Los Angeles County history:
  • Per The New York Times: "The Los Angeles County supervisor, Janice Hahn, called the shooting 'the worst mass shooting in L.A. County’s history'."[2]
  • Per Deadline Hollywood: "It is the deadliest mass shooting in Los Angeles County history."[3]
  • Per Associated Press: "Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn said it was the deadliest mass shooting in LA County."[4]
  • Per KCRA-TV: "Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn said it was the deadliest mass shooting in LA County."[5]
--Birdienest81talk 00:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2023

The perpetrator doesn’t deserve a section and certainly not one longer than the victims. That’s so insulting. 2606:9400:97A0:2C7:81A5:1BB1:BA5E:65EA (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
This must be discussed to gain consensus. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

sorry, but that's what news IS.

leave the victims their privacy. the perpetrator should be thoroughly examined, however, comprising much/most of the article. 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I know other articles have restricted perpetrators' name, info, but I can not locate the guideline on this subject. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
seems like PC nonsense to me, but i will abide by w/e the rules are.
i cannot imagine an article on 9/11, say, spending more time on the individual victims than on the perpetrators or the attack. they are not particularly noteworthy beyond the sad circumstances of their demise.
same here. 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

perpetrator vietnamese?

he clearly has a vietnamese name, but it is said he immigrated "from china". has this been explained? was he from some vietnamese minority there, or had he previously immigrated THERE as well?

if he was, in fact, a chinese national prior to immigrating here, he would also have a chinese name. should be included. 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This article [6] has his Chinese name as 陳友艮. "Huu Can Tran" is apparently the transliteration. Some1 (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
not in chinese, it isn't -- that reads "chen yougen" in mandarin, "chan jaugan" in cantonese. "tran huucan" (to match order) is the vietnamese reading.
but thanks for the source/characters; they should be added. (if he were US born, or even a vietnam-direct immigrant, i'd say don't bother, but CHINESE immigrant named "tran" just doesn't fly. needs clarification somehow.) 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Do you know if "worldjournal.com" is a reliable source? Some1 (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
no clue, but googling those chars leads to a wealth of other articles. we'll find something. 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Interesting. The reading is indeed Vietnamese. The Washington Post repoted he is an immigrant from Vietnam. This is his Petition for Naturalization. He was born in Vietnam. It is from this twitter.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
World Journal is a fairly reputable source, and is the major US-based Chinese language newspaper for the overseas Chinese community. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I've added it to the article. Feel free to revert if you think it doesn't belong. Some1 (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Could be that he was born in Vietnam, later moved and lived in China, then moved to the United States permanently, which could explain the sources saying different things. needs clarification somehow. The article currently clarifies it well: A copy of his marriage license indicated he was from China,[33] although an immigration document indicated that he was born in Vietnam.[34] Some1 (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
yes, this is what i suggested above. thanks for finding sources!
altho, your links are dead. WHICH articles are we looking at, exactly? 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
By article I meant this Wikipedia article, in the Perpetrator section. The references used are [7] and [8] Some1 (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Many Vietnamese people (including people of Vietnamese ethnicity that migrated to the U.S. after the Vietnam War) are of Chinese descent, and are known as Hoa people. I'm guessing that Tran was one of these. It does seem rather unusual that he was born in Vietnam, but immigrated to the U.S. from China. 204.11.189.94 (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
英国《每日邮报》报道称，这名枪手的英文名字叫Huu Can Tran，翻译过来是陈友艮，今年72岁。从姓名上看，很多人会认为这是一个越南人的名字。但是《每日邮报》报道称，陈友艮的结婚证证实他是来自中国的移民。因此陈友艮很有可能是一个相对很少见的群体——在中越边境战争爆发后回到中国的越南华侨。陈友艮可能是到了中国后，又辗转来到了美国移民。
The British Daily Mail reported that the gunman's English name is Huu Can Tran, which translates to Chen Yougen, and he was 72 years old this year. Judging from the name, many people would think it is a Vietnamese name. But the Daily Mail reported that Chen Yougen's marriage certificate confirmed that he was an immigrant from China. Therefore, Chen Yougen is likely to be a relatively rare group—Vietnamese overseas Chinese who returned to China after the Sino-Vietnamese border war broke out [in 1979]. Chen Yougen may have immigrated to the United States after arriving in China.
Source: https://www.163.com/dy/article/HRQLVUED0543MBSX.html?f=post1603_tab_news 204.11.189.94 (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is unreliable and has been deprecated. The [enwp] article should probably only use the other sources (NYT, CNN, other parts of the World Journal article), which seem generally reliable. (As for the original question: if 陳友艮 comes solely from the World Journal and other Chinese-language sources (and not, for example, from quoting his ex-wife or others that knew him), my personal speculation is that these are actually transliterations of his Vietnamese- or English-language name into hanzi, so to speak. Again, this is just my opinion.) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
transliteration of a non-chinese vietnamese name is POSSIBLE, but not particularly likely, imho. i'm with anon above that he is likely ethnic chinese, 2nd/3nd/4th gen etc born in vietnam, who fled "nearby" post-war(s). then a decade or two later, moved further to the west. very very common, albeit, as daily mail suggests, perhaps china was not the most popular middleman to do this through, being "the enemy" and all. 2601:19C:527F:A660:343B:4680:EDA7:7B11 (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
A marriage certificate should also indicate his place of birth, not immigration history no matter how convoluted. There shouldn't be a discrepancy. Does anyone know whether information on a marriage form is verified by third-parties after the applicants fill them out? Vacosea (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Number of deaths

Proposal: Currently the number of deaths includes the perpetrator. However they died by suicide 22 miles away from the Monterey Park shooting and hours after the attack.

Because of the circumstances of their death, the perpetrator should not be listed with them, but only the victims. Their death is noted in the article.

  • Support  // Timothy :: talk  03:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
A death is a death. Since it's explicitly stated that the perpetrator is included, I don't see an issue. What would be a reason to make it ambiguous what the total includes? —Bagumba (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
If you mean in the ibox, it could be written as 11 (+ the perpetrator). Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect Chinese transliteration

I think the Chinese transliteration is incorrect, it should be 陳友勤 Trần Hữu Cần instead of 陳友艮 Trần Hữu Cấn. But most Chinese sources list his name as 陳友艮 Trần Hữu Cấn, while Vietnamese sources name him as Trần Hữu Cần.

Also, should it be mentioned in the section, that he is người Hoa (Chinese ethnic group in Vietnam)? Lachy70 (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Only if there are reliable sources saying he is one, otherwise, it's original research. Some1 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

why also are we using TRADITIONAL chars here? if he came from or via the PRC, shouldn't we go with "陈友艮" to match?

or do vietnamese/hoa cling to the old chars, in what very very few contexts they would ever use them (family registers, scrapbooks, tombstones maybe)? 2601:19C:527F:A660:343B:4680:EDA7:7B11 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

%age of victims

i have yet to hear any report on how many ppl were IN the dance studio to begin with. he struck 20, but were they ALL 20 present, or 20 of, say, 50?

ditto on alhambra. some police quote said he was trying to kill "2 more" there. where'd they get THAT from? if it was another bustling studio, why do they not believe he would go for dozens and dozens once again?

or was it just an early misreport, somehow confusing the "2" who disarmed him? 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

ex-wife was quoted in paper today. is this the SAME (ex)wife he was targeting or a diff one? news reports up till now were calling the one at the studio his "wife".
if her, this is the first i've even heard mention of whether she survived or not. was it b/c she wasn't AT star dance, after all (perhaps why he then tried the second one?), or was it b/c, as i asked above, there were a number of SURVIVORS at the first shooting? 2601:19C:527F:A660:343B:4680:EDA7:7B11 (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

victims asian?

were ALL of the victims asian/asian-am? most CNY parties draw a mixed crowd, but perhaps less so in a private business like this, esp one serving mostly seniors.

i don't think it's worth making a big deal out of, but a quick passing mention is appropriate if it's been so reported. 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

We now know that is not true. WWGB (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
do we? how so?
victim list SEEMS like 8 chinese[-am], 1-2 vietnamese[-am] (one of them burmese[-am] perhaps?), and one LATINO...but this last one could just as well be filipino[-am]. no clear non-asians on the list.
and what of the "injured"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19c:527f:a660:343b:4680:eda7:7b11 (talk • contribs)

Good guess, the one person with a Latino name is identified as Filipino-American.[9] However, we should not put anything in the article about the ethnicity of the victims unless sources report it. What we are doing here is basically original research. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

yeah, i agree. but if they're all 11 asian, there MUST be sources stating as such. there just must. :p
ditto on the ages. i think i saw "mostly over 50; 3 over 70". or was is "all over 50...."?
so far brandon tsay (staffer @ lai lai) is the only NON-senior i've seen mentioned anywhere! 2601:19C:527F:A660:EC9E:1557:AE0E:D2BF (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Asian-American demographics

Added information about Asian-American demographics. Note that this is one of the main focuses of articles about the shooting in NYTimes, LA Times, and Washington Post, so surprised it wasn’t previously mentioned here. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This is fine but we shouldn't jump to conclusions about the motive at this very early stage.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
This is not fine. It's not appropriate to take cues from race-baiting and profit-motivated newspapers with a very poor record of journalistic ethics in the recent past. NYT, LATimes and WP are not good sources in 2023. Contributor00990 (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
This page may be useful reading: WP:RSPSOURCES. - Fuzheado | Talk 01:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Uhhhhh...okay. What would you define as good sources in 2023, then? Love of Corey (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, the article is good now. It describes the city as being mostly Asian, which is relevant because a mostly Asian community will likely have a different culture than a lot of the country, and it describes the suspect as Asian. Maybe he was a member of the community of people who he murdered. It doesn't include any nonsequiturs like claiming the murderer was racist against Asians. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

First majority Asian American city?

Probably not. We need to verify this, looking against the developments in the west that had large percentages of Chinese people prior to late 19th century expulsions.Dogru144 (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I too was dubious about this factoid, as I suspect that the distinction is likely something like, "cities of population more than 'n'." Typically, I see the number 100,000 thrown out as an arbitrary bar to show it is a city of note. The article on Monterey Park refers to a 1990 census, and does quote reliable sources like The Guardian, but I'd like to see this firmed up if possible. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

No need to doubt this. The "first" is from the 1990 census, and the 65% number is also from that census. As recently as the 2021 census estimate, 65-66% was still given as the proportion of Asian residents. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC) P.S. I thought Honolulu might have held this record, but they don't seem to get much above 40%. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

40%? whatchu talkin' bout, willis?
honolulu 2020 census :
White alone 17.3%
Black or African American alone 1.9%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0.2%
Asian alone 52.6%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 8.1%
Two or More Races 18.8%
Hispanic or Latino 7.2%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 15.8%
might still not reach 65%, even adding in "mixed asian", but it's still a majority.
perhaps u were looking at "east" honolulu, an upscale area with a lot of celebrity estates? more white, less asian and everything else.
for some weird reason their census is done separately. and honolulu "county" (whole island of oahu), separate still.
but the city itself is as above. 2601:19C:527F:A660:343B:4680:EDA7:7B11 (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, I see my problem was that when I asked for "Honolulu" it gave me Honolulu County. And when I asked for "Honolulu, Hawaii" it had nothing. Apparently you have to ask for "urban Honolulu" and that will give you an Asian percentage of 52.6%. That's closer to what I would have expected. Still, however, short of Monterey Park at 65.1%. But Honolulu does beat Alhambra at 50.7%. Ain't statistics fun? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
to be honest, i'm surprised at the numbers being that low, even in the "county". i lived there, and we all thought asian/hawn/mixed totaled around 90%, with white down around 8 (other 2 black etc). reality is more like 75% on the total, and white as high as 20.
-----
PS: what happened to that LINK? it keeps defaulting to US now. even while reading "urbanhonolulu" in the URL.
guess i need to fix that. stay tuned.2601:19C:527F:A660:343B:4680:EDA7:7B11 (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I have also lived in Honolulu, and while I wouldn't have said 90% I would certainly say that Asians appeared to be a strong majority. BTW I have also lived in Alhambra, which is right next to Monterey Park and is about 51% Asian, and I'm surprised if Monterey Park is as low as 65%. That whole area (the San Gabriel Valley) is heavily Asian. According to our article about the Valley, "Eight of the ten cities in the United States with the largest proportion of Chinese Americans are located in the San Gabriel Valley." -- MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
is torrance considered likewise? all my friends from there are nikkei (japanese-am), so i somehow thought that was the majority. i recall heading there a couple of times for japanese bookstores and/or supermarkets. maybe the one in question? i dunno. too infrequent (i lived up in ktown) and too long ago.
relative to the ARTICLE, was there any particular REASON he went there? if not japanese, it's at least another asian-heavy suburb -- was this somehow relevant? 2601:19C:527F:A660:343B:4680:EDA7:7B11 (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Interesting question, I haven't read anything about why Torrance was where they found him. Reporting just says "At 10:20 a.m. Sunday, police found the white cargo van that was seen leaving the scene of the shooting." Torrance is not primarily Asian; according to our article it is 34.5% Asian. And it's nowhere near where he lived, in fact in the opposite direction. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
While "not primarily Asian", that's certainly a high density, esp. relative to outside CA. —Bagumba (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, SGV is heavily Asian, but there is also a robust Latino community as well, so it's multiple immigrant groups that are adding to the population. Also, the rise of the Asian community there has not induced a significant flight of other groups, which is also an interesting phenomenon. - Fuzheado | Talk 22:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
It may not have caused white flight, but that might be partly to do with people not wanting to leave their paid-for homes. There certainly was some white resistance. The city council took some pretty strong steps, and I can remember, from when I lived in the area, seeing some pretty nasty bumper stickers. But that was a while ago. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If the doubt is whether Honolulu was the first, note that the source limits the staement as "first on mainland US"[10]. Someone changed the WP article to say "contiguous United States", which has slight technical differences.—Bagumba (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I changed it back to "mainland" because that's what the source says. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah but that source is the UK Guardian, so they're not necessarily using familiar terms for Americans. Why would you say "mainland US" and "contiguous US" are not considered synonymous Bagumba? - Fuzheado | Talk 22:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
i'm a yank and i've never even HEARD "contiguous US" before. the normal expression is "continental US".
the wiki on the terms claims that "contiguous" excludes alaska whereas continental includes it -- but does it really? it may be technically true, but i don't believe it is used that way in practice. in my experience, there is no diff betw "continental US" and the "lower 48".
same issue with "mainland". i use it to mean lower 48, but there will be those who say it "technically" includes alaska as well.
not sure if it matters here, tho. kodiak is 46% asian; high, but still behind honolulu.
nowhere else in AK is over 15%. 2601:19C:527F:A660:EC9E:1557:AE0E:D2BF (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
@Fuzheado: Based purely off of Contiguous United States § Continental and mainland United States, I'll leave it to experts to debate. —Bagumba (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
i agree with your instincts tho; "mainland" is not commonly used outside HI, nor "lower 48" outside AK. even in an article about honolulu, i question the guardian's choice of using "mainland" to begin with. 2601:19C:527F:A660:EC9E:1557:AE0E:D2BF (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources seem across the board in how they define this "first":

  • "The city was the first on mainland US to have a majority of residents with Asian ancestry, as migrants from Taiwan, China, Japan and Vietnam settled in the community." The Guardian
  • "As the first city in the country with an Asian majority population, most of whom are Chinese, Monterey Park has molded itself into an ambassador city for low-level officials and investors from both Chinas." LA Times
  • "It was the first city in the continental U.S. to have a majority Asian population, he said." NBC
  • "When Hiseh died in 1999, Monterey Park had at the time become the only U.S. city with an Asian-majority population, with 65% Asian residents, according to an Associated Press obituary. Today, nearly 70% of the residents are Asian, mostly of Chinese descent."ABC

It's a nice tidbit if we were sure of the caveats (mainland, continental, first period, etc), but it really is not essential to understanding the shooting. It's being a majority, first or not, is sufficient. Maybe just remove the "first", given the uncertainties.—Bagumba (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Page boldly moved - discussion

With this edit Special:Diff/1135251078, the page was boldly moved from 2023 Monterey Park shooting to Monterey Park shooting by Jim Michael 2. Especially for a semi-protected page, we prefer discussion for consensus first. In this case, it's not an obvious consensus for a move so I'd like to discuss before a possible reversion.

While many incidents omit the year (WP:NOYEAR) when there has been no former notable shootings and "events that are unlikely to recur", Monterey Park is a large and dense community that has had shootings and will likely have more. Two alternatives:

Therefore, I think the better title is still 2023 Monterey Park shooting, as Wikipedia takes into account the entire historical record (yesterday, today, and tomorrow) in naming, and should not be too centered on the current terminology. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Support returning to the previous title, 2023 Monterey Park shooting, this shouldn't have been renamed at the moment without a discussion on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  • There's no need for the year. This is an internationally well-publicised mass shooting which has a double-digit death toll & is Monterey Park's only notable shooting. Some other titles are only the city & shooting, including Binghamton shooting & Thousand Oaks shooting. In those cases as well as this one, it's clear, concise & unambiguous. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    Do not engage in move warring. This is now the 2nd time this page has been removed and reverted. If you wish to move it, use WP:RM. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks, I hadn't noticed there was already one move/revert cycle. Courtesy ping the folks involved: SuperbowserX and Love of Corey. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support 2023 Monterey Park shooting as title. RS don't seem to have a common name for the event, and if such a name should come about in the months and years ahead we can address that through consensus (WP:NOTPAPER). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    I support the year in the title. It's not too lengthy and exact, but it's enough to let you know what event they're we're referring to. FlexiHD (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • There's no need for the year.XavierItzm (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    According to sitewide consensus at WP:NCE, there is. It's part of the When, Where, What convention we use when there's no reliably sourced common name to fall back on. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:NCE says: «As this is a judgement call, please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement.» Your attempt to obviate the discussion using WPE:NCE when WP:NCE doesn't warrant such obviation is noted.XavierItzm (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. What historic perspective do you suppose there is in less than a week? Your attempt to remove the context of your selective sentence is noted. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

not meaning to be a fly in the ointment here, but most of the news on the east coast has been calling this the "LA/socal lunar/chinese NY shooting". very few have even MENTIONED the town name!

"Southern California Lunar New Year Shooting" would be the best title...with or without the "2023".

my 2 kuai. 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Given the attempted second shooting at Alhambra, California (and the final self-inflicted shooting at Torrance, California), this may be a situation where the "Where" (from WP:NCE) could be more generalized to the county as the shootings occurred in multiple areas within LA county. I'd Support a move to 2023 Los Angeles County shooting per this discussion and the sources provided by @Birdienest81: in the section above. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm more inclined to leave it at least to Monterey Park shooting since the fatalities happened there, but if you guys feel that it should be moved to Los Angeles County, then that is also fine by me personally. Let's see what happens. Birdienest81talk 01:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
is LA county distinct from LA proper? so "greater LA" > "LA county" > "LA"?
i've rarely heard anyone say LA county outside of discussions abt govt matters. ppl move "to LA", not "to LA county". what distinction is being made here?
news on east coast is calling this a shooting "in LA". some are saying "monterey park"; some are saying "socal". but no one is saying "...county". 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
PS -- i agree with birdie that alhambra and torrance are not so relevent since no "shootings" (x/c the suicide, i guess) took place there. the "shootings" -- whether fatal or not -- were all in monterey park. but still, it's all LA, so nothing wrong with that as a title.
"Los Angeles Lunar New Year Shootings" or "Monterey Park Lunar New Year Shootings", either is fine. it's this insertion of the overly-technical "County" i oppose. in the article, fine, but not in the title. 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
it's this insertion of the overly-technical "County" i oppose. Nothing technical about it. It's the most accurate term. Using simply "2023 Los Angeles shooting" would be simply false, as no shootings or events occurred within Los Angeles the city. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
well, longlats are also accurate, but not particular useful in general contexts. why do u insist on portraying a suburb by which county it sits in? it may be accurate, but not exactly common in the real world.
google results:
"monterey park shooting" = 19.5m
"lunar new year shooting" = 3.4m
"los angeles shooting" = 136k
"los angeles county shooting" = 16.8k
some false positives, obviously, due to PRIOR shootings etc. when restricted to "news" results, however, not much diff:
"monterey park shooting" = 3.4m
"lunar new year shooting" = 110k
"los angeles shooting" = 22.4k
"los angeles county shooting" = 1k
nuff sed! 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
citogenesis; 'nuff sed —Locke Cole • t • c 06:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
don't see how that even applies. article does not, at present, contain "lunar new year", and yet it still outgoogles your "county" by 100-to-1. can't blame the media for picking that up...HERE. 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
That's easy enough to explain: "lunar new year" is a result of media outlets not being constrained by WP:NCE. As to the question I missed earlier: why do u insist on portraying a suburb by which county it sits in? Because it's an error to make the reader think the events unfolded only in Monterey Park, California? In addition to the attempted mass shooting in Alhambra, there was the final encounter and suicide of the suspect in Torrance. Neither of which are in Monterey Park. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
oh-oh, we have bigger problems.
LA is a COUNTRY now!!
Immigration Pettion 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Which tweet did that come from? It's not this one that says they discovered it -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Just because other events happened outside of the first place of shooting does not mean we name it something else other than "Monterey Park." The most significant event was in Monterey Park, and the other locations were of minor importance - Alhambra was where the confrontation was foiled, and Torrance was where the incident ended. As the anon said above, it is widely being referred to as the Monterey Park shooting, and as with Thousand Oaks shooting, or 2017 San Bernardino shooting, we go with the specific city. I don't know why people are proposing outlier recommendations like LA County or Southern California. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm more inclined to leave it at least to Monterey Park shooting since the fatalities happened there The problem is that the entire event took place in multiple places within LA County, not just Monterey Park. And I'm sure as more information comes out about the perpetrator's final moments, the fact that it happened in various localities will become confusing to readers expecting it all to have happened in Monterey Park. Also keep in mind that it was the LA County Sheriff's office that was involved in the earliest stages, as was the LA County board of supervisors. The incident definitely had responses all over LA county, not just Monterey Park. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm surprised by this comment. You've been editing since 2005 so you should know that events like these are centered on the place of the most significant event. Repeating the above: the other locations were of minor importance - Alhambra was where a second attempt was foiled, and Torrance was where the incident ended. As the anon said above, it is widely being referred to as the Monterey Park shooting, and as with Thousand Oaks shooting, or 2017 San Bernardino shooting, we go with the specific city. I don't know why people are proposing outlier recommendations like LA County or Southern California. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
What does my tenure here have to do with... anything? Maybe focus on the subject at hand, and not my history. the other locations were of minor importance - Alhambra was where a second attempt was foiled I guess if you're only writing an article about the exploits of the shooter and not the heroism of the people he was trying to kill, sure, I guess what happened in Alhambra was just totally irrelevant. it is widely being referred to as the Monterey Park shooting It feels like a combination of citogenesis and recentism; we're three days past the event, and the initial shooting was covered significantly because it was unclear if the later events were related until much later. as with Thousand Oaks shooting, or 2017 San Bernardino shooting, we go with the specific city All of the events described in Thousand Oaks shooting occurred within Thousand Oaks, California. 2017 San Bernardino shooting redirects to North Park Elementary School shooting (which is, in case it wasn't clear, not a city)... Do you have any examples of articles where an event described occurred in multiple locations but only the first location is used for the Where of WP:NCE and it isn't a WP:COMMONNAME? —Locke Cole • t • c 17:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
there WAS no "shooting" in alhambra. if u wanted to include that, you'd need to change the rest of the title as well! "LA County Shootings" doesn't even make sense, except insofar as the SUICIDE was also a "shooting".
"Boston Marathon bombing" includes 2 follow-on shootings in Cambridge (one fatal) and a major chase/shootout to and around Watertown, resulting in 2 more deaths. None of these was in Boston, much less *at* the Boston Marathon. Yet no one ever suggested changing the article to "Boston area attacks", iirc, much less "Suffolk and Middlesex Counties, Massachusetts attacks". 2601:19C:527F:A660:343B:4680:EDA7:7B11 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry you don't understand the guidance at WP:NCE, thank you for your valuable feedback on the naming of this article. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
get boston, paris, and atlanta to change all those articles first, then we'll talk. :D 2601:19C:527F:A660:343B:4680:EDA7:7B11 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
All those others are WP:COMMONNAME. It's almost like you're just ignoring the parts of my arguments you don't find convenient... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Correction: I meant to say 2015 San Bernardino attack and not the 2017 one which redirects. Though the point is made: for areas of large population, the year is preferred. As the anon said, we have plenty of places for which we use the generally recognized location for the title of the article. The November 2015 Paris attacks started not in Paris, but in the suburb of Saint-Denis, Seine-Saint-Denis, yet we stick with that title. The 2021 Atlanta spa shootings took place in Atlanta, and in Acworth, Georgia. And so on. - Fuzheado | Talk 22:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
ok, got it. u should have replied earlier (above) when i proposed "greater LA" > "LA county" > "LA". so wilshire, hollywood, ktown etc are LA proper ("boroughs"), covina, monterey park, long beach etc are LA county ("suburbs"), and 1000 oaks, laguna beach, irvine, etc. are "greater LA" ("exurbs"?). got it!
i will agree then that it should read "monterey park" in the title then. with "suburban LA" in the text perhaps.
no need to confuse people with this "county" nonsense. i couldn't even tell you what county manhattan is in -- were there ppl trying to shoehorn that into the 9/11 articles as well? 2601:19C:527F:A660:FD5B:D95F:5A7A:BD41 (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
It probably varies by state. In CA, many major cities lie in <city name> County, e.g. Los Angeles County, and San Diego County. If you're not from that area, people would usually refer to the larger city for simplicity, but it's technically not correct, based both on administrative boundaries and on locals' familiarity. A local can use "Los Angeles" to refer to the proper city, but understands the larger "Los Angeles County"— which can also be called just plain "Los Angeles" too—and they would know many of the county's cities, like Monterey Park, Alhambra, Torrance, etc. —Bagumba (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Monterey Park is a city in its own right, with its own City Hall, fire department, municipal laws, etc etc. It's NOT in Los Angeles the city; it's in Los Angeles the county. Leave it as is! Zedembee (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - Are we officially considering this an WP:RM discussion? What I decide to say next depends on the response to that. Love of Corey (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
    It's a discussion that could lead to a consensus and a final page name? Don't get overly hung up on the process, it's WP:NOTAVOTE and so far the discussion is exposing options that a straight RM would have likely hidden... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
    I'm not seeing any traction for much beyond the existing two alternatives. Los Angeles County is extremely large with a population of 9.3 million. From Los Angeles County: "It is the most populous non–state-level government entity in the United States. Its population is greater than that of 40 individual U.S. states." It makes no sense to call this article by that county name, either by policy or by precedent. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support While mass shootings are common, possibly outside of Texas, it is very rare that there have been more than one mass shooting in any one city.Dogru144 (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
  • If we are seriously considering whether to move the article, we need a formal RM—a notice that there is an ongoing move discussion needs to be on the page for at least seven days.
As Devil's Advocate, I'd like to point out the year was removed from Crimean Bridge explosion after such an RM. Personally, I'm neutral on the matter. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
we need a formal RM I'm not sure why someone would get hung up on the process considering page moves can be performed by any regular editor (notwithstanding page protection). At the end of the day we still operate on consensus. Obligatory WP:NOTAVOTE link again. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment: That's not a great comparison as that is a bridge and this is a city of 60,000. As can be seen above, putting the year in front of the metropolitan region is the most common practice. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to move. The policy arguments against moving are more compelling. No participant objected to creating a redirect at Monterey Park shooting. Valereee (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

2023 Monterey Park shooting → ? – WP:PCM. Please see existing discussion below [above]. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

[Moved below previous discussion. Struck out "below". ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)]
  • Support Monterey Park shooting - This is the only notable shooting in the city's history, and the only shooting in Monterey Park that is covered by Wikipedia. The year is redundant. Love of Corey (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
    The year is redundant. In what way is the year redundant? Regardless, WP:NCE is clear that in the majority of articles the format is when, where and what happened. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Keep the existing name of 2023 Monterey Park shooting. It's clear from the above discussion that there is no consensus for a move, so I'm not even sure why this is being proposed so soon. It has been clearly explained that WP:COMMON, WP:NCE and well-known precedents such as 2017 Las Vegas shooting, 2015 San Bernardino attack, 2019 El Paso shooting, 2009 Fort Hood shooting, 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting, 2019 Virginia Beach shooting, or 1982 Wilkes-Barre shootings where a general municipality is concerned, a year is warranted. – Fuzheado | Talk 03:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
    True, I support this. Other shootings have the year just to add a touch of detail, and it's not long enough to make the title unnecessarily long FlexiHD (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's a long-standing convention to name a shooting after the location where the majority of the carnage occurred. Anecdotally, all of the leading media outlets are using 'Monterey Park Shooting' as the header or category name, and for the benefit of posterity and an encyclopedia tone the year should be added for ease of reference/search later. Why is this even an issue? Zedembee (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support move to Monterey Park shooting. As with Binghamton shootings & Thousand Oaks shooting, it's the well-publicised, only notable shooting there. The year pointlessly lengthens the title. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
    You chose to highlight the only two events on the list of Template:Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_by_deaths that omit the year when a municipality was involved, whereas all the examples I gave from the list (as well as 2021 Boulder shooting) have both the year and the municipality. - Fuzheado | Talk 04:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Close this per WP:NOTBURO, we already have a lengthy discussion above on the page title for this article, there's no need for this forked discussion; proposer clearly doesn't understand what WP:NOTAVOTE says. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
    WP:NCE still enjoys sitewide "guideline" status. As a reminder, WP:LOCALCON is a thing. My support for 2023 Monterey Park shooting still stands, but I would support the more accurate 2023 Los Angeles County shooting as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure how productive RM's are with "?" as a target. Could it not have been narrowed down to at least two or three candidates, if not one?—Bagumba (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Either 2023 Monterey Park shooting or Monterey Park shooting is fine, since that's the WP:COMMONNAME. I prefer the one with the year a slightly bit more since Monterey Park is too broad; if it were something like Monterey Park Lunar New Year shooting, then it doesn't need a year. I oppose options that don't include Monterey Park in the title. Some1 (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support "Monterey Park shooting" • year is superfluous.XavierItzm (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    WP:ILIKEIT doesn't supersede WP:NCE. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:NCE says WP:NOYEAR. Please desist from selective citing of policies.XavierItzm (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
@XavierItzm: You're the one engaging in selective citing, it's almost like you're not even reading what you link to: Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. As this is a judgement call, please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement (emphasis added). What historic perspective is there to be had in just a week? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
The historic perspective is that no other shooting articles called Monterey Park Shooting exist. Therefore, like WP:NCE says: please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement. WP:NCE cannot be used to preempt discussion. XavierItzm (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
As previously stated: it's been a week. That's too little time to be claiming anything historical. WP:NCE also says in its opening definition In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors: When [...] Where [...] What [...] (emphasis added). The historical perspective is an exception that does not apply here. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
It's pretty straight-forward - the very policy you cite (WP:NOYEAR) says The date is not needed when the article pertains to events that are unlikely to recur. However, for high density municipalities like these, shootings are indeed likely to occur. That's why the overwhelming majority of events related to a city/town (such as Monterey Park or larger) have the year as qualifier. I don't understand why we are re-arguing what has been clearly pointed about before the requested move, and for which many examples have been given. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.. And yet you wrote as justification for adding the year: «high chance (or guarantee) of more shootings or violent crime, such that leaving out the year leads to ambiguity and confusion» XavierItzm (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
That would be a misapplication of WP:CRYSTAL. That guideline is about writing articles, not names of articles. This discussion is about naming conventions, and the guidelines explicitly says to examine the future around "events that are unlikely to recur." Therefore, WP:CRYSTAL is not a relevant rebuttal. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
From WP:CRYSTAL: "Wikipedia does not predict the future". Yet your justification for adding the year is «high chance (or guarantee) of more shootings. XavierItzm (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Again: the two words after your quoted sentence are: "All articles..." as it pertains to article content. We are not talking article content, we are talking titles and naming. I don't think further good faith dialogue is likely, so best to agree to disagree. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support "Monterey Park shooting", as there has been no other major shooting with such widespread coverage in Monterey Park, year is not needed. JumbledPasta (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    That is only one aspect of the naming logic. As stated above, most Wikipedia articles about events in municipalities have the year. The guideline states: "The date is not needed when the article pertains to events that are unlikely to recur." But for municipalities, there will always be a high chance (or guarantee) of more shootings or violent crime, such that leaving out the year leads to ambiguity and confusion. See the list that includes Atlanta, San Bernardino, Las Vegas, Aurora, Virginia Beach, Wilkes-Barre, et al. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

There have been many other Monterey Park shootings: 2012, 2015, 2018, 2019 etc. Maybe without Wikipedia articles, but warranting disambiguation nevertheless. WWGB (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Insofar as these nonencyclpaedic incidents have no wiki entries, the argument is irrelevant.XavierItzm (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
This is not a valid rebuttal - the guideline makes no mention about other "wiki entries." It says to consider the "identity of the incident" and "events that are unlikely to recur." Therefore, the context here is of other "incidents" or "events" (and not other "wiki entries" or articles). - Fuzheado | Talk 13:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. Thanks for providing some examples, and why we do include the year for these larger municipalities. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:09, 31 January 2023 (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.

Killer's heritage

Already in the 2023_Monterey_Park_shooting#Perpetrator section. Some1 (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

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.

  • He killed himself with a Chinese state-owned defense corporation Norinco's 7.62×25 mm handgun.

These edits with key information is completely fit the wiki guidance!

--Wildcursive (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

His origin is at 2023_Monterey_Park_shooting#Perpetrator. The computer I'm using was probably made in China. What's the point?—Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, this is just soapboxing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:55, 25 January 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Monterey_Park_shooting/Archive_1&oldid=1145398690"