Talk:Chai Vang

message: It is highly misleading for this article to leave out significant details of this caliber. In the trial section, where is the explanation on how Vang's defense attorneys handled the case of Vang in court? Where is the details that explained that there was 2 confrontations? Chai Vang was already leaving after being confronted by Terry Willers by the tree stand. After apologizing and being shown the directions out by Willers, Vang walked away onto a trail which is unclearly explained in this article. Lauren Hesebeck himself testified that Crotteau wanted to talk to Vang to give him a "piece of his mind" so they rode on ATV's to intercept Vang and that Crotteau reached and made psychical contact with Vang, flipping his hunting tag to make it readable. Hesebeck also told his wife and investigators that he believed he saw Willers pointing his rifle at Vang when he walked away. However this article does not explain that the victims went after Vang to intercept him, to confront him again. Do you see now how this is misleading and biased? This article is making readers believe that there was only one confrontation, that the shooting occurred quickly right after the first confrontation. Which is why i wanted to change which i also put in this talk page however nobody has reviewed my proposed change. My personal advice is to don't claim my information as "rumors" when you are ignorant of the details of the case. Here are my sources for the motions being denied, the victims getting on ATV's to intercept Vang, Crotteau making psychical contact with Vang, threats being made by Crotteau to Vang and that Vang's home was burned down, Vang not being aware that there were attorneys attempting to see Vang but wasn't allowed, and Vang attempted to leave 3 times but was prevented. You know what else you can do? Watch the court recording of the trial or watch the documentary to hear the statements of both parties. Lance616168 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So, can you now cite these sources in-text when you are editing? BTW, forums are not considered a reliable source for information, as they are not placed under editorial oversight and/or are user-generated. I will look through your additions and try to help you cite the sources if you are unsure about how to do so. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Might I also suggest the the best way to approach the list of changes you want to make would be make one small edit at a time (with a source) rather than a huge ammount of text some of which may be acceptable and some of which may not be. This will waste less of your and other editors time and is less likely to lead to a wholescale revert. Hughesdarren (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here are the sources that fellow editors claim that the information in these sources that i included in the article are just "rumors." 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chai Vang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/10258341.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070503020622/http://www.courttv.com:80/trials/vang/ to http://www.courttv.com/trials/vang/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Personal life[edit]
Vang's father served in a secret war that was funded and organized by the CIA that recruited the Hmongs in Laos to disrupt supply routes going from Laos to Vietnam during the Vietnam War. General Vang Pao was the leader of this army and was seen as a father figure to the Hmongs. 
--I don't believe General Vang Pao is Chai Vang's father. I can find no reference to that in any of the articles about him.--  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.121.93 (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Information in the Personal Life Section - Incorrect Father Information 

message: Hi , I'd much appreciate a proper explanation for your reverts accusing my contributions as 'POV' – despite the fact that I've added a lot of infomation to the article and detail as it was previously in a bad shape with numerous grammartical errors and lacking information which were in the sources. You seem to have a long history involving this article based on this article's talk page history, and so it's quite ironic that you would talk about POV. As per WP:AGF and WP:CIV, I hope you understand that accusing other users of not being neutral with their point of view is really unprofessional considering the seniority of your account. Thanks. Specion (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My revert of your blatantly POV edits was sufficiently explained in the edit summary. The only thing suspicious here is that your account was created just two days ago and only has 25 edits, yet you are jumping into a dispute, (mis-)citing policy and attempting to WP:WIKILAWYER your POV into the article -- the tactics of a long-term disrupter, not a "new" editor. Since you seem to be so well acquainted with the way things work around here, you are probably also already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. This article has had a long-standing consensus and you are attempting to make massive changes in tone and POV. Your attempt was reverted. Now the WP:ONUS is on you to discuss and reach a consensus with other editors BEFORE your desired changes are put back into the article: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. I am going to revert back to the consensus version. Per multiple guidelines, please do not re-add your desired changes unless a consensus of editors is reached here on the talk page first.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 20:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have a consensus yourself, and since you reverted back to a revision which undid contributions from multiple different editors dating back a few months, it's you that require a consensus since that's pretty disruptive. Also, you've assumed bad faith about me twice now. I'd expected much more civility from an established user. Specion (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , Your edits have been reverted again, please discuss your edits here. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Please read (and understand) WP policies on consensus, including the topics of article stability and silence as indicators of community consensus. As I explained a few times now, I reverted to the last stable version of the article, which stood unchanged for seven months (and had not been substantially changed for years) until the very recent spate of edits (by anonymous single-edit IPs) introducing a particular POV that is uncannily similar to your own. As the one who wishes to change the article, you are the one obligated to justify the need to do so -- and to refrain from making said changes unless a consensus is reached. It has not gone unnoticed that you have yet to attempt any justification of your edits despite the growing wall of text that is being built here.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 22:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is this 'POV' that you're referring to? How about actually explaining what your issue is with my contributions instead of just lazily spewing out the abbreviation just like you felt like it as your actions right now seem hypocritical, especially when this article historically has had an edit war that involved you. Specion (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , Your edits have been reverted again. Throwing around accusations and edit warring are not helping your cause. My main problem with your edits is the removal of referenced text. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , there's also the issue of the hatnote being unnecessary and the misleading and inflammatory POV wording "another Hmong American who was murdered..." (this article is about a Hmong American who is a mass murderer, not "another" murder victim.  There's also the peppering of "all-white" every time the jury is mentioned, implying that that was somehow a factor despite the overwhelming evidence. I'm not against including that fact, once, simply for completeness, but every time is undue, unwarranted and POV. There's also the inclusion of the POV subsection title "Racial motivation". It's ambiguous and controversial...not to mention that name-calling is not a reason for, nor does it mitigate, mass murder. I am at work now and can't compose a complete response and likely won't be able to respond until tomorrow, but there are problems with every word in this group of edits and  has yet to even bother to make an attempt to justify them.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

text:  that is not how WP (or any productive discussion, for that matter) works. You MUST first explain why you think these edits are necessary. You have been invited multiple times to explain your edits. The longer you continue to discuss me instead of your desired changes, the longer this will go on.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Unexplained reverts of constructive edits

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

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