This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chai Vang article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Would you mind doing the editing on the article of Chai Vang, adding the important details to the article that wasn't included. This article is highly biased/ignorant, misleading others to be ignorant of the details of the tragedy. This negligence of details is very shameful.. Lance616168 ( talk) 07:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course you haven't denied that the murderer and the victims had different ethnicity. What you are denying is that racial issues wasn't a "significant" factor in this case. What's unique about this case was that the victims decided to pursue the murderer with 8 people on ATV's to confront him again with hostility and who knows what other malicious intent, call him names also saying his race, threaten to beat him and then block the murderer from leaving when he tried to walk away. That is false imprisonment, assault, harassment, hate crime and attempt of assault to do great bodily harm. Don't you agree? If you think about it from Vang's point of view, you apologized for being on their land and just want to leave without any problems, then you have 8 people who just followed you on ATVs and confronted you again with hostility, they're angry and swearing at you calling you racial slurs, one of them just said that he was going to beat you up, and then you try to walk away but another person stepped in your way and blocked you from leaving. Also taking into account that you are smaller, surrounded in the woods and who knows how far from civilization. I'd bet that majority of the people would agree that the murderer was quite threatened. Seems that a case like this doesn't happen everyday contradicting your statement that this happens everyday to people of every race. Now, back to changes for the article.
For the reaction part of the article: I suggest to be added that there is a sort of culture clash between land owners and trespassors of different ethnic backgrounds. Such as Hmongs or ethnic minorities trespassing and hostile/malicious behaviors towards trespassers for example. Another thing to add is that many in the community doesn't believe that race wasn't a factor and the Attorney General downplayed the racial angle in court but the Hmong community still felt that racism was a factor in the shooting. [4] Another reaction to add is that bumper stickers were made and sold in shops saying Save a Deer, Shoot a Hmong and that [5] [6] Vang's home was burned down in a suspicious fire and it is speculated that it was arson because of the profane graffiti defacing Vang's home.
For the investigation section: It should be explained in the beginning of the section that after Vang apologized for being on their land and was leaving, the 8 victims pursued Vang on ATV's and confronted him again with a very heated atmosphere unlike the first confrontation. The facts after the heated second confrontation is what was in dispute that led to the shootings. " On the stand Hesebeck admitted Robert Crotteau had called Vang a 'Hmong a--hole." It should be added following that sentence that, Lauren Hesebeck shortly after the shooting told investigators that Robert Crotteau had threatened Vang that he was going to give Vang a beating, called Vang derogatory names tagged with Hmong, and Joey Crotteau stepped in Vang's way blocking Vang from trying to walk away. [7] Lance616168 ( talk) 23:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Drcrazy102's review of
the edits from
Lance616168 on October 6 at 13:27 and 13:51 (UTC)
|
---|
|
"I want to change this sentence (currently xxxxx) to this version (proposed xxyyyyy). This is based on (reason) and source (cite source). Please discuss."
I would also ask that other users involved in this dispute do the same until things have calmed down again. This makes it so much easier to discuss changing content that is contentious, and results in far less edit-wars and reverted article changes. Cheers,
Drcrazy102 (
talk) 04:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)I want to change the current sentences in the shooting section of the article. My reasoning is that it should be changed because it provides a much more accurate detailed insight/explanation of the events while maintaining neutrality. Sources: [10] [11]
Current:Upon receiving a response in the negative, he began to approach Vang and told him to leave the property. After asking for directions, Vang proceeded to walk away towards a trail through a forested area of the property. At that point five of the hunters from the cabin who had heard the radio message arrived on ATVs. Robert Crotteau, the other co-owner, reportedly implied that Vang should be reported to the Department of Natural Resources for trespassing and suggested making a note of his hunting license number. Terry Willers wrote the number in the dust on one of the ATVs
Proposed: Upon receiving a response in the negative, he approached Vang and told him to leave the property. After asking for directions and being shown the directions, Vang apologized and proceeded to walk away towards a trail through a forested area of the property. At that point, five of the hunters from the cabin who had heard the radio message arrived on ATVs. Robert Crotteau, the other co-owner said that he wanted to talk to the trespasser to give him a " piece of his mind " while implying that Vang should be reported to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to " teach " Vang. The 6 of them altogether rode on ATVs to intercept Vang. Terry Willers wrote the number of Vang's hunting license after Crotteau reached and made contact with Vang, flipping Vang's hunting tag on his back. Lance616168 ( talk) 21:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
To write incorrectly that there was just one confrontation, when there was 2 is just misleading and violates neutral pov. I hope you can understand where i'm coming from. If you don't review the court transcripts, then research the many articles and closely examine the explanations of the encounter with Willers and Vang and you will see that i'm telling the truth that when Vang walked away from the area after being told off by Willers, Crotteau and the rest of the party arrived and went to go confront Vang Lance616168 ( talk) 09:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hesebeck: We heard a call from Terry Willers. He said there was somebody in Carter's old tree stand. It's probably one of those mudducks.
Willers: Uh as i got close enough where i could verbally talk to him, i asked him what hunting party was he with and uh he kinda mumbled something that i didn't understand. I told him that he was on Bob Crotteau's and my land, that he was trespassing. Uh he asked what direction he could go to get off the property to go hunt and i pointed in the direction in which i had come from. I radioed in to the cabin that i had a tree-rat and i had chased him off.
So at this point, you can see that Vang already left. This ENDED the first confrontation between Willers and Vang alone. This was no "drawn out" first confrontation. Vang had made quite some distance away from Willers, contradicting your statement that Vang was still by Willers. Vang walked pretty far to get ONTO the trail and then walking a few hundred yards down the trail to get off the property
Hesebeck: Bob had said i'm going to go talk to him to find out who he is, why he's there, and make sure he doesn't, you know, knows that he's on private property and that he's not welcomed there. Denny had said to me this ought to be interesting, let's go and see what's going on. We got in the back of it standing up (ATV), hanging on the rear bar.
Now, this indicates that Crotteau "followed, hunted, intercepted, went after, rode after, cut off, chased, pursued" in order to confront Vang which makes it the SECOND confrontation. "
Willers: As Bob got back on the radio and asked me where he was at and i said uh he's heading south down on the food plot right now.
So do i need to say anymore that there was 2 confrontations? Drcrazy102 Can you tell William that this was not a one confrontation event that led to the shooting, thank you. Lance616168 ( talk) 21:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
32.218.41.175 70.167.72.29 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) [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]
WilliamThweatt Shall i give an example of your bias? You used some of my sources for this article, yet you clearly neglected the information that Vang was walking down a trail out of the area which was from my source that YOU used. Didn't you say that you "carefully" reviewed the source? Irony isn't it, or is hypocrisy? What a stranglehold you have on the article. You clearly stopped discussing on the talk page by not responding to me and is evading me now because you simply cannot deny the fact that the truth i speak about the case is actually the truth and you can't prove your false conceived version of events. Are you proud of making this a misleading article? Want to see a strong supporting source? Here, [44]. Another here that you used and "cherry picked" the information to use for your conceived version of events. [45] [46] I would also suggest you to stop bombarding me with claims of me being a "victim blamer", "race-baiter", and someone with an agenda. See, No personal attacks Assuming my "status" and calling me these names on the dispute resolution just isn't going to discredit me nor dull my sharp point. Not only me but many other editors also feel that this article is misleading and biased. The official court transcript proves my case. How about yours? Where is your most powerful supporting source of information that contradicts the court transcript? Lance616168 ( talk) 22:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hesebeck: We heard a call from Terry Willers. He said there was somebody in Carter's old tree stand. It's probably one of those mudducks.
Willers: Uh as i got close enough where i could verbally talk to him, i asked him what hunting party was he with and uh he kinda mumbled something that i didn't understand. I told him that he was on Bob Crotteau's and my land, that he was trespassing. Uh he asked what direction he could go to get off the property to go hunt and i pointed in the direction in which i had come from. I radioed in to the cabin that i had a tree-rat and i had chased him off.
So at this point, you can see that Vang already left. This ENDED the first confrontation between Willers and Vang alone. This was no "drawn out" first confrontation. Vang had made quite some distance away from Willers, contradicting your statement that Vang was still by Willers. Vang walked away from the tree-stand to get ONTO the trail and then walked down the trail to get off the property
Hesebeck: Bob had said i'm going to go talk to him to find out who he is, why he's there, and make sure he doesn't, you know, knows that he's on private property and that he's not welcomed there. Denny had said to me this ought to be interesting, let's go and see what's going on. We got in the back of it standing up (ATV), hanging on the rear bar.
Now, this indicates that Crotteau "followed" Vang in order to confront Vang which makes it the SECOND confrontation. " Willers: As Bob got back on the radio and asked me where he was at and i said uh he's heading south down on the food plot right now.
So what were you saying about no one following Vang and this being all a one drawn out confrontation at the tree-stand? Your conceived version of events is simply false. You can choose to evade me as you wish, I will simply notify more third parties of this to get more opinions and i will continue to push for this article to be changed. Also in regards to you not willing to discuss this with me, it was like i said from the beginning of this post, you're evading me. Lance616168 ( talk) 02:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
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. WilliamThweatt 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 Lance616168 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)
WilliamThweatt The victim's bodies were spread out over the area, over 100 yard distances between some of them. Nobody was at the tree-stand. The entire crime scene area was spread out. You also justified the use of racial slurs because of a "tense situation" in your discussion here. Like seriously, how racist can you get? All your attempts were trying to stop Lance616168 with his proposed idea of changes to this article. And after reading it, he has valid points. You on the other hand, just swept the racism under the rug like a closet-racist. White supremacist groups protesting, Vang's home burning down along with graffiti making it arson, shops selling " save a deer, shoot a hmong signs " signs and you denied all of this to be mentioned in the article. You are biased, no doubt about it. Because of your bias, you are blind to see it. Angelofligh22 ( talk) 00:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chai Vang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/10258341.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Personal life[edit] Vang's father served in a secret war that was funded and organized by the CIA that recruited the Hmongs in Laos to disrupt supply routes going from Laos to Vietnam during the Vietnam War. General Vang Pao was the leader of this army and was seen as a father figure to the Hmongs.
--I don't believe General Vang Pao is Chai Vang's father. I can find no reference to that in any of the articles about him.-- — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.4.121.93 (
talk) 21:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I must agree that the above is awkwardly written. However, it is generally accepted that General Vang Pao was a father figure to all the Hmong of the Secret Army. Georgejdorner ( talk) 17:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Specion blocked for sockpuppetry. Mz7 ( talk) 16:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi WilliamThweatt, 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)
|
Hello, the citation of Vang chasing down the other hunters is not verified or confirmed by the police station or reputable news sources. It cites a website called “TheMeatEater” written by Patrick Durkin, a Caucasian male hunter and freelance writer. In his article he doesn’t state a source as well. Edhendro ( talk) 07:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Citation number 7 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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chai Vang article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Would you mind doing the editing on the article of Chai Vang, adding the important details to the article that wasn't included. This article is highly biased/ignorant, misleading others to be ignorant of the details of the tragedy. This negligence of details is very shameful.. Lance616168 ( talk) 07:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course you haven't denied that the murderer and the victims had different ethnicity. What you are denying is that racial issues wasn't a "significant" factor in this case. What's unique about this case was that the victims decided to pursue the murderer with 8 people on ATV's to confront him again with hostility and who knows what other malicious intent, call him names also saying his race, threaten to beat him and then block the murderer from leaving when he tried to walk away. That is false imprisonment, assault, harassment, hate crime and attempt of assault to do great bodily harm. Don't you agree? If you think about it from Vang's point of view, you apologized for being on their land and just want to leave without any problems, then you have 8 people who just followed you on ATVs and confronted you again with hostility, they're angry and swearing at you calling you racial slurs, one of them just said that he was going to beat you up, and then you try to walk away but another person stepped in your way and blocked you from leaving. Also taking into account that you are smaller, surrounded in the woods and who knows how far from civilization. I'd bet that majority of the people would agree that the murderer was quite threatened. Seems that a case like this doesn't happen everyday contradicting your statement that this happens everyday to people of every race. Now, back to changes for the article.
For the reaction part of the article: I suggest to be added that there is a sort of culture clash between land owners and trespassors of different ethnic backgrounds. Such as Hmongs or ethnic minorities trespassing and hostile/malicious behaviors towards trespassers for example. Another thing to add is that many in the community doesn't believe that race wasn't a factor and the Attorney General downplayed the racial angle in court but the Hmong community still felt that racism was a factor in the shooting. [4] Another reaction to add is that bumper stickers were made and sold in shops saying Save a Deer, Shoot a Hmong and that [5] [6] Vang's home was burned down in a suspicious fire and it is speculated that it was arson because of the profane graffiti defacing Vang's home.
For the investigation section: It should be explained in the beginning of the section that after Vang apologized for being on their land and was leaving, the 8 victims pursued Vang on ATV's and confronted him again with a very heated atmosphere unlike the first confrontation. The facts after the heated second confrontation is what was in dispute that led to the shootings. " On the stand Hesebeck admitted Robert Crotteau had called Vang a 'Hmong a--hole." It should be added following that sentence that, Lauren Hesebeck shortly after the shooting told investigators that Robert Crotteau had threatened Vang that he was going to give Vang a beating, called Vang derogatory names tagged with Hmong, and Joey Crotteau stepped in Vang's way blocking Vang from trying to walk away. [7] Lance616168 ( talk) 23:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Drcrazy102's review of
the edits from
Lance616168 on October 6 at 13:27 and 13:51 (UTC)
|
---|
|
"I want to change this sentence (currently xxxxx) to this version (proposed xxyyyyy). This is based on (reason) and source (cite source). Please discuss."
I would also ask that other users involved in this dispute do the same until things have calmed down again. This makes it so much easier to discuss changing content that is contentious, and results in far less edit-wars and reverted article changes. Cheers,
Drcrazy102 (
talk) 04:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)I want to change the current sentences in the shooting section of the article. My reasoning is that it should be changed because it provides a much more accurate detailed insight/explanation of the events while maintaining neutrality. Sources: [10] [11]
Current:Upon receiving a response in the negative, he began to approach Vang and told him to leave the property. After asking for directions, Vang proceeded to walk away towards a trail through a forested area of the property. At that point five of the hunters from the cabin who had heard the radio message arrived on ATVs. Robert Crotteau, the other co-owner, reportedly implied that Vang should be reported to the Department of Natural Resources for trespassing and suggested making a note of his hunting license number. Terry Willers wrote the number in the dust on one of the ATVs
Proposed: Upon receiving a response in the negative, he approached Vang and told him to leave the property. After asking for directions and being shown the directions, Vang apologized and proceeded to walk away towards a trail through a forested area of the property. At that point, five of the hunters from the cabin who had heard the radio message arrived on ATVs. Robert Crotteau, the other co-owner said that he wanted to talk to the trespasser to give him a " piece of his mind " while implying that Vang should be reported to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to " teach " Vang. The 6 of them altogether rode on ATVs to intercept Vang. Terry Willers wrote the number of Vang's hunting license after Crotteau reached and made contact with Vang, flipping Vang's hunting tag on his back. Lance616168 ( talk) 21:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
To write incorrectly that there was just one confrontation, when there was 2 is just misleading and violates neutral pov. I hope you can understand where i'm coming from. If you don't review the court transcripts, then research the many articles and closely examine the explanations of the encounter with Willers and Vang and you will see that i'm telling the truth that when Vang walked away from the area after being told off by Willers, Crotteau and the rest of the party arrived and went to go confront Vang Lance616168 ( talk) 09:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hesebeck: We heard a call from Terry Willers. He said there was somebody in Carter's old tree stand. It's probably one of those mudducks.
Willers: Uh as i got close enough where i could verbally talk to him, i asked him what hunting party was he with and uh he kinda mumbled something that i didn't understand. I told him that he was on Bob Crotteau's and my land, that he was trespassing. Uh he asked what direction he could go to get off the property to go hunt and i pointed in the direction in which i had come from. I radioed in to the cabin that i had a tree-rat and i had chased him off.
So at this point, you can see that Vang already left. This ENDED the first confrontation between Willers and Vang alone. This was no "drawn out" first confrontation. Vang had made quite some distance away from Willers, contradicting your statement that Vang was still by Willers. Vang walked pretty far to get ONTO the trail and then walking a few hundred yards down the trail to get off the property
Hesebeck: Bob had said i'm going to go talk to him to find out who he is, why he's there, and make sure he doesn't, you know, knows that he's on private property and that he's not welcomed there. Denny had said to me this ought to be interesting, let's go and see what's going on. We got in the back of it standing up (ATV), hanging on the rear bar.
Now, this indicates that Crotteau "followed, hunted, intercepted, went after, rode after, cut off, chased, pursued" in order to confront Vang which makes it the SECOND confrontation. "
Willers: As Bob got back on the radio and asked me where he was at and i said uh he's heading south down on the food plot right now.
So do i need to say anymore that there was 2 confrontations? Drcrazy102 Can you tell William that this was not a one confrontation event that led to the shooting, thank you. Lance616168 ( talk) 21:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
32.218.41.175 70.167.72.29 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) [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]
WilliamThweatt Shall i give an example of your bias? You used some of my sources for this article, yet you clearly neglected the information that Vang was walking down a trail out of the area which was from my source that YOU used. Didn't you say that you "carefully" reviewed the source? Irony isn't it, or is hypocrisy? What a stranglehold you have on the article. You clearly stopped discussing on the talk page by not responding to me and is evading me now because you simply cannot deny the fact that the truth i speak about the case is actually the truth and you can't prove your false conceived version of events. Are you proud of making this a misleading article? Want to see a strong supporting source? Here, [44]. Another here that you used and "cherry picked" the information to use for your conceived version of events. [45] [46] I would also suggest you to stop bombarding me with claims of me being a "victim blamer", "race-baiter", and someone with an agenda. See, No personal attacks Assuming my "status" and calling me these names on the dispute resolution just isn't going to discredit me nor dull my sharp point. Not only me but many other editors also feel that this article is misleading and biased. The official court transcript proves my case. How about yours? Where is your most powerful supporting source of information that contradicts the court transcript? Lance616168 ( talk) 22:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hesebeck: We heard a call from Terry Willers. He said there was somebody in Carter's old tree stand. It's probably one of those mudducks.
Willers: Uh as i got close enough where i could verbally talk to him, i asked him what hunting party was he with and uh he kinda mumbled something that i didn't understand. I told him that he was on Bob Crotteau's and my land, that he was trespassing. Uh he asked what direction he could go to get off the property to go hunt and i pointed in the direction in which i had come from. I radioed in to the cabin that i had a tree-rat and i had chased him off.
So at this point, you can see that Vang already left. This ENDED the first confrontation between Willers and Vang alone. This was no "drawn out" first confrontation. Vang had made quite some distance away from Willers, contradicting your statement that Vang was still by Willers. Vang walked away from the tree-stand to get ONTO the trail and then walked down the trail to get off the property
Hesebeck: Bob had said i'm going to go talk to him to find out who he is, why he's there, and make sure he doesn't, you know, knows that he's on private property and that he's not welcomed there. Denny had said to me this ought to be interesting, let's go and see what's going on. We got in the back of it standing up (ATV), hanging on the rear bar.
Now, this indicates that Crotteau "followed" Vang in order to confront Vang which makes it the SECOND confrontation. " Willers: As Bob got back on the radio and asked me where he was at and i said uh he's heading south down on the food plot right now.
So what were you saying about no one following Vang and this being all a one drawn out confrontation at the tree-stand? Your conceived version of events is simply false. You can choose to evade me as you wish, I will simply notify more third parties of this to get more opinions and i will continue to push for this article to be changed. Also in regards to you not willing to discuss this with me, it was like i said from the beginning of this post, you're evading me. Lance616168 ( talk) 02:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
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. WilliamThweatt 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 Lance616168 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)
WilliamThweatt The victim's bodies were spread out over the area, over 100 yard distances between some of them. Nobody was at the tree-stand. The entire crime scene area was spread out. You also justified the use of racial slurs because of a "tense situation" in your discussion here. Like seriously, how racist can you get? All your attempts were trying to stop Lance616168 with his proposed idea of changes to this article. And after reading it, he has valid points. You on the other hand, just swept the racism under the rug like a closet-racist. White supremacist groups protesting, Vang's home burning down along with graffiti making it arson, shops selling " save a deer, shoot a hmong signs " signs and you denied all of this to be mentioned in the article. You are biased, no doubt about it. Because of your bias, you are blind to see it. Angelofligh22 ( talk) 00:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chai Vang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/10258341.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Personal life[edit] Vang's father served in a secret war that was funded and organized by the CIA that recruited the Hmongs in Laos to disrupt supply routes going from Laos to Vietnam during the Vietnam War. General Vang Pao was the leader of this army and was seen as a father figure to the Hmongs.
--I don't believe General Vang Pao is Chai Vang's father. I can find no reference to that in any of the articles about him.-- — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.4.121.93 (
talk) 21:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I must agree that the above is awkwardly written. However, it is generally accepted that General Vang Pao was a father figure to all the Hmong of the Secret Army. Georgejdorner ( talk) 17:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Specion blocked for sockpuppetry. Mz7 ( talk) 16:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi WilliamThweatt, 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)
|
Hello, the citation of Vang chasing down the other hunters is not verified or confirmed by the police station or reputable news sources. It cites a website called “TheMeatEater” written by Patrick Durkin, a Caucasian male hunter and freelance writer. In his article he doesn’t state a source as well. Edhendro ( talk) 07:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Citation number 7 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)