Talk:1984 New York City Subway shooting

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

RFC on intersection b/t WP:CATV and WP:SYNTH[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question: Should this article, concerning firearm-related violence with multiple persons injured, be included in mass-shooting categories, even though no sources directly refer to it as a "mass shooting"? --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For those kind enough to offer input for this RFC: Hello! We have a question related to WP:CATV—that is, this quotation from the Categories guideline:

Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Unreferenced category}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate or if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.

A little while back a user added Category:1984 mass shootings in the United States and Category:Mass shootings in New York City to this page. (Diffs, including re-additions after removal: [1] [2] [3]; related: [4]). According to Category:Mass shootings, Mass shootings ... are shootings that murder or injure multiple people in one place and time. To the extent this definition controls the category, this article gives a fairly "clear indication" it belongs. However, User:Freedom4U has argued that such logic is an improper synthesis, and he points out that no reliable source directly labels this shooting a "mass shooting." Essentially, this debate boils down to whether, for purposes of the category, "mass shooting" is a term of art or a mere description.

--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • My—very tentative opinion is that the category should be kept. I'm not sure how significant the phrase "mass shooting" is—I know a few have tried to ascribe specific definitions to it, but I don't think those definitions have really taken hold. I think it's enough that (1)this article concerns, fairly objectively, a "shooting" of a "mass" number of people, and (2) that seems to be the qualifying criteria for the category's usage on other pages.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just to clarify, there are many listicles collecting such incidents found by the search terms ["subway" "mass shooting" "Goetz"]. That is, the words "mass shooting" are found in the article. Goetz is almost always the first described. However, NY Times, Boston Globe, AP, and other lesser sources such as HuffPost, rarely explicitly call any specific event in these lists a mass shooting, and the incidents listed range as low as 2 deaths or injuries. The lower limit for "massacre" seems to be 5 deaths (Boston Massacre, Wendy's massacre). So our (en.wikipedia) categories group them all under mass shooting, without finer distinctions requiring counting. There are no category distinctions about "random" or "indiscriminate" deaths or injuries. Shooting family members is treated the same as strangers on a subway.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Extended discussion
  • Just to clarify, there are many listicles collecting such incidents found by the search terms ["subway" "mass shooting" "Goetz"].
    You've stated this before, but I've found no articles backing this assertion up. Can you please provide an example of this? "Mass shootings" are not a concrete discrete phenomenon with set rules, but one that is socially constructed. If there aren't secondary sources calling this shooting a mass shooting, then it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to call it one. :3 F4U (they/it) 19:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The only source I could find was an article that listed this event among mass shootings, but, to be honest, I think that's a bit beside the point. I think the dispute between you and @William Allen Simpson: chiefly concerns to what degree "mass shooting" is a special term. If the category were "shooting with more than three injured persons", I don't think anyone would dispute that category would apply, even if no sources directly called the event a "shooting with more than three injured persons". So the question is whether "mass shooting" is a special term that requires sources directly calling the event a mass shooting, or if it's just a descriptor—a shooting involving a mass number of people.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Welcome to wikipedia, Freedom4U. Please do a bit more work yourself, instead of repeated WP:POINTy challenges. In addition to the AP list noted by Jerome Frank Disciple that is at the top 10 of the specified search, the words "mass shooting" were also in a NY Times (paper) article in 1986, a Buffalo radio broadcast in 2022 that spent half its time on Goetz, NY Post in 2020, Boston Globe in 2012, and abundant other posts and videos purporting to show every mass shooting in the US; Goetz is invariably listed. Goetz is also in List of mass shootings in the United States. As stated clearly, Category:Mass shootings are shootings that murder or injure multiple people in one place and time. There are ample reliable sources that specify the number here at 4 people. That qualifies as "multiple people". 'Nuff said.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unless you're referring to a different article, the AP list [5] doesn't call it a mass shooting? It lists it as an "act of public violence" and does not include any description of it as a mass shooting. Again can you please provide links for these articles/quotes within the articles, because I don't think any of the ones you mention call it a "mass shooting". The NY Times article that I assume you're talking about [6] comes up as a result in the search you've given, but nowhere in it does it actually use the words "mass shooting". Same with the Buffalo radio broadcast that comes up in the search [7], which again doesn't use the words "mass shooting" to describe the shooting.
    WP:POINT says that I shouldn't try to create a new interpretation of a Wikipedia policy if the accepted consensus results in an outcome that I'm unhappy with. That has nothing to do with the fact that mass shooting has not been used to describe this shooting by any secondary source other than Wikipedia. This shooting shouldn't be in this category for the same reason the Boston Massacre shouldn't be in this category: no secondary source actually calls it a mass shooting. :3 F4U (they/it) 21:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    FTR I think everyone is acting in good faith here! Sorry the RFC isn't getting attention. I still think the key question here is whether "mass shooting" is a special term that requires the label to be used by reliable sources, as @Freedom4U: says, or if it's just, as @William Allen Simpson: pointed out, what the category page says—covering shootings that injure multiple people in one place and time. Again, if the category were "shootings with more than three injured persons", I don't think anyone would dispute that category would apply, even if no sources directly called the event a "shooting with more than three injured persons". But perhaps "mass shooting" should be considered a special term that implies more than just "shooting of a mass number of people"--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Seconding what @Jerome Frank Disciple is stating here that the key discussion is over whether the category "mass shooting" can include shootings that involve multiple people, but aren't described as such by reliable secondary sources. I think other examples of "shootings involving multiple people" that aren't mass shootings would be the Waco siege, Ruby Ridge, the North Hollywood shootout, or the Shannon Street massacre. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At which point, I'm leaving the conversation, as this is so intellectually dishonest. None are currently in mass shootings, as some are mass murders and others are massacres. As to the earlier references, in articles about mass shootings with "mass shooting" literally in the headline of the initial reference or elsewhere in the body, that the Goetz shooting is not repetitively and redundantly labeled a "mass shooting" itself is also pedantic nonsense.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My sprachgefühl says no. Like some of the definitions in the Mass shooting article I associate an indiscriminate shooting with the word. But a lot of the definitions do not require this element and the Wikipedia category description seems to follow this. Other sources calling the incident a mass shooting is in my opinion no requirement for the categorisation. So it's a soft keep from me. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep The usage of the categories is not based on the specific use of the term "mass shooting" in the sources. The same is true for the list articles on mass shootings we have. If the event fits the definition used in the lists/categories, then the article is included. The reliable sources using the specific term or not is not even relevant. SilverserenC 17:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove. We only use categories that are verifiable. We don't get to set our own definitions, we describe things as they are described by reliable sources. Any other approach is a clear WP:OR violation. I would've preferred if this discussion had taken place to get consensus on the category as a whole rather than this specific instance, because that's where the issue seems to be. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's a fair point! And there do seem to be pages in the categories that aren't called "mass shooting[s]" by reliable sources, so perhaps it would've been better there.
    I do think part of the issue is that "mass shooting" is used so nebulously (even the WP page on mass shooting notes that there are several potential definitions) that it doesn't necessarily feel like a term of art at all. Rather, at least to me (and, I'd venture to guess, @Silver seren, @User:Random person no 362478479, and @William Allen Simpson), it sort-of seems like the equivalent of "non-fatal shooting"—I'm not sure if any specific sources directly call this event the phrase "non-fatal shooting", but no one is contesting that category should apply. That said, I can also see the argument that mass shooting is a term of art, and even if the page objectively or obviously fits a definition of mass shooting, the fact that no third-party sources use the specific term of art when describing this event creates a WP:SYNTH problem.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove (involved in original discussion) I've just realized I haven't actually made a comment yet. Inclusion of "mass shooting" constitutes WP:SYNTH. There is no one given consensus as to what a mass shooting is (as is succinctly described in the mass shooting article), and thus the inclusion into the mass shooting category should be based off of the usage of reliable secondary sources. Although assertions have been made above that some sources call this a mass shooting, there is no evidence that this is the case. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: @Love of Corey: recently added a mass-shootings template to the article. Not sure if that was because of the category or because he separately had thoughts that the template was appropriate, but I figured I'd ping him to this discussion just in case he had feelings either way.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was because of the category. If the template needs to be removed or should be removed, I'm quite alright with that. If you look at articles like List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023, you'd find that Wikipedia's definition of a mass shooting is very broad. WP:SOCKSTRIKE :3 F4U (they/it) 06:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC) Love of Corey (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: So, as of now, unless my finger-counting is off, we have four editors supporting the category and twoupdate: three opposing it. Of course, WP is not a democracy, but as someone who is probably the weakest of the four in support, I don't currently find super compelling arguments one way or the other. The key question seems to be whether mass-shooting is a term of art. Based on my review of the sources on various Wikipedia pages (including mass shooting and mass shootings in the United States), all I can come up with is "some say it is; some say it isn't." As Thebiguglyalien noted, I probably should have asked my question on either the specific mass-shooting categories that were added to this page or the general mass-shooting category. That's my bad, but, in my defense, I did advertise this RFC all those places. I'm, of course, happy to keep the RFC going, but based on how things have gone so far, I don't feel confident an influx of replies is coming. I also don't think that closing this RFC and trying to start one on one of the category pages would do much—given that I advertised in those places, I suspect that the only contributors who we haven't attracted are those who monitor something like WP:RFC/A and would be more likely to show up at an RFC on a category page. I can't imagine that's a huge group.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Have you tried a WP:VPR for this? I'm curious what others think about this question. Nemov (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Great question! I don't think I went, specifically, there (I didn't think it sounded like a new policy proposal) ... but I did go to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, each of the talk pages of the categories in question and also Category talk:Mass shootings. TBH, I understand it's a bit wonky, but I think it's an interesting issue! As it stands, it doesn't look like we're using "mass shooting" as a term of art that requires a specific source (at least per the articles included in that category and the comments of William Allen Simpson and Love of Corey-but at least a few sources do define it as a term of art! So I guess part of the question is, "Is WP allowed to be like "no it's not a term of art" in the face of those sources?"--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    FYI, Love of Corey has since been blocked as a sock. :3 F4U (they/it) 06:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Remove Per Thebiguglyalien. This is a tricky one because if it happened now it would likely be called a mass shooting, but those definitions can change over time. If the event isn't described as a mass shooting by reliable sources then it feels like original research to categorize it. Nemov (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I think it comes down to a choice. We can either use one of the definitions used for mass shootings (preferably a straightforward one) and apply it consistently. Or we can go by how reliable sources label each specific incident and accept that our categorisation is only as consistent as reliable sources are. In my opinion this is a real choice insofar as I don't think that there is a right or wrong here. The current text of the Category suggests that the first of these options is intended, so it may need adjusting if we chose the second. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, but if we were deciding that the event fit a definition, I think those opposing inclusion would say that's OR. Unfortunately, I really don't think WP:CATV is particularly clear on this point. It does say, "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." At first, I thought that supported inclusion (and sanctioned, to a degree, a bit of OR), since the category defines itself, and it's clear from article that it meets that category's definition. But, again, that goes away if mass shooting is a term of art.
    I mean if we had Category:Shootings with multiple persons injured or killed (or, in this case, uh, Category:1984 shootings with multiple persons injured or killed in the United States), then I think we'd be in the clear. But, instead, we have Category:mass shootings, which some people consider a term of art.
    But here's the thing: let's imagine we did create separate category—Category:Shootings with multiple persons injured or killed—and, on every page that currently has the mass-shooting category, we replaced that category with our new one. Then, we go through every page again, and, for the ones that have a reliable source calling them a mass shooting, we add back the mass shooting category.
    I'd like us to take a second just to consider how odd the result would be.
    1. First, even the people who say mass shooting is a term of art don't agree on what a mass shooting is. So, by necessity, the category would reflect the broadest possible definition—let's imagine person A, an expert with a unique definition of mass shooting being interviewed by the New York Times, lists 5 examples of what she considers a mass shooting and 5 examples of what she doesn't consider to be a mass shooting. And person B, an expert with a unique definition of mass shooting being interviewed by the Washington Post, does the same thing, but the lists are exact opposites. The mass shooting category would contain all of those examples.
    2. Second, it's not actually clear how many (if any) experts or institutional-media sources are using "mass shooting" as a term of art ... so the category would also have everything that a random journalist happened to label a mass shooting. So, in effect, the category would be "Here's every subject for which, in a reliable source, any person—who may or may not have been using a term-of-art definition of mass shooting (some of which might have been unique to that person)—said was a mass shooting."
    So, when you add up all of that ... would Wikipedia actually be better? While I admit the "let's have a direct source" would be nice, I think Wikipedia is allowed to define its own categories, and it's pretty clear that most the people using these categories don't consider mass shooting a term of art.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think we would have to use the broadest possible definition. Since definitions are by definition (sorry for that) to an extent arbitrary we would have to find a consensus what definition we want to use. E.g. when you look at the definitions in Mass shooting "a shooting where at least four persons (not counting the shooter) are shot (either injured or dead) with no cooling-off period" seems like a viable option. The obvious advantage would be that apart from the question of what constitutes a cooling-off period there is not much to argue about when deciding whether to categorise an event like this or not. The other advantage is consistency. The disadvantage is that we may end up categorising events that no-one calls a mass shooting as mass-shooting or that we do not categorise an event as a mass shooting even though multiple reliable sources call it a mass shooting.
    The alternative would basically be a list of events described by reliable sources as mass shootings. The obvious advantage is that we just have to follow what reliable sources say. One disadvantages are (potential) inconsistency, i.e. there may be two practically identical events and one is called a mass schooling and the other is not. The other disadvantage is that we have to make decisions like "how many sources do have to call it a mass shooting?", "if the New York Times calls it a mass shooting, but no-one else does, do we put it in the mass shooting category or not?", "is a mass murder a mass shooting?"
    I see both advantages and disadvantages for either option. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry I maybe wasn't clear: I think those opposing inclusion would object to your "we pick a definition" approach, saying that our assessment of the shooting as meeting one of those definitions would be WP:OR. They're saying that we need sources directly calling an event a mass shooting. I'm saying if we take that approach, we would end up with the broadest definition, for the reasons I explained above.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah, OK. Obviously, there would have to be consensus for the decision to use such a definition. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm also wondering about the applicability of the mass shooting category when the shooting in question was arguably self defense. In addition, I've just realized that calling it a mass shooting could also potentially be a BLP concern. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think there is some disagreement about self defence. A definition would have to either include or exclude it.
    The BLP concern is a good point. The question is whether calling something a mass shooting could be a violation even if all we're doing is applying a strictly defined term whose conditions are objectively met. I don't know. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So do you think we should have a separate category, "Category:Shootings with multiple casualties" (or, in our case "Shootings with multiple casualties in New York City" and "1984 shootings with multiple casualties in the United States"). Per the other editors, I think that's what the mass shooting category is used as now, but we could always replace it? or maybe do a straight-up move, though that would obviously require more discussion--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think having two categories would lead to over-categorisation. We should make a decision one way or the other and live with it. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As it is, based on what other editors have said, the mass-shooting categories contain a lot of pages that haven't been described by reliable sources as mass shootings. So, we could either no longer have those pages categorized together, or ... we could change the mass-shooting category. Although I don't think my proposed category would work based on the description in, say, Category:Mass shootings in the United States (which distinguishes "spree shootings," saying: "Shootings that murder or injure multiple people in one place and time in the United States, different from a spree shooting."--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    the mass-shooting categories contain a lot of pages that haven't been described by reliable sources as mass shootings. Such as? Not doubting you, but I don't see that myself. Also, I just realized this article shares a lot of similarities with the Kenosha unrest shooting which also does not describe the incident as a mass shooting. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Was basing my comment on the unchallenged claim by User:William Allen Simpson, but I'll check! Funnily enough the Kenosha shooting could be in the mass shooting category? Given Facebook's comments? (Update: FB is actually a little ambiguous—they only explicitly say mass murder ... but the phrase mass shooting is also used)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Update 2: Okay: I went through the first few articles in Category:Mass shootings in the United States. Trends I noticed:
    • "Mass shooting", as a term, is increasingly used to describe events. From what I could tell, older events—and maybe I'd draw the line at the mid 2000s?—were far less likely to have a source describing them as a mass shooting. Occasionally, you'd have an event that wasn't contemporaneously described as a mass shooting, but was so described in a retrospective. (Examples: Couldn't find any contemporary results calling a 1999 "See You at the Pole" shooting a "mass shooting", but this 2019 retrospective opened with it! Same story for the 2009 Atlantis Plastics shooting, called a mass shooting in 2021. The 1994 Brooklyn Bridge shooting wasn't called a mass shooting ... until a 2017 journal article on "the aftermath of mass shootings"). That's also consistent with Google Search trends, which show the term was far less popular pre-2009.
    • I found quite a few articles where I couldn't, through a google search, find a reliable source calling the event a mass shooting. Just some of the examples: 2002 Appalachian School of Law shooting, 1999 Atlanta day trading firm shootings, 1997 Bethel Regional High School shooting, Blackfriars Massacre. I also saw quite a few articles where I could find such a source, but, notably, it didn't seem that any of the sources in the article were cited for that proposition.
    --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So current use of the category is inconsistent? So we have three options:
    • find a consensus for a definition and go through all articles to see if the events fall under the definition
    • go through all the articles and remove those events that have not been called mass shootings
    Or, hear me out:
    • Pretend we didn't notice. Let someone else deal with this mess. We were never here.
    -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, I don't think enough people participated in this to conclusively say that the term "mass shooting" is a term of art, and the inclusion of those pages are wrong ... (such an RFC should probably be had on the Category page, and not here). As such, I'm not planning on going through one by one.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So plan B:
    "Erase all the hard drives, scrap the surveillance tapes, wipe our fingerprints off every surface and run."[8] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found sources!

  • See the transcript here [9]. Here's the Gothamist article he's referring to—[10]—technically, the Gothamist says "mass violence" ... but the Gothamist also uses more examples, whereas Lehrer is only talking about shootings, so his choice of the term "mass shooting" must be deliberate. I'll add the WNYC story to the article with a quote from the transcript.
  • Here's an op ed talking about the relative rarity of mass shootings, and including Goetz among the examples [11]. I don't think that's worth adding, but if you want.

@Freedom4U: is it okay if I take this off the closure requests?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mhm, I'm still not convinced that this is a "mass shooting", but its difficult because sources don't generally talk about what things aren't (Cf. Stuart 2015 which is cited in the Mass shootings in the United States article). Regardless, that's a discussion that is probably better suited for the talk page of the category itself. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that's fair. I think the issue is that, ever since people started to use a strict definition of mass shooting, mass shooting has been a bit ambiguous: if someone uses it, are they merely saying "a shooting with multiple casualties"? ... Or are they perhaps using a more specific definition? I've seen ... a lot of definitions now, and it's actually surprising how far apart they can be.
  • A few sources use only numerical thresholds The Gun Violence Archive defines the term as "four or more people shot or killed in a single incident" (says purely ... [a numerical threshold"), and a report for the Congressional Research Service used an operational definition that required at least four deaths in a single shooting incident. Everytown for Gun Safety used to use that definition, but they now essentially line up with the Gun Violence Archive and define the term as "any incident in which four or more people are shot and wounded or killed, excluding the shooter." And Mass Shooting Tracker also says four wounded or killed, but includes the shooter.
  • sort-of uses a numerical threshold, saying you just need 3 casualties (killed or injured), but it gives bonus points for victim "randomn[ness]".
  • But Britannica says the term is a synonym for the FBI's "active shooter incident", which adds an intent element: a shooter "actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area".
Maybe someday it'll get officially defined by Congress or whatever.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

R22 Subway Car picture[edit]

@Jerome Frank Disciple Is the picture of the R22 Money Car appropriate for illustrating the type of subway car? Given that the yellow cars were armored cars specifically for transporting subway/bus fares, I think a different picture from the R22 (New York City Subway car) article would be more appropriate. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You very much might be right. Unfortunately, there's a lot of tradeoffs either way—I thought the yellow car pic was the lesser of two evils given that you could (somewhat) see inside of the car and see semi-typical passenger seating (at least based on the non-free images I saw) semi-typical passenger seating, although you can also see lockers and a table, which, as I understand, were not on the other cars. (If only I had lived (or been alive) in NYC nearly 4 decades earlier, I could have firsthand knowledge!) That said, the other photos have issues as well ... I'm not sure, for example, if there's any relevance between the 1984 shooting and, say, either 1973 pictures of the outsides of graffiti-tagged trains. And the remaining picture most prominently displays a yellow car.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am near 100 percent sure that the lockers are because it's a money car.... See these pictures of the aftermath of the shooting: [12] [13] This site provides this image as an example of an R22 interior, which is very different from the interior following its transformation into a money car. I think either the pictures of the exterior or the pictures of the R17 (New York City Subway car) (which the article states that the R21 and R22 closely resemble) would be more fitting. :3 F4U (they/it) 12:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh I agree! I thought maybe the bench and relative size of the interior made that photo superior to others the others of the R22. I'll use the R17 interior! thanks!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why can't this picture be used? It better represents the subway car. Read the notes at the bottom - its in the public domain: 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:55CF:C7D3:E8DF:8EB (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me, two reasons: (1) The biggest: the random guy in the photo. I don't think it's appropriate for the only photo in the article to have a single, clearly identifiable subject who has nothing to do with the article. (2) Though in roughly the right period (that photo predates the shooting by 11 years), we have no idea what type of subway car that is—it's just some random guy on some subway car.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The guy in the photo obviously isn't Goetz, its a neatly dressed white guy in a typical graffitti car. It much more closely resembles the car where the incident happened. The present picture shows a round widow in the end door. The R22 car was in service from 1957 - 1987 and had a rectangular end window. See the Wiki article on R22 subway car. 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:C567:56C3:B78A:43D4 (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"obviously" only to someone who knows what Goetz looks like, and we currently don't have a picture of Goetz in the article.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll admit I'm not very good at photos (as I've demonstrated on this page), so perhaps my concerns are unfounded. Sorry to drag you in again, @Freedom4U:, but do you have thoughts on this? (If not, no worries!)--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can it be confirmed that this is an R22 Subway car? :3 F4U (they/it) 15:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I strongly disagree with using the photo of an R17. It had cushioned seats. The R22 does not. That alone is sufficient to make the photo unusable. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 18:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On the photo request for a R22 subway car, the best picture to illustrate the scene of the incident would be the interior of a R22 car with graffiti. If the participants were subway surfing at the time, the exterior of the car would be best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:49DD:1C3D:ED67:F1CD (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree that interior or exterior is fine, as long as it is that car, the R22, and not one that might be similar. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Schwede66 (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • ... that the 1984 New York City Subway shooting partially inspired the 2019 film Joker? Source: Then there was the real-life inspiration: Bernhard Goetz, New York’s notorious “Subway Vigilante” of the early ’80s. “I was living in New York at the time so I remember it quite well,” he said. “He was a very bland person, who had just had it, so there was a bit of that too: Art imitates life a little bit. If this already happened, it’s not a far stretch for someone who has been abused and misused enough to fight back, finally. It starts a conversation, maybe: ‘I’m as mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore,'” [14]

Improved to Good Article status by Jerome Frank Disciple (talk). Nominated by Freedom4U (talk) at 06:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/1984 New York City Subway shooting; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: all appears in order for DYK; cheers to all jengod (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is unfortunately ineligible as it previously appeared on the Main Page as a bold link (OTD on 22 December 2022). Schwede66 05:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggested corrections to article[edit]

This article is a typical liberal interpretation of a mugging. The muggers are portrayed as the victims and the victim is to blame for standing up for himself. It is sickening. Bernard Goetz defended himself against a group of thugs and he should be remembered a hero for his actions. If you allow thugs to take advantage or you once, they will only come back for more. Putin is a thug, look at the result of inaction of February and March of 2014 when Russia "Annexed" Crimea. The failure to take action emboldened the thug Putin and the result was a "Special Military Operation" to take the entire county of Ukraine by force. Force MUST be met with force. To do otherwise invites more attacks. This article should be rewritten to reflect the TRUE victim in this alteration, or it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is a little whacky, don't quite know what make of it, but it has a type of logic. Yes, lots of irrelevant left wing opinions and focus are in the article. I think the article is more or less balanced in that there's enough information for readers to conclude whether or not a mugging was likely occurring, whether Cabey was shot once or twice, and the craziness of the legal response to the shooting (perhaps it should have been mentioned Cuomo was the leading person for the democratic presidential nomination and the 1984 shooting derailed his campaign by the media focus on NYC crime and NYC conditions). The article is about a shooting but the reader learns only limited details of what happened during the shooting, at least it has the most important details, maybe the other details are not so important if a mugging was actually happening. We get details of a trivial forgotten defamation lawsuit, but not Goetz's informed detailed explanation of the shooting (probably worth more than a lot of expert opinion and political opinion) because it was made '20 years after' the incident ... but then incident is called a 'mass shooting' because 'reliable source' NPR's Brian Lehrer calls it a mass shooting 35 years later. The article was completely rewritten by an author who then nominates his own article as a good article, whatever. All in all its an informative article from which readers have enough information to reach informed conclusions, however its unbalanced because it gives many irrelevant left wing political opinions but omits Goetz's presumably informed opinion of events. I don't think the article should be deleted because its still stands out as the best most informative internet article out there. 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:9C5E:B3A9:C8D3:D7A (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A source used in the article is: Encyclopædia Britannica, "Bernhard Goetz" by David Mackey. This is a weak source to say the least. I just sent the following email to David Mackey requesting he correct the Britannica article:

"" The Britannica article states: "Goetz interpreted the inquiry as a prelude to a mugging. Canty then approached Goetz and asked for money."

(1) A minor issue with "Goetz interpreted the inquiry as a prelude to a mugging." This is incorrect or imprecise at best. It would be more precise to state: Goetz interpreted the inquiry as a possible prelude to a mugging. (2) Much more importantly the statement "Canty then approached Goetz and asked for money." is incomplete and misleading. It was substantially determined at the criminal trial that both Canty AND Allen rose from their seats and came over to Goetz's left prior to Canty's request or instruction for money. (3) The article also states: "The conductor heard the shots and engaged the emergency brake, bringing the train to a stop." This is incorrect. Nobody pulled the emergency brake. Suggest you check on your weak sources for this statement.

Please correct these errors in the Britannica article. If you disagree in any way with these suggested corrections, can you state what references you used for "Goetz interpreted the inquiry as a prelude to a mugging. Canty then approached Goetz and asked for money." "" 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:BD5C:5F7B:20C3:42A9 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, obviously you're not required to reveal this information, but some of those statements to Mackey seem to suggest personal knowledge. ("Goetz interpreted the inquiry as a possible prelude to a mugging"? "Nobody pulled the emergency brake"). Are you willing to say whether you are Goetz? (If not, that's fine! Just keep WP:AUTO#IFEXIST in mind.)
Here, the Britannica article is only cited for the claim that Canty asked Goetz how he was, so I think we're in the clear in terms of content?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Britannica article is obvious slipshod and I'm surprised you used it as a source. It even contradicts other information you wrote. Garbage in, garbage out. If I don't hear from the Britannica author by next week I'll email Britannica. Conductors don't pull emergency brakes. Standard procedure on serious incidents is to stop trains normally between stations, which what was done here. Some ancient source said a passenger pulled the emergency brake, and a few other people repeated this, and then a few said the conductor pulled the emergency brake. Nonsense, check better sources. Uncontested Canty asked Goetz how he was. Also not contested is Canty asked for OR INSTRUCTED Goetz to give him $5. Importantly omitted from Britannica is Allen ALSO stood up and came over to Goetz's left along with Canty. Very misleading to omit this detail. Please check and use better sources. 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:59AE:6EC9:E73E:FC22 (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair point! I replaced the Britannica citation. (Just for background—this is discussed above but I won't make you trudge through the whole GA nomination :)—originally, the article didn't say whether Canty asked Goetz how he was prior to asking him for/demanding money. That portion just opened with Canty asking for/demanding money. That was a conscious choice on my part—to me, it seemed, a few sources disagreed on whether Canty asked how Goetz was prior to asking for money. But User:Freedom4U—who, it should be noted, was very patient with me through a tough GA review—pointed out that most sources, and they specifically pointed out Britannica, included the line, so I added it to the Incident section and, solely because it had been mentioned by F4U, included the Britannica citation. But, again, now it's replaced.)

David Mackey, author of the Britannica article, never replied to my emails. The Britannica article on this subject is obvious bs to anyone familiar with this case and it should not be used as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:346A:473A:AE52:7307 (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In terms of Allen, I do think that question is contested, based on the trial testimony and the reliable sources I've seen. I know you say "it was substantially determined at the criminal trial" that Allen stood up, but, having worked for a federal judge, I'm not sure what you could mean by "substantially determined": there wasn't a special jury verdict on that issue. Now, in the trial section, we discuss the dispute over whether all four surrounded Goetz. From my perspective (and, in fairness, the perspective of most reliable sources covering this), that makes the question of when Allen stood up a bit irrelevant, no? The prosecution (and at least a few of the teenagers) denied they had surrounded Goetz, and the defense said they had. If they did surround Goetz, as the defense said, it doesn't matter if, also as the defense said, Allen stood up with Canty.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can certainly take a middle ground and reflect what the reliable secondary sources say on these issues. The point raised above about a WP:TERTIARY source is well-taken. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 16:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The statement "Troy Canty approached Goetz, asked Goetz how he was,[12] and made some overture for money:[13]" is still incomplete and misleading. Read Subway Gunman P.117, P. 119, P.120 where Josephine Holt testifies at least 2 of the group were standing over Goetz prior to the shooting. Also read P.285 & P.286 where the jury concludes at least 2 youths were standing in front of Goetz with "The majority of credible eyewitness testimony had two youths standing in front of Goetz." AND your Reference [13] states "According to Goetz, two of them, probably Canty and Allen, got up and moved to his left." Shouldn't the Wiki article say this??

Why was Goetz's description of the shooting from his website deleted from the article? Goetz is a significant source. The article is about the subway shooting, and this description is by far the most detailed description of the actual shooting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:5D6E:9C99:462E:B975 (talkcontribs)

The campaign-website quotation was discussed here, during the GA review—it was deleted for WP:ABOUTSELF and MOS:QUOTE (over quotation) concerns.
In terms of the Holt testimony/the juror's book you're referencing: I think I'm maybe describing the problem incorrectly, and that might be throwing you. The problem is that we have reliable sources that describe the event both ways. Witnesses in the trial did disagree on whether two of the teens stood up. It might be true that a majority of the "credible witnesses" (at least according to that juror's conception of credible) said that 2 of them stood up, it's not really a Wikipedia's article place to dictate truth. Right now, the section focuses on what was uncontested, but I'll try to put in that Goetz said that two of the teens stood up in a way that hedges sufficiently. We'll say that Goetz said that Canty was joined by another. In terms of the testimony—I maintain that's not worth getting into—first, because it'll mix the trial section with the incident section; second, because the issue of Goetz being surrounded is already discussed.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slight transition to chiefly discussing the statement[edit]

(1) You are describing the problem incorrectly. Its disputed that ONLY ONE teenager stood up and approached Goetz prior to the shooting. There is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE between one or two approaching Goetz, and the article sentence gives the impression that only Troy Canty approached Goetz. (2) Removal of Goetz's website statement is unwarranted. On a hypothetical article on the Kennedy Assassination, what if Lee Harvey Oswald published a detailed statement about the shooting before he was killed. Should that statement be excluded from the article because Lee Oswald published it? It doesn't matter if the statement is accurate or inaccurate. Its a significant source and anyone is free to contest and of the details in Goetz's statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:41A9:C7D:A1E3:F184 (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As to (1) ... I'm not sure what you mean. It's disputed whether more than one approached Goetz is, I think, the same thing as "[i]ts disputed that ONLY ONE teenager stood up and approached Goetz." Regardless, I believe that's now been addressed? "According to Goetz, Canty, who Goetz said was joined by another one of the teens, said, "Give me five dollars" in a "normal tone" of voice."
As to your hypothetical in (2) ... to be honest, very likely no, it wouldn't be included as a full statement on Wikipedia. We'd probably check to see if any secondary sources covered the statement and base the inclusion off them ... and, if they didn't, maybe we'd briefly summarize it, only citing to the primary source, but I'd expect that'd be it. It'd sound, to me, like something that belongs more on Wikisource. Put it this way: the Unabomber posted a long justification of his actions, but it's not like his page just includes the full text of his manifesto. (And that work was obviously very well covered by reliable sources ... Goetz's campaign site ... just wasn't.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are wrong on this. Your removal of Goetz's statement greatly detracts from the informative purpose of the article.Check the history of this article when Goetz's statement was added to the article. After weeks of discussion it was determined by senior editors that Goetz's unedited statement was a significant source and its been in the article for more than 10 years. Its not a lengthy manifesto, bad comparison. Its a concise description of the shooting about as long as the shortest sections in the article. The statement should be restored to the article, perhaps in the Subsequent Developments section. 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:7470:AADF:CF6D:F6F2 (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Freedom4U I hate to drag you back into this, but is there any chance you have more thoughts on including the full Goetz statement? I know I briefly described the IP's thoughts to you during the GA review, but a few more arguments have been added. Just for context, this was the statement/as the article formerly addressed it:

In 2005, Goetz unsuccessfully ran for public advocate; on his campaign website, he described the shooting:

I decided to shoot as many as I could as quickly as I could. I did a fast draw, and shot with one hand (my right), pulling the trigger prior to the gun being aligned on the targets. All actual shots plus my draw time occurred easily within 1.6 seconds or less. This is not as difficult to do as some might think, and occasionally I give a description of the technique along with a re-enactment. The first shot hit Canty in the center of the chest. After the first shot my vision changed and I lost my sense of hearing. The second shot hit lightning fast Barry Allen in the upper rear shoulder as he was ducking (later the bullet was removed from his arm). The third shot hit the subway wall just in front of Cabey; the fourth shot hit Cabey in the left side (severing his spinal cord and rendering him paraplegic). The fifth shot hit Ramseur's arm on the way into his left side. 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. I thought Cabey was shot twice after reading a media account no shots missed; I had lost count of the shots and while under adrenaline I didn't even hear the shots or feel the kick of the gun. 'You don't look too bad, here's another', is a phrase I came up with later when trying to explain the shooting while I was under the impression that Cabey was shot twice. Cabey, who was briefly standing prior to the shooting, was sitting on the subway bench during all attempted shots. The others were standing. Shortly after the shooting my vision and hearing returned to normal.[1]


[1]Bernard Goetz. "Bernie Goetz for Public Advocate 2005" (HTML).

Reviewing it again, I honestly am even more skeptical it should be in the article, particularly in this full form. Does how Goetz decided to describe the shooting 20 years later really matter? And, frankly, if we include this kind of account from Goetz, do we also need to include giant block quotes from any of the persons shot where they describe the shooting? Most of all, I just don't see what this adds to the article, particularly given the lack of reliable source coverage.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no reason for the quote, providing it in this way is clearly undue weight and its inclusion would not provide any benefit for the article. :3 F4U (they/it) 17:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"How does Goetz decided to describe the shooting 20 years later really matter?"???
Are you nuts? What could be more important than Goetz's description? Its a significant source and readers should have access to it. Who knows to its accuracy and its only Goetz's opinion. Prior it could be qualified with some kind of statement. Goetz also describes shooting details in the Shatner interview 30 years later, thats also a significant source. 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:E987:E873:C13A:38DE (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Goetz gave a description to the police when he was first interviewed. I'm sure both he and the persons who were shot have described the shooting in the years since, but that doesn't mean they need to be on this page. I'm sorry man but so far you have two editors disagreeing with you; if you want you can of course seek out some other method of dispute resolution, but I don't get the sense that F4U is particularly on the fence on the issue.--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spelling of Bernard/Bernhard Goetz[edit]

@Jerome Frank Disciple Huh, I didn't realize this would be an issue, but it looks like a number of sources spell Goetz's name as "Bernard". I just wanted to confirm with you that that's a misspelling of his name. This spelling can be found in the NYTimes, writeup in UVA law, and this book chapter. If my understanding that this is a misspelling is correct, I think it would be a good idea to add a footnote after his name in the 1984 New York City Subway shooting § Shooter section, just for clarity. :3 F4U (they/it) 17:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Great catch, though ... the book chapter is confusing. The chapter title does say "Bernard Goetz". But, in the actual chapter, on page 1, it says "Bernhard Goetz"! That NYT article appears to be a major outlier compared to their other coverage, [15] [16] [17], so I'm inclined to think it's just a typo?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All very good points. We may want to make reference to the Bernard spelling if it is commonly used. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added the alternate "Bernard" spelling as it is used in multiple sources. Inserted it in the "shooter" section. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 20:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More sources than the above? If we have reliable sources consistently calling him Bernard, I'm not opposed to keeping it, but it seems to me that it's a rarely used typo. A typo in the name doesn't, I think, render him an "also known as". Let's get a source that explicitly says he's also known by that spelling.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with the above. I was suggesting this be added as a footnote, just so that people who may type in "Bernard Goetz" aren't confused. This spelling can also be found in The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, the National Portrait Gallery, The Globe and Mail, and The Jerusalem Post.
Also, The Free Dictionary claims he was born "Bernard Hugo Goetz" and the NYC Campaign Finance Board also named him "Bernard Goetz" :3 F4U (they/it) 15:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh I'd absolutely support the footnote! I'll add it now.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transcript of civil trial - Restore Goetz's shooting descriptions to article[edit]

I got the section of the Bronx trial shooting testimony! 28 pages. This is the plain text conversion of the pdf. The original pdf has some special version of the court reporters seal, but here it just shows up as some kind of odd tiff. I can forward the original pdf with the electronic seal to anyone who requests it here. Sections from this can/should be added to the article. This verifies the CABEY SHOT ON THE FORTH SHOT description with Goetz's website shooting description that Jerome Frank Disciple removed. The CABEY SHOT ON THE FORTH SHOT section should be restored. The present article has DOZENS of riffraff opinions and statements about the shooting, but LITTLE of Goetz's statements describing the shooting other than statements he made Dec 31, 1984 in NH, which he later retracted.

For GOETZ shooting testimony (Bronx trial) click on EXTENDED CONTENT:

Extended content

CATHERINE CALLAHAN <> Tue, Jun 13 at 11:18 AM

B. Goetz - Plaintiff - Direct SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX: TRIAL TERM PART 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X DARRELL CABEY, Plaintiff, Excerpt of testimony - against - of Bernhard Goetz BERNHARD GOETZ, Defendant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X April 12, 1996 851 Grand Concourse Bronx, New York 10451 B E F O R E: BARRY SALMAN, Justice, and a jury of six plus two alternates. A P P E A R A N C E S RONALD KUBY, ESQ Attorney for Plaintiff DARNAY HOFFMAN, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant Catherine Callahan, RPR Senior Court Reporter

B. Goetz - Plaintiff - Direct

Q Did you then tell Officer Foote, the Negro male again asked Mr. Goetz, give me five dollars? A Yes. Q At this time, Mr. Goetz stated that he pulled out the revolver that he had in his waistband slash belt? A Yes. Q And did you further tell Officer Foote that you fired at the first subject who was wearing a fur type jacket at center body? A Well, that's misinformation, but I did tell him that. Q And did you tell him that you then fired at the second subject in the same fashion as you had planned to do? A That's correct. Q And did you then tell him that you turned to your right then shooting the third subject and then the fourth subject? A Yes, that could be confusing. That would be the third. Q Excuse me, Mr. Goetz. That's what you told him; correct? A That's what I told him. Q Did you then tell him that after firing the four shots you went to check the first two subjects who are now lying on the floor of the subway car? A I don't believe I told him that. I think one was on

the seat and one was on the floor. One was lying, I seem to remember, belly down on one of the seats. Q So, you were not -- so it's your testimony -- A I may have told him exactly this. Q You may have told him exactly what's written on the page; is that correct? A Yes, this is incorrect, but this is what I may have told him. Q Is it fair to say that then you told him after you were checking to see if they were taken care of; is that correct? A Yes. Q And when you used the phrase "taken care of," you didn't mean -- you didn't mean, sorry, receiving medical assistance; did you? A No, I meant seriously injured. Q Seriously injured? A Yes. Q After making sure that they were taken care of, you went to the second two subjects, one being on the floor? A Correct. Q And did you also say the other, the fourth being shot, being halfway sitting, half lying on the bench where he was originally?

A Yeah, he was in the slightly different position but that -- the person in that fourth position, yes. Q And then did you tell Officer Foote that you didn't see any blood on that subject? A He didn't appear to be seriously injured. Q Did you tell Officer Foote that you did not see any blood on the subject? A In response to -- in response to a question from him, probably, yes. Q And did you tell Officer Foote at that time, you told the subject, you don't look too bad, here's another one, and you shot the subject a second time? A Those were the words in my mind and I tried to shoot him again. Q Did you tell Officer Foote at that time, you told the subject you don't look too bad, here's another, and you shot the fourth subject a time second? Is that what you told him? A I told him words very close to what you just said, yes. Q Did you then say to Officer Foote that the news media and newspapers stated you fired only four times, four shots and that they were -- in fact, they were wrong and you fired five? A Well, I was -- I was -- I didn't think about the shots that I missed. I was given misinformation so I told him I fired five shots.

Q Excuse me. Did you tell Officer Foote that the news media and newspapers stated you had only fired four shots and that they were wrong, you had fired five? A Correct. Q And did you then tell Officer Foote the four subjects you fired at twice? A That's correct. Q And on the next page, Mr. Goetz, page five, first full paragraph -- A Yes, is it. Q Is it fair to say several times you told Officer Foote that you didn't feel that what you had done was wrong? A Probably. MR. KUBY: If I can get this marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 106 for identification. (Whereupon, the item referred to is marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 106 for identification.) Q Mr. Goetz, the four subjects that you told Officer Foote you fired at twice, that was Darrell Cabey; is that correct? A I believe so. Q I would like to show you what we have marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 106 for identification. Without showing it to the jury, I would ask you to take a look at it please?

A Yes. Q Do you recognize what that is? A Yes. Q And is that your signature, a reproduction of your signature at the bottom? A Yes. Q Is it fair to say this is a blow-up, a true and accurate blow-up of a sketch that you did for Officer Foote? A Yes. MR. KUBY: I would offer it into evidence. MR. HOFFMAN: No objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Please mark it number 106 in evidence without objection. (Whereupon, the item referred to, previously marked People's 106 for Identification, was received and marked People's 106 in Evidence.) Q Now, Mr. Goetz, I am going to ask you if you can stand off the witness stand. We are going to put this up on the easel and I am going to ask you some questions about it. Mr. Goetz, this is a depiction of the subway car that you were riding? A No, this is a simple block diagram. This -- if you are going to use this as a model -- Q Excuse me.

A It's a poor representation. Q Excuse me. THE COURT: Mr. Goetz, please just turn -- any member of the jury cannot see or hear? A Can we project it back a little more so everything can see and I can see. Q Officer Foote asked you to draw a diagram of the subway car showing approximately where people were situated; is that correct? A Yes. Q And this is the diagram you produced in response to that; is that correct? A Yes. Q Where it says enters, what does that indicate? A That's where I entered the subway car. The train is heading -- okay, this is -- yes, the train is heading south. North would be in this direction. The train is heading this way. I entered this door. Q And this was the number seven car on the number two train headed southbound? A Correct. Q And you boarded that car at 14th Street? A Correct. Q And you headed down to Chambers? A That's correct.

Q When you walked in, you took a seat where the "X" is; is that correct? A My hand -- I can just touch the armrest. I was about three feet to the left of the armrest. Q When you drew this sketch, the "X" here was intended to indicate where you sat? A Yes, that's correct. Three feet to the left of this armrest. Q With respect to the "W" here, that's -- A Yes. Q Withdrawn. With respect to the "W", that was described to depict a place where a woman was sitting; is that correct? A Yes, I think so. Q With respect to number -- A That was one of the woman I talked to. Q With respect to number -- one of the women that you talked to? A Yes. Q This was after the shooting? A Correct. Q And you had thought that perhaps you might have hurt her or shot her? A That's correct. Q And this was the woman that you went to see if she was

okay and she said to you -- THE COURT: Objection sustained. A Pardon. THE COURT: Sustained. A Oh, it's -- Q This was the woman you told, don't worry about them, they're assholes; is that correct? A No, that's not the woman I told that to. Q That was another woman? A That's correct. Q With respect to number 1, that indicates the position that Troy Canty was in; is that correct? A Well, yes. Q Thank you, Mr. Goetz. A This is not an accurate depiction of a subway car. This is a crude block diagram. Let me explain. Here are -- MR. KUBY: Excuse me, Judge. A He is asking for positions. I am trying to be more precise, Judge. THE COURT: Mr. Goetz, the question put forth to you related to the document you stated was a diagram you drew. I think we all can see that it's not a sketch in reference to the footage and the exactness. THE WITNESS: Okay, thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: With that understanding, let's proceed. Q Number 1 indicates the place where the first Negro subject, Troy Canty was standing when you walked in; is that correct? A No, he was lying down there with a -- one of his feet between the armrest. His body was on the seat lying on the seat on his back. Q This other fellow who you actually described to Officer Foote as sitting, but, in fact, you now recollect he was lying; is that correct? A That statement says he was sitting. I thought I was always consistent in saying he is lying on his back with his foot in between the armrest. Q Position number 2, the second Negro subject, do you know the name of that individual? A I believe that that is Barry Allen. Q And position number 3, the third Negro subject, do you know the name of that individual? A Well, at the time I came in the car I believe 2 was sitting in the seat here at the instant I came in the car. Q Excuse me, Mr. Goetz. With respect to the circle that you have drawn for position number 3, do you know the name of that individual? A No, I do not know. Can I ask you for a clarification?

Q No. THE COURT: Excuse me. Mr. Goetz, if you do not understand the question, just say you do not understand the understand it. Mr. Kuby will rephrase. A May I ask for you to ask the question just to -- THE COURT: Sir, if you do not understand the question, just say so and Mr. Kuby will rephrase it. A At the instant I entered the cab, is that your question? Q With respect to position number 4, subject number 4, that was designed to depict Darrell Cabey, where Darrell Cabey was sitting, subject number 4; is that correct? A Probably. Q You may resume the stand, Mr. Goetz. I am sorry. I am sorry. I apologize. These two arrows, these arrows are designed to indicate the approximate positions where Negro subject 1 and Negro subject 2 walked towards you; is that correct, on the subway car? A Yes. Q When you said on the videotape that they were surrounding you, they moved more to your left, this is what you meant; is that correct? A That's correct.

Q Mr. Goetz, is it fair to say within thirty seconds of your getting on that train you were shooting? A I think that's a good estimate, yes. Q And is it fair to say that when the first two subjects walked over, Darrell Cabey didn't change position? A No, that's not correct. Q Well, is it fair to say that Mr. Cabey was paying attention to you but only in a quite casual way? A That's not necessarily correct, no. Q Did you say on videotape on December 31, 1994, that Mr. Cabey was paying attention to you but only in a quiet casual way? A One of the two on my left was much more casual than the subject to my left-- one of the two on my right was much more casual than the other one on my right. I don't know if that was Darrell Cabey or not. Q Mr. Goetz, isn't it a fact that with respect to both of these young men on your right, you said they were paying attention to me, I believe, but only in a quite casual way? Did you say that? A When I was facing the other two on my left, yes. Q Now Mr. Goetz, you said -- you said either here on the stand or your videotape that one of the fellows on your right had his hand in his pocket with a bulge? A That's correct.

Q And is it fair to say that you did not believe that to be a threat? A I did not take that as a serious threat. Q Is it fair to say that, quote, I know it's bullshit and I am going to repeat it, the reason I know it's bullshit, these guys are smart to carry guns; is that what you said? A Yes, I did. Q Is it also fair to say that at one point the detective asked you, so you knew he had no weapon, and you answered, he had some bulge in his pocket, like that was nothing, that was nothing? A Yes, he was pretending he had something. I thought that was a bluff. Q You said there was nothing, that was nothing; is that correct? A Yes, words to that effect. Q And you said the bulge was in his pocket, in his pocket, that's not a threat to me? A I did not consider that a significant threat. Q What did you -- what you said was, the bulge was in his pocket, that's not a threat to me. That's what you said on videotape? A Yes, I said that, or words to that effect. Q Now at the moment you had this conversation with Troy Canty, the "give me five dollars," what did you say, and he

repeated it? Did anybody raise their hand to you? A No. Q Did anybody raise a fist to you? A No. Q You didn't see a weapon displayed by anybody; did you? A No. Q And the statement, "Give me five dollars," that wasn't a threat either; was it? A Only in the context of it -- of the whole situation. Q Well, you said in an audiotape you, did you not, give me five dollars. Oh, yeah, yeah, sure. And you see that in itself, none of these things bother me. A That in itself is -- was not threatening, but in the context of the whole situation, that could be considered a threat. Q Now, Mr. Goetz, at that moment you knew, did you not, that you could simply have pulled the gun and shown the gun and it would have scared Mr. Canty and anyone else away, isn't that right; you knew that; didn't you? A No, I did not. Q Well, is it fair to say that when you were talking to Detective Clark on videotape, you said, the threat, when I was surrounded at that point, pulling the gun would have been enough, but when I saw this one fellow and when I saw the glean

in his eyes and the smile on his face -- is that what you said on December 31, 1994? A I may have said that. Q And is it also fair to say that you were gone on pulling the gun, but I wasn't gone on killing him, and that is what -- that is what I wound up trying to do. But I had no intention of killing them at that time. Give me five dollars. Five dollars to me is bullshit. This is just a technicality. They're trying to beat us so they don't be accused of an armed robbery. It was -- his eyes were shining. He had a smile on his face. When I saw the smile on his face and the shine in his eyes, that he was enjoying this, I knew what they were going to do. Is that what you said? A Yes. Q And is it also fair to say that at that point you decided you were going to, quote, kill them all, murder them all, do anything? A I snapped. Q You said you snapped. Does that mean you lost control? A Control is a funny -- is not a precise word. Yes, I think it would be a good way of describing it. I would say at that point I was out of control.

Q Mr. Goetz, you remember a deposition in this case back in 1990? A Yes. Q Page 61 -- THE COURT: Mr. Kuby, I would like to explain to the jury what a deposition is. Members of the Jury, during the course of a proceeding there are various methods by which information is gathered, and that is prior to the actual trial. One of those methods in a civil proceeding is something that we call an Examination Before Trial or a deposition. Very quickly, the proceedings relate to a request made by one side or the other to ask questions under oath of either a party or someone who is related to the claim or a witness or anyone who could give information pertinent to the claims being made. A party or a person appears in an office, whether it be the lawyer's office, and sometimes we use this building, they are placed under oath, they are asked questions under oath. Their attorney is present. There is an attorney for the other side. The proceeding is taken down similar to what's being done by our court -- well, there is an outside reporter, who then transcribes it. And it is transcribed into a type of booklet which I am showing you now.

The booklet usually has an original and two copies. The original and a copy are then sent from the attorney who requested it to the other side. They have an opportunity to read it over. If there are any changes, there is a procedure under our law to make such changes, and then the document is sworn to before a Notary Public so that it becomes the sworn testimony of the individual who has been asked questions. The original and a copy are usually returned to the party who requested it and a copy is kept by the person who was the person asked the questions. This way they have an exact duplicate of everything that has been transcribed. What is the purpose of the document? As I mentioned, it is sworn to under oath and, therefore, as it relates to a party to a proceeding, Mr. Goetz is a party. You may consider this as it's related to by Counsel or read into the record as part of the case. There may be questions relating to whether there were consistencies or inconsistencies based on what he is testifying to now in court and what he said on this date in question. Counsel has stated that he is going to allude to the document so that there is no misunderstanding. This document took place -- or the E.B.T. took

place on September 24, 1990, at 10:00 A.M. in this building. I also want to state so that there is no misunderstanding that pursuant to a Court Order of myself, I ordered a judicial hearing officer to preside both at the E.B.T. of Mr. Goetz and the subsequent E.B.T. of Mr. Cabey. So, I want to tell you that in addition to the fact that under normal circumstances you just have the attorneys, in this particular case you had judicial hearing officer presiding over these proceedings. Sir, you may proceed. Q Thank you. Mr. Goetz, you remember all that? A Yes. Q And do you remember being asked this question and giving this answer: THE COURT: Page and line. Q Page 61: "QUESTION: Mr. Goetz, with respect to the time that you snapped, does that mean you lost control in what you were doing, that you did not know what you were doing? "ANSWER: No, I wouldn't characterize it that way at all. "QUESTION: In fact, you knew exactly what you were doing when you shot those four young men; is that

right? "ANSWER: That is correct, while I was doing it, yes." Do you remember those questions and those answers? A Yes. Q Mr. Goetz, did you state on December 31, 1984, when I saw the look on his face, I made the decision. Those guys, if I had more, I would have used more, and I attempted to take them all out. You have to answer. A Yeah. Yes, I said that. Q And is it also fair to say that in the audiotape you said, when I saw him smiling I laid down my pattern of fire? A Yes. Q Mr. Goetz, it's true, is it not that when you started firing your intention was to kill them? A You have a flood of emotions. I had a number of intentions. Q Did you state on videotape that when you started firing your intention was to kill them? A Yes. Q Did you state on videotape that your intention was to quote, murder them, closed quote? A Yes.

Q Did you say on the videotape that your intention was to make them suffer as much as possible? A Yes. Q And it's fair to say that you were being vicious; is that right? A Yes. Q And it's fair to say that you were trying to do anything that you could to hurt them; is that right? A I was trying to get as many as I could. Q On the videotape yesterday and also here you used the term "pattern of fire." A Yes. Q Could you please explain that? A If there are two on your left and two on your right it seemed the obvious thing to do is to shoot as quickly as possible. It's to shoot people in one continuous direction, in one continuous sweep. So my pattern of fire in general was going to be from left to right. Q Shooting one, two, three, four? A Well, that's what I had thought would have been correct. In fact, it was not. Q Thank you. Clockwise; left to right? A Yes. Q Now after you fired the first shot —

A Yes. Q -- you, quote, got rid of number one, closed quote? A That's correct. Q Do you remember saying that on video? A No, but I would have said it. Q You would have said that it sounds like? A Yes. Q Did you stop at that point to see what was going on? A No, no. As a matter of fact, I was in the process of pulling the trigger immediately after shooting the first person. Q Then you fired and you got rid of number two; is that correct? A That's correct. Q Is it true on videotape you said, they say I shot him in the back. It doesn't matter. I wasn't even aiming. I wasn't aiming for their backs? A That's correct. Q And after you quote, got rid of number two, closed quote, did you stop at that point to see whether you were in any danger? A No, I started to pull the trigger and started to turn around. Q Is it fair to say that in your view once you made the decision to kill, the time to think about what you were doing is over?

A Yes, that's correct. Q And you made the decision to kill when you saw Troy Canty's shiny eyes; is that correct? A And the smile on his face. Q And the smile on his face. And from that point on, your time of thought was finished; is that right, in the course of shooting? A Not time of thought, but in terms of my reaction what -- in terms of a higher level of thought, in terms of what I had decided to do, yes. Q It's fair to say once you made the decision to kill you just go with that decision? A Yes. Q And you told that to -- you said that as recently as December of last year; is that right? A Probably, yes. Q Now there was one fellow who stopped where he was and wouldn't even look at you; is that correct? A No, I wouldn't say that. The only person who-- once the shooting started you really don't notice their faces. Q Excuse me. You say you wouldn't say that? Do you mean to say you didn't say that? A No, there was -- I'm not saying I didn't say that. I wouldn't say that. That would be -- that is not a precise way of describing it.

Q You wouldn't say that now; is that correct? A That's -- well, I really don't know what they were doing on my right while I was shooting on my left. Q Mr. Goetz, did you say on audiotape, one of them tried -- was pretending he wasn't with them and he just -- he just kind of stopped where he was, he wouldn't even look -- he wouldn't look at me. He kind of stood up, and I think he held his hand or something? A Yes. Q Do you remember continuing to say, I don't remember clearly. He stood up and he held his -- he reached up and he held his hand on the railing or the arm -- excuse me -- the hand strap; is that correct? A Yes. Q And you went on to say, I guess it was his reaction to fear; is that correct? A Probably, yes. Q And then you said, it doesn't -- it doesn't matter. I mean, how -- who needs the intention. Your speed is everything. Is that right? A Yes. Q And there was another person who you described, did you not, as trying to run through the wall of the train but he had, you know, he had nowhere to go. He had nowhere to go. A Yes, yes, there was a blur, a flailing of arms.

I think now he was trying to get out of the door, but I'm not sure. Q And you let him have it too; didn't you? A Owe yes. Q The fellow who was trying to get off the train, that fellow you believe to be James Ramseur; is that correct? A I believe so. Q And the other fellow, the one who was standing there holding the hand strap pretending not to be involved, wouldn't even look at you, that was Darrell Cabey? A I believe so, yes. Q And is it fair to say that you found that reaction quote, so amusing, closed quote? A Well, again, I used words like funny and amusing rather than -- rather loosely. Q Well, did you use it in the context of Mr.-- did you use it in the context of Mr. Cabey's reaction? A I would consider that reaction interesting. Amusing would be a poor choice of words. Q Did you use the word "amusing"? A Yes, I did. If that's what the sheet says. Q Now, after you shot at Mr. Cabey, is it fair to say you went back to the other two to check them? A That's correct. Q Pardon me.

A That's correct. Q And you, at that point, put the gun back in your waistband; is that right? A No, I didn't. Q Did you say that you put the gun back in your waistband? A No, I didn't. Q Do you remember saying on audiotape, then I went to check out the first fellow who was talking to me. I didn't have the weapon. I mean, I had the weapon but in my waistband. You know, I put it back in my waistband. Do you remember saying that on videotape? A The last time I looked at him, yes. I believe I put it in my waistband before I went over to that person the last time, yes. Q So, in fact, after you shot Mr. Cabey, you put the gun back in your waistband as you went to check on Troy Canty; is that correct? A That would be at the very end. That's after -- that happened -- I put the gun in my waistband after trying to shoot Darrell the second time. Q When you went over to check Troy Canty, your purpose was not to see if Troy Canty was all right; is that correct? A Yes, I wanted to see if he was disabled. Q You wanted to make sure he was hurt, not make sure he

was okay? A That's correct. Q So when you used the term on video, check on him -- is that right? A Yes, that's correct. Q You checked on him; is that correct? A That's correct. Q And then you checked on the fellow who you believe to be Barry Allen? A Well, I didn't check. Well, I quickly scanned those two. Q Is it fair to say that the only thing Darrell Cabey had ever done to you was to be part of that group of four young people? A I believe he was the one who may have -- Q Excuse me, Mr. Goetz. Is it fair to say that the only thing, to the best of your recollection, Darrell Cabey did was to be one of the group? A No. Q Is it correct your attention-- Mr. Hoffman, page 60. Judge, page 60. Do you recall being asked this question and giving this answer in the 1990 deposition: "QUESTION: What specifically, to the best of your recollection, did Darrell Cabey do?

"ANSWER: He was one of the group." A That's correct. Q And you said that under oath at that time; is that right? A That's correct. Q Now when you went back to Darrell Cabey, you didn't know at that time whether he had been shot or not; did you? A That's correct. Q In fact, you thought you had shot him, but you weren't sure; is that correct? A I thought I may have winged him or something. Q What was the term? A Winged him. I didn't think he was seriously injured. Q He didn't have the same look of horror, of harm, of pain in his eyes that the other three did; is that fair to say? A His eyes were wide open. The other three were -- he was moving around, like trying to get out of his seat or something. So he didn't appear seriously injured, and he actually did quite the wrong thing if there is a shooting going on. Q Mr. Goetz -- THE COURT: Mr. Goetz, please just answer the question. THE WITNESS: Okay. Q And when you approached Mr. Cabey, you made up your

mind that you were going to pull the trigger anyway; didn't you? A At the time I saw him moving around and stuff, yes. Q Mr. Goetz, at the time you approached Darrell Cabey, you made up your mind you were going to pull the trigger anyway; isn't that right? A You can't predict the future, but I probably would have pulled the trigger anyway. If he wasn't seriously injured I was going to shoot him, yes.

Subway trial bronx transcript


2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:A8C0:9883:81AE:84E9 (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I've hatted this just to make this discussion easier. To be clear: the current version of the article already notes the Cabey fourth/fifth shot issue. See the trial section, last paragraph.
I know you've repeatedly brought up that you think the campaign website passage should be included here, but you're currently the only editor who supports that inclusion, and two editors oppose it. If you'd like to reach out to the broader community, you can do so via an appropriate form of dispute resolution, but it's not really productive to just repeatedly leave comments expressing your frustration at its absence.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Totally disagree on this. It doesn't matter if several editors agree if none give a good explanation for their decision. No source can provide an unequivocal or unquestioned source that will satisfy all. The article provides many important details but doesn't decisively explain how the shooting occurred, no problem, but probably and presumably Goetzknows more about the shooting than anyone else, and his highly detailed description 20 years later would probably be of interest to many readers, and readers should not be denied this significant source. (For example, hypothetically would Bill Hickok's highly detailed description of the shooting at the OK Corral 20 years later not be included in a Wiki article on the OK Corral shooting?). Instead we have a section you added about Goetz's Defamation Claims ... an irrelevant forgotten items ... how can you justify this? 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:7CD1:5EC:AEF1:4BAC (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should try re-reading my post, especially the first part of the second sentence.--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did, yes its an importance sentence which significantly clarifies events. But like many truth seeking processes it establishes what did not happen. Goetz's detailed explanation from his website (credible or not) goes a long way to explaining what did happen. Its a significant source that should not be denied to readers. 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:8D9D:BBBE:25CF:E17F (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh my fault: I meant second sentence of the second paragraph :)--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what you mean by: second sentence of the second paragraph. Can you post here 3 or 4 consecutive words of the sentence you are referring to? 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:8DA9:6A78:72F8:7ECF (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"If you'd like to reach out to the broader community, you can do so via an appropriate form of dispute resolution". Right now, you're the only editor who is advocating for inclusion. I can't speak for the other editors who have opposed inclusion, but my concerns are, in no particular order: WP:PRIMARY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:ASPECT, and a bit of WP:SUMMARY. You're really just restating the argument that you think it's important, but, as I and F4U have said multiple times, we come out the other way on the issue. So if you'd like to, use WP:DR, but otherwise I don't think your posts are going to result in a change to the article.--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will reply in several days. Am very busy right now. 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:70D2:4D79:37F8:3051 (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also the link to the Shatner interview where Goetz demonstrates his shooting technique would be of interest to many readers. 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:7CD1:5EC:AEF1:4BAC (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a reader, I would not appreciate further details of people being shot or even shooting techniques, especially from Goetz himself, on a site available to people of all age groups and mental states and without a clear reason to include this information. 2A01:C22:AC47:4B00:D433:2EB8:7A9D:8647 (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New attention[edit]

@Jerome Frank Disciple There's been some new attention on this case after the Jordan Neely homicide and I think you may want to incorporate these sources into the article: [18], [19], and [20]. On first glance to me, they appear to have a few bits of information not currently in the article. :3 F4U (they/it) 20:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inflation adjustment[edit]

I added an inflation adjustment to the amount that the perpetrator requested, as the relative value - nearly three times higher - of the request is significantly different today from what it was nearly forty years ago. Editor Freedom4U reverted the addition, with the summary "There is absolutely no reason to add an inflation adjustment for five dollars - see talk page if you wish to discuss this further". An interesting opinion, but an opinion it is. I would counter that there is absolutely no reason not to add it. I see no harm nor disruption nor POV in adding it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anastrophe I think its clear that the request was rhetorical (asking for a five dollar bill), rather than one asking for an exact sum of money. In addition, the CPI is most appropriate when comparing the value of goods (since its a measure of the increase of price of goods over time), it is inappropriate to be used to compare the value of money (as it is not a measure of the increase in wages). :3 F4U (they/it) 21:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(tl;dr I agree) I'm unclear how the request was "rhetorical" - he asked for five dollars. Whether he meant it in a 'generic' way, such as 'give me your money' or a specific amount seems immaterial. I disagree that the inflation of currency is inappropriate to the request that was made, as requests tend to be made based upon their percieved value. For example, in 1984, 716,800,000 five dollar bills were printed, 1,292,800,000 twenty dollar bills were printed. Because the relative value of the dollar is much lower today, in 2022 525,456,000 five dollar bills were printed, while 1,711,136,000, reflecting the lower use of the lower value currency. Perhaps it falls into the realm of trivia, I am open to that. And the longer I sit here writing this, the more I'm coming around to your way of thinking, lol! Okay - I guess it's a fair assessment. The perp was "asking" for money, as a "polite" way of advising Goetz that he was being robbed. Works for me. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad we could work this out! :3 F4U (they/it) 21:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]