While thebiographies 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 orpoorly sourced contentious material about living personsmust be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please seethis noticeboard.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofCrime and Criminal Biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofDeath on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state ofMichigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofDiscrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Espiritu, Yen Le (1996). "Racial Killing or Barroom Brawl? Multiple Explanations of the Killing of Vincent Chin". In Brass, Paul R. (ed.).Riots and Pogroms. London: Macmillan Press. pp. 221–234.doi:10.1007/978-1-349-24867-4_8.ISBN978-1-349-24867-4.
Kich, Martin (2019). "The Murder of Vincent Chin, 1982". In Dong, Lan (ed.).25 Events that Shaped Asian American History: An Encyclopedia of the American Mosaic. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood Press. pp. 372–385.ISBN978-1-4408-6089-8.
Ma, Sheng-mei (2000). "Vincent Chin and Baseball: Law, Racial Violence, and Masculinity".The Deathly Embrace: Orientalism and Asian American Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. pp. 76 ff.ISBN978-0-8166-3711-9.
Zia, Helen (2013). "Chin, Vincent (1955–1982)". In Zhao, Xiaojian; Park, Edward J. W. (eds.).Asian Americans: An Encyclopedia of Social, Cultural, Economic, and Political History, Volume I. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood Press. pp. 210–215.ISBN978-1-59884-240-1.
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Closed asconsensus to move to new article title. Editors have argued that Wikipedia policies favor theWP: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 apparentlywas a "murder", but there is no compelling argument or consensus here that makes that term necessarily more suitable than "killing", which is inherently lessWP: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 ofWP: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)}}[reply]
Oppose. The perpetrators were initially charged with second-degree murder, thus confirming that the killing is indeed considered to be murder, even if the murder indictment against the two killers was subsequently pleaded down to a lesser charge. —Roman Spinner(talk •contribs)02:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Roman Spinner. Even the article says "Ebens and Nitz were charged with second-degree murder butbargained the charges down to manslaughter." Just because the killers were able to bargain down their charges does not make Chin's death "not a murder."Some1 (talk)02:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Ill-considered nomination that should be snow closed quickly, as the article is receiving a surge in traffic right now due to connection to the 2021 Atlanta spa shootings.{{u|Sdkb}}talk19:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is a quote fromTalk:Killing of George Floyd/FAQ: Q4: Why is this article calling it a killing instead of a death/murder?
A4: Any time one person causes the death of another – whether intentionally or not, whether criminally or not – that's a homicide. It's a very broad category. Every murder or manslaughter (of any "degree") is a homicide, but not every homicide is a murder or manslaughter. A killing in self-defense is a homicide. Even an execution pursuant to a judicially imposed sentence of death is a homicide. In most US jurisdictions the determination of whether or not a death is a homicide is made by a coroner or medical examiner, as a prerequisite to other legal proceedings. The medical examiner in Floyd's case determined that his death was, indeed, a homicide – or in common American English parlance, a killing.A homicide becomes, legally, a murder or manslaughter only once someone is convicted in court.
That's a FAQ for the 'Killing of George Floyd' article; it isnot a site-wide policy or guideline. See this RfC:[1] which went over all this murder/killing/shooting/etc. article naming and the result was no consensus and to use theWP:COMMONNAME. Regarding this particular article, the WP:COMMONNAME is 'Murder of Vincent Chin' per all the reliable sources. Arguing anything else verges onWP:OR.Some1 (talk)20:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's not a policy. As seen in the RfC you've linked, it's been hard to establish consensus on this type of article title, or to have a guideline more specific thanWP:COMMONNAME.
I mention Floyd as a well-known case that has gone through a similar"Killing of"/"Murder of" RM. In that case, a consensus emerged that the "Murder of" title would only be considered in the event of a murder conviction. I think a similar logic applies here. But, I realize that each article needs to be evaluated on its own merits.162.208.168.92 (talk)23:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "tabloid" argument is a red-herring. The majority of reliable sources call this a murder,even after the killers (who were initially charged with murder but were able to bargain down their charges to manslaughter) were convicted in 1983, e.g.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Wikipedia should reflect reliable sources and perWP:COMMONNAME, which is the criteria to use per theRfC:_Shooting_or_Death_or_Killing_or_Murder? mentioned above.Some1 (talk)02:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a red herring to say that an encyclopedia should try to maintain a more dignified and NPOV tone than a tabloid by not lightly toss around words like 'murder'. That is what tabloids do – they use headlines with a sensationalistic tone. It is not what Wikipedia should do. Wikipedia should convey a sense of professionalism and restraint. — BarrelProof (talk)02:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This wasn't a murder no matter how many articles call it one. There is no difference between a plea bargain to manslaughter or someone being found guilty of manslaughter - it's still manslaughter.Dougal18 (talk)10:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - WP:COMMONNAME does not apply here since it deals with names, while the "Murder" part of the title is a descriptor. If the article title were to be treated as a name and WP:COMMONNAME applied, we'd have to consider a whole bunch of other candidates like "Vincent Chin's murder" and "Beating death of Vincent Chin". As Dougal18 noted, no number of articles loosely using one term over another can change "alleged" to "convicted", however much we might wish that were so in individual cases. "Killing" is a term broad enough to include both the commonly assumed "murder" and the official ruling of "manslaughter", without being overly broad.--Martin IIIa (talk)14:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer I asked the admin who closed theRfC regarding murder/killing/death/etc. article naming for further clarification atUser_talk:Barkeep49#Murder_or_killing? since there's some confusion above, and they stated thatyes the Consensus to use COMMONNAME (which was a strong consensus) certainly still applies in cases such as this one where there's a conviction of manslaughter[9]. Since the murder/conviction took place almost four decades ago, theGoogle 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)[reply]
I'll also add that the opposition proposed by Roman Spinner and supported by others, namely that a murder charge not resulting in a conviction justifies the label of murder, does not appear to be supported by any Wikipedia policy. In fact, it directly contradictsWP:BLPCRIME.162.208.168.92 (talk)17:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, the policy or guideline to use here isWP:COMMONNAME per the RfC. EvenFences and windows crossed out their original argument regardingWP:BLPCRIME andWP:NDESC (arguments you're trying to use for this RM), and revised their comment to sayif 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)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME statesA living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. Using "murder" as the title implies that the killers are murderers, and the court determined that they are not guilty of murder. If we look atWP:NDESC, we see thatIn some cases a descriptive phrase (...) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view.Killing of Vincent Chin avoids the use of non-NPOV wording, and it is still instantly recognizable.162.208.168.92 (talk)20:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly says "Ebens and Nitz were charged with second-degree murder but bargained the charges down to manslaughter and pleaded guilty in 1983" in the lead. A conviction"has been secured" per WP:BLPCRIME.
Even WP:NDESC says"However,non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titlesshould be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources."
And from WP:NPOVNAME:When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, asevidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title ... Sometimes thatcommon 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.
And as an admin said before[12], the RfC still applies in cases of "charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter" such as this one, and WP:COMMONNAME is the policy to follow.Some1 (talk)21:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone is getting a different impression from the the above further commentary by one registered user and an IP, I suggest that thisdoes not mean that those who support this move have given up their opinion, and I further suggest that the RfC in question (which was closed asno consensus) actuallydid not establish some overriding policy that requires us to refer to this killing as a murder in a way that is contrary to the adjudicated declaration by the court of appropriate jurisdiction. — BarrelProof (talk)16:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC[13] closed withno consensus to use the flowchart and said to use the WP:COMMONNAME instead. I asked the closer,Barkeep49, here:User_talk:Barkeep49#Murder_or_killing? for further clarification and they saidThat RfC was just from December and so yes the Consensus to use COMMONNAME (which was a strong consensus) certainly still applies in cases such as the Vincent Chin one. (Sorry for pinging you so much Barkeep49.)Some1 (talk)16:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just quoting policies and guidelines. I can see that you have strongly held opinions on the subject, though, based on your vote at the RfC and now at the two RM's.Some1 (talk)16:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another policy worth quoting isWP:BLPCRIME, which says that "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 isWP: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)[reply]
You're repeating the same arguments right above that the IP used,which I already replied to. I can copy and paste it again here:
The article clearly says "Ebens and Nitz were charged with second-degree murder but bargained the charges down to manslaughter and pleaded guilty in 1983" in the lead. There are no "accusations"; a conviction"has been secured" per WP:BLPCRIME.
Even WP:NDESC says "However,non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titlesshould be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources."
And from WP:NPOVNAME: When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, asevidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title ... Sometimes thatcommon 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.
And as an admin said before[14], the RfC still applies in cases of "charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter" such as this one, and WP:COMMONNAME is the policy to follow.Some1 (talk)01:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that IP made some good arguments, and a conviction has been secured. Specifically, a conviction formanslaughter has been secured, following an earlier accusation of murder. The fact that the conviction for manslaughter was secured after an accusation of murder does not make the convicted person guilty of murder. And there is no one policy or one admin to rule them all. — BarrelProof (talk)01:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tricky subject, which is why the RfC says to use the WP:COMMONNAME and the closing admin even says the RfC applies in cases of those "charged with murder, but convicted of manslaughter". Reliable sources all call this event a murder and Wikipedia should reflect reliable sources, not what editors personally think should be the title instead. We'll just have to agree to disagree with this sort of stuff. I posted a request to have an admin close this discussion[15] atWP:ANRFC.Some1 (talk)02:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary to try to get the discussion closed very soon. It's pretty common for an RM to be open for a while. It looks like there are currently about 40 of them that have been open longer than this one, which has only been open for 8 days. — BarrelProof (talk)02:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support move. The final judgment was manslaughter, not murder. Whether there was a plea deal makes no difference. The question of murder is for a court of law to decide, not thecourt of public opinion. Once reliable sources have reported the judgment of manslaughter, calling it a murder is verifiably false and violatesWP:BLPCRIME.Adumbrativus (talk)05:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — There is a growing body of precedents that community prefers «Killing» as more neutral-ish title over «Murder» in various famous cases. For the sake of consistency with growing general consensus and Articles' titling I support this request. Here I will list some cases:
Killing of Lizzie O'Neill — This is a notable case which cited a bunch of articles starting with "Killing". It argues that "Shootings" are more common, but eventually Killing was kept. Probably worth to look at.
As you can see community consensus is evidently «Killing»-leaning. In most cases it tries to strike the balance between different opinions and satisfyWP:NPOV above all regardless of amount of sources used so we should probably follow the same way. --AXONOV(talk)⚑20:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Inaccurate Information & Premise; Expansion, Inclusion & New Section opportunities.
"Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, enacted18 U.S.C.§ 245(b)(2), permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, initimidate or interfere with ... any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin" or because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting." -Civil Rights Act of 1968#Title I: Hate crimes
Deceitful Premise
Reader may infer that V.Chin's death was not ruled a hate crime as such legislation didn't exist; rather than how V.Chin's death was ruled a hate crime, and then overturned; illustrating the continuing injustice of anti Asian-American sentiment within the civil rights legal framework.
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 CongressmanJohn Conyers. After Chin's murder was raised during a 1998House 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 laterintroduced multiple hate crimes bills from 1999 to 2009."
Inference Risk
Reader may infer that the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1997 became legislation- when it did not advance beyond the hearings phase. There are no Wikipedia entries on the stalled H.R.3081 bill.
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?
Regarding the claim here in Inference Risk #2 that Conyers is being quoted "as opposing Vincent Chin's murder as a hate crime": I suspect that this may be a serious misinterpretation of what Conyers said, based on the way that Wikipedia is currently summarizing (not quoting) it. Please see the new section that I just added to this talk page, "Is Conyers' position being misrepresented here?. -Rwv37 (talk)22:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 4, sentence 1
"In 2010, the city ofFerndale, 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
The Michigan Legal Milestones program recognizes significant legal cases and personalities in Michigan's history. The Michigan State Bar bestowed Milestone 34 on the Vincent Chin case in recognition of it's legal, social, and judiciary impacts, including: "giving birth to the Asian American victims and civil rights movement."https://www.michbar.org/file/barjournal/article/documents/pdf4article1505.pdf)
National Law Review: "Although justice was not served in Chin’s case, his murder is often recognized for galvanizing the Asian American victims and civil rights movement.[22] The case also led to the formation of the ACJ, which has a mission to combat xenophobia and hate and provide various resources for victims of discrimination.[23] More importantly, Chin’s case highlighted the flaws in our legal system and sparked several legal reforms. Because of Chin and other similar cases, families of victims are now allowed to deliver victim impact statements at hearings before the judge.[24] At the time of Ebens’ and Nitz’s first sentencing before Judge Kaufman, Wayne County prosecutors were not required to attend sentencing proceedings.[25] Now, prosecutors are required to be at all hearings.[26] Further, less than one year after Chin’s murder, the Wayne County Prosecutor’s office barred future reductions of second-degree murder charges to manslaughter.[27] This had the effect of eliminating probation as a sentencing option.[28] Finally, the Supreme Court and the Legislature addressed the wide latitude judges had in sentencing with mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines.[29]"https://www.natlawreview.com/article/40-years-after-vincent-chin
Inclusion of the significance of the federal government pursuing the civil rights claim. "The campaign eventually forced the federal government to seek a civil rights trial against the two killers — the first time the federal government ever pursued a civil rights claim on behalf of an Asian American person." (Zia, Helen. "Lily Chin: The Courage to Speak Out."Untold Civil Rights Stories: Asian Americans Speak Out for Justice, edited by Russell C. Leong and Stewart Kwoh, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, 2009, pp. 36.https://www.aasc.ucla.edu/resources/untoldstories/UCRS_Vincent_Chin.pdf)
Expansion/relocation
Expansion on "the fight" referenced above. "Because of this injustice, many people in the Asian American community of southeastern Michigan organized a national civil rights movement to reach out to people all across America...The campaign eventually forced the federal government to seek a civil rights trial" (Zia, Helen. "Lily Chin: The Courage to Speak Out."Untold Civil Rights Stories: Asian Americans Speak Out for Justice, edited by Russell C. Leong and Stewart Kwoh, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, 2009, pp. 36.https://www.aasc.ucla.edu/resources/untoldstories/UCRS_Vincent_Chin.pdf)
New Section Opportunity: Community Advocacy
Expansion/relocation
The "diverse ethnic and religious groups, advocacy organizations" in Section #Legacy; Paragraph 1, sentence 2.
New Detroit. "After the sentence of probation, American Citizens for Justice and the APA community could not get a meeting with then-county prosecutor William Cahalan. It took the intervention of New Detroit, the urban coalition that arose from the 1967 Detroit Riot, and the Detroit Organization of Black Organizations, for a meeting to occur with the prosecutor." (Chi, Sang, and Emily Moberg Robinson.Voices of the Asian American and Pacific Islander Experience Volume 1. Greenwood, 2012, pp199.https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/55GHYJlvf7YC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA199&dq=american+citizens+for+justice+hwang)
"Black civil rights and labor leaders such as the late Rev. Horace Sheffield Jr., whose granddaughter is Detroit City Council President Mary Sheffield, gave "incredible support" to Asian Americans after Chin was killed, helping them to publicize the case and bring attention to government officials, Zia said." (Warikoo, Niraj. "Asian Americans who sparked national movement after Vincent Chin's death continue fighting". Detroit Free Press, 2022.https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2022/06/16/asian-americans-continue-fighting-40-years-after-death-vincent-chin/7607047001/)
The advocacy of Lily Chin for her son, the Asian American community, and civil rights. "Lily Chin found the strength to speak to thousands of people at community gatherings, rallies and demonstrations across the country, and even to appear on television.” (Zia, Helen. "Lily Chin: The Courage to Speak Out."Untold Civil Rights Stories: Asian Americans Speak Out for Justice, edited by Russell C. Leong and Stewart Kwoh, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, 2009, pp. 36.https://www.aasc.ucla.edu/resources/untoldstories/UCRS_Vincent_Chin.pdf)
Inclusion Opportunity: #Community_advocacy or #Legacy
Continuing impact examples
Michigan State Senator Stephanie Chang-D, the first Asian American woman elected to the state's legislature. "Learning about what happened to Vincent Chin, I think that sort of sparked a lot of my interest in wanting to work on civil rights issues and realizing that there was, you know, many, many issues going on that we need to continue to fight for." Also: "So we have actually been pushing for our bills, which are about teaching not just Asian-American history, but Latino history, Indigenous history, Arab and Chaldean history, and Black history within all of our schools. Because we know that so many of our marginalized communities, we are not learning about that history precedent." (Chang, Stephanie. "Rise of Anti-Asian Hate Revives Asian American Civil Rights Movement Sparked by Vincent Chin’s Murder". Interviewed by Bill Kubota, One Detroit, Jun 16, 2022.https://www.onedetroitpbs.org/one-detroit/rise-of-anti-asian-hate-revives-asian-american-civil-rights-movement-sparked-by-vincent-chins-murder/) Proposed bills by Sen. Chang have historically included civil rights, labor & education reform and Asian American equality. (Michigan Legislature Compiled Laws,https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(vkltkn1bijv0jjesphdmi20y))/mileg.aspx?page=Bills)
Annual memorials for Vincent Chin, including 2022's 40th anniversary: "Detroit has partnered with The Vincent Chin 40th Remembrance & Rededication Coalition on a four-day commemoration to honor civil rights efforts that began with Chin’s death and declare the city’s commitment against such violence." (Williams, Corey. "Detroit honors Vincent Chin, Asian American killed in a 1982 hate attack, with commemoration". Associated Press and PBS NewsHour, June 16, 2022.https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/detroit-honors-vincent-chin-asian-american-killed-in-a-1982-hate-attack-with-commeration)
Purpose: "founded in reaction to the fatal beating of Vincent Chin, a Chinese-American man. The ACJ later evolved into an organization advocating for the rights of Asian-Americans in general." Non-profit organizational records:https://quod.lib.umich.edu/b/bhlead/umich-bhl-05100?view=text
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 ofJohn 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 attackat all.
In the hearing, during questioning of Assistant Attorney GeneralBill Lann Lee by RepresentativeJames 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 wasnot 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 pageitself 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".
Iircwhen I first edited this sentence, this literal assessment of Conyers' meaning by saying "politically motivated, not racially" was also made, or at least not countered, in Yoo 2021. Yoo also says a bit about how Conyers as well as local leaders were on the ground in the community for quite some time helping afterwards. As happens with Wikipedia so often though, the characterization of Conyers as being an anti-Asian racist had been scattered on a lot of blogs over the years, citing this article uncritically. As Conyers pushed through multiple hate crime bills for which he cited Vincent Chin among others, my decision at the time was to leave up the testimony along with the additional info given by Yoo in as little additional text as possible (because the article isn't about Conyers).
At this point I support removal of the testimony. Dumb bloggers are dumb. Although I will re-add citation to Yoo because she goes into considerable depth on the activists coming into the community in the aftermath, whereas Zia's characterization is asingle sentence. And I frankly can't understand why an editor would think that consolidating citations to a single source would be desirable -- that is antithetical to long-term maintainability and robustness.SamuelRiv (talk)07:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between27 January 2025 and21 May 2025. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Calebrooklyn3458 (article contribs). Peer reviewers:HoneyBride.
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between27 January 2025 and21 May 2025. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Calebrooklyn3458 (article contribs). Peer reviewers:HoneyBride.
