Talk:Chai Vang

WilliamThweatt
Would you mind doing the editing on the article of Chai Vang, adding the important details to the article that wasn't included. This article is highly biased/ignorant, misleading others to be ignorant of the details of the tragedy. This negligence of details is very shameful.. Lance616168 (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which is founded on Five pillars and articles are written by consensus based on information provided in reliable mainstream sources. Undue weight is not given to less reliable sources nor to a minority of sources which offer details differing from multiple mainstream sources. Wikipedia is not a forum nor is it a place for people with obvious agendas to try to right any perceived injustice. According to the multiple reliable sources and the consensus of editors active on this article, all relevant details have been included. Please take some time to read and understand the numerous links I have provided in this response and familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is and how it operates. Opinions (yours, mine, anybody's) are irrelevant. High quality reliable sources are all we are allowed to base articles on.
 * You may also benefit from reading Verifiability, not truth, and especially Wikipedia's policy regarding writing about living persons, the latter of which is taken very seriously and applies to all areas of Wikipedia, even talk pages.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 07:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you aware of the neutral point of view rule? This article is in violation of that rule by failing to not make this article as fairly as possible with a neutral tone by not including the details that are in violation of "undue weight." Let me state the rules from the neutral point of view. And i quote from Wikipedia's neutral point of view rule, " Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." This article is in violation of that rule. To your statement that " all relevant details have been included', It would seem that not all "relevant" details have been included in this article. It is irrelevant if the status of the source is "mainstream or a minority" because a fact is a fact regardless of the status of the source as long as it's truthful and reliable. I would have to disagree with the ruling of "undue" weight. Details are the facts of the case. It is wrong to just cite/base and write an article with the information from a "mainstream" source which would mislead readers to ignorance of the "truth."Lance616168 (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Also I quote from the neutral rules against undue weight, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." ALL significant viewpoints need to be fairly represented in this article which it clearly is not by the lack of details in this article concerning how the shooter was treated by the victims and the aftermath. These are very important details that wasn't written in the article which I suggest needs to be. Lance616168 (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop ranting. You keep complaining the article "isn't fair", but you haven't pointed to any specifics. That's not how this works. You obviously have an agenda of making excuses for this convicted murderer. Nobody is going to read your rants or pay any attention to them. If you have specific changes you would like made to the article, this is the place to bring them up along with reliable sources that support the changes you would like made. Then a discussion will be had based on context, objectivity, reliability of sources, etc.  (not on your idea of "fairness" or your personal crusade). Keep in mind that claims which differ from the preponderance of mainstream reliable sources would need strong, peer reviewed, very reputable sources, to even be considered. (Youtube, blogs, comment sections, personal commentaries etc. aren't reliable sources).  Also things such as, for example a prosecutor's DUI or whether or not profanity was used, has no bearing on the subject of this article and is definitely neither an exculpatory excuse for murder nor evidence to support claims of an "unfair" trial. So don't expect such things to make it into the article.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 01:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Here we go. You and your assumptions. You are assuming that i am making "excuses" for this Chai Vang. Glad to know how you can remain ignorant. I am truthfully speaking for the greater good of this article to make it have a neutral tone without bias. Why don't you read Wikipedia's rule or neutrality. You would benefit from it since you dont seem to understand Wikipedia rules. You can see in the talk page of this article, there are a couple of editors who also feel that this article is biased. I already have pointed to specifics of details that should be included and that this article should be rewritten to maintain a neutral point of view. For example: for the aftermath, Vang's home was burned down as a sort of retaliation and result of the shooting and signs were made to Save a Deer, Shoot a Hmong. These are important details that need to be in this article because of it's significance and impact of this case. I am not excusing murder but I am not also excusing racism/bullying either. You seem to be acknowledging racism and bullying as long as it isn't murder which means you have an agenda of keeping this a misleading biased article. I suggest again, that you need to make the appropriate changes to this article. Your biased and racist colors are starting to show. As for Peg Lautenschlager, since her name was mentioned and part of her tactic questions were briefly mentioned in this article that had no bearing on the subject in this article, a brief history on the Attorney General is pretty relevant in this article. I bet you an apology that the majority of the community would agree that this article is biased with a blend of racism.  Lance616168 (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, please stop ranting. And read No personal attacks. I will ignore this one time and choose to believe you haven't read the policy and just don't know any better. Next time you will be reported and risk being blocked (losing editing privileges). Discuss the content, not editors. Only "notable" subjects get Wikipedia articles. (See Notability for the definition of "notability" used in Wikipedia's context) The subject of the article is only notable because he killed people and was convicted of murder. He isn't notable because his house caught on fire, nor is he notable because a member of the prosecution team had a DUI. He isn't notable because of racism or bullying or whatever other excuse you can dream up. Those details are irrelevant to this article. Stop trying to race bait and bring race into everything. There is nothing misleading in this article. A man killed people in the forest. That man was convicted of murder. End of story. Suggest a specific change with strong supporting sources or move on.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which.. I was attacked with your assumption of claims of having an "agenda" or to make excuses for this Chai Vang person and now with names such as race racebaiter dreaming of excuses. I suggest you to listen to yourself and learn not to personally attack me because you will be reported. But here's a response for you calling me a race baiter, take a look at the case. Race IS an issue in the case of Chai Vang. The fact that significant details were neglected just makes it bias and misleading because the readers aren't getting the correct information and that the article doesn't have a tone as fair as possible without bias from a neutral standpoint. For your information, not sure if you are aware of this but I have reported this article to the Neutral POV Noticeboard. Some have agreed that the appropiate changes needs to be made to this article. There are retrospective views that need to be included in the article in compliance with the neutral POV rule. The documentary should be considered for an external link per WP:ELMAYBE
 * The overall tone is biased, so a rewrite of the article with a neutral POV can surely fix that. Lance616168 (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No matter how many times you say it, doesn't make it so. There is nothing misleading in the article. A man killed people in the forest. That man was convicted of murder. End of story. Race is irrelevant. Suggest a specific change with strong relevant supporting sources (not blogs or other nonsense) or move on. This is a biographical article about a convicted murderer, not an exposition of race relations in the US. If you want to discuss racism we have appropriate articles such as Racism in the United States. In fact the Racism in the United States subsection needs to be expanded and updated to include the experiences of Southeast Asians refugees. But race didn't cause this man to commit murder, nor did it cause him to be convicted. The fact that "racism" or "racist" things may have occurred tangential to the case is irrelevant to the scope of this biographical article.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 20:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "No matter how many times I say it." Well then, I'll keep saying it. "Significant" details of the shooting was left out making this a misleading biased article. Do you not understand that? You state that race is not relevant in this case however the fact is that Chai Vang was Hmong, the victims were White and that the victims called Vang slurs. Nothing you say can change those facts. The sources I referenced, most are from the news website itself. The facts are true so why don't you do some research on some of my suggestions to see if it is or not. Since it's true and the details are MAJOR, It cannot be left out of this case because it will make this article misleading and biased. Not only that, the article is in violation of the neutral POV which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. By your logic, since Chai Vang is a convicted murderer who killed 6 people in the woods, that is all we need to write in this article because it's " end of story " as stated by you. Let's REWRITE the article and all we need to write is, " Chai Vang, convicted murderer. Kills 6 Injured 2." Leave out the rest of the information concerning the case except Vang's background. However since this article wasn't written in that fashion, it is up to us as editors to provide the CORRECT details about the investigation, trial ect. Especially the correct SIGNIFICANT details. Lance616168 (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So? The murderer and his victims were from different ethnic backgrounds, so what? I haven't denied that, in fact, it is mentioned in the very first sentence of the article already. Racial slurs may have been used in a tense situation. So what? Nothing really unique to this case about that. Sadly, it happens every day to people of every race and yet, the offended parties manage to not kill 6 people every time it does. Racial issues just aren't a "significant" detail in this murder case. Suggest a specific change with strong relevant supporting sources (not blogs or other nonsense) or move on.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 09:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course you haven't denied that the murderer and the victims had different ethnicity. What you are denying is that racial issues wasn't a "significant" factor in this case. What's unique about this case was that the victims decided to pursue the murderer with 8 people on ATV's to confront him again with hostility and who knows what other malicious intent, call him names also saying his race, threaten to beat him and then block the murderer from leaving when he tried to walk away. That is false imprisonment, assault, harassment, hate crime and attempt of assault to do great bodily harm. Don't you agree? If you think about it from Vang's point of view, you apologized for being on their land and just want to leave without any problems, then you have 8 people who just followed you on ATVs and confronted you again with hostility, they're angry and swearing at you calling you racial slurs, one of them just said that he was going to beat you up, and then you try to walk away but another person stepped in your way and blocked you from leaving. Also taking into account that you are smaller, surrounded in the woods and who knows how far from civilization. I'd bet that majority of the people would agree that the murderer was quite threatened. Seems that a case like this doesn't happen everyday contradicting your statement that this happens everyday to people of every race. Now, back to changes for the article.

For the reaction part of the article: I suggest to be added that there is a sort of culture clash between land owners and trespassors of different ethnic backgrounds. Such as Hmongs or ethnic minorities trespassing and hostile/malicious behaviors towards trespassers for example. Another thing to add is that many in the community doesn't believe that race wasn't a factor and the Attorney General downplayed the racial angle in court but the Hmong community still felt that racism was a factor in the shooting. Another reaction to add is that bumper stickers were made and sold in shops saying Save a Deer, Shoot a Hmong and that Vang's home was burned down in a suspicious fire and it is speculated that it was arson because of the profane graffiti defacing Vang's home.

For the investigation section: It should be explained in the beginning of the section that after Vang apologized for being on their land and was leaving, the 8 victims pursued Vang on ATV's and confronted him again with a very heated atmosphere unlike the first confrontation. The facts after the heated second confrontation is what was in dispute that led to the shootings. " On the stand Hesebeck admitted Robert Crotteau had called Vang a 'Hmong a--hole." It should be added following that sentence that, Lauren Hesebeck shortly after the shooting told investigators that Robert Crotteau had threatened Vang that he was going to give Vang a beating, called Vang derogatory names tagged with Hmong, and Joey Crotteau stepped in Vang's way blocking Vang from trying to walk away. Lance616168 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , please propose specific changes to the article, not generic descriptions such as "change to describe the culture clash" as that doesn't provide specific changes (see Edit requests for some general info on this type of proposal).
 * Also, please read Indentation for using indentation to continue a discussion. I have edited the indent formatting for the above discussion to make it clearer to new readers that this is a prolonged discussion. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I made some changes. Please review if appropriate Lance616168 (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * None of the sources even come close to backing up what you're trying to claim happened. None of the sources you give say anything about "a chase". The supposed "threat" was "I said, 'No, he said, you keep it up I'm going to kick your ass. Better yet, just get out of here," Hesebeck testified. (emphasis added). In other words "if you don't leave, I'm going to kick your ass...so just leave", no implication of immediately impending physical violence at all. Also, directly from your own source: "Joey may have stepped somewhat in the way when Vang was trying to leave, but that there was plenty of room in a clearing there for Vang to go around." (emphasis added). That statement was all predicated on the word "may" and even if it were true, there was still plenty of room for him to leave. This is an opinion piece, not a reliable source, I won't even read that. this and this have nothing to do with the subject of this article or his crimes. Bumper stickers sold by one small store after the fact have no bearing on the case, which was shooting people in the back and getting convicted of murder for it. A house the convicted murderer used to own burned down, the source doesn't even say it was arson...again not relevant to the case at all. You need to do a much better job of reading and analyzing the entirety of each source before bringing them here. The very sources you provide make the case for the exact opposite of what you are saying.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 01:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources does "back up" what i claimed happened. You really are ignorant of the details in this case. Are you not aware that Chai Vang was chased by the victims to be confronted again? The first time was when Vang was confronted at the deer stand. Vang was showed the directions out and Vang walked away after apologizing for being on their land. The victims stated it themselves on the stand in court. The second confrontation happened when the victims pursed Vang on ATV's and caught up to him and surrounded him. If you think that me or the VICTIMS are lying now, please look it up or watch the documentary to see the recordings of the victims Lauren Hesebeck and Terry Willers saying it themselves. But just in case if you don't look it up or watch the documentary, here's the proof for you.  I don't know why there's someone like you editing this article without knowledge of all the details of this case. You can even look at a small part of it in the article. This article made no mention of Vang being followed which it SHOULD have but it does say this in the shooting section. " Upon receiving a response in the negative, he began to approach Vang and told him to leave the property. After asking for directions, Vang proceeded to walk away towards a trail through a forested area of the property. At that point five of the hunters from the cabin who had heard the radio message arrived on ATVs." Seems like this article needs some serious editing to include all the information. This whole sentence should be rewritten to have a more detailed explanation that when the rest of the party arrived on ATV's, Robert Crotteau wanted to "talk" to Vang so they all decided to go intercept Vang. Now about Joey Crotteau blocking Vang from leaving, IT DID HAPPEN. Please look at the source above that i put for you in this paragraph.  I do agree with you that this source  is an opinion concerning the fact that it said " There was plenty of more room for Vang to go around." That's pretty biased. Now to your false "claim" that bumper stickers saying Save a Deer, Shoot a Hmong and Vang's house burning down was not relevant to the case. Sure it's not relevant that Vang shot people and is a murderer but it is RELEVANT to the reaction section in the article. By your logic since those reactions aren't relevant to Vang shooting people or him being a murderer, the rest of the article is irrelevant as well. All except for Vang shooting 8 people killing 6, injuring 2 and is a convicted murderer. It seems that you have failed to refute my "claims" which unfortunately for you was all TRUE. Anything else you would like to avert and refute William? } what is your opinion on this dispute? Everything i have stated was true and WilliamThweatt has just failed to refute the truth that i have stated here.Lance616168 (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , I do not like to review previous edits as editors may have decided to abandon certain portions of their edits. However, I will assume you refer to the edits you made on the 6th/October at 13:27 and 13:51 (UTC)? If you edited while logged out as, I would ask that you clarify this below my comment so that the edits can also be reviewed if applicable.
 * Now, as for this edit on the 6th/October, the language syntax (grammar, spelling, formatting of sentences, etc.) is rather odd and poorly applied. Reviews of each change in the article: (bold emphasis used on changes)


 * First change: "The events after the confrontation are disputed. A violent altercation broke out and four of the eight victims were shot in the back, and three of these four were hit by multiple rounds." is changed to "The second confrontation events are open to speculation and was disputed. Opposite from the first, a violent altercation broke out and four of the eight victims were shot in the back, and three of these four were hit by multiple rounds." This is a more confusing structure and poorly worded. I would highly recommend using a text-editor such as Microsoft Word, or similar applications, before saving your edits if you are unsure about the wording in any way.


 * Second change: "Hesebeck also admitted that he told law enforcement that Robert Crotteau had problems with trespassers in the past, specifically citing Hmong hunters, who often travel to Wisconsin from Minnesota to hunt. The term "Mud Duck" is often used in Western Wisconsin to refer to Minnesota residents, similar to "Cheesehead" being used to describe Wisconsin residents. Willers used this term to describe Chai Vang when he radioed back to the cabin. The term has no racial connotation, although the defense claimed it did. While it is unknown how Willers and the others knew that Vang was from Minnesota, the state is well known for having the largest population of Hmong in the United States." is changed to "Hesebeck admitted that he told law enforcement that Robert Crotteau had problems with trespassers in the past, specifically citing Hmong hunters. {paragraph break} Days after the shooting, Hesebeck told investigators that Robert Crotteau had called Vang deragotary [sic] names tagged with Hmong along with threats that he was going to administer Vang a beating. Hesebeck also told investigators that Robert Crotteau's son Joey stepped in Vang's way blocking Vang from leaving." You have removed related and notable information (the line: "specifically citing Hmong hunters, who often travel to Wisconsin from Minnesota to hunt.") though the rest of the original paragraph is debatable for notability reasons. However, your "new paragraph" added unsourced (read: "unverified") information. Who said Heseback said these things? You should have provided sources for something controversial like this.


 * Third change: {added paragraph} "Peg Lautenschlager the prosecuting attorney found interest in Vang's case. Lautenschlager wanted to " personally " prosecute Vang. Prior to her involvement in the case, In February 2004, Lautenschlager pleaded guilty and was found guilty of drunk driving with a blood alcohol content over 50% over the limit." Similar to the first review, this has poor syntax specifically grammar usage, as well as notability issues. Why is Lautenshlager's DUI relevant? Why is it relevant that she wanted to "personally prosecute" Vang? There are some minor grammar problems here but they are simply copy-edit changes and nothing substantial.


 * Fourth change: " ' Did Mr. Crotteau deserve to die? ' Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager asked." → " ' Did Mr. Crotteau deserve to die? ' Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager asked rhetorically." Do I even need to say why this is not a constructive edit? Well, I'll do it anyway: Editors of Wikipedia cannot make judgement calls on whether something was said rhetorically, sarcastically, dead-pan or humorously WITHOUT RELIABLE SOURCES CLAIMING IT AS SUCH. Otherwise such edits are considered either WP:OR or WP:POV-based and removed.


 * Fifth change: "Vang's lawyers commented that some of his abnormal remarks were possibly due to the language barrier." → " Vang's lawyers commented that some of his abnormal remarks were because of the language barrier." This is the same as the above; use Reliable Sources, or it's considered POV/OR and removed.


 * Sixth change: "... and two charges of attempted homicide by a jury of eight women and four men." → "and two charges of attempted homicide by an all white jury of eight women and four men." Same as the Fourth and Fifth. If controversial, provide sources.


 * Seventh change: {added} "Othe": Simple case of "WTH is this doing?"


 * I have reviewed your logged edits and find them baffling and poorly worded in some cases, and lacking sources in others. This is not an attack, this is my personal observation. Moving forward from here, I would suggest any changes you wish to make, should use the format of  I would also ask that other users involved in this dispute do the same until things have calmed down again. This makes it so much easier to discuss changing content that is contentious, and results in far less edit-wars and reverted article changes. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My take on this dispute is that both you and need a refresher course on the Comment on content, not contributors idea. I will comment further after reading the sources. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I do admit those previous edits were poorly done. I did it in a haste. However with a bit of time invested and effort put into it, the results would be appropriate for all readers. I'll make a new discussion on the changes i wish to make with the format you provided me. Please review the new post i'll make on the changes i would like to make Lance616168 (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved editor: Comment;, please provide specific change requests, e.g. "Can we change 'xxxxx' to 'xxyyy'?" That will help to make this a discussion about content rather than contributors as it is rapidly devolving into on both sides. I have seen no such requests listed above, only general content changes to the general article.
 * Request: Please stop playing lawyers with Wiki policies, the both of you. I see a strong case of WP:BOOMERANG developing. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Changes
I want to change the current sentences in the shooting section of the article. My reasoning is that it should be changed because it provides a much more accurate detailed insight/explanation of the events while maintaining neutrality. Sources:

Current:Upon receiving a response in the negative, he began to approach Vang and told him to leave the property. After asking for directions, Vang proceeded to walk away towards a trail through a forested area of the property. At that point five of the hunters from the cabin who had heard the radio message arrived on ATVs. Robert Crotteau, the other co-owner, reportedly implied that Vang should be reported to the Department of Natural Resources for trespassing and suggested making a note of his hunting license number. Terry Willers wrote the number in the dust on one of the ATVs

Proposed: Upon receiving a response in the negative, he approached Vang and told him to leave the property. After asking for directions and being shown the directions, Vang apologized and proceeded to walk away towards a trail through a forested area of the property. At that point, five of the hunters from the cabin who had heard the radio message arrived on ATVs. Robert Crotteau, the other co-owner said that he wanted to talk to the trespasser to give him a " piece of his mind " while implying that Vang should be reported to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to " teach " Vang. The 6 of them altogether rode on ATVs to intercept Vang. Terry Willers wrote the number of Vang's hunting license after Crotteau reached and made contact with Vang, flipping Vang's hunting tag on his back. Lance616168 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please review my proposed changes to be made to the article to satisfy Neutral point of view. Details this significant that was not included is very misleading. Lance616168 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry for such a late reply, I hadn't noticed that I had been pinged here until I replied below. In regards to your recent additions to the article, you need to use in-text/in-line citation of sources when adding material to the article. I can see that you have just recently edit-warred with two IPs and are treading on the fine ice of reverts. With regards to the sources you are using, the "Beloit Daily News" seems somewhat reliable but it apparently uses user-generated letters/emails that are then edited if accepted which would not meet the BLP policy requirements for a "high quality source"; I also have too many suspicions about the "Cumberland Advocate" to agree to using it in any article since it has almost no information about itself that I can find. I would strongly suggest, that you read the BLP policy sections #Reliable Sources (all sub-sections), #People who are relatively unknown and #Subjects notable only for one event, if you haven't already read them. I would still suggest a re-reading of the sections. If you need help with citing sources, see Help:Citation (for how-to and application) and (technical information and coding). I will do a copy-edit of the recently contended additions in context of the sections/paragraphs, which I will post below this later. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well if the sources are in violation of wiki policy for a " high quality source"; then these sources would certainly be considered high quality source. All these sources prove my point that i wanted to originally change in the article, that Crotteau and the rest of the victims rode on ATV's to interecept Vang and angrily confronted him. I'm not too familiar with the mechanics of editing on here to make " in-text" citations. Perhaps you wouldn't mind assisting or making the correct appropriate changes to this article along with the citations ect.  Lance616168 (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I will number the sources you provided below for easy reference and comment:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (1)All this says is that "one of the property owners" (Crotteau) "drove up", "angrily accused (him) of trespassing", and said they "would report him to authorities. Vang then started shooting..." nothing not already in the article.
 * (2)The host for this article doesn't look too reliable, but I found the same article here. This one does say that "Hesebeck said Crotteau and four others rode all-terrain vehicles to intercept Vang as he walked down a trail, and Crotteau angrily confronted Vang and used profanities". But it is not in quotes, it is the authors interpretation or summary of the testimony, not what Hesebeck actually testified. Words like "intercept" and "confronted" are subjective and depend on perspective; they also don't appear in any other reliable source. I think WP:WEIGHT might have some relevance here.
 * (3) This says the same thing as (1) and adds that Crotteau and the others who "drove up" (to where the murderer was, i.e. not "intercepting" him) tried to get his name to report him to authorities. Nothing else relevant to the arguments on this talk page.
 * (4)This one is only 6 sentences long and adds nothing that isn't already in the article. Says nothing about ATVs or anything else relevant.
 * (5)Again, nothing about "intercepting" or "ATVs" here. But it does say that "When Bob said we were going to report him to the DNR someone get his backtag number, he tried to turn his back away from us so we couldn't read it and he kind of side stepped a little bit and walked away,” Hesebeck told jurors. Hesebeck says that's when he got a strange feeling something wasn't right. He says Vang then started shooting at the hunting party." Basically this article say the murderer started shooting to avoid being reported to authorities, not in self defense. This source is exactly the opposite of some of the claims on this talk page.
 * (6)Again, nothing here about "intercepting" or "chasing", it says they rode up to where they found him (at the tree stand on their land). This article also makes the case that he murdered 6 people simply out of "anger" and to avoid being reported to game wardens.
 * (7)This one again, says nothing about "chasing" or "intercepting" or "atv". It's basically a summary of opening statements and contains no witness testimony.
 * I have added the relevant details from the sources provided above and properly attributed them.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 01:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated that you would make a change to the article including some of the details however still is misleading i'm afraid. You have written it in a way that shows that there was only one confrontation. There was 2 confrontations that occurred. One with Willers and Vang alone, ending with Vang apologizing and being shown the directions by Willers. The second with Vang walking away, the rest of the group arrived and then followed Vang. It doesn't matter if it's " intercepted, followed, chased." Ultimately, Robert Crotteau initiated the second confrontation with Vang when he and the others caught up to Vang on ATV's. I read the transcripts myself and have seen the court recordings. You would find the truth there instead of all these articles/sources here. I would recommend using the court transcripts as the actual source of information about the case and what was stated by the defendant and victims etc. However i'm not sure if that's allowed here. Sadly there aren't many articles that explains the survivor's testimonies and is written in a way that shows Vang open firing quickly after the confrontation with Willers. If you closely examine, many articles including the previous version of this article before you edited it writes that Willers told Vang to leave and showed him the directions out and Vang proceeded to walk away. But then Crotteau and the rest of the party arrive to where Willers is at. So how did Crotteau berate, threaten to report Vang to authorities, and make contact with Vang to flip his hunting tag to make is visible when he already walked away? It's because they confronted Vang again while Vang was walking away by following him... which isn't clearly explained.  Most of the articles written by highly reliable sources containing the survivor's testimonies have been removed from the net which i find unusual when i clicked on many sites to find a blank page saying this article is no longer here. My previous source that i already put here does explain more in depth of the confrontations however isn't rather of " high quality source" due to the reliable wiki rule.


 * 1
 * 2
 * 3 Even this blog here has an explanation of the 2 survivor's testimonies which is in violation of Wikipolicy.

To write incorrectly that there was just one confrontation, when there was 2 is just misleading and violates neutral pov. I hope you can understand where i'm coming from. If you don't review the court transcripts, then research the many articles and closely examine the explanations of the encounter with Willers and Vang and you will see that i'm telling the truth that when Vang walked away from the area after being told off by Willers, Crotteau and the rest of the party arrived and went to go confront Vang Lance616168 (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It was written exactly as portrayed in all the sources given above. I closely read all sources and chose my word carefully to match the sources. There was only ONE confrontation. Every single source, without exception, portrays it as a single confrontation. He wasn't walking away when Crotteau arrived. Crotteau and the other hunters arrived while they were still standing at the tree stand (I have cited sources for this in the article) where they initially found the trespasser and the confrontation that was still in progress escalated from there. There was no "chase". The confrontation with Willers may have been much less aggressive before Crotteau arrived (there is conflicting testimony about that) and the trespasser may have agreed to leave (again, conflicting testimony about that too) after being given directions. But he hadn't begun to leave yet...he may (I repeat: may) have been making movement toward a trail, but he was still at the tree stand with Willers when Crotteau and the others showed up, at which point Crotteau wanted to get his name and license number and he tried to walk away, which caused the still-in-progress confrontation to escalate. It was all one drawn out confrontation with various peaks and lulls. No "chase". At all. Period. Almost every sentence I wrote is sourced with a citation to the articles above.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 19:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is in-denial to claim that there wasn't a second confrontation when there was. You say it was written exactly as ALL sources portrayed, correct? In this source that you have cited in the article,  it says that Willers testified that Vang apologized and WAS already walking away before the others arrived on the scene. It also says that Vang WAS walking down a trail. You state that, "Vang MAY have been making movement toward a trial" but yet he was walking on the trail to get out of the area. How do you explain that since Vang was walking out of the area on the trail, this was one confrontation? Was he still talking with Willers or was the testimony given by Willers false then?  Willers clearly states that Vang had walked away from him. He had already walked far enough which is why Robert Crotteau asked Willers for the directions. Should i write down Willers and Hesebeck's testimony for you? This is coming straight from the recording of Willers and Hesebeck's testimony. If you want to see the video recording of it, here it is  Watch from 21:00 minute onward. And i quote;

Hesebeck: We heard a call from Terry Willers. He said there was somebody in Carter's old tree stand. It's probably one of those mudducks.

Willers: Uh as i got close enough where i could verbally talk to him, i asked him what hunting party was he with and uh he kinda mumbled something that i didn't understand. I told him that he was on Bob Crotteau's and my land, that he was trespassing. Uh he asked what direction he could go to get off the property to go hunt and i pointed in the direction in which i had come from. I radioed in to the cabin that i had a tree-rat and i had chased him off.

So at this point, you can see that Vang already left. This ENDED the first confrontation between Willers and Vang alone. This was no "drawn out" first confrontation. Vang had made quite some distance away from Willers, contradicting your statement that Vang was still by Willers. Vang walked pretty far to get ONTO the trail and then walking a few hundred yards down the trail to get off the property

Hesebeck: Bob had said i'm going to go talk to him to find out who he is, why he's there, and make sure he doesn't, you know, knows that he's on private property and that he's not welcomed there. Denny had said to me this ought to be interesting, let's go and see what's going on. We got in the back of it standing up (ATV), hanging on the rear bar.

Now, this indicates that Crotteau "followed, hunted, intercepted, went after, rode after, cut off, chased, pursued" in order to confront Vang which makes it the SECOND confrontation. "

Willers: As Bob got back on the radio and asked me where he was at and i said uh he's heading south down on the food plot right now.

So do i need to say anymore that there was 2 confrontations? Can you tell William that this was not a one confrontation event that led to the shooting, thank you. Lance616168 (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Your edit to this article was misleading. WP:WEIGHT has no relevance here. Why? Because it contradicts the actual events that the there was 2 confrontations, the court transcripts victim's testimony and some articles that i sourced here . You state that this article was the author's interpretation of Hesebeck's testimony correct? The only thing that was subjective and can be based on perspective was the words "intercept" and "confront" like you said. But what is a FACT was that, Vang WAS walking down a trail out of the area, Crotteau pursued Vang on the trail to engage him and this entire tragedy did not OCCUR at the tree-stand. After walking quite a distance just to get to the trail and WALKING a few hundred yards down the trail, Crotteau engaged Vang with the rest of the party.  Why don't you read the court transcript yourself and use the court transcript as the source of information for this article? The court transcript cannot be disputed and is a FACT that there was 2 confrontations which CONTRADICTS your statements of everything occurring at the tree-stand. Or even the documentary which has 3rd party testimony but still portrays the video recordings of the victim's and Vang's testimony which still CONTRADICTS your statements of there being only one confrontation.Lance616168 (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are the sources that fellow editors claim that the information in these sources that i included in the article are just "rumors."
It is highly misleading for this article to leave out significant details of this caliber. In the trial section, where is the explanation on how Vang's defense attorneys handled the case of Vang in court? Where is the details that explained that there was 2 confrontations? Chai Vang was already leaving after being confronted by Terry Willers by the tree stand. After apologizing and being shown the directions out by Willers, Vang walked away onto a trail which is unclearly explained in this article. Lauren Hesebeck himself testified that Crotteau wanted to talk to Vang to give him a "piece of his mind" so they rode on ATV's to intercept Vang and that Crotteau reached and made psychical contact with Vang, flipping his hunting tag to make it readable. Hesebeck also told his wife and investigators that he believed he saw Willers pointing his rifle at Vang when he walked away. However this article does not explain that the victims went after Vang to intercept him, to confront him again. Do you see now how this is misleading and biased? This article is making readers believe that there was only one confrontation, that the shooting occurred quickly right after the first confrontation. Which is why i wanted to change which i also put in this talk page however nobody has reviewed my proposed change. My personal advice is to don't claim my information as "rumors" when you are ignorant of the details of the case. Here are my sources for the motions being denied, the victims getting on ATV's to intercept Vang, Crotteau making psychical contact with Vang, threats being made by Crotteau to Vang and that Vang's home was burned down, Vang not being aware that there were attorneys attempting to see Vang but wasn't allowed, and Vang attempted to leave 3 times but was prevented. You know what else you can do? Watch the court recording of the trial or watch the documentary to hear the statements of both parties. Lance616168 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * So, can you now cite these sources in-text when you are editing? BTW, forums are not considered a reliable source for information, as they are not placed under editorial oversight and/or are user-generated. I will look through your additions and try to help you cite the sources if you are unsure about how to do so. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Might I also suggest the the best way to approach the list of changes you want to make would be make one small edit at a time (with a source) rather than a huge ammount of text some of which may be acceptable and some of which may not be. This will waste less of your and other editors time and is less likely to lead to a wholescale revert. Hughesdarren (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

WilliamThweatt, why are you evading me on discussing the conflict?
Shall i give an example of your bias? You used some of my sources for this article, yet you clearly neglected the information that Vang was walking down a trail out of the area which was from my source that YOU used. Didn't you say that you "carefully" reviewed the source? Irony isn't it, or is hypocrisy? What a stranglehold you have on the article. You clearly stopped discussing on the talk page by not responding to me and is evading me now because you simply cannot deny the fact that the truth i speak about the case is actually the truth and you can't prove your false conceived version of events. Are you proud of making this a misleading article? Want to see a strong supporting source? Here,. Another here that you used and "cherry picked" the information to use for your conceived version of events. I would also suggest you to stop bombarding me with claims of me being a "victim blamer", "race-baiter", and someone with an agenda. See, No personal attacks Assuming my "status" and calling me these names on the dispute resolution just isn't going to discredit me nor dull my sharp point. Not only me but many other editors also feel that this article is misleading and biased. The official court transcript proves my case. How about yours? Where is your most powerful supporting source of information that contradicts the court transcript? Lance616168 (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't "evaded" you. You just haven't said anything worth responding to. I tire of you continuing to say the same thing over and over when all of your claims have been refuted satisfactorily here and at NPOV/N (twice). If, for some reason, you so desperately want to repeat the same things over and over, you don't need me to respond again, simply re-read all of the above. As for your agenda, your previous (and continued) rants on the talk page speak for themselves -- stating the truth (with diffs to support it) is not a personal attack. I have nothing more to add. Unless you have something new to complain about, there is no more conflict -- it's over, drop the stick and move on to something productive. I already have.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "I haven't evaded you. You just haven't said anything worth responding to." In other words, you evaded me by not responding to me. I do not say the same things over and over again. The point i'm making however is the same. Hypocrisy is in your statements. You said that i'm repeating things yet you are repeatedly assuming things such as me being "desperate." Name-calling sure fits the description of a personal attack. On my previous post, i stated that the victims should also be blamed. That doesn't discredit my point at all of making this a balanced and unbiased article. Anything else you would like to call me? The posts i made on the NPOV noticeboard if you can't understand things, it has been discussed but it ended unsatisfied. Other editors also felt that this article was biased. So tell me again how was it refuted satisfactorily when there is not only me seeing things and agreeing with my viewpoint? Shall i tell more about how you're also evading me? Okay i will. You evaded me by not responding to my questions such as, " Where is your most powerful supporting source of information that contradicts the court transcript?" So tell me, is your version of events true or false when compared to the court transcript? You cherry picked information from my source to fit your conceived version of event and left out significant information. Talk about bias. Oh you're evading me again by telling me by merely stating that this conflict is over. I will continue pushing for this article to be edited satisfactorily without bias and misleading information by having balanced viewpoints which you are clearly violating. The stick will continued to be carried. Don't like what i'm going to continue to do? Drop your stick and move on and leave the editing of this article to me and other editors. Lance616168 (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you repeat yourself. Where are all these people who agree with you? Literally nobody else has agreed with you. You have lost all credibility (seriously?) and I can no longer assume good faith on your part. I now believe you are simply trolling this page and should be treated as a troll . The meaning of "Reliable source" has already been explained to you. The meaning of WP:FRINGE has already been explained to you. The meaning of WP:UNDUE has already been explained to you. The meaning of WP:BLP has already been explained to you. The meaning of WP:ADVOCACY has already been explained to you. The difference between WP:PRIMARY sources (such as court transcripts) and WP:SECONDARY sources has already been explained to you by other editors on the NPOV/N page, yet you continue to repeat yourself. The things you wish to add to this article violate everyone of these policies/guidelines as you have been told by other editors. I don't need to respond as it has already been explained to you, it's not my fault if you don't understand it. If you continue to insert opinions, unusable sources, victim blaming (some victims survived, making this a BLP issue) and attempts at excuses for mass murder, it will continue to be removed. It's that simple. If you are unable to understand that now, no amount of further discussion is going to make you see the light.
 * Here are two last facts for you to digest: 1) all of the bodies of the murder victims were found at the tree stand. If the murderer was "chased down a path while he was trying to leave" as you would like everybody to believe, the entire crime scene wouldn't have been back at the tree stand where he was originally found. 2) Court transcripts are terrible sources, as you've been told. It's the encyclopedic equivalent of hearsay. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, people have bad memories, people experiencing trauma mis-remember things, and people can just plain lie under oath. It's a WP:PRIMARY source encyclopedias just don't use. The events as described in the article are cited to the reliable sources as has been explained to you by numerous editors here and at NPOV/N. Just because you are unsatisfied, doesn't mean your claims weren't satisfactorily refuted, it just means you don't (or can't) understand how wrong you are about both the nature of this case and the nature of an encyclopedia. And with that, per the paragraph immediately above, I'm done discussing this with you.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 09:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Again and again, you're repeating yourself with more assumptions and telling me i'm repeating myself. Assuming i'm a troll and believing your assumption, does that constitute as a personal attack against me? To consider me as a troll is very insulting when i'm here on good faith. I still have plenty of credibility. You stated that "literally" no one agrees with me? Have you not read my two previous posts to NPOV noticeboard and the previous posts on the talk page made by other editors? There are people who agreed with me, contradicting your statement. Shall i link it for you? Actually no i won't. So would you like to still explain how no one agrees with me? Because your statement is false. Please stop playing laywer . William your bias and misleading information to the article is starting to not seem as an act of good faith. I can't seem to digest the two "facts" you explained to me because it is indigestible so i didn't even put it in my mouth. The contents of the facts is misleading, making it not edible for consumption. The victim's bodies were NOT found shot at the tree-stand. The victims all scattered when the shooting started on the trail. You just proved that your information is misleading and biased that this entire confrontation occurred at the tree-stand. Here is a poorly drawn but sort of accurate map description of the location of the shooting.  So since the court transcript is the equivalent of hearsay Eyewitness testimony, is the testimonies of both parties (Vang & victims),  location of the ATV's on the trail where the victims went after and confronted Vang, and where the bodies were found all false then? So the evidence that was presented in court is false and your version of events that you're leading everyone to believe is correct? Wow oh wow. It seems like the evidence in the trial which is the trial itself is false when comparing it to your version of events. Lance616168 (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are worse than a broken record. More repeating, more proof that you don't understand reliable source. Murderpedia.org??? Seriously??? Anybody could have uploaded that (for all we know, you drew that yourself). I'm positive you're trolling now. Anyway, assuming for a minute that map is legitimate, look at the scale -- the supposed map is zoomed way in, the furthest body is less than 400 ft away from where they initially saw the trespasser. That's less than a city block, literally less than stone's throw. It takes ~10 seconds at a brisk pace to walk 400ft. The map, assuming it's real, only verifies what I've been saying that there was no "chase" and it all happened right there. Considering the chaos of a mass murder, that's a very, very compact crime scene according to that map. Now, feel free to rant and repeat yourself again. I am choosing to WP:DENY recognition of your continued trolling and harassment by not answering you anymore. I'm sure that, although you still have nothing new to say, you will write something under this comment; you've shown that you can't resist it. I will let you have the last word, but I'm not even going to read it. I will, however, continue to remove garbage from the article.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 05:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * More naming callings now eh? I went from race-baiter, victim-blamer, troll and now worse than a broken record. Sticking to my point and repeatedly showing you your own bias is not proof at all of not "understanding" as you claimed. As i said earlier, i will continue pushing for this article to be edited satisfactorily meaning i will stick to my point. I agree that Murderpedia.org is a very unreliable source and baffling too. No i didn't draw that map because it was already on that page where i found it. The map is poorly drawn and portrayed. Here is a better map which is at 22:43 onward of the video. Shall we examine the statements of the victims? And i quote:

Hesebeck: We heard a call from Terry Willers. He said there was somebody in Carter's old tree stand. It's probably one of those mudducks.

Willers: Uh as i got close enough where i could verbally talk to him, i asked him what hunting party was he with and uh he kinda mumbled something that i didn't understand. I told him that he was on Bob Crotteau's and my land, that he was trespassing. Uh he asked what direction he could go to get off the property to go hunt and i pointed in the direction in which i had come from. I radioed in to the cabin that i had a tree-rat and i had chased him off.

So at this point, you can see that Vang already left. This ENDED the first confrontation between Willers and Vang alone. This was no "drawn out" first confrontation. Vang had made quite some distance away from Willers, contradicting your statement that Vang was still by Willers. Vang walked away from the tree-stand to get ONTO the trail and then walked down the trail to get off the property

Hesebeck: Bob had said i'm going to go talk to him to find out who he is, why he's there, and make sure he doesn't, you know, knows that he's on private property and that he's not welcomed there. Denny had said to me this ought to be interesting, let's go and see what's going on. We got in the back of it standing up (ATV), hanging on the rear bar.

Now, this indicates that Crotteau "followed" Vang in order to confront Vang which makes it the SECOND confrontation. " Willers: As Bob got back on the radio and asked me where he was at and i said uh he's heading south down on the food plot right now.

So what were you saying about no one following Vang and this being all a one drawn out confrontation at the tree-stand? Your conceived version of events is simply false. You can choose to evade me as you wish, I will simply notify more third parties of this to get more opinions and i will continue to push for this article to be changed. Also in regards to you not willing to discuss this with me, it was like i said from the beginning of this post, you're evading me. Lance616168 (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Someone make the appropriate changes to this article.
Seeing how this article was nominated for it's neutrality and the extensive discussion on here, i carefully reviewed each side's argument. I'm just going to state some facts here to dispute either party's claims that were misleading. Your statement that " all of the murder bodies were found at the tree-stand " is not true at all. Al Laski and Jessica Willers were found along the trail laying next to each other, Mark Roidt was found next to an ATV on the trail, Joey Crotteau was found 150 yards away from the entire area, and Robert Crotteau was found 40 yards away from the ATVs in between dense trees. Nobody was found by the tree-stand. I can attest that the quotes wrote of the dialogue between Terry Willers and the hunting party through the radio is accurate. There is a video recording of Hesebeck and Willers testifying this themselves along with Vang's recorded testimony. If you simply align the 2 party's testimony of the event together, what's agreed by both parties is the truth. No one can deny these facts. Willers stated that Vang was on the trail heading down into the food plot. The victims rode on ATVs to confront Vang while he was walking away on the trail to the property line. The victim's wanted to teach Chai Vang a " lesson." From the testimony's of the survivors, Robert Crotteau has issues with "outsiders". Wisconsin has the highest rate of racial disparity in the nation. The moment Chai Vang opened fire on the victims, he was in a world of hurt. Statistics show that Whites are more than likely to get away with a crime while it's the complete opposite for a minority. The recording of the testimony of both parties is indisputably a reputable source. WP:BALANCE Objectively speaking, the way this article was written infers a serious amount of racism and bias such as how the details of the reactions of the White and Hmong community were ineptly or purposely omitted. The reactions by the communities by the slaying are significant because it influenced and led to the killing of a Hmong hunter in 2007 by a white hunter and that the same negative inconsistencies that affected Chai Vang is affecting other minorities. Why is there so many inconsistencies in this article? Why not mention that the victim confronted Vang while he was walking on the trail out of the area or that the settings were in multiple places such as the trail and tree-stand. It was as if the information was cherry picked by editors with a stranglehold on this article in order to create a story that suits the victims, not the events. This is exactly like saying that only 1 plane hit the tower in New York and the other tower just seemed to explode. Yet there are video recordings of both planes hitting both towers that is indisputable evidence. Angelofligh22 (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The victim's bodies were spread out over the area, over 100 yard distances between some of them. Nobody was at the tree-stand. The entire crime scene area was spread out. You also justified the use of racial slurs because of a "tense situation" in your discussion here. Like seriously, how racist can you get? All your attempts were trying to stop with his proposed idea of changes to this article. And after reading it, he has valid points. You on the other hand, just swept the racism under the rug like a closet-racist. White supremacist groups protesting, Vang's home burning down along with graffiti making it arson, shops selling " save a deer, shoot a hmong signs " signs and you denied all of this to be mentioned in the article. You are biased, no doubt about it. Because of your bias, you are blind to see it. Angelofligh22 (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chai Vang. 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 tag to http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/10258341.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070503020622/http://www.courttv.com:80/trials/vang/ to http://www.courttv.com/trials/vang/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Information in the Personal Life Section - Incorrect Father Information
Personal life[edit] Vang's father served in a secret war that was funded and organized by the CIA that recruited the Hmongs in Laos to disrupt supply routes going from Laos to Vietnam during the Vietnam War. General Vang Pao was the leader of this army and was seen as a father figure to the Hmongs.

--I don't believe General Vang Pao is Chai Vang's father. I can find no reference to that in any of the articles about him.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.121.93 (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I must agree that the above is awkwardly written. However, it is generally accepted that General Vang Pao was a father figure to all the Hmong of the Secret Army.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts of constructive edits
Hi, I'd much appreciate a proper explanation for your reverts accusing my contributions as 'POV' – despite the fact that I've added a lot of infomation to the article and detail as it was previously in a bad shape with numerous grammartical errors and lacking information which were in the sources. You seem to have a long history involving this article based on this article's talk page history, and so it's quite ironic that you would talk about POV. As per WP:AGF and WP:CIV, I hope you understand that accusing other users of not being neutral with their point of view is really unprofessional considering the seniority of your account. Thanks. Specion (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My revert of your blatantly POV edits was sufficiently explained in the edit summary. The only thing suspicious here is that your account was created just two days ago and only has 25 edits, yet you are jumping into a dispute, (mis-)citing policy and attempting to WP:WIKILAWYER your POV into the article -- the tactics of a long-term disrupter, not a "new" editor. Since you seem to be so well acquainted with the way things work around here, you are probably also already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. This article has had a long-standing consensus and you are attempting to make massive changes in tone and POV. Your attempt was reverted. Now the WP:ONUS is on you to discuss and reach a consensus with other editors BEFORE your desired changes are put back into the article: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. I am going to revert back to the consensus version. Per multiple guidelines, please do not re-add your desired changes unless a consensus of editors is reached here on the talk page first.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 20:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't have a consensus yourself, and since you reverted back to a revision which undid contributions from multiple different editors dating back a few months, it's you that require a consensus since that's pretty disruptive. Also, you've assumed bad faith about me twice now. I'd expected much more civility from an established user. Specion (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Your edits have been reverted again, please discuss your edits here. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read (and understand) WP policies on consensus, including the topics of article stability and silence as indicators of community consensus. As I explained a few times now, I reverted to the last stable version of the article, which stood unchanged for seven months (and had not been substantially changed for years) until the very recent spate of edits (by anonymous single-edit IPs) introducing a particular POV that is uncannily similar to your own. As the one who wishes to change the article, you are the one obligated to justify the need to do so -- and to refrain from making said changes unless a consensus is reached. It has not gone unnoticed that you have yet to attempt any justification of your edits despite the growing wall of text that is being built here.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 22:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly is this 'POV' that you're referring to? How about actually explaining what your issue is with my contributions instead of just lazily spewing out the abbreviation just like you felt like it as your actions right now seem hypocritical, especially when this article historically has had an edit war that involved you. Specion (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Your edits have been reverted again. Throwing around accusations and edit warring are not helping your cause. My main problem with your edits is the removal of referenced text. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's also the issue of the hatnote being unnecessary and the misleading and inflammatory POV wording "another Hmong American who was murdered..." (this article is about a Hmong American who is a mass murderer, not "another" murder victim. There's also the peppering of "all-white" every time the jury is mentioned, implying that that was somehow a factor despite the overwhelming evidence. I'm not against including that fact, once, simply for completeness, but every time is undue, unwarranted and POV. There's also the inclusion of the POV subsection title "Racial motivation". It's ambiguous and controversial...not to mention that name-calling is not a reason for, nor does it mitigate, mass murder. I am at work now and can't compose a complete response and likely won't be able to respond until tomorrow, but there are problems with every word in this group of edits and  has yet to even bother to make an attempt to justify them.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * that is not how WP (or any productive discussion, for that matter) works. You MUST first explain why you think these edits are necessary. You have been invited multiple times to explain your edits. The longer you continue to discuss me instead of your desired changes, the longer this will go on.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Citation of “TheMeatEater”
Hello, the citation of Vang chasing down the other hunters is not verified or confirmed by the police station or reputable news sources. It cites a website called “TheMeatEater” written by Patrick Durkin, a Caucasian male hunter and freelance writer. In his article he doesn’t state a source as well. Edhendro (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Citation number 7
Citation number 7 links to a website through the way back machine that requires users to make an account to read the article. It is the only citation for the line "Crotteau then suggested making a note of his hunting license number to make a report to the DNR and, according to Hesebeck's testimony, Crotteau flipped over the hunting tag on Vang's back to get his license number." I do not know if you can still sign up for an account on the website as I do not want to. Can someone confirm that you can still make an account. Even if if you can sign up I feel a source that is easier for an average reader to gain access to would be better here and in the other places where citation 7 is used. I apologize in advance if I have done a poor job with this request because this is my first time trying to improve a wikipedia article. Silky15 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)