Talk:Death of Wang Yue

Bystander effect

The article bystander effect makes it clear that more than one person must be present for this phenomenon to occur, each person leaving any action to another. Since each passer-by made a solitary decision to move on, bystander effect is not relevant here. WWGB (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The bystander effect is mentioned in many of the news reporting. An article from Psychology Today on Wang Yue actually states "Western psychologists asked to comment on the incident have largely portrayed it as a classic case of "bystander effect"[1]. If the "Peng Yu incident" is mentioned in the article as an explanation, I don't see why the bystander effect, which is prominently featured in the news, can't be in the See also section.--Gothicartech (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I still don't think it's relevant here, but at least we have an independent source to support its inclusion. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This was on a busy market street. Outside of view of the cameras are business vendors. Lots of people were lining the street when this occurred. They could see the child, and they could see each other. However, I agree that this may not be the bystander effect because the inaction is possibly caused by courts punishing people who help others, and are later accused. Still, I think it is worth including in the article, because it is not yet clear what effects were at play here, and indeed, it may never be known. All that is known for certain is something larger than the individuals involved caused them all to react identically. In other words, there is a larger social or societal problem that could be at work. All plausible explanations that have been put forward are worthy of including in the article until more is known that can rule some of them out. 96.25.97.83 (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason why it is relevant because each of them made a solitary decision to move on, because they thought that someone else would do something. That is what the bystander effect is. Akjar13 (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Title

I believe that the title needs to be changed. "Apathy" implies that the onlookers were "apathetic" (i.e., that they did not care). That does not seem to apply here. First, there is much discussion about the bystander effect. In that case, people simply do not act because they believe that others will act. That is very different from being apathetic. Second, there is also much discussion about onlookers fearing legal reprisal and financial liability (from prior legal precedent cases in China). Again, this is very different from being apathetic. Thus, inaction due to bystander effect or inaction due to fear of legal repercussions does not necessarily equal "apathy". Any thoughts? Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC))

I have reverted the article title until such time as there is consensus to vary the title. WWGB (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

As stated in the deletion conversation, it's not just about Wang, so i recommend we switch it to a suitable title that notes her and the story behind it. Like "Wang Yue death reactions" or something. RAP (talk) 22:06 26 October 2011

When the death of a previously non-notable person has wider societal implications, it is common practice here to name the article Death of NN. See, for example, Death of Stephen Lawrence, Death of Mark Duggan, Death of Vincent Chin. It is quite appropriate to call this article Death of Wang Yue as that event was the trigger for the current Chinese introspection. WWGB (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that I agree with that, WWGB. It was really the incident (car accident/hit-and-run) that sparked the outrage, regardless of whether the victim lived or died. So, it was not the death of the child, per se. If she had survived (lived), this would still be a notable topic. And, in fact, the child did live for a week or so. It was not her death that sparked the outrage and the reaction, it was the accident and the bystander conduct to the accident. Her death was only a peripheral and tangential matter. In other words, this would -- and should -- still warrant a Wikipedia article, even if no death were involved and the child were still alive. The "death of Wang Yue" was not the notable incident; the hit-and-run (and its reactions) was the notable incident here. In fact, the article itself barely addresses the death. The article is chiefly concerned with the car accident. I believe the death itself warranted perhaps one sentence in the article. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC))

I agree with you, in at it was the hit-and-run, and more importantly, the (lack of) action of the bystanders that was the cause and focus of the media frenzy, more so than the death. Hard to put that all in the title though.... Best I could come up with is the really passive sounding "Wang Yue Incident/Accident" which leaves it open but unfortunately also does not explain anything. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"2011 Chinese hit and run"? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 00:12 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a baseball game. I think the overwhelming Keep vote indicates there is no great dissatisfaction with the article or title. I don't see much support at the AfD for "rename" votes. WWGB (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

lol. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:07 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The purpose of an AfD is to discuss whether or not an article should be deleted, kept, or perhaps merged. Selecting the appropriate title of an article is not the purpose of an AfD. Therefore, it is a stretch to conclude that a "Keep" vote in an AfD implies satisfaction with the article title. In fact, if I remember correctly ... this article had gone through a few different titles while in the midst of the AfD process. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC))

"Wang Yue apathy controversy"? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:08 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The term "apathy" is inappropriate under these circumstances. Please see my comment at the very top of this thread. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC))

I've struggled myself to come up with a decent title, and come up short. I agree that a) the article needs a title other than Wang Yue, because it's not a biography; b) the title should not be about Yue's death, because the incident was notable before she passed away from her injuries; and c) any AFD discussion that did not specifically reference what the title should be, should not be considered an opinion about what the title should be. I can't come up with any title better than Wang Yue incident, although I wish I could. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your linking to Wang Yue leads us to the article about the Chinese chess grandmaster. --67.169.28.10 (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the title, perhaps we can take the title on the corresponding Chinese Wikipedia site for reference? It was previously "2011 Run-over of Foshan toddler incident". Subsequently, an editor changed it to "The case of Xiaoyueyue". NoNews! 05:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

My translation turns up as "Little Yue Yue event". WWGB (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We all seem to agree that it was the car accident — and not the death per se — that is the crux of this incident's notability and of this article. Why not a title that contains something along the lines of ... 2011 hit-and-run incident of Wang Yue ... or some such? Thoughts? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC))

Yes I agree "Hit-and-run incident of Wang Yue" would be a better title. Any objections? If not, I will change it in a few days. Mistakefinder (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Missing AFD link

I remember an AFD for this article, which should be included at the top of this talk page. What went wrong, that the link is missing??Edison (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Wang Yue. Edison (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's actually at the very top of this page. The first box at the top of this page says "October 26, 2011 - Articles for deletion - Kept". Click that link and it will take you to the AfD page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC))

The {{ArticleHistory}} template only included the AFD link. I just replaced it with Template:Old AfD, which was previously removed from this article's talk page. --67.169.28.10 (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Video listed for deletion

Do we need this video, File:Yue Yue Accident.ogv, which is being used in the article "Death of Wang Yue", on Wikipedia? It has been listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 November 10#File:Yue Yue Accident.ogv. Any editors may feel free to discuss there. --67.169.28.10 (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does it belong?

Why does the paragraph about another incident, involving a Uruguayan visitor to China, belong here? Jesanj (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Because the only reason the other incidents became internationally notable themselves was because of their comparison or contrast with the Wang Yue incident. Otherwise, some of those events would probably not be notable even locally. Their international prominence came directly from media coverage of Wang Yue, and all of them contained mentions of Wang Yue in at least one article cited. The point of the paragraph is that Wang Yue greatly influenced the kinds of media coverage China received at the time by putting the international spotlight on events that would have been ignored otherwise. Indeed, Chinese indifference was the very thing the media was trying to draw attention to. Badon (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions, I know how it feels to spend your time researching something only for it to be deleted. It has happened to me multiple times. Thanks for stating clearly what the point of the paragraph is: Wang Yue greatly influenced the kinds of media coverage China received at the time. I bet you're right. So what we need to do is find a secondary source that says that in a sentence. That's an awfully long paragraph to get that point across. And it's kind of original research to link a bunch of primary sources together to make a point you haven't found in a source yet. There is a difference between "newsworthy" and Wikipedia:Notability (events). Let me know if any of this is unclear, as I may not have explained it well. Jesanj (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So we just need to rewrite the content to be more general and encyclopedic. More relevant to how the death impacted things. By using things stated in sources. Does that make sense? Jesanj (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I could rephrase "Wang Yue greatly influenced the kinds of media coverage China received at the time" to "Wang Yue brought international attention to whatever caused Wang Yue's death". The cites already talk a little about the Chinese people's fear of encountering the government. The tendency for the government to punish is pretty clear - Wang Yue may have died because people were afraid of being punished due to their involvement, and the Chinese government's proposed solution is more punishment. The facts related to that are presented in the article already.

The Maria Fernanda information objectively shows a different aspect, because in her case the government chose to reward her instead of resorting to their usual punishment tool kit. The importance of the case to China's people, culture, and government is highlighted when the government described her actions as "traditional Chinese virtues", probably in an attempt to make a rare positive example, as opposed to a negative example.

I think the paragraph information is incredibly valuable for capturing the sum total of the aftermath of Wang Yue's death from the point of view of foreigners, international media, the Chinese people, and the government of China. I agree that the information in the paragraph could be presented differently, but I could not think of a way to do that without violating NPOV, so I chose to just write up the facts with many cites. However, I've done the research and provided the info needed to get started with it, if you have a good idea how it can be improved.

Badon (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverted edits about change in China's culture

Ivan the video guy's edits about a change in China's culture was reverted:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Wang_Yue&diff=610450026&oldid=610449917

I agree with the revert, but I think there might be a way the information could be tied into this article, if the change can be cited as stemming from the death of Wang Yue. There must be a specific mention of Wang Yue to be sure it is relevant to this article. If there is only a mention of the culture of apathy of the past, then it probably wouldn't fit in this article, except maybe as a "See also" or "External links". Badon (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Not apathy

Ignoring an injured child is not apathy, it is something more. Apparently deliberately running over the said child is certainly not apathy. I think that the sentence "indicative of a growing apathy in contemporary Chinese" must be changed.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death of Wang Yue. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404035536/http://www.shanghaidaily.org/article/print.asp?id=486466 to http://www.shanghaidaily.org/article/print.asp?id=486466

When 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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)