Talk:1984 New York City Subway shooting/Archive 3

Goetz's demonstrated shooting speed could be added to the article
Shouldn't a statement about Goetz's demonstrated shooting speed be added to the article?

In 2010 Goetz was interviewed and did a shooting demonstration on the inaugural episode of The Biography Channel's documentary show Aftermath with William Shatner. This episode can still be seen on Cable TV. In the shooting demonstration Goetz fires 2 shots to his left and 3 shots to his right and the time from the first shot to the fifth shot is exactly 1.0 seconds (easily measured with cheap electronics). Presumably when he was 25 years younger and under the influence of adrenaline he would have been considerably faster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.140.251 (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The first part of the paragraph describes a simulation done 25 years after the event (who cares?) and the last sentence is unsourced speculation. -- Neil N  talk to me  15:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Neil, 2 things - Some people doubt a person can fire 5 shots accurately at targets in front and back of them in 1 second, but it is easy to understand if you see a demonstration. I did a re-enactment of the 1984 subway draw/shooting on the Aftermath show at 5 targets in front and back of me; the time for all the shots was 1.0 seconds. Instead they aired another similar but not quite as exact demonstration I did on the show because it was more dramatic; again all 5 shots took 1.0 seconds. (I preferred the actual re-enactment because it was technically more accurate, but I don't determine what gets aired.) The last sentence is logical; my belief is the actual time from the first to last shots in the subway was 0.6 - 0.8 seconds. Maybe you should see that Aftermath episode, its still available. 172.162.212.230 (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Bernie Goetz
 * It's still a reenactment made, as you say, to emphasize dramatics. Were any third-party reports published analyzing the show? Any expert commentators on the show who's views we could use? -- Neil N  talk to me  15:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You could be right. Maybe 0.8 seconds is possible with a S&W revolver but not less due to mechanics.172.129.42.52 (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)BG

The re-enactment and then demonstration were not done for dramatic effect and I did not decide what was aired. The re-enactment was cold and professional and I would have preferred that was aired, but the later shooting demonstration conveyed the same 1.0 second shooting time. There was no published 3rd party analysis but anyone replaying the show can measure the shooting time to within 0.2 seconds just using a stopwatch or with real accuracy using a microphone feeding an oscilloscope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.8.147 (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And my main point is that with no critical commentary in reliable sources comparing what was shown on the show to real-life events, there's not much we can add to the article without it being unsourced speculation. -- Neil N  talk to me  01:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr. Goetz, just a friendly suggestion. You may want to consider creating an account here with a pseudonym (or even your real name if you like). Then when you sign, the signature will be your name or pseudonym instead of your physical IP address. That provides you a certain measure of security. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Better wording in beginning section?
The phrase "he was both praised and vilified by the media and public opinion." doesn't seem right. How about "he was both praised and vilified in the media and public opinion."? Or maybe somewhat different wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.42.52 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the perfect correction, to me.Willondon (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

S&W revolver
The article says that Goetz used a S&W model 37 air weight revolver and gives two sources this, both saying a S&W 5 shot .38 special air weight revolver was used. To assume that it is the normal air weight model 37 was a safe move, but ultimately incorrect. Many sources include one key descriptor; the revolver had a hammer shroud. This would then make the revolver a S&W Model 38, the air weight version of the model 49 which is the hammer shrouded version of the model 36 (the model 37 being just an air weight version of the model 36). Here are my two sources: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1985-04-04/news/0290030045_1_goetz-ditchfield-buy-a-gun http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/17/lkl.01.html Also, I do remember reading somewhere that the gun was nickel plated, but could not find the article I read that in. If anyone finds it, it shall help. glm.moulton 14:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The gun was a nickel plated S&W 5 shot .38 special air weight with a hammer shroud. I don't know the model number. BTW, my recommendation for concealed carry or home protection is this model in plain black with the first shot being a standard load. 172.129.16.43 (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Bernie Goetz

Condense paragraph on recent marijuana arrest?
If nobody objects in a few weeks I'm going to condense the detailed paragraph about the recent marijuana arrest, while keeping the sources for those interested in more details. 72.69.11.171 (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)BG

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bernhard Goetz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100122074528/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/archives/news/1996/04/13/1996-04-13_cool_goetz_tells_story_he_go.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1996/04/13/1996-04-13_cool_goetz_tells_story_he_go.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

This should be changed into an incident article
It's not really Bernhard Goetz's biography, even "Activities since the incident" is mostly about the four other persons involved. --Niemti (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a bad suggestion. Its a comprehensive article the way it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.36.83 (talk)
 * I would probably leave it where it is as per point three of WP:BLP1E. -- Neil N  talk to me  02:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Goetz may qualify for a BLP article per that point, but this article is not that article. This is clearly focused much more on the event than the person. support rename and tweaking of article to convert to event. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree and see little difference between this article and John Hinckley, Jr.. -- Neil N  talk to me  15:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree in renaming and tweaking the article accordingly. As for Hinckley, note that the incident he is known for has its own article: Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. So there you have two articles, both incident and bio. In this case, like in most other criminal cases, I believe we just need an incident. And at least as long as we just have one article, it should be about the incident (with some biographic info in it). The incident is clearly more imporant than the person per se here. Is there anyone who has a suggestion to what an incident article should be called? "New York City Subway shootings"? Regards Iselilja (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * support rescoping. The article is about the incident, and this person has little notability aside from the incident. 1984 New York City subway shootings sounds reasonable to me, with Berhard Goetz redirected here. We should probably just start a formal RM.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course the article is centered the about subway shooting. Its taken many years to write this comprehensive article and its now considered the reference on the subject. If its not broke why fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.234.3 (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just suggesting a rename, and slight rescoping, framing it as an event/incident article. A smaller article could be written focused on Goetz' biography if needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll probably have to start a formal RfC before you do that. -- Neil N  talk to me  13:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I support this renaming proposal, as the article isn't mostly about Goetz, but about the incident. Lithistman (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I moved the page. Kylo Ren (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Other guys
This article is about Bernhard Goetz, not about the shooting, or anything else. This material isn't about Goetz: "Barry Allen was convicted for two robberies after the shooting. The first was a 1986 chain snatching in the elevator of the building where he lived. The second arrest, in May 1991, brought him a sentence of three and a half to seven years for probation violation and third-degree robbery. He was released on parole in December 1995.

After a number of minor arrests for petty offenses, Troy Canty was ordered to undergo an 18-month drug treatment program at a rehabilitation center, which he completed in 1989. He was later charged with assault, robbery, and resisting arrest in an altercation with his common-law wife in August 1996 but was not convicted and did not serve time."

Since this material isn't about Goetz I'm gonna delete it. Felsic2 (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

--- That sounds like disingenuous editing from the political left to sanitize the article.

Your first statement is nonsense. However the stuff about Canty's martial troubles is irrelevant and should be deleted.

Whoops .... I see charges on this martial dispute included robbery. If so, this should be included based on the standards in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.5.131 (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how this sanitizes the article (I assume you mean in a politically correct sense). I would go further back and remove from "In May 1985, Ramseur held a gun..." I think it would clean the article up by removing a good chunk of content that reads more like a "What ever happened to..." section than anything that's related to Goetz, the topic of the article. Willondon (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree. This article oughta stay focused on being a biography of Goetz. Felsic2 (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The content of the article was fine, but should be moved to be an WP:EVENT per WP:BLP1E. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Both those Wikipedia guidelines discuss notability to determine whether or not something deserves its own article, not whether they're notable enough for inclusion in another article. All of the stuff listed happened after Goetz' confrontation on the subway, and he was not involved in any of it. I don't understand why it would show up in an article about Goetz. Especially with an article of this size, it shouldn't grow into an unwieldy bush of endless trivia. Willondon (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Disagree::: There was a lot of controversy about the motivation for the shootings. Ramseur being involved in a rape and robbery and fraud is directly relevant as it indicates a pattern or violent criminal conduct that could lead to this little boy being shot by someone in self defense. Someone originally started this article about "Bernard Goetz". Now look at the dumb statement above "This article is about Bernhard Goetz, not about the shooting, or anything else. This material isn't about Goetz". This was obviously written by a dishonest or careless at best writer. The article is about Bernhard Goetz and everything related to the subway shooting. It is recognized as an authoritative article on the subject and should not be casually edited by disingenuous people or people unfamiliar with the topic. The statement "this article shouldn't grow into an unwieldy bush of endless trivia" might have merit but not in this case. A lot of media trivia was deleted. Basically everything else in the article is relevant and is there for a reason and should be included. Only writers unfamiliar with the history of the case, or biased writers, would want to delete material from the present article.  This section reminds me of the attempt last year to gut this recognized informative article by breaking it up into separate articles. If its not broke don't fix it. The article as written is the most informative article by far to serious readers and probably should not be modified by casual writers as is suggested above.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.5.131 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * See the title of the article: "Bernhard Goetz". That's the topic. Unless Goetz was involved in later crimes committed by his victims then it's hard to understand why we'd include them except to attack them. WP:BLP applies to them. They are not notable people. I am going to delete the material again on BLP grounds. Per WP:BLP, no one should restore the material until there's a consensus for inclusion. Felsic2 (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)




 * When you say "directly relevant as it indicates a pattern or violent criminal conduct", I understand now what you mean about political sanitizing. My objection is that it all happened way after the subway incident, doesn't involve Goetz at all, and Goetz couldn't have known this future fate at the time of the shooting. Willondon (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thats nonsense. So "Barry Allen was convicted for two robberies after the shooting." is not relevant to the article? Anything the boys do after the incident isn't relevant because Goetz didn't know about it and wasn't involved in it? Thats typical biased left wing censorship, although others do it too. If Goetz did something violent before or after the incident would it be    relevant? If only the train ride is what its about, Goetz does a shooting demonstration on the link: Biography with William Shatner http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1702034/ There was a link but it wasn't working so I will fix it. Unless someone sees the shooting demo they don't understand the shooting. The shooting demo is consistent with the Mark Lesly book and the article too. Someone should post a video of Goetz with a gun on this show.

Also Willondon, I think you are acting in complicity with Felsic2 to dishonestly edit this article. If you continue I will request administrator attention. I'm going to restore the stuff on the Allen robberies and Canty drug rehab but leave out the maritial stuff.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.60.186 (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've not had any communication with Felsic2 before this, or outside what you see here on this talk page. Cease with your unfounded accusations, and assume good faith. You are assuming others' motives and jumping to conclusions. It makes you look paranoid and foolish. And please don't waste administrators' time with this nonsense. Willondon (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't want to edit war, but there's no consens for this material. Since it concerns BLP, I'll keep deleting it. Felsic2 (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Until and unless this article is changed to "Bernhard Goetz subway shooting", we will continue to remove content which is not about Bernhard Goetz, according to our rules regarding biographies of living people. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Which I think we clearly should, per WP:SINGLEEVENT. (Although Goetz may be notable enough for a stand alone article, most of the content of this article doesn't belong in his BLP) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Please also see WP:NPF: "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." --Neil N  talk to me 15:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You are all talking nonsense and are either ignorant of the subject or biased. This is a comprehensive article that includes all significant material related to the subway shooting or B. Goetz. The "boys" criminal conduct is relevant to the article as is Goetz's. Will restore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.60.186 (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "You are all" indicates you know you are editing against consensus. Please do not edit war, especially with contentious BLP material. --Neil N  talk to me 14:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

NeilN - I loath childish edit wars. The article is about Goetz, primarily focusing on the subway shooting of course. Look at the George Zimmerman Wiki article for example. It contains both details of the Martin shooting and about involved people deemed to be relevant. Should the material about Matthew Aspersion be deleted because its not part of the Zimmerman shooting? The Goetz article deleted material directly reflects on the credibility of those shot by Goetz. If Ramseur falsely reports to police that two men hired by Goetz had kidnapped and attempted to kill him, and also participates in a rape/robbery, doesn't that reflect on his credibility? If Barry Allen is a career thief, isn't that relevant? Doesn't that suggest Goetz's version that he was being robbed is correct? In my opinion most of the comments about deleting the "victims" criminal conduct are ignorant or in bad faith. Please brush up on this article/subject before jumping to conclusions, and let me know what you think. If I don't hear from you in a few days I'll restore the deleted material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.60.186 (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Zimmerman's article is not solely about the Martin shooting. It is about Zimmerman's life and the Aspersion events directly involved Zimmerman. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Break
So here is where I come in and propose that this page actually be moved to 1984 New York City Subway shooting, or split into two articles so this page doesn't look like a coatrack on the shooting. This way, the content above can be re-added if possible. Anyone agree or disagree? Kylo Ren (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have the split article here. I'll move it now. Feel free to revert if you disagree with me. Also, I realize that people may disagree with me, but this article is more about the shooting, and the perpetrator has his own section (not his own article) per WP:BLP1E. Kylo Ren (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"Goetz's activities since the incident"
Now that the article has been shifted to focus on the incident rather than the person, the section on Goetz's life after the shooting seems overly detailed. Squirrel rescue, vegetarianism, pot legalization - these all seem irrelevant to the shooting. The stuff related to the shooting, like interivews and recreations, seem relevant. I am incliened to reduce the material that isn't about the shooting. Felsic2 (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I reverted a number of major changes to the article done without any discussion. Among other things, it's standard to have mini-bios of the perpetrators and (sometimes) victims in articles on crimes/shootings. Felsic2 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The Perpetrator section should be combined with Goetz's activities section. Mini-bios of the victims would be appropriate, particularly in an article like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.212.93 (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There was duplicated material, which doesn't need to be in both the intro and the 'perpetrator' section. Yes, short bios of the victims would be appropriate as well. Felsic2 (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Copying from Time magazine
This edit appears to be almost a direct copy from Time magazine. While short excerpts, clearly indicated as quotations, are fine, this is too big a chunk to use, and it's not even marked as being copied. See Copying text from other sources. Felsic2 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Just marked this section as being copied. Yes its rather long but probably only four short sentences could be delated, and its probably worth keeping them to keep the flavor of the article. As-is, its a good example of 1985 media reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.212.93 (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's still wrong to copy from Time magazine though. That's called plagiarism. I suggest reading the Wiki policy on copyright violations. epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't you understand what putting the exact copy of the Time Magazine shooting description was about? Its a great example of media misinformation. Anyone familiar with the shooting facts knows the Time Magazine description is BS and deliberately misleading. It is written as if this shooting description is from Goetz .... it starts with "According to Goetz". For example wherever did they get the statement from "He assumed a combat stance, gripping the revolver with both hands"? The article as it is written now is seriously degraded. How can you call it plagiarism when a source is quoted exactly for the purpose of showing their dishonest reporting? Clearly you do not understand what is going on here in terms of the article and shooting details. It would be wrong to imply Time Magazine was doing grossly inaccurate reporting of the shooting and not quote them exactly. 207.237.87.163 (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)BG


 * According to Goetz, he is providing a first person perspective of what is going on. However, you didn't put quotes around this first person perspective to indicate that it is a quote. epicgenius (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

"According to Goetz, he is providing "? From Time Magazine? According to Goetz he shot holding the pistol with both hands? I don't know what you mean. Please elaborate.207.237.87.163 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Heading
Why is Goetz's biography under the Victim section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.193.213 (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone just changed that. I changed it back. Felsic2 (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1984 New York City Subway shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150118044924/http://gothamist.com/2015/01/01/nyc_murder_rate_drops_to_new_histor.php to http://gothamist.com/2015/01/01/nyc_murder_rate_drops_to_new_histor.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Many links in article need to be redone
A few years ago the article was renamed and now the references all screwed up. What was once a good article is now a mess concerning the references. The article probably should be reverted to the version prior to be renamed "1984 New York City Subway shooting" and modifications could be made after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.87.163 (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Shooting Car in service on 4.jpg

Contemporary Pic of 2 Train
These exist. Lets use one from the period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.17.241 (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, inside and outside pics with graffiti. Inside pic is more important.

Mass shooting?
How in the world did this article go from being a biographical article on Mr. Goetz to a horribly NPOV page on a "mass shooting"!? A quick perusal of the wiki on "mass shooting" reveals why such a label is problematic for the incidents herein described. Ignoring the morality and the legality of the incident, there was nothing indiscriminate about what took place; the "victims" were selected for very specific reasons, whether a particular editor agrees with the reasons or not. Furthermore, while I don't think anyone would suggest a jury verdict is the last word, it certainly casts some doubt on labeling the four men who were shot "victims."24.236.147.114 (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The article changed focus as the result of a discussion on this page. See.
 * The Wikipedia article says "A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence." It certainly meets that definition.
 * The incident was famous because Goetz shot four men, not because Goetz was mugged by four men. It is notable as a shooting rather than a mugging.
 * The jury verdict is the last word until there's some other verdict that's more determinative. We certainly can't replace the jury's judgement of the facts with our own. Felsic2 (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I hope you see that your points are contradictory. If the jury's judgment is as valuable as you suggest, then they weren't "victims" at all. Even cherry-picking the most liberal definition it still fails.66.227.220.41 (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Felsic2, I see the discussion here and that you were originally a proponent of keeping the article about BG. My question was meant as a rhetorical device to demonstrate how far afield the article has gone - not to suggest that the change was made in secret. 24.236.147.114 (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

From what I gather Felsic2 is part of a group that defines a "mass shooting" as any shooting where 4 or more are shot. This seems POV. They are using a definition they came up with, call it reasonable, and then label this incident a mass shooting and Goetz the "perpetrator". Seems highly biased and would be called out as BS if it were in any magazine article.


 * @24.236.147.114: I think you meant "POV" rather than "NPOV" since this is a NPOV page. The way it was before, it was an article on the perpetrator slanted heavily toward the shooting (violation of NPOV). Now, it is rightly at the title about the shooting, with the perpetrator's actions being neatly summarized in a little subsection. epicgenius (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence.": If a gang of 4 was shot while robbing a bank, would they be called " multiple victims of gun violence"? 209.122.195.63 (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)BG

Complete insanity. Armed attackers called victims. Self-defense a mass shooting. Truly clown world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.17.241 (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC) The problem started when a small group of Wiki editors changed the original article from a biography into one about "a mass shooting". Its obvious they don't care about the article but its not worth fighting. At least the Incident/Sequence of Shots section is still intact.

Wiki has mostly great articles although not infrequently biased, dishonest, manipulative writers (frequently leftists) corrupt politically sensitive articles. A basically good system can't be better than the people in it. Dishonest people often know how to break the spirit of Wiki rules against biased writing. Freedom often isn't free and perhaps Top Wiki management should be more on guard for biased administrators. If it were put to an honest jury they would probably decide the characterization "Mass shooting" is inappropriate. A small group of writers acting in concert can usually get away with adding their biases to a Wiki article. ````BG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.58.4 (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

A problem with Wiki in political articles is cliques of biased editors gang up to deceive or misrepresent facts. Many of these editors have biased backgrounds.209.150.58.4 (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)BG

The article has a biased and inaccurate tone.
Under the incident section, it repeatedly calls the four men "youths", the tone implies they were kids or minors when they were not. All four of them were grown adults and either 18 or older.

The dictionary definition for "youths" is the following:

plural noun: youths

the period between childhood and adult age.

All four men were adults and legally so as well. The tone is biased against Bernhard Goetz and sympathetic to his would be robbers. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:7570:92D1:2565:98E9 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Reply: True. The misleading words "kids" and "youths" and "boys" were used at the time by unethical media and a politically influenced corrupt legal establishment. But the terms "thugs" or "muggers" would be considered biased by some. The term "passengers" is also inappropriate. Neutral wording without implications seems unusually important in this type of article. Perhaps "young men" would be a better term. Other suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.58.4 (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Done, wording modified unless an exact quote.

A finding by the Court of Appeals was contradicted at trial by all credible eyewitness testimony
Nov. 9 edits: Note the finding of the Court of Appeals states: "After Goetz briefly surveyed the scene around him, he fired another shot at Cabey, who then was sitting on the end bench of the car." This is contradicted by all credible eyewitness testimony at the criminal trial, all whom stated all shots happened in rapid succession ("about a second") with no pause between shots. If the Court of Appeals finding (by a political judge who was later disbarred) is to be used as reference for facts to justify re-edits of this article please discuss it in this section. A court finding is just a preliminary opinion and a trial is used to determine facts. A convenient source of sworn eyewitness testimony is the book "Subway Gunman" written by a juror using the criminal trial transcript, available cheap on Ebay, Amazon is more expensive.209.150.58.4 (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)BG

New media onslaught on Goetz?
Sorry for this long post but it makes a point. These are actual excerpts from the recent Linguistic Society of America public letter.

[I'm removing the google-form as well. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)]

A "Media Manipulation" section could be added to this article. It could result in better articles.



Dear Linguistic Society of America,

This is an open letter by members of the linguistics community calling for the removal of Dr. Steven Pinker from both our list of distinguished academic fellows and our list of media experts. We, the undersigned, believe that Dr. Pinker’s behavior as a public academic is not befitting of a representative of our professional organization, that the LSA’s own stated goals make such a conclusion inevitable, and that the LSA should publicly reaffirm its position and distance itself from Dr. Pinker. Induction into the list of LSA fellows is one of the highest signals of prestige in the linguistic community. Often, fellows are seen as the first line of academic linguistic authority, and trustworthy sources of linguistic knowledge. Lay people and members of the press reach out to fellows and media experts for official statements. We feel that fellows therefore have a responsibility that comes with the honor, credibility, and visibility allotted them by their distinguished appointment. Dr. Pinker does not live up to this standard.



3. Pinker (2011:107) provides another example of Dr. Pinker downplaying actual violence in a casual manner: “[I]n 1984, Bernhard Goetz, a mild-mannered engineer, became a folk hero for shooting four young muggers in a New York subway car.”---Bernhard Goetz shot four Black teenagers for saying “Give me five dollars.” (whether it was an attempted mugging is disputed). Goetz, Pinker’s mild-mannered engineer, described the situation after the first four shots as follows: “I immediately looked at the first two to make sure they were ‘taken care of,’ and then attempted to shoot Cabey again in the stomach, but the gun was empty.” 18 months prior, the same “mild-mannered engineer” had said "The only way we're going to clean up this street is to get rid of the sp*cs and n*****s", according to his neighbor. Once again, the language Dr. Pinker employs in calling this person “mild-mannered” illustrates his tendency to downplay very real violence.

Sincerely, The Linguistics Community

[List of signatories REMOVED; web-site address for others to sign the petition also taken out. Is a Wikipedia TALK page really supposed to be used as an advertisement for recruiting academics who want to sign petitions against another academic (Steven Pinker, in this case), because of his published opinion about the subject of the article?] HandsomeMrToad (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

SYNTH
IP editor, you cannot add notes to the article pointing out what you view as inconsistencies in the evidence. You must cite reliable sources that make that claim, not matter how obvious it might seem to you. Again, I appreciate you working on this article, but adding your own take/research about a topic is against Wikipedia's rules.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, on one level you could be correct. But adding consistencies adds to an article. Both paragraphs should be treated differently. Will do new edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.58.4 (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Edits done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.58.4 (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

In popular culture section
Lots of questionable inclusions here - at least two of the Law & Order episodes have nothing at all in common with the Goetz case unless every fictional depiction of a white person shooting a black person is presumed to be inspired by Goetz. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The "In Popular Culture" section is either irrelevant, self-promoting, or poor quality and should be deleted. Any objections?


 * Someone deleted it, then someone reverted it to where it was two years ago with all the inherent problems.


 * Many of the cited examples don't resemble anything about the Goetz case at all and are just "fictional depictions of shootings with some kind of racial element."
 * A lot of the cited examples are actually re-enactments of the subway shooting scene from the 1974 movie Death Wish. It's pretty clear that many people, including filmmakers such as Todd Phillips, have confused that movie with the Goetz case and think they are commenting on the latter when they are really doing nearly shot-for-shot recreations of the former. Goetz shot people who he had at least some plausible claim were trying to rob him - if you think he was trigger-happy and misinterpreting the situation, that's fine, but there's no question they were crowded around him, asking him for money, and carrying screwdrivers. In addition to the question of proximity and self-defense, the other issue in Goetz was that he was firing inside a crowded train car full of many innocent bystanders. All the fictional depictions where the car is nearly abandoned, the shooter is observing the targets from the other end of the car, and the shooter then pursues the people who have offended him through the station are re-enacting Death Wish and not the key elements of Goetz. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * An example that does belong in this section is a Doonesbury comic strip arc in which Mike Doonesbury is riding the subway and a black youth asks him for a cigarette. Bystanders mistakenly escalate and exaggerate the situation and Mike makes the papers as the "Subway Avenger". This appeared a few months after the Goetz shooting and was clearly referring to it. Unfortunately, it would take me a while to find the boxes where I keep my Doonesbury books to supply the actual dates of the strips. PatConolly (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Major Changes Justification
I have to start by saying I think there are a lot of issues with this article.

First, there are some factual claims that aren't offered with a source, and, worse, some factual claims that aren't well supported by the source they are offered with. Example: "Jurors stated that Goetz shooting Cabey twice was a key factor in their decision. " (link substituted for reference)—the referenced article only quotes one juror, and '''she doesn't even say that Cabey was shot twice. Instead, she says, "I mean Mr. Goetz came over to him again and he asked him, 'Oy, you look O.K.' So he shot it again." ''' (emphasis added to "it").

Second, I think it often has synth issues (like when an excerpt from Goetz's website is provided as a stand-in for his trial testimony, on the unsourced theory that it's "similar") and undue-weight issues. But, on the more basic level, the article timeline jumps around, and its sections aren't particularly focused.. For example, until this edit (which I made), the "here's another" quotation was off-handedly referenced by an excerpt of Goetz's website, but it hadn't been mentioned in the article prior to that excerpt. Similarly, in this version, there's a section on the "here's another" statement that discusses that statement's significance to Goetz's self-defense claim at trial, but the next section is on Goetz's surrender to police custody. But the statement wasn't made until Goetz was in police custody, and obviously the trial happened long after that. Even the opening paragraph of the section—on context—is taking from Goetz's police interview, and really goes into his justification. Finally, again just as an example of these issues, I noted that one paragraph in the grand-jury section in that version leads with a statement about the general public's reaction.

I've made a fairly major edit to the article that I think addresses a few of these issues. I've removed some statements that I think are unrelated or undue weight (like mentioning the author of the court of appeals decision was later indicted), and I've added fact tags to other claims, but, mostly, I've just tried to organize the article. Importantly, I think the article's sections should lay out what happened in roughly chronological order as simply as possible. It doesn't need to, for example, jump into details as to the various theories as to what happened while doing this, so I've moved the discussion of those theories to the end (which is particularly appropriate since the various theories range in time as far as their origin).--50.234.234.126 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Most of your changes make the article read better, but putting the shooting description section at the end of this long article is so nonsensical it makes me question your good faith. And your edits deleted some relevant material, which the justified other deletions. Deleting the Context And Background section eliminates the politics behind the prosecution, something of interest to savvy readers. Cuomo wasn't a leading democratic candidate for the democratic presidential nomination, he was THE leading democratic candidate. At the time Goetz's repeated statements about "NY government is incompetent, inept, and corrupt" received widespread positive national coverage (Goetz had significantly more national name recognition than Cuomo)and probably let to the end of Cuomo's campaign, a lesser known candidate Mike Dukakis got the nomination instead. Deleting the statements about Judge Wachtler's integrity reflects on the competence and possible political motivation for the Reasonable Man Standard, written specifically for this case, and possible prosecutorial abuse ala Kyle Rittenhouse. And the deletion of "Contradictory evidence that all four were shot only once was withheld from the public" eliminates apparent prosecutorial misconduct similar to the Duke Lacrosse case. I'm busy and will address these limited items in a few weeks when the edits have have run their course. Again most of your edits were positive but lets not eliminate juicy relevant items that inform readers. 209.150.58.4 (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Another interesting thing you might not be aware of: Although 15 - 20 reporters always attended the Bronx trial there was almost no coverage of Goetz's sworn testimony. Don't you find that odd? All kinds other witness testimony was extensively covered. Its like if Lee Harvey Oswald had lived and made a sworn statement about the Kennedy shooting, and most of the MSM ignored and chose not to cover that! Even if the statement was thought to be nonsense it still should have covered. There used to be link in the Wiki article many years ago to Goetz's Bronx testimony describing the shooting sequence similar Goetz's statement .... I think it was in the NY Daily News or NY Post, but that link was lost when the article was rewritten many years ago. That newspaper story and link can no longer be found by googling, and possibly the only way to find it is at a NY public library and asking for the NY Daily News and NY Post papers on the dates of the civil trial. Probably a similar section to the "Prosecutor Nifong's actions / Possible political motivation" section of the Duke lacrosse case should be added to this article to clean things up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.58.4 (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * So a lot to respond to. First, the section on the various "theories" are really just that—a discussion of various theories developed after the fact. A lot of them are not chronological—they include a 1985 theory and a statement from Goetz's modern website (which is said to be similar to his trial explanation—a WP:SYNTH issue; also: there are citations added to this quotation, which is problematic: the in-line references are not from the source—I'm removing those now). Further underscoring this: At least one of the theories is presented as clearly factually wrong. Separately, I also think these theories tend to the undue weight side—is the subsection on a Time Magazine theory really necessary? That said, while I think it all needs to be condensed and has encyclopedic issues, I can see why you think the theories should go higher, so I've gone ahead and changed that.

"is the subsection on a Time Magazine theory really necessary?" Absolutely. Back then MSM like Time Magazine formed public opinion and defined reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.58.4 (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Second, and more critically, a lot of what you're suggesting is original research. I deleted the Cuomo sentence because the relevance of the shooting to Cuomo's case wasn't explicit or cited, and even in your comment above, it seems like this is your own analysis (the shooting "probably let to the end of Cuomo's campaign"). Even if you have a reliable source for Cuomo's front-runner status—that alone is not enough, the relevance to this article/subject has to be supported by a reliable source—otherwise you're just using implication to traffic in uncited information . Same goes for your comments regarding Judge Wachtler: Has a legitimate source actually tied Watchler's bribery-related conduct to this case or the reasonableness standard? (Extremely unlikely, since the decision was a unanimous opinion, and I'd also note that several states still have declined to adopt the Model Penal Codes' subjective-only standard.)--96.94.213.161 (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The article reads much better now back to the original chronological order, except for the SHOOTER subsection. Suggest the SHOOTER section be moved .... where? And probably something could be added about controversy about the reasonable man standard and possible political motivation for the unprecedented prosecution. One prosecutor with an unlimited budget was assigned to just the Goetz case for one and a half years. Its safe to say this case was very political. 209.150.58.4 (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This article would be better off without the SHOOTER section. Using other articles for example, Kenosha unrest shooting has an early link to Kyle Rittenhouse. This webpage should link to like that to a separate wiki page on Bernhard Goetz. The original article was "Bernhard Goetz". 209.150.58.4 (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Goetz is known mainly for his role in connection with the shooting, so a separate article about him would not be appropriate per WP:BLP1E. This is why the page about Goetz was renamed in the first place (the article talks almost exclusively about the shooting, rather than about Goetz himself). – Epicgenius (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also your marking the section "Cabey hit by the fourth shot" as "original research?" is unwarranted. Many years ago when this section was written it was extensively discussed in this Talk section for more than a week, and led to an important Wiki ruling that "significant" sources can be used as references in addition to the so called "reliable" sources. (Note the Time Magazine shooting version you suggested deleting more than qualifies a "reliable" source.) Of course in the "Cabey hit by the fourth shot" section it would be desirable to restore the media link (NY Daily News) about Goetz's April 13, 1996 Bronx trial testimony. There obviously was some media coverage about Goetz's testimony but this seems to have oddly disappeared ..... maybe you can dig it up. Instead of the "original research?" notation this section should instead have after the first sentence a notation similar to "dead link" or "missing link". Food for thought. 209.150.58.4 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

209.150.58.4 (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It's the "similar" comment that I'm flagging as OR—not whether Cabey was hit. That is, it appears that an editor has assessed Goetz's website as being similar to the description he gave in court—there's no reliable source that says those two accounts are similar. That's a WP:SYNTH issue.
 * 2) As to the objective-reasonableness standard, I'm not sure a separate section would be worth it; the kind of discussion you're suggesting would seem to be more fitting on the People v. Goetz page, if you can find reliable sources disputing the merits of the decision. But again, this type of information has to come from reliable sources. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC) (Clarification: I have just created an account because I am moving around a lot, and my IP address changes quite a bit. I am the same editor as who started this section.)
 * The People v Goetz page is rather mediocre, basically one person's opinion in a Wiki article. It even took some effort to get the author to agree to a link to the actual court decision. Not worth getting involved. Bad cases and political cases make bad law. Of course there are sources disputing the merits, reasonableness isn't even well defined and there is obvious ignorance of adrenaline effects, requiring a victim to act reasonably when his opponents do not. When victim doesn't know if he actually fired a shot? 209.150.58.4 (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you dig up a link to the NY Daily News article on about April 13? Might have to get a Daily News subscription. If not I could in 7 - 10 days. That should straighten some things out in the shooting sequence/timing section. Whats "there's no reliable source that says those two accounts are similar"? Of course they're not the same. The SEQUENCE is similar. This whole section is about sequence and timing. That helps determine how the shooting went down. Goetz's website statement about the shooting is a significant source with regards to the sequence and timing, It belongs in the article, in the shooting description. The Daily News article about Goetz's sequence testimony of course should be included too. In the meantime I did some minor changes to address your issues.
 * Can you dig up a link to the NY Daily News article on about April 13? - Sorry to butt in here, but you mean this Daily News article? Or this one from April 12? – Epicgenius (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good catches but neither article is the one. It might require digging in the newspapers at the NY public library around those dates if it can't be found in old Wiki links, perhaps it's in NY Newsday or NY Post. I'll get to it. 209.150.58.4 (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

"Of course there are sources disputing the merits, reasonableness isn't even well defined and there is obvious ignorance of adrenaline effects, requiring a victim to act reasonably when his opponents do not." And those sources might be included, but, again, you're trying to work by implication here: To include information about the chief writer's misconduct, you have to have a source tying that misconduct to the decision. And your analysis of what "bad law" is seems entirely subjective—to my knowledge, it is still the case that a majority of states require objective reasonableness in self-defense cases.

Now that you've removed "similar," I think the account reads better: Before, the problem was that it was your analysis that led to the conclusion that the two accounts were similar. That's original research. That said, why aren't we just relying on what Goetz said at trial, rather than what he wrote years later for a campaign website?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * "Why aren't we just relying on what Goetz said at trial?" Because the MSM ignored Goetz's testimony at the Bronx trial about the shooting sequence/details ... instead they covered details of Goetz's racial testimony and 2 OTHER incidents when he drew a gun! Probably Goetz's testimony about shooting sequence/details can't be  found on the internet or in NY public library records of NYC newspapers, I looked plenty. The way it looks now the only probable way to get Goetz's April 12, 1996 testimony about shooting details is to get a trial transcript covering April 12 at Bronx Supreme Court. I wish someone else would do the hassle of digging this up but if nobody else will I should be able to get to it by the end of the month.
 * On a separate subject, bad cases make bad law because laws should be written based on cases where the facts are clear. The NY reasonable man standard was written for this case when the facts were murky at best, and the relevant indictment according to one source (case judge) was even based on "apparent perjury". 209.150.58.4 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, the "bad cases make bad law" statement appears to be your opinion; this is an NPOV and OR issue. I'd also point out that the question of the reasonable man standard—that is, whether instructions to the grand jury were accurate—didn't depend on the facts in this case, so the clarity of the facts wouldn't matter to that question.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * "bad cases make bad law" is an old saying, not that it matters because its not in the article. Later instructions to the grand jury had nothing to do about the writing the reasonable man standard. The standard was based on a limited finding of fact by the NY Supreme Court which stressed they did not purport to reach any conclusions or holding as to exactly what transpired. No point in discussing this tangential issue in this article. The issue now is to get a source of Goetz's Bronx testimony about shooting details. All I could find about this on the internet so far is discussion of race issues and other incidents. 50.122.123.163 (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of what you're saying—for example about later cases having nothing to do with the case—just isn't correct, but if we agree that characterizing the case as bad law wouldn't belong in the article, then we're good. I thought you were suggesting that the bribery charge or some similar claim should be included to cast doubt on the propriety of the case, which certainly wouldn't be appropriate absent a reliable source.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)