Talk:Death of Chan Yin-lam

"Ruled out"

@Cold Season: I think you've conflated two different contexts of "rule out" in regards to the coroner's enquiry:

• "Strong" sense - There was sufficient evidence to the contrary of a hypothesis that it can be disproven ("ruled out") beyond reasonable doubt; vs.
• "Weak" sense - The evidence was insufficient to support a verdict beyond reasonable doubt, so a judge cannot reasonably declare ("has ruled out") such a verdict.

Coroner Ko's "ruling out" suicide and homicide as possible causes are the second kind of "ruling out", and as a tertiary source we need to avoid giving the impression that the court had definitively disproven the possibilities, when what the court is stating is that there is insufficient evidence to prove either. Deryck C. 18:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The references are clear with the wording, which simply state that the magistrate ruled it out as possible causes. It is not written as you did in the references. The statement about the evidence is the rationale behind it. --Cold Season (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cold Season: The wording is clear in context, but I'm afraid you've taken it out of context and misinterpreted it in your preferred version of this Wikipedia article, especially in the infobox. Compare reports of the verdict in Chinese-language media:

• Ming Pao: 裁判官表示，研訊中無任何證據可令陪審團在亳無合理疑點下裁定陳彥霖是「非法被殺」或「死於自殺」，所以陪審團不可以考慮此選項。 tr. The magistrate stated that there was no evidence from the trial that could compel the jury beyond reasonable doubt that Chan Yin-lam was killed illegally or committee suicide, so the jury might not consider these options.[1]
• BBC Chinese: 他讓陪審團排除「非法被殺」與「自殺」兩種裁決，是因為法庭必須在毫無合理疑點下作出判決。 tr. He led the jury to exclude the verdicts of "illegally killed" or "suicide", because the court must make judgements that are beyond reasonable doubt.[2]

What was ruled out was the verdict, not the possibility. This is not the first time you have misinterpreted sources to push your point of view and I am trying my best to assume good faith here. Deryck C. 22:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You can stop being a pot calling the kettle black, because unlike you... the wording in the article literally matches the references and is not an interpretation. You are the one who tries hard to not use the wording in the references (i.e., ruled out as possible causes), so don't come here talking about misinterpretation when the sources literally word it like that and your suggestion does not. What you merely wrote here is the rationale why Magistate Ko ruled it out. This is not the first time that you tried to delete cited content that you don't like. --Cold Season (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• This article has long been problematic as it has been thoroughly quote-bombed with official proceedings which attempt to draw an unjustified conclusion, and which have been called into question because independent sources consider the government narrative is untrustworthy. I will be reworking the article in due course – I'll probably start by paring down the relevant parts. -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 09:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)