Talk:Lucie Blackman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on June 3, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Concerning the changes I made: That the view is slanted is not mentioned in the sources, i.e. it's own research, so I removed it. The Independent source was completely irrelevant, so I removed that one too (I'm not saying the article is of no interest, but it does not support the statement it followed). Finally, if you are going to say something like "The Japanese judicial system was criticised", you are going to need more than one source criticising them. You need either, a good bunch of sources criticising it, or one source summarising the criticism. I didn't remove this part though, but it does need better sourcing. Mackan 22:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Not a murder victim?
Are you suggesting she wasn't killed "deliberately" (which is the definition my Oxford dictionary gives me)? Even if Obara isn't charged with murder (for whatever reason), it doesn't really change the fact that Blackman was murdered. If it was Obara's entry we were talking about, removing the tag "murderers" might have been more appropriate, but I suggest the tag "murder victim" is put back right here.
- That comment was by me btw, forgot to sign. Since you haven't replied I'll put the tag back. Mackan 22:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- He wasn't charged with murder because intent to kill had not been proven[1]. He fully intended to rape his victims, but it was because his pattern of serial rape, the deaths of two women out of 400+ acts was thought of as incidental. There were also no witnesses to attest to the fact that he had forethought of the act. Besides, its the police,courts, and the M.E.s that decide such things. Putting that tag in is POV opinion at the worst and own research at best. Go with what's been reported and ruled on and not your opinion of the crime. Neoyamaneko 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hold on, I'm irritated that you'd accuse me of POV as well as of OR, I find it quite rude. I only put the tag back after you didn't reply here for 2 days. I don't need a rebukal to go with your explanation, mister. Mackan 09:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not my life nor does it pay my bills, so if I don't respond after 2 days, it's not the end of anyone's world. Now....onto other things. You can call what I did an "accusation", while I tend to go with "statement of fact". The police and prosecution didn't charge or indict Obara with murder because intent to kill hadn't been established. So, to call her a "murder victim" is an opinion and if you come up with anything that supports that view but doesn't support the direction of the trial and/or the probable outcome is your own research. And even *if* he was charged and indicted on murder charges, the case hasn't rendered a verdict yet, so you couldn't put the tag in until someone of authority in the court said said "guilty" anyways. Don't take it personal, because people on wiki critique a lot harder than I and there are thesis advisers in uni that would tear people new orifices for such things.Neoyamaneko 13:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, I have no problems with you not responding for two days, that's not what I'm complaining about. I don't question the "murder" definition either (since your first answer), but instead of answering my question why the tag should be there, you accused me of OR as well as POV-pushing, which was completely uncalled for. Also, I had my thesis defense a month ago so you don't have to tell me how I should take your criticism. This isn't my thesis and I don't care what "other people on the wiki" do, all I'm asking you is to be civil. Mackan 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you take offense at it, and you think I'm being uncivil for calling a spade a spade, that's not my problem. And, like I said, putting the tag based on the facts of the case is what it is. As I saw it, I explained it *and* said what putting the tag in looked like. You looked past the explanation and saw what you believed was a personal attack (constructive criticism is not a personal attack). I took yours in stride, why can't you in kind? I'll just leave it at that since you want to be defensive and combative about a little thing. Neoyamaneko 02:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, I have no problems with you not responding for two days, that's not what I'm complaining about. I don't question the "murder" definition either (since your first answer), but instead of answering my question why the tag should be there, you accused me of OR as well as POV-pushing, which was completely uncalled for. Also, I had my thesis defense a month ago so you don't have to tell me how I should take your criticism. This isn't my thesis and I don't care what "other people on the wiki" do, all I'm asking you is to be civil. Mackan 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not my life nor does it pay my bills, so if I don't respond after 2 days, it's not the end of anyone's world. Now....onto other things. You can call what I did an "accusation", while I tend to go with "statement of fact". The police and prosecution didn't charge or indict Obara with murder because intent to kill hadn't been established. So, to call her a "murder victim" is an opinion and if you come up with anything that supports that view but doesn't support the direction of the trial and/or the probable outcome is your own research. And even *if* he was charged and indicted on murder charges, the case hasn't rendered a verdict yet, so you couldn't put the tag in until someone of authority in the court said said "guilty" anyways. Don't take it personal, because people on wiki critique a lot harder than I and there are thesis advisers in uni that would tear people new orifices for such things.Neoyamaneko 13:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hold on, I'm irritated that you'd accuse me of POV as well as of OR, I find it quite rude. I only put the tag back after you didn't reply here for 2 days. I don't need a rebukal to go with your explanation, mister. Mackan 09:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Prostitution in Japan
I do not think that link is slander. To me, it never meant that Lucie Blackman herself was involved in prostitution, but it's relevant to this article, not only because Joji Obara's other victims were largely prostitutes. Mackan 11:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think it's at least inappropriate. There's no evidence that Blackman was a prostitute, and while hostess clubs do have a link with prostitution, they're just as often places where sex with the hostesses is not an option (only conversation). The Hostess club article is not categorized under "prostitution in Japan," so there's no reason for this article to be either. Exploding Boy 18:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't know, I do see your point, but I'm not sure I agree. The linked article gives interesting insight into something which is closely related to the subject of this article, whether Blackman was a prostitute or not. I think that especially the Mizuho Fukushima quote is a good reason to include such a link. I never thought of the link's inclusion as a suggestion that she was a prostitute, and I'm not sure most others will either. Mackan 17:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Exploding Boy - inappropriate and the job she was doing is already linked in the article so it is unnecessary Weggie 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment, Weggie, but I would appreciate if you also responded to the specific remarks I made. Does not the Mizuho Fukushima quote give a good reason to include such a link? Mackan 19:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK - but I will have to post more tomorrow as I've run out of time tonight. I think it should be possible to expand the Fukushima paragraph to cover the valid points you have made and also include the link in the main body of the work Weggie 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment, Weggie, but I would appreciate if you also responded to the specific remarks I made. Does not the Mizuho Fukushima quote give a good reason to include such a link? Mackan 19:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Exploding Boy - inappropriate and the job she was doing is already linked in the article so it is unnecessary Weggie 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't know, I do see your point, but I'm not sure I agree. The linked article gives interesting insight into something which is closely related to the subject of this article, whether Blackman was a prostitute or not. I think that especially the Mizuho Fukushima quote is a good reason to include such a link. I never thought of the link's inclusion as a suggestion that she was a prostitute, and I'm not sure most others will either. Mackan 17:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's at least inappropriate. There's no evidence that Blackman was a prostitute, and while hostess clubs do have a link with prostitution, they're just as often places where sex with the hostesses is not an option (only conversation). The Hostess club article is not categorized under "prostitution in Japan," so there's no reason for this article to be either. Exploding Boy 18:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyvio?
On July 1, Lucie went on a dohan (a paid date) with a customer from Casablanca... No one heard from her again.[1]
This para (and the next, ending She is safe and training in a hut in Chiba) is lifted word for word from the Time article. Just because that article is quoted as the source (of the facts) doesn't mean huge chunks can be lifted without explicit acknowledgement. I suggest it should be reworded. Flapdragon 12:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Indefinite Sentence
Japanese media sources clearly state that he was given indefinite sentence (Muki choeki). Though I do accept that almost all media in English translated this as life sentence, this is categorically wrong in technical term because there are some common law countries which use indefinite sentence apart from life sentence. Moreover, without this correct translation, one cannot properly translate the debate in Japan regarding the introduction of life sentence. Here is a reference in English legal system about indefinite sentence. Encyclopedia Britannica also has a separate entry for indeterminate sentence. Though many media source use "life sentence" in place of indeterminate sentence for easy reading, wikipedia as an online "encyclopedia" should use more accurate term. I also altered article about life sentence in Japan. Vapour
- It's actually referred to in English as an "indeterminate sentence", and it is used in the judicial system of South Africa as well. Neoyamaneko 03:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request for comment on Joji Obara
For those who may be interested, there is a long-standing debate as to whether the article about the suspect should open with an explit mention of his ethnic minority status. Looking for as many comments as possible, long or short - please take a peek at Talk:Joji Obara#Rfc Ethnic origin mentions and help us resolve this dispute. Phonemonkey 23:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Title
It's not clear what title would be the best choice to move this article. Murder of Lucie Blackman was the most popular choice, but it might not be the best one due to doubts about her actual cause of death. I for one was going to move it to "Murder of..." but thought better of it, doubting the merit of "murder" as a neutral word to describe any incident. Perhaps Disappearance of Lucie Blackman would be better. Ironically though, the status quo would probably be least controversial, so I'm not touching it. Have fun. — CharlotteWebb 02:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redirect to Joji Obara
Personally, I think this is a good solution. Wikipedia retains information on her murder, which the AfD indicated has been of some importance in the media and in international relations; but by redirecting to another article we avoid the over-detailed description of the circumstances surrounding her disappearance and murder. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be tabloid news.
Another option would be to strip this article down to bare details, and rename it, as most of the AfD "voters" thought should be done. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the consensus in the AFD wasn't to keep, but to change the topic to the murder or the case, which is why the merge/redirect works.-Wafulz 15:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
