This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Killing of Hae Min Lee 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 |
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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the DNA testing subsection add:
On March 10, 2022, the Baltimore City State's Attorney signed on to a motion filed by Syed's defense attorney, Erica J. Suter, requesting that the court order new DNA testing on Lee's clothing, shoes, and rape kit. [1] [2] The joint motion stated that those items had never been tested for DNA. [3] On March 14, a city judge ordered that the Baltimore police send evidence to the Forensic Analytical Crime Lab in Hayward, California, within 15 days. [4]
Thank you! Untitled.docx (she/her) 🗩 15:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Murder of Hae Min Lee has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Appeals" Add:
On September 14, 2022, Baltimore prosecutors submitted a motion to vacate the convition, stating that they had lost "faith in the integrity of the convictions". https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-cr-prosecutors-move-to-vacate-adnan-syed-sentence-20220914-uinmd6pa45cqbfj4fwyvac2tb4-story.html Pfcapp ( talk) 21:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
This is super minor, but, can we fix the typo in the previous edit? The word 'convition' (sic) should be 'conviction.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.1.160 ( talk) 21:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Can we add something like: "The Baltimore Prosecutor assigned to the case came to her conclusion partially because of the existence of additional suspects, whose existence constituted the Brady violation, and who are now potentially being investigated for the murder. These two suspects are known to have had means, motive, and opportunity to kill Lee and both have been subsequently and independently arrested for crimes against women. Their names have not widely been reported" Since this page is about the killing itself and not just Adnan's prison sentence, including up-to-date information on the existence of two credible other suspects seems warranted, no pun intended. -- Mccartneyac ( talk) 19:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article still be titled "Murder of Hae Min Lee" as she was still murdered? The overturning of Syed's conviction for her murder just means it is now essentially unsolved. Just because Syed has been cleared it doesn't make this a killing, it makes it an unsolved murder surely? Inexpiable ( talk) 10:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move UtherSRG (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Killing of Hae Min Lee → Murder of Hae Min Lee – Just because Syed's conviction has been overturned, it doesn't mean Lee wasn't murdered. She was murdered, it's just now the murder is essentially unsolved. The article should be renamed back to what it was, "Murder of Hae Min Lee" as this is still a murder case. Inexpiable ( talk) 11:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
This is legal latin and would be more effective communicated with "voluntary motion to dismiss" which could still be linked to the nolle prosequi article. But since it's actually used in legal proceedings and is explained immediately after, I'm not sure if this counts as jargin. Neil Kumar ( talk) 00:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
his conviction was reinstated 75.58.48.104 ( talk) 14:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I reverted the removal of Clinedinst's and Wilds's names. I think Wilds, in particular, belongs in the article—he was the state's chief witness and his name is all over reliable sources discussing Syed's conviction. Clinedinst I'm less sold on, although it's somewhat futile to edit out the name, as the editor did, since the source that's relied on uses his name in the reference title.-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 15:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.
The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.
name[s] of a private individual [that] ha[ve] not been widely disseminated or ha[ve] been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations". An exception is made if doing so would "
result in a significant loss of context". You're arguing whether the exception applies while skipping over the question of whether the policy applies. Wilds's name has been "widely disseminated" and it has not been "intentionally concealed". As such, there's no need to debate the exception.-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 17:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Possible text to add some context
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Conviction has been reinstated which is not reflected in the synopsis which reads “exonerated”. In March the MD Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. 97.141.65.95 ( talk) 03:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Killing of Hae Min Lee 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 |
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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the DNA testing subsection add:
On March 10, 2022, the Baltimore City State's Attorney signed on to a motion filed by Syed's defense attorney, Erica J. Suter, requesting that the court order new DNA testing on Lee's clothing, shoes, and rape kit. [1] [2] The joint motion stated that those items had never been tested for DNA. [3] On March 14, a city judge ordered that the Baltimore police send evidence to the Forensic Analytical Crime Lab in Hayward, California, within 15 days. [4]
Thank you! Untitled.docx (she/her) 🗩 15:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Murder of Hae Min Lee has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Appeals" Add:
On September 14, 2022, Baltimore prosecutors submitted a motion to vacate the convition, stating that they had lost "faith in the integrity of the convictions". https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-cr-prosecutors-move-to-vacate-adnan-syed-sentence-20220914-uinmd6pa45cqbfj4fwyvac2tb4-story.html Pfcapp ( talk) 21:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
This is super minor, but, can we fix the typo in the previous edit? The word 'convition' (sic) should be 'conviction.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.1.160 ( talk) 21:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Can we add something like: "The Baltimore Prosecutor assigned to the case came to her conclusion partially because of the existence of additional suspects, whose existence constituted the Brady violation, and who are now potentially being investigated for the murder. These two suspects are known to have had means, motive, and opportunity to kill Lee and both have been subsequently and independently arrested for crimes against women. Their names have not widely been reported" Since this page is about the killing itself and not just Adnan's prison sentence, including up-to-date information on the existence of two credible other suspects seems warranted, no pun intended. -- Mccartneyac ( talk) 19:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article still be titled "Murder of Hae Min Lee" as she was still murdered? The overturning of Syed's conviction for her murder just means it is now essentially unsolved. Just because Syed has been cleared it doesn't make this a killing, it makes it an unsolved murder surely? Inexpiable ( talk) 10:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move UtherSRG (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Killing of Hae Min Lee → Murder of Hae Min Lee – Just because Syed's conviction has been overturned, it doesn't mean Lee wasn't murdered. She was murdered, it's just now the murder is essentially unsolved. The article should be renamed back to what it was, "Murder of Hae Min Lee" as this is still a murder case. Inexpiable ( talk) 11:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
This is legal latin and would be more effective communicated with "voluntary motion to dismiss" which could still be linked to the nolle prosequi article. But since it's actually used in legal proceedings and is explained immediately after, I'm not sure if this counts as jargin. Neil Kumar ( talk) 00:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
his conviction was reinstated 75.58.48.104 ( talk) 14:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I reverted the removal of Clinedinst's and Wilds's names. I think Wilds, in particular, belongs in the article—he was the state's chief witness and his name is all over reliable sources discussing Syed's conviction. Clinedinst I'm less sold on, although it's somewhat futile to edit out the name, as the editor did, since the source that's relied on uses his name in the reference title.-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 15:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.
The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.
name[s] of a private individual [that] ha[ve] not been widely disseminated or ha[ve] been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations". An exception is made if doing so would "
result in a significant loss of context". You're arguing whether the exception applies while skipping over the question of whether the policy applies. Wilds's name has been "widely disseminated" and it has not been "intentionally concealed". As such, there's no need to debate the exception.-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 17:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Possible text to add some context
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Conviction has been reinstated which is not reflected in the synopsis which reads “exonerated”. In March the MD Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. 97.141.65.95 ( talk) 03:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)