Talk:1984 New York City Subway shooting/Archive 4

NPOV Issues
A lot of the NPOV issues are discussed above or explicitly identified in the article, but I think it's worth creating a new talk-page section to discuss them. My two chief concerns with the article are: I've tried to address a few NPOV issues already, as detailed above, and I'm confident we can all make progress towards a more neutral article.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) A variety of synth issues that, collectively, have a single POV (for example, the treatment of the panhandling explanation, including the comment that it was "discredited", even though, in the same paragraph, it's admitted that there was a dispute over whether the supposedly discrediting evidence actually discredited that story).
 * 2) An over-emphasis on explaining the timing of the shots. I think this over-emphasis wrongly makes the controversy over the shootings appear to be solely based on the timing of the shots, which, while certainly a component of contemporary dispute, is really secondary to the overall question of whether Goetz's racist motivations contributed to or even ultimately resulted in the shooting.
 * 3) An under-emphasis on that overall question, despite it being the enduring controversy.


 * No disagreement on anything except that "there is an over-emphasis on the timing of shots." The sequence and timing of shots is fundamental to how Cabey was shot, a key issue in the article. 209.150.58.4 (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I've modified that point slightly. I also think generally this is something that could be stated in a paragraph rather than in several subsections—it sounds, at least, like it is relatively clear what happened, at least some of the theories presented are also presented as inconsistent with the facts and discredited, so why is each theory presented in the section covering what happened? Shouldn't that go in a media section?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's too much information for one paragraph. If you look at all the sources its not clear to many what happened although it might be clear to you. There are/were 2 major hotly contested issues in the 1984 subway shooting: (1) Whether or not an attempted robbery was taking place. (2) Exactly what happened during the shooting, which the sequence and timing of shots sections address. Whether Cabey was shot on the 4th shot, 5th shot, or shot twice is crucial to this article. 209.150.58.4 (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That first issue is, comparatively, given very little attention, although I'd also suggest that a third controversy (and the enduring one) was the reasonableness of using deadly force—that's the one still written about when the case gets brought up today. And again, there are subsections that describe theories that the subsections themselves discredit—clearly, for example, Cabey wasn't hit by two shots. Also—the only really pertinent issue with your second point of contention is whether Goetz paused before shooting Cabey—Goetz originally said he did, but the vast majority of trial witnesses said they hadn't heard a pause in the shooting. Otherwise, it's of little significance whether Cabey was shot by the fourth or fifth bullet. I can't work on WP anymore today, but next week I'll try to draft a compromise condensed version. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think the reasonableness of using deadly force in the first place is inadequately covered, just add more.
 * Minor detail - nobody suggested Wachtler & bribery.
 * Its a huge issue if Cabey was shot on the 4th or 5th shots or even shot twice, this was fiercely debated at the criminal trial and in the media, and thats why its in the article.
 * There are very many sources discussing the reasonableness of using deadly force based solely on Cabey being shot twice. Thats what the "reasonable man" ruling is primarily about, not so much about the reasonableness of shooting in the first place, but the reasonableness of the last shot: shooting Cabey once or twice with the words "You don't look so bad, here's another." Try googling: "Goetz you don't look so bad". Most media sources will say Cabey was shot twice, and for more than a year after the shooting probably the only source that said Cabey was shot once is:
 * https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/02/28/Goetz-to-victim-You-dont-look-so-bad-Heres-another/6427478414800/
 * If you think its relatively clear what happened, which shooting version do you think happened? Should the other shooting versions be deleted? Remember many readers come to this article believing Cabey was shot twice.
 * A primary goal of this article is to report and clarify what happened, something sorely wanting in the MSM. 209.150.58.4 (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a potentially recurring issue with a few of the edit disputes here is that they run amok of WP:SYNTH. It doesn't matter what I think happened, and I'd even hesitate to say something like "A primary goal of this article is to report and clarify what happened." The primary goal of any Wikipedia article is to reflect what reliable sources say about an issue. If, for example, it's known via modern reliable sources that Cabey was shot only once, then the "theory" that Cabey was shot twice shouldn't be presented as a potential fact—instead, even if dated reliable sources reported as such; if anything, it can be presented as a fact the media initially reported, but that's it. Relatedly, for example, the analysis that the medical evidence contradicted one witness's claim that Goetz was shot in the stomach is an example of a WP:SYNTH issue: the source cited did not explicitly say that the medical evidence contradicted the witness's testimony; clearly, an editor has tried to "put two and two together" and conclude that there was a contradiction—that's original research.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "Clearly original research" - please see ref "Subway Gunman" pages 306 & 307. What else makes you dispute the neutrality of this article? 209.150.58.4 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If there are other sources that support a claim, then those need to be cited with the claim. As I stated, the source cited (which I believe was a court opinion? can go back in the history and check) did not support the "contradiction" claim. A WP:Synth issue emerges when you take different information from two different sources and combine them to make a conclusion.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The source "Subway Gunman" is only one source and it states on pages 306 & 307 that the medical evidence contradicted the witness's testimony (both Goetz and Boucher). Suggest you read it, or at least those 2 pages ... it's probably the biggest source in the article, referred to most frequently. The links in this article were made into a mess several years ago when the article was switched from "Bernhard Goetz" to "1984 Subway Shooting". Not my doing. 209.150.58.4 (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

This was the statement as it appeared in the article:
 * At trial, one witness testified that Goetz approached to within "two to three feet" of a seated Cabey, then demonstrated how Goetz stood directly in front of Cabey and fired downward shooting Cabey in the stomach, a description that matched Goetz's published statements,1,2 but contradicted medical evidence that Cabey was shot once in the left side.3

Only the third reference was offered in support of the contradiction claim, and that third reference was a link to the appellate court opinion, which obviously did not support the contradiction claim. That said, now that you mention that the book is the principle source in the article ... I have some more concerns. I'm not sure a book by a juror in the trial should be what's principally relied on. Is there any other source that says that Goetz couldn't have shot from above (or at his stomach) because the bullet went through Cabey's left side? I cannot currently find anything.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Is another source needed? The book "Subway Gunman" is probably the best source because the book is mostly just a rehash of detailed criminal trial testimony taken directly from the court transcript.


 * I'll correct the link in the article and then revert the original statement. Your edits had some improvements but in balance significantly degrade the article. You've deleted Goetz's description of the shooting from his website .... its a significant source with the most detailed description of the shooting. The only detailed description of the shooting you left is "Time Magazine's theory (April 8, 1985)" which is discredited but should probably still be in the article as an example bad media reporting. The "Sequence and Timing of Shots: section should be restored. The article is titled "1984 Subway Shooting". It should be primarily about the shooting, with the details to describe the shooting, and not about societies reaction, legal aftermath, and songs about the incident. Reconsider your edits that delete details of the shooting since they greatly reduce the informative nature of this article. Is that what you want? 209.150.58.4 (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You're mistaken, Goetz's description is still there—but we do need to properly contextualize that the account was written decades after the fact in the context of his run for political office.
 * Also I strongly disagree about the balance of the article. Perhaps we can go to a 3rd party for resolution of that issue.
 * My biggest concern—as noted above—is that the prior version of the article directed readers towards a conclusion and contained original research. Those issues have been reduced, but not eliminated. I also think there's still some (though fewer) issues of undue weight in the article; I'm surprised that I just inserted the first source on the controversy of whether Goetz had shot two of the men in the back (since the medical examiner said the bullets had travelled from their backs to their fronts).
 * I'm not sure what you mean by correcting the link–unless you mean the book should have been cited instead of the court opinion. As I asked above, is there any source besides for a book by one of the jurors that includes that "contradicted" statement?
 * I also think you've maybe misnoticed how much content I've actually removed. Where there were previously discussions of trial testimony that were in the section on the shooting, I've moved those to the criminal trial section—they're all still there. (In certain cases, I removed duplicate information.) --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to go to WP:3O, if you'd like, but I think we should try to narrow down what the exact disputes are.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * 1. Where is Goetz's description from his website? You left it in previously but it looks like you just deleted it today. Maybe you deleted it mistakenly.
 * 3. Your concern about original research is unwarranted. The medical examiner saying the bullets had travelled from their backs to their fronts is misleading at best and is contradicted by other testimony in the same sources.
 * 4. The references cited on that statement are the books "Subway Gunman" and "Crime of Self-Defense". A court opinion was not cited for the statement. If you want add a court opinion as a ref on this statement, if there even is a court opinion on this detail. This paragraph is incorrect chronologically and confusing. I'll rewrite the order of this paragraph a little later and update the link. Again, read pages 306 & 307 of the source if you can.
 * 5. In the criminal trial section you provide Charles Hirsch's testimony from one newspaper source stating that the bullets that hit Allen and Cabey had traveled from back to front, but omit later testimony that this description is factually incorrect. 209.150.58.4 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Answering your points: I get that this is an ongoing process, so I'm not frustrated by the time (and obviously I still have some major edits to do myself, which I'll get to another day), but I do think remembering our function is key. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) In the Aftermath section—the full blockquote is there.
 * 2) As to the medical examiner, that's what the medical examiner testified. It's fine to present additional sources, but it's not our job to personally evaluate them and decide which ones are the truth.
 * 3) I'm having some trouble discussing this with you because you seem to be denying some basic things: Here is a prior version of the article that had the sentence we're disputing. The portion of the sentence that notes the contradiction is following by footnote 31. Footnote 31 is the court opinion.
 * 4) The source that I cited said that Hirsch's testimony came on the last day of testimony. I'm not sure how there could be "later testimony," but I'm certainly happy to have more testimony included! You'll note I also added the defense's witness and his semi-circle claim, which would go against Hirsch's theory.


 * 1. Aplologies, my mistake. I didn't notice it because I generally disregard this section.
 * 2. Yes, and other sources state Hirsch's statement is factually incorrect and misleading. Not just defense expert medical criminal trial testimony, but ALSO footnote 31 (People v Goetz) long before the criminal trial: "The bullet entered the rear of Cabey's side and severed his spinal cord." Roughly the same situation with Allen but I don't have the source handy: Both Allen and Cabey were sideways to Goetz the instant they were shot, so its rather misleading to state they were shot in the back.
 * 4. Ok, I should have said earlier or other trial testimony instead of later trial testimony, and also perhaps use the footnote 31 reference.

It looks like we disagree on very little.

Suggest the Time Magazine's theory (April 8, 1985) be deleted. It serves no purpose, you decide if it should be deleted.

Also suggest removal of "The key question for the jurors was how to separate the vague perception of intimidation from the more specific threat of robbery, or from the "threat of deadly physical force," which Justice Crane told the jurors were the two grounds that would justify Mr. Goetz's use of his weapon. — Kirk Johnson, New York Times[50]". Its just an opinion by a newspaper writer that matches your opinion. The key question for the jury, according to the jury, was how Cabey was shot. You decide if it should be deleted.

Thats about it. 209.150.58.4 (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Section Break
Glad we could clear a lot of this up. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) No worries!
 * 2) As you said above, the court opinion from People v. Goetz was pretrial and thus only a preliminary statement of facts—it's not the court actually deciding a factual issue. That said, again—I'm happy to have other sources on the issue!
 * 3) I think I agree with you on the Time Magazine section—I don't think it's quite notable enough on its own to warrant its own section.
 * 4) As to the juror question—I'm not sure I agree that the Johnson quote is an opinion: It's saying what Judge Crane told the jury—that there were two bases on which deadly force could be justified, and the question for the jury was whether either of those two bases existed. If the only question was whether the shooting of Cabey was justified, then only the assault of Cabey would have been charged. Cabey being shot had nothing to do with Allen being shot, and yet the jury had to determine whether Goetz's shooting of Allen was justified, so I'm not sure how you can say the key question was only how Cabey was shot. (Perhaps we could, with the right source, say the jury subsequently reported that the hardest issue for them was Cabey?)


 * Cabey v Goetz section: I talked to a Bronx civil court reporter today and in a few weeks probably can get Goetz's Bronx testimony about how he shot Canty, Allen, Cabey, and Ramseur, along with the racial stuff.


 * Assuming its available, should I forward it to you? You could then easily expand the Cabey v Goetz section to your satisfaction. 209.150.58.4 (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you'd like! I obviously don't own the article, so you should of course feel free to edit it. I also think the civil court case can just be expanded a bit based on the amount of media attention the civil trial and its result got—of course, I'm basing that on cursory looks at Google, so I could be wrong.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Got an email from the Bronx court reporter today (Mar 6): "I had to order my notes from that day. They are stored in Rochester. I will keep you updated." So it should be available and I'll forward it to you. It's fortunate this is being looked into now. There were 4 court reporters who covered the civil trial 26 years ago and 3 of them are no longer available. In a few years the trial transcript probably would be unavailable. 50.122.123.163 (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Update: I think the article has come a long way, and, for now, I'm taking a break from making major changes. I've added some more info, many more sources, and standardized the citation templates since we last spoke. I also rearranged a few aspects of the article, which I think have made the section much more balanced. I've nominated the article as a Good Article. I have a few lingering concerns (one: at some point we should probably include more on the teenagers), and it's also certainly possible there's issues I've either introduced or failed to spot—I'm not the most experienced Wikipedia editor, obviously. Frankly, feedback from a third party should be helpful regardless of the result of the nomination.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The information in the article is essentially correct but a number of references are still mixed up from when the article name was changed several years ago. 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:4485:2D41:C3CD:F4AA (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean—changing an article name shouldn't alter references. By the way, as to the "signals" quotation, I have two concerns: [1] it's not supported by the reference it's next to—if you want it in there at all, it needs a reference supporting it, full stop. [2] I have a few NPOV concerns with including it in the "incident" section—if we include that, then should we also include the teens denying that they signaled each other? Probably better to include that in the trial section as a contested point. But, either way, it needs to be properly sourced--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Incident section
As to the incident section, I decided that the section functions best if it—to the greatest degree possible—only includes undisputed information. As such, I deleted the "here's another" sentence (which is discussed elsewhere in the article) and added that Canty said he asked for, rather than demanded, $5. If you'd like the "signals" line to be included, that should go in the appropriate section—either Goetz's statement to law enforcement or the trial section, since that's disputed. However, again, in the article, that sentence has to be backed up with a source supporting it.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Transcript
(1) In about 10 days I should have Goetz's shooting description testimony from the civil trial, and will let you know here. The big delay was due to the records being stored in western NY state. (2) In the OTHER LITIGATION section shouldn't you include the lawsuits by Canty and Ramseur against Goetz? They are more notable than the defamation claims lawsuits. 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:C139:8B96:31AB:5210 (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't stress too much about the transcript! Obviously, that's a primary source, so while it might serve for a nice quotation, we shouldn't plan to rely on it too much. As to the other civil cases, I found reference to Canty's case in Scott Greenfield's blog (where he says Canty just decided to drop the lawsuit—not very notable, and a primary source at that), but other than that, I unfortunately haven't been able to discover reliable sources discussing that suit or Ramseur's suit. If you can find any, I'll happily include them!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)