Talk:Killing of Vincent Chin

Requested move 17 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

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)

• 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)
• Oppose Agree with Roman Spinner. Even the article says "Ebens and Nitz were charged with second-degree murder but bargained 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)
• 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}} ^talk 19:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Here is a quote from Talk: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.

Emphasis mine on the last sentence. In the case of Chin, the court found the men guilty of manslaughter. To use the title Murder of Vincent Chin is misleading and inaccurate. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a FAQ for the 'Killing of George Floyd' article; it is not 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 the WP:COMMONNAME. Regarding this particular article, the WP:COMMONNAME is 'Murder of Vincent Chin' per all the reliable sources. Arguing anything else verges on WP:OR. Some1 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

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 than WP: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)

• Support or Beating death of Vincent Chin or Death of Vincent Chin: Wikipedia is not a tabloid and should not use the word "murder" lightly. If the people who killed Chen were not convicted of murder, then we shouldn't decide we want to call it murder anyway. — BarrelProof (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  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 per WP:COMMONNAME, which is the criteria to use per the RfC:_Shooting_or_Death_or_Killing_or_Murder? mentioned above. Some1 (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  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)

  Yes I agree. And the seven reliable sources dated 2020-2021 I listed as a response to you and the Google Ngram link aren't tabloids, and they use "murder." Some1 (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Roman, et al. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• 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)
• Comment Here is the Google Ngram link used to evaluate COMMONNAME. 'murder of Vincent Chin' is the top result by far and 'Murder of Vincent Chin' is a distant second, which confirms that the current article title 'Murder of Vincent Chin' is the WP:COMMONNAME, which should be used per the RfC. Some1 (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• 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)

  See my comment below. Some1 (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note to closer I asked the admin who closed the RfC regarding murder/killing/death/etc. article naming for further clarification at User_talk:Barkeep49#Murder_or_killing? since there's some confusion above, and they stated that yes 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, 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)

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 contradicts WP:BLPCRIME. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Please post your questions or concerns to User_talk:Barkeep49#Murder_or_killing?; Barkeep49 made it clear in their comment here [10] that the RfC still applies in cases of "charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter". Some1 (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Right, I'm clarifying here that a justification of this title on a basis of WP:COMMONNAME does not imply an endorsement of the other argument. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, the policy or guideline to use here is WP:COMMONNAME per the RfC. Even Fences and windows crossed out their original argument regarding WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NDESC (arguments you're trying to use for this RM), and revised their comment to say 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)

WP:BLPCRIME states A 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 at WP:NDESC, we see that In 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)

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 titles should 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, 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.

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)

In case anyone is getting a different impression from the the above further commentary by one registered user and an IP, I suggest that this does 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 as no consensus) actually did 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)

The RfC [13] closed with no 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 said That 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)

Thank you for the further expression of your strongly held opinion on the subject. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

Another policy worth quoting is WP: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 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)

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 titles should 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, 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.

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)

Yes, that IP made some good arguments, and a conviction has been secured. Specifically, a conviction for manslaughter 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)

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] at WP:ANRFC. Some1 (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

• 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 the court of public opinion. Once reliable sources have reported the judgment of manslaughter, calling it a murder is verifiably false and violates WP:BLPCRIME. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Manslaughter is not murder. It is not up to Wikipedia to make judgements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The crime these people committed was clearly murder and they were charged for it as well. 2001:1970:48AA:8100:FC0A:6803:3269:C25A (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Charged is a synonym for accused, not a synonym for convicted. — BarrelProof (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• 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:

Body of evidence favoring "Killing" over "Murder"

• Death of Jonny Gammage → Killing of Jonny Gammage
• Death of Harambe → Killing of Harambe
• Death of George Floyd → Killing of George Floyd
• Death of Osama bin Laden → Killing of Osama bin Laden
• Murder of Tessa Majors → Killing of Tessa Majors
• 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.

Body of evidence favoring non-"Killing" titles

• David Lewis Rice → Murder of Goldmark family
• Murder of Jo Cox → Assassination of Jo Cox - Not moved
• Death of Michael J. Reynolds → Murder of Michael Reynolds - The request also proposes Killing
• Murder of Tina Fontaine → Death of Tina Fontaine

As you can see community consensus is evidently «Killing»-leaning. In most cases it tries to strike the balance between different opinions and satisfy WP: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)

A more extensive table of somewhat similar cases, as of October 2020, can be found at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 58 § Table of RMs. My personal impression is that the interest in using "Killing" within about the last year has partly been an expression of outrage over a string of recent cases (especially police-involved cases) like George Floyd, Eric Garner, Ahmaud Arbery, Dijon Kizzee, Manuel Ellis, and Daniel Prude. In the list above, I don't think Harambe (not a human death) and Osama bin Laden (a planned military operation) are good examples, since "Murder" was out of the question for those! — BarrelProof (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: 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)

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.

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

1. "Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, enacted 18 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

1. 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 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

1. 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.
2. 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)

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

1. 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)
2. The 34th Michigan Legal Milestone commemorated the Vincent Chin case with a bronze plaque on June 19, 2009, at the Chinese Community Center in Madison Heights. https://www.michbar.org/programs/milestone/milestones_whisper-rallyingcry

Section: Killing of Vincent Chin#Legacy

Inclusion Opportunity

1. 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

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

1. 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

1. 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.

1. 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)
2. "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/)
3. "The Rev. Jesse Jackson and leaders with the NAACP and National Urban League also spoke out." (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/) Rev. Jesse Jackson at Vincent Chin Rally, 1984 https://www.kcet.org/news-community/may-19th-project/what-rev-jacksons-appearance-at-the-vincent-chin-rally

Inclusion Opportunity

1. 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

1. 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)
2. 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)

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.

1. Founders: Helen Zia, Roland Hwang, James Shimoura http://legalnews.com/flintgenesee/1510966/
2. 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
3. Additional background: (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/)

MadLadLana (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Is Conyers' position being misrepresented here?

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)

Good catch. I haven't found any independent sources on Conyers' remarks, so I removed that statement as an original interpretation of a primary source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Iirc when 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 a single 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)