Talk:North Hollywood shootout

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

News On February 8, 2007, North Hollywood shootout was linked from Fark.com, a high-traffic website.
All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.
This article falls within the scope of the WikiProject Los Angeles, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Los Angeles, California, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
Criminal justice Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as b-class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance for crime-related articles.
WikiProject Crime To-do:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] No original research

Let's keep Wikipedia factually accurate by providing properly-formatted citations to reliable sources. Whether or not you know something to be fact, you can't just add it without a reference. Cliff smith 01:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Are you the dude who added "citation needed" after every single unattributed sentence? Gimme a break. Citations are great, but I don't think they're needed after every sentence. 68.101.130.214 (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please sign your edits/comments

While reading through the archive to get up to speed, I noticed a lot of unsigned comments that made some pretty bold statements. Let's make sure we all sign our comments here with the four tildes (~), the key being located right above the tab key while holding downthe shift key. As well you could just ckick on the button in the edit bar. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. I personally tend to ignore unsigned comments. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

I've been asked to weigh in on the matter of some statements that have been apparently hotly contested in the article, to whit:

1. the inclusion of the name of a gun shop,
2, its owner's identity;
3. that LAPD officers commandeered some rifles from aforementioned store during the ensuing shootout; and
4. the weapons siezed in the shootout were not returned to the owner, and that the LAPD didn't compensate him for their use.

Specifically, I have been asked to weigh in on the noteworthiness of the inclusion of these statements. Please feel free to weigh in on why you feel that these statements should or should not be considered noteworthy. If you have WP policy or guidelines to back up your claims, please include that in your statements. Aaaaaannnnnd, GO! :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'll prejudice everybody against myself, I'm sure, but I thought the matter was solved until now. So, when I don't get my way, I can just go and talk to an admin and see if I can get my way THAT WAY? Is that how we roll here? We revert other people's edits (even those with references) and force our opinions on others? Received and understood. I'll bite: Items 3 and 4: Nobody said the LAPD didn't compensate them (which BTW is a true statement) nor that they didn't return them. They were returned after B&B had to sue because the city considered them confiscated and had a policy for disposal of guns. Item 1 & 2 are important as Bob Kahn and B&B Sales WERE the 'gun store of record' for at least 15 years. Virtually every law, every ordinance, and every tax that effected firearms commerce in Southern California included an interview with Bob Kahn. TV interviews nearly always included Bob with rows of rifles in the background. When the LAPD needed guns, they knew where to get them because EVERYBODY (cops included) went to B&B to get their guns. It was a mom and pop store for firepower and prominent in SoCal gun politics. The Irony of the police needing to go to the gun store that the Politicians hated and, eventually, ran out of business deserves mention.--Asams10 09:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, I should have suggested that tossing about accusations tends to make me a bit testy, so dial it down several notches, okey-doke, partmer? I am not an admin, and if you had asked before shooting off your mouth, you wouldn't be looking foolish right about now.
Now that that's out of my system, let's move on.
To discover what the focus of the article is, we need look no further than the title of the article itself: North Hollywood Shootout. It is important to avoid focusing on people not directly involved with the conflict, as per notability and the identities of living persons. Focusing on this, the name of the gun shop owner should be excluded. Less of a privacy issue is that surrounding hte usage of the gun shop name, which can be traced to the owner relatively easily. However, the criteria that the name of the gun shop should be avoided is the notability clause. Outside of California, neither the name of the gun shop nor the owner is really that notable. This is the English-language wiki, not the American one.
That said, the fact that the LAPD was forced to obtain what they felt was the appropriate level of firepower for the situation is noteworthy. That the siezed weapons were not actually used is likelwise noteworthy. Lastly, that the weapons were not returned (if solidly cited) should be utilized in the article.
Now, if the gun store owner sued the LAPD for thier non-return, that warrants an article in itself, but not within the scope of this one (except as perhaps a ' See Also ' wikilink to said article). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't expect any different outcome. Next time, I'll go recruit all of my buddies to defend me. How was it you were chosen to 'mediate' this, eh? Why didn't I get any say in who was chosen?--Asams10 07:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Dude, go back to my Discussion page. Look at the very tippy-top of the page, since you appear to actually grasp the gross points of assuming good faith (visit that link, btw, and read it good and well before you choose to respond again). You will notice a userbox that notes I am a member of Third Opinion. Cliff asked for my opinion, and you will note that my opinion follows Wikipedia policy, and I didn't choose either yours or Cliff's opinion; you will also note that it was a middle road between the two.
Now, I was polite enough to point out the relevant policies that support my Third Opinion. If you do not choose to follow it, that's fine with me. Ask an admin to weigh in on the topic. Please. You can ask for an admin to weigh in by choosing one from here. However, they might encourage you to follow the protocol for resolving disputes. However, if you can hold your temper a bit and stay civil, I am sure that one might be coaced into offering an opinion on the matter.
I have to say that you have handled this attmept to help you resolve a content issue extremely poorly. You might find your behavior a future impediment to resolving issues, so you may want to consider evolving your behavior into something more approximating politeness. An editor with a bit less self-restrain might have unleashed hell, sending you weeping into a corner. Be thankful you got me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll disagree and leave it at that.--Asams10 03:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then the changes can occur, as you've withdrawn your objections. Thanks for being reasonable. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Situation Critical

This event was featured in one of the "Situation Critical" episodes on National Geographic. Perhaps it should be added in the Aftermath section? -Spliefer 01:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of conclusory claims made in this article which are facially invalid. e.g., "The LAPD patrol officers were not adequately armed or protected to deal with such criminals." If that claim were true, the assailants might have accomplished their goals, rather than dying. Further, it and many claims like it, are either not supported or supported only by a made-for-tv show with numerous factual inaccuracies. Take the very next claim, that cars and walls are considered safe cover. When I edited this and provided a link to the relevant portion of the US Army Infantry handbook on combat, cover and concealment, I proposed that only the lay public believe such things. My references and my work were reverted without comment or modification. As a result, this entry reads like the highly opinionated and inaccurate made-for-tv show and pulp novels it was extracted from.208.158.5.7 16:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Nobody

[edit] what happened to the external links ?

if the police need to get out their own biased version of events they should create their own webpage instead of ruining every online resource concerning this topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by EzRandall (talk • contribs) 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an uncivil comment, and its utterly uncalled for. Information needs to be cited, or it will be removed. Information that is cited, stays. It's that easy. If you are not content with the status of the current article, find sources that articulare what you feel are missing. As for missing references, go throught he editing history and find them. If you want, create a section in Discussion and store them here so they don't 'go missing'.
In short, play smart and more importantly, play nice. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] oops i offended the moderator

what makes this the most controversial topic on wikipedia ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EzRandall (talk • contribs) 05:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

See, from your titling, I can tell that you think this is a forum. It isn't. it's a discussion are aon how to improve the article. And I will say again, assume good faith and be a bit more polite; being a [WP:DICK]] won't garner you anything other than block or two. Calm down. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph One

0. "United States patrol officers" - there are no such things as "United States patrol officers". The LAPD are officers of the City of Los Angeles and have no standing outside that specific jurisdiction, which explains the common movie theme of "don't give me any of that juris-my-dic-tion crap" seen in every single cop movie involving local, state and federal law officers. The FBI, ATF, US Park Rangers, Secret Service...I'm missing some Federal agencies I bet... are US Officers but do not "patrol" (save the US Parks, perhaps). Each localities patrol officers have their own rules for arms and rules of engagement.

1. "both robbers were killed" - contradictory statements made within the same article should be corrected by Third Opinion

2. "Phillips and Matasareanu had previously robbed several banks" - has this ever been proven to the standards of Third Opinion ?

3. " Phillips and Matasareanu ... were notorious for their heavy armament, which included automatic assault rifles." - wouldn't this suggest the police had identified the robbers before the robbery ? A theory worthy of discussion and investigation, but until LAPD is ready to verify, I don't think Third Opinion would allow it's inclusion in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EzRandall (talk • contribs) 09:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, since you are new, please alow me to explain a little bit about how Wikipedia works, EZ (and I'm not being condescending; I'm actually trying to help you here). First of all, Wikipedia works on citable information only. It doesn't matter what you or I think; it only matters what we can verify with cited references. Truth is not the standard we strive for but verifiability - the two are not mutually excusive.
Secondly, Third Opinion is a loose group of volunteers who attend to fairly bitter and unresolved points of contention with in the article. I think you are applying a set of standards, skills and capabilities that they simply do not have.
Instead, what you should be asking is: 'can this be cited verifiably?' If there are contradictory statements about the robbers being killed, ask about it here. You might have found a mistake that someone else overlooked. Do you think that Phillips' and Matasareanu's previous criminal history needs citation? Ask for it. The same goes for the heavy armament thing as well. Ask for citations, and tag the info with a fact or citaiton needed tag (I'll put a nifty helper on your user page so you can get a crash course on how to really use Wikipedia do accomplish what you want).
The key here is to not jump to conclusions, EZ. Everything you wrote about here is in the Lead or introductory paragraph. the Lead summarizes the information that will be covered in the rest of the article. Do me a favor and read the whole article. If you find that a statement appearing in the Lead is not substantiated by cited statements elsewhere in the article, it is then that you should be asking for citation (and then removal, if none is offered after a period of time). What you shouldn't be doing is suggesting that this is one big conspiracy by the LAPD.
Again, we don't include ANYTHING remotely arguable without citation. Anyone telling you different is lying or selling you something. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similarities to Heat (1995 film)

There is discussion on that page that the robbers used Heat (1995 film) as a training film, and there are significant similarities. Worth mentioning here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.2.2 (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

According to NGC documentary videotape with Heat was in robbers hideout.
Really? Could you reliably cite that assertion, please? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Repercussions

  • According to NGC documentary after shootout some policemen got access to machine guns (not clear about class SMG or Assault rifles?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.148.137 (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Really? Could you reliably cite that assertion, please? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah it was on the History channel..an episode of Shootout and they mentioned it on the Discovery Channel's coverage of it and again on the History Channel they had a special episode of Zero Hour and that again mentioned that. M16s where given to officers who were trained to use them. I was not the IP, but I will try and find a source but it is going to be fairly hard as they only really mention this on shows dedicated to the shootout. Rgoodermote  23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It appears to have been mentioned in the article. Rgoodermote  23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to Emil Dechebal Matasareanu

Do not merge The article is to big to fit into Emil Dechebal Matasareanu's bio and it has nothing really to do with him...with the exception that he one of the two robbers. His article is a bio of his life and the robbery this article is about the robbery. They are two different articles that intercept, it would be like merging the Civil War article with Abraham Lincoln because he was the president at the time and he had his name in the article. They are not one and the same and need to stay separate. Rgoodermote  23:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not merge The two articles would only be merged if the bio of Matasareanu was stub-length (<1 KB). His article is 3x longer, so I don't think it is appropriate to merge the two articles. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No merge Bio looks like it is longer than a stub, and that it is worth leaving as a standalone article. Yaf (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No merge besides my agreement with the above points, what about Larry Eugene Phillips, Jr.? Anynobody 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How did they procure these weapons?

Now where is it mentioned on the Internet exactly how the hell they gotta hold of all this serious firepower...? Anybody know?

Gamer112 (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keys in Pickup Truck?

I just saw a show on History Channel (Canada) called Zero Hour (9am Friday Mar 14, 2008) about this incident. In the show they state that the pickup truck owner left the keys behind but Matasereanu could not start the truck because he didn't realize there was a separate starter button in it (it was an old '61 pickup). Here it is stated the owner took the keys with him. Anybody can clear this up? NevarMaor (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC) (oops forgot the tilde's)

Is there a way for you to seek out a citation for what the Zero Hour segment stated? If you can find that, then we can move on it. In fact, once you find it, send me a message to my talk, and I will institute it (since this page isn't one of my frequent watchlisted items). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Haven't been on in a while ... I've searched for something from "Zero Hour" but nothing turned up yet relating to this. Unless I (or someone else) can turn up something I guess it stays as it is. NevarMaor (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I concur. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The citations

I am pretty concerned that a lot of the citations look a bit false, so I am hoping that someone properly checks them out in the coming week to verify them. If this cannot be checked before next weekend, I will do so, and probably end up removing a lot of text associated with bad linkage. This is just fair warning. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As noted, the older uncited statements were removed. Some of them had been uncited since October of last year. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)