While the biographies 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 or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
