| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on June 23, 2011, June 23, 2014, June 23, 2018, and June 23, 2022. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Closed as consensus to move to new article title. Editors have argued that Wikipedia policies favor the WP:COMMONNAME use of the word "murder" as it appears in multiple reliable sources, however this does not require us to use that term when it in fact does not technically apply (as here). Chin's death apparently was a "murder", but there is no compelling argument or consensus here that makes that term necessarily more suitable than "killing", which is inherently less WP:SHOCKing while still having the same import. Note that the request for closure was specifically made for an admin to do so-- I am not an admin, but believe I have correctly assessed consensus; any editor is welcome to refute my closure on that basis, but according to the terms of WP:CLOSURE is unlikely to achieve a different outcome on that basis alone, esp. given that many requests languish for months and that closures are not easy to come by (one request there is for a discussion that is currently over 600 days old). A loose necktie ( talk) 06:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)}}
Murder of Vincent Chin → Killing of Vincent Chin – The men convicted in Chin's death were convicted of manslaughter, not murder, making this title inaccurate. Wikipedia policy, including WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NDESC, would require use of the word "killing". 162.208.168.92 ( talk) 21:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
yes the Consensus to use COMMONNAME (which was a strong consensus) certainly still appliesin cases such as this one where there's a conviction of manslaughter [9]. Since the murder/conviction took place almost four decades ago, the Google Ngram link will provide good results to evaluate WP:COMMONNAME; the link shows that the COMMONNAME is 'Murder of Vincent Chin' even long after the conviction. Some1 ( talk) 17:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
if sources use a particular term then so should we. Therefore, an analysis of reliable sources is necessary.[11]. None of the Support arguments here are convincing or rooted in policy either. Some1 ( talk) 18:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
"has been secured"per WP:BLPCRIME.
"However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources."
When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title ... Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids ... In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.
That RfC was just from December and so yes the Consensus to use COMMONNAME (which was a strong consensus) certainly still appliesin cases such as the Vincent Chin one. (Sorry for pinging you so much Barkeep49.) Some1 ( talk) 16:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
A living person accused of a crime[e.g. murder]
is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." And a conviction of manslaughter, even if it was preceded by an accusation of murder, does not create a presumption of guilt of murder. Another policy is WP:NDESC, which says we "
should reflect a neutral point of view" and "
avoid judgmental and non-neutral words" in article titles. Both of those policies were mentioned by the nominator. — BarrelProof ( talk) 01:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
"has been secured"per WP:BLPCRIME.
I don't think ... are good examples ...Well... anyway, the rest shows it clearly that «Killing» has a certain trend here. I see little examples of opposite. -- AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Ongoing research- Notes for authors/editors.
Section:
Killing of Vincent Chin#Legacy
Paragraph 1, sentence 1
"The [1982] attack was considered a hate crime by many, but it predated the passage of hate crime laws in the United States. "
Inaccurate Information
Deceitful Premise
Paragraph 1, sentence 2
"The ACJ quickly gained the support of diverse ethnic and religious groups, advocacy organizations, and politicians like the Detroit City Council president and Congressman John Conyers. After Chin's murder was raised during a 1998 House of Representatives hearing on the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1997, Conyers mistook Chin to be Japanese-American and argued that Chin's case was not of racial injustice but rather political, about the automobile industry. non-primary source needed Conyers later introduced multiple hate crimes bills from 1999 to 2009."
Inference Risk
Paragraph 4, sentence 1
"In 2010, the city of Ferndale, Michigan, erected a legal milestone marker at the intersection of Woodward Avenue and 9 Mile Road in memorial of the killing of Chin."
Inclusion Opportunity
Section: Killing of Vincent Chin#Legacy
Inclusion Opportunity
Section:
Killing of Vincent Chin#Legal history
Subsection: Federal civil rights charges
Paragraph 1, sentence 2
"Journalist Helen Zia and lawyer Liza Chan ( traditional Chinese: 陳綽薇; simplified Chinese: 陈绰薇; pinyin: Chén Chuòwēi) led the fight for federal charges, which resulted in the two killers being accused of two counts of violating Chin's civil rights, under section 245 of title 18 of the United States Code."
Expansion Opportunity
Expansion/relocation
New Section Opportunity: Community Advocacy
Expansion/relocation
The "diverse ethnic and religious groups, advocacy organizations" in Section #Legacy; Paragraph 1, sentence 2.
Inclusion Opportunity
Inclusion Opportunity: #Community_advocacy or #Legacy
Continuing impact examples
MadLadLana (
talk)
23:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
New Page request: American Citizens for Justice
Organization first referenced in Section Killing of Vincent Chin#Legal history, Federal civil rights charges; Paragraph 1, sentence 2.
MadLadLana ( talk) 23:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
In the "Legacy" section, there is currently this: "After Chin's murder was raised during a 1998 House of Representatives hearing on the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1997, Conyers mistook Chin to be Japanese-American and argued that Chin's case was not of racial injustice but rather political, about the automobile industry."
When I read that, I thought it was saying that Conyers was arguing that the attack on Chin was not racially motivated. This seemed very odd to me, based both upon my preexisting knowledge of John Conyers and upon things I had read earlier in this very Wikipedia article. So, I went to the cited primary source - i.e. the transcript of the Congressional hearing - and read the related part of it. I came away from that with a very different impression than Wikipedia had given me: In context, Conyers doesn't seem to be saying anything about the motivation for the attack at all.
In the hearing, during questioning of Assistant Attorney General Bill Lann Lee by Representative James E. Rogan, Chin's case is brought up as an example of a case in a state court "where the [Federal] Department of Justice apparently felt that an inappropriate result was achieved". Rogan is asking about why the the state declined to prosecute on murder, and if the reason for that was racially motivated. Lee says that he doesn't know why the state declined, but:
My experience is that when you are dealing with local law enforcement and local prosecutors, the vast majority of those people are acting in good will. There are no problems of bias. Sometimes that happens, and I hope that it is very rare nowadays. What I have encountered is not so much that kind of problem. The problem is that the average District Attorney's office has seven employees and when a hate crime of a particularly horrendous nature hits in a particular jurisdiction, they need help sometimes. The Federal Government, if we have this coverage, will be able to help.
At the end of Rogan's questioning of Lee, Conyers asks for a minute of speaking time to say:
I want to thank you for raising the Vincent Chin case because in that case we are talking about the Wayne County prosecutor who has over 100 lawyers. We are talking about people of supposed goodwill, Mr. Lee. The problem was, it was political. It was not racial. The case was not declined there, but it was about the automobile industry. And they were thinking—this was a Japanese American and they were thinking about exports and imports. And the case did not get picked up for what I suspect is political reasons. I thank you for raising that kind of incident which frequently occurs where the people are not racist at all. They just do not want to deal with a hot potato.
So it sure seems to me that Conyers was not stating an opinion such as "The attack on Chin was politically motivated, not racially motivated", but rather "The state's decision not to prosecute the murder charge was politically motivated, not racially motivated" (that is, the same thing that AAG Lee had just suggested that he tends to think). And it sure seems to me that those two interpretations of what Conyers said are very different things.
I understand that the Wikipedia sentence says "Chin's case", and thus may be intended to refer specifically to the legal case, but that is absolutely not clear to me; "case" can easily be read in a more general sense (as, in fact, I had originally done). Add in the fact that the Wikipedia sentence is explicitly in the context of "Chin's murder", and I think it's even easier to read -- I think misread -- it as claiming that Conyers was saying the attack was not racially motivated.
In fact, I think that the results of such a (mis-)reading already show on this talk page itself. Before starting this new section, I searched to see if anyone else had said anything about this. I found that in the talk page's "Inaccurate Information & Premise; Expansion, Inclusion & New Section opportunities", there is a part about this statement of Conyers, and one of the "inference risks" it points out is:
"Appeal to Authority fallacy. What is the intent of describing Conyers' political history of hate crime legislation while quoting him as opposing Vincent Chin's murder as a hate crime?"
That is, this talk page itself is already implicitly making the exact (seemingly incorrect) assumption that I am concerned about here: that the Wikipedia sentence in question means that John Conyers was "opposing Vincent Chin's murder as a hate crime".
- Rwv37 ( talk) 22:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on June 23, 2011, June 23, 2014, June 23, 2018, and June 23, 2022. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Closed as consensus to move to new article title. Editors have argued that Wikipedia policies favor the WP:COMMONNAME use of the word "murder" as it appears in multiple reliable sources, however this does not require us to use that term when it in fact does not technically apply (as here). Chin's death apparently was a "murder", but there is no compelling argument or consensus here that makes that term necessarily more suitable than "killing", which is inherently less WP:SHOCKing while still having the same import. Note that the request for closure was specifically made for an admin to do so-- I am not an admin, but believe I have correctly assessed consensus; any editor is welcome to refute my closure on that basis, but according to the terms of WP:CLOSURE is unlikely to achieve a different outcome on that basis alone, esp. given that many requests languish for months and that closures are not easy to come by (one request there is for a discussion that is currently over 600 days old). A loose necktie ( talk) 06:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)}}
Murder of Vincent Chin → Killing of Vincent Chin – The men convicted in Chin's death were convicted of manslaughter, not murder, making this title inaccurate. Wikipedia policy, including WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NDESC, would require use of the word "killing". 162.208.168.92 ( talk) 21:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
yes the Consensus to use COMMONNAME (which was a strong consensus) certainly still appliesin cases such as this one where there's a conviction of manslaughter [9]. Since the murder/conviction took place almost four decades ago, the Google Ngram link will provide good results to evaluate WP:COMMONNAME; the link shows that the COMMONNAME is 'Murder of Vincent Chin' even long after the conviction. Some1 ( talk) 17:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
if sources use a particular term then so should we. Therefore, an analysis of reliable sources is necessary.[11]. None of the Support arguments here are convincing or rooted in policy either. Some1 ( talk) 18:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
"has been secured"per WP:BLPCRIME.
"However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources."
When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title ... Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids ... In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.
That RfC was just from December and so yes the Consensus to use COMMONNAME (which was a strong consensus) certainly still appliesin cases such as the Vincent Chin one. (Sorry for pinging you so much Barkeep49.) Some1 ( talk) 16:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
A living person accused of a crime[e.g. murder]
is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." And a conviction of manslaughter, even if it was preceded by an accusation of murder, does not create a presumption of guilt of murder. Another policy is WP:NDESC, which says we "
should reflect a neutral point of view" and "
avoid judgmental and non-neutral words" in article titles. Both of those policies were mentioned by the nominator. — BarrelProof ( talk) 01:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
"has been secured"per WP:BLPCRIME.
I don't think ... are good examples ...Well... anyway, the rest shows it clearly that «Killing» has a certain trend here. I see little examples of opposite. -- AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Ongoing research- Notes for authors/editors.
Section:
Killing of Vincent Chin#Legacy
Paragraph 1, sentence 1
"The [1982] attack was considered a hate crime by many, but it predated the passage of hate crime laws in the United States. "
Inaccurate Information
Deceitful Premise
Paragraph 1, sentence 2
"The ACJ quickly gained the support of diverse ethnic and religious groups, advocacy organizations, and politicians like the Detroit City Council president and Congressman John Conyers. After Chin's murder was raised during a 1998 House of Representatives hearing on the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1997, Conyers mistook Chin to be Japanese-American and argued that Chin's case was not of racial injustice but rather political, about the automobile industry. non-primary source needed Conyers later introduced multiple hate crimes bills from 1999 to 2009."
Inference Risk
Paragraph 4, sentence 1
"In 2010, the city of Ferndale, Michigan, erected a legal milestone marker at the intersection of Woodward Avenue and 9 Mile Road in memorial of the killing of Chin."
Inclusion Opportunity
Section: Killing of Vincent Chin#Legacy
Inclusion Opportunity
Section:
Killing of Vincent Chin#Legal history
Subsection: Federal civil rights charges
Paragraph 1, sentence 2
"Journalist Helen Zia and lawyer Liza Chan ( traditional Chinese: 陳綽薇; simplified Chinese: 陈绰薇; pinyin: Chén Chuòwēi) led the fight for federal charges, which resulted in the two killers being accused of two counts of violating Chin's civil rights, under section 245 of title 18 of the United States Code."
Expansion Opportunity
Expansion/relocation
New Section Opportunity: Community Advocacy
Expansion/relocation
The "diverse ethnic and religious groups, advocacy organizations" in Section #Legacy; Paragraph 1, sentence 2.
Inclusion Opportunity
Inclusion Opportunity: #Community_advocacy or #Legacy
Continuing impact examples
MadLadLana (
talk)
23:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
New Page request: American Citizens for Justice
Organization first referenced in Section Killing of Vincent Chin#Legal history, Federal civil rights charges; Paragraph 1, sentence 2.
MadLadLana ( talk) 23:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
In the "Legacy" section, there is currently this: "After Chin's murder was raised during a 1998 House of Representatives hearing on the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1997, Conyers mistook Chin to be Japanese-American and argued that Chin's case was not of racial injustice but rather political, about the automobile industry."
When I read that, I thought it was saying that Conyers was arguing that the attack on Chin was not racially motivated. This seemed very odd to me, based both upon my preexisting knowledge of John Conyers and upon things I had read earlier in this very Wikipedia article. So, I went to the cited primary source - i.e. the transcript of the Congressional hearing - and read the related part of it. I came away from that with a very different impression than Wikipedia had given me: In context, Conyers doesn't seem to be saying anything about the motivation for the attack at all.
In the hearing, during questioning of Assistant Attorney General Bill Lann Lee by Representative James E. Rogan, Chin's case is brought up as an example of a case in a state court "where the [Federal] Department of Justice apparently felt that an inappropriate result was achieved". Rogan is asking about why the the state declined to prosecute on murder, and if the reason for that was racially motivated. Lee says that he doesn't know why the state declined, but:
My experience is that when you are dealing with local law enforcement and local prosecutors, the vast majority of those people are acting in good will. There are no problems of bias. Sometimes that happens, and I hope that it is very rare nowadays. What I have encountered is not so much that kind of problem. The problem is that the average District Attorney's office has seven employees and when a hate crime of a particularly horrendous nature hits in a particular jurisdiction, they need help sometimes. The Federal Government, if we have this coverage, will be able to help.
At the end of Rogan's questioning of Lee, Conyers asks for a minute of speaking time to say:
I want to thank you for raising the Vincent Chin case because in that case we are talking about the Wayne County prosecutor who has over 100 lawyers. We are talking about people of supposed goodwill, Mr. Lee. The problem was, it was political. It was not racial. The case was not declined there, but it was about the automobile industry. And they were thinking—this was a Japanese American and they were thinking about exports and imports. And the case did not get picked up for what I suspect is political reasons. I thank you for raising that kind of incident which frequently occurs where the people are not racist at all. They just do not want to deal with a hot potato.
So it sure seems to me that Conyers was not stating an opinion such as "The attack on Chin was politically motivated, not racially motivated", but rather "The state's decision not to prosecute the murder charge was politically motivated, not racially motivated" (that is, the same thing that AAG Lee had just suggested that he tends to think). And it sure seems to me that those two interpretations of what Conyers said are very different things.
I understand that the Wikipedia sentence says "Chin's case", and thus may be intended to refer specifically to the legal case, but that is absolutely not clear to me; "case" can easily be read in a more general sense (as, in fact, I had originally done). Add in the fact that the Wikipedia sentence is explicitly in the context of "Chin's murder", and I think it's even easier to read -- I think misread -- it as claiming that Conyers was saying the attack was not racially motivated.
In fact, I think that the results of such a (mis-)reading already show on this talk page itself. Before starting this new section, I searched to see if anyone else had said anything about this. I found that in the talk page's "Inaccurate Information & Premise; Expansion, Inclusion & New Section opportunities", there is a part about this statement of Conyers, and one of the "inference risks" it points out is:
"Appeal to Authority fallacy. What is the intent of describing Conyers' political history of hate crime legislation while quoting him as opposing Vincent Chin's murder as a hate crime?"
That is, this talk page itself is already implicitly making the exact (seemingly incorrect) assumption that I am concerned about here: that the Wikipedia sentence in question means that John Conyers was "opposing Vincent Chin's murder as a hate crime".
- Rwv37 ( talk) 22:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)