Talk:Jeremy Lin

Infobox with Name Translations

This infobox is extremely unnecessary and adds to the clutter of the article. 198.151.130.73 (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If it isn't in an infobox it should be at the top of the article. This is actually very important because to search for mainland sources you need to know what the name is in simplified Chinese and for Hong Kong and Taiwan sources you need to have the name in traditional characters. You will need the pronunciation as well if you are to recognize when his name is mentioned by a Chinese speaker, such as some of this subject's immediate family. Without the infobox, readers may conclude that "Shu-How" is just his "middle name" without understanding that this is also his Chinese first name. Finally, there is also no general Wikipedia policy against the inclusion of non-English characters.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a translator. 198.151.130.73 (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not a translation, it's just an information about how his Chinese name is written in different characters (simplified and traditional), how his name is romanized, and how to pronounce the name. It's a standard on a lot of Chinese-related article, see I. M. Pei or Michelle Kwan as an example. In other languages, a person's name in its native spelling is also often mentioned in the lead, for example Andrei Kirilenko's lead says: "Andrei Gennadyevich Kirilenko (Russian: Андрей Геннадьевич Кириленко; born 18 February 1981)". Furthermore, it's better to have them in the infobox rather than put them in the lead like few days ago, when the lead was written like this:

Jeremy Shu-How Lin (traditional Chinese: 林書豪; simplified Chinese: 林书豪; pinyin: Lín Shūháo; Pe̍h-ōe-jī: Lîm Su-hô; born August 23, 1988) is an American professional basketball player with the New York Knicks of the National Basketball Association (NBA).

In this case, the infobox reduce clutter in the lead. — MT (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I. M. Pei was born as his name in Chinese. I. M. is not even a translation of his first name. It is just what he is commonly known as. If you look at the talk page of the Michelle Kwan article, you will see that the inclusion of the infobox is heavily questioned.

"In other languages, a person's name in its native spelling is also often mentioned in the lead". Jeremy Lin's name in the California birth index is "Jeremy Shuhow Lin". That would be the "native spelling". 198.151.130.73 (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In Michelle Kwan's article, the Chinese characters and its romanization (in the lead, not as infobox) has been there since the article was created in 2002. Even though it was disputed in 2006 and 2007, the discussion does not lead to the removal of her Chinese name. Furthermore, since that discussion, no one bother to remove or at least discuss the existence of Kwan's Chinese name, until 1 editor questioned it in 2011. And in that last discussion, 3 other editors supported the inclusion of her Chinese name. I don't think you could say that this is heavily questioned. Lin's Chinese name has been here for more than two years and so far only you disputed its existence.

On your second point, you are just ignorant, 林書豪/林书豪/Lín Shūháo is the native spelling of Shu-How Lin. Plenty of Greek Americans has the Greek spelling of their names mentioned in the lead even though a lot of them were born in the U.S. with English names.

Anyway, you never mentioned your reason why his Chinese name is unnecessary. There is no visible clutter since it was already moved from the lead into a collapsible infobox. How does the existence of his Chinese name hurt this article? I did not see any strong argument yet on why it should be removed. — MT (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion in the Michelle Kwan article goes from Feb. 2006 to Feb. 2012, so it is still ongoing. You are the one that is ignorant. Do you even know what native means? Lin's name in other language sources is irrelevant at this point. 198.151.130.73 (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Use of Chinese language. I have no strong opinion on this either way.—Bagumba (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see any argument why it should be removed. Brian Dell has several arguments that including Lin's Chinese name is important. Please elaborate why it's unnecessary and irrelevant. Kwan's discussion is still ongoing but so far there are more editors who don't have any problem with her Chinese name and there is still no consensus to remove the Chinese characters. — MT (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, Lin himself has used his Chinese name on his jersey when he played in China, see the details in #Edit request on 9 February 2012 section and the related image. — MT (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is irrelevant because Wikipedia is not a translation service. Brian Dell said it was important to understand non-english sources, but that is not a good reason to include it in the article. There are many non-english sources on many Wikipedia article topics, but it would be ridiculous to have a list translations of the name of every article in each article. Having a Chinese name on a jersey is does not make it relevant. http://portalcmspic.sz2011.org/pic//2010/12/18/81e30545e78d4f2386f911de3720ef68/GplovbgeuOBkBdCGokzJDHnoBOzPkxVN.jpg Not even the article on Stephon Marbury has a Chinese name in an infobox. 198.151.130.73 (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you've just disqualified yourself from the discussion. It's not a translation. Unless you understand the basic nature of the Chinese language and how names are handled, you do not understand the issue. HkCaGu (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You see his Chinese names in sources. They translate to Lin Shu-How, which is what the sources use to refer to Lin. If even some of them don't translate to Lin Shu-How, they are still being equated to Lin, which would be a translation. The infobox itself is titled "Jeremy Lin". No need to argue the semantics of the word "translation". 198.151.130.73 (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

We are not talking about "every article", we are talking about this one (which has lots of Chinese sources). I think there are interesting differences between the motivation of providing Chinese characters for names that were originally in Chinese, versus Chinese for English names. It's in an infofox, out of the lead, so I'm not inclined to worry about it either way. As there is widespread examples were Chinese is provided in articles, you might want to pursue this at Wikipedia:Village pump for a wider audience.—Bagumba (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

How many sources for each of the dialects in the infobox does this article even use? I can claim that "Jeremy" was originally from Hebrew, but that would be original research. If I were to find a bunch of non-english sources for Jeremy Lin, that would not be justification for inclusion of a bunch of translations for those sources. 198.151.130.73 (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The article has a lot of material on the order of "It was Asian Heritage Night for the Warriors' home game, and Lin received a standing ovation from the crowd of 17,408 when he entered the game with 2:32 remaining in the fourth quarter" which really should be deleted and instead someone's going on about the infobox which takes up little space? If there is too much "Asian" stuff the "Asian Heritage Night" stuff should be cut before the much more useful infobox. Mark Roswell is not at all Chinese and his birth name is Mark Roswell, yet his Chinese name is not just given but Mark Roswell redirects to his Chinese name. Re the relevance of Roswell living in China, Jeremy Lin has said "I'm going to be [in Taiwan] every summer." Go make the "not a translation service" over at that the Roswell article and see if the consensus agrees with a demand for English only.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

大山 is not a translation of Mark Roswell's birth name. It is a stage name. "Dashan" is what he is commonly known as in English. You keep giving examples of things that are translated to English from non-english, instead of the other way around 198.151.130.73 (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Jeremy" would be translated as "杰里米" or Jié lǐ mǐ. That is not given here because the "translations" here that you are objecting to here are also not "translations" per se but rather renderings of the subject's Chinese name. Where's your evidence that Mark isn't called Mark when he's out with English speaking friends or otherwise in an English speaking community? Why have you suddenly adopted an international perspective on 大山 while calling for an English only perspective here? The bottom line is that the consensus does not support your obsession with this issue.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Dashan is his stage name (大山) translated to English. It is what he is commonly known as because that is the title of the article. 大山 is not in English, which is why it is translated. If you believe he is more commonly called Mark, then you may request a name change for the article, but his stage name is still originally in Chinese. Lin is commonly known as Jeremy Lin, hence the name of the article. His full name (Jeremy Shu-How Lin) is already in English, so there is no need to translate it to English. You say renderings of the subject's name in Chinese sources is important to understand the sources (which would be equating it to Lin, which would be like a translation), but I say that it is irrelevant. Putting translations of his name in Chinese is not the proper way to provide an English translation of the sources. 198.151.130.73 (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again, 林書豪 (Lín Shūháo) is not a translation of Shu-How Lin, it's how his name is written in Chinese. Is Γεώργιος Στεφανόπουλος a translation of George Stephanopoulos? No, it's how his name is written in Greek. Those names are written in other language in relation to their ancestry and their relation to the countries and the languages. This is different from Stephon Marbury's case where 斯蒂芬·马布里 (Sīdìfēn mǎbùlǐ) is a translation of his English name. Marbury's Chinese name doesn't exists until he played in China, while Lin's middle name exists since he was born. Lin's middle name, Shu-How, came directly from his Chinese name, but you can't have "Jeremy 書豪 林" in American birth certificate, so his parents romanized it to "Jeremy Shu-How Lin". In my opinion, this is why it's important to have his Chinese name listed, because unlike most Chinese Americans who only have English names, Lin's parents decided to adopt his Chinese name as a legal middle name. — MT (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you talking about translation, then Jeremy Shu-How Lin is translated as 杰里米·書豪·林 (Jiélǐmǐ Shūháo Lín). He could've wear either that or 杰里米·林 (Jiélǐmǐ Lín) on his Dongguan Leopards shirt, but he chose to drop his English given name in favor of his Chinese name. He also changed it to 林書豪 (Lín Shūháo) in order to follow Chinese name format (Family name–given name). — MT (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Every famous person has a name written in Chinese... 174.252.24.110 (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about this case which is a person of Chinese descent with a Chinese name. —Bagumba (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

So? Every famous person has a Chinese name. 174.252.20.29 (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A name translated into Chinese is not a Chinese name. As long as you do not understand the tonal and non-alphabet nature of the Chinese language, you will not understand the relevance. HkCaGu (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. 174.252.5.15 (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Intro section

Resolved

 – Mention of NY turnaround added to lead.—Bagumba (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The introductory section before the table of contents fails to mention one of the primary reasons why Jeremy Lin is notable, namely his recent winning streak with the Knicks. That streak is not currently mentioned until far down in the article. I don't know enough about basketball to make the relevant edits. --Dylan Thurston (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. This should definitely be in the lead! de Bivort 21:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2012

Edit request, please delete this sentence in the high school section: According to Dana O'Neil of ESPN, "... Lin was the runaway choice for player of the year by virtually every California publication." Chase Budinger was California Mr. Basketball in 2006: <http://basketball.realgm.com/highschool/awards/2/18> 50.53.63.176 (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: The phrase "virtually every" is not made false by one negative example and, more improtantly, the fact that Dana O'Neil said it is reliably sourced. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

But why should we care what Dana O'Neil says? As I said in a discussion above, we should stick to specific facts, not a journalist's vague (and questionable) summary of the facts. Zagalejo^^^ 07:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Prior discussion. Zagalejo^^^ 07:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Racial issues

Should the title be changed? There is only one race, the human race.1 Portillo (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the world is not perfect. Racism still exists.—Chris!_c/t 02:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The section, however, is totally out of hand, and needs a major edit and cleanup to get itself up to standards. (Also, the genome project got the science quite wrong on the topic of whether race exists—though maybe it's better to let that particular bit of misinformation stand.) Gerweck (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

How is the section out of hand? It is notable to note the racial issues he faced being Asian-American in major American sports.—Chris!_c/t 05:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Assists as a starter

I see that there are records in the article for most points and turnovers in the first X starts. Is he close to a record for assists?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think he does, especially since he's a point guard so it's more likely. He definitely is racking up the assists; since Feb. 4, I believe he's second in assist percentage after Steve Nash. I don't have a ref at the moment for the first point, though (the second point can be found at any stats site). Gary King (talk · scripts) 22:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a graphic in today's game comparing him to other PGs. Stockton had more in his first X starts. Not sure if he held the record, or it was just for comparison.—Bagumba (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I see graphics for "notable guards" in their first X starts, and since it's not "Guards with most" then I guess Lin isn't at the top, but perhaps close. Gary King (talk · scripts) 03:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 February 2012

Lin is of Taiwanese descent. Not "of Chinese or Taiwanese descent." as the text reads.

Check reference in article <http://www.webcitation.org/64Im5zrts> or <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/sports/basketball/jeremy-lin-knicks-newest-addition-is-out-to-prove-hes-not-just-a-novelty.html?_r=1> in which text reads "Lin, whose parents are from Taiwan, is the N.B.A.’s first American-born player of Chinese or Taiwanese descent," indicating that he is the first NBA player of either nationality, but is Taiwanese because his parental lineage is traced back to that of Taiwan.

Jtoratoratora (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: The entire sentence to which you object is: "Lin is one of the few Asian Americans in NBA history, and the first American player in the league to be of Chinese or Taiwanese descent." Having parent born in Taiwan, he is a member of the the group "of Taiwanese descent" and also of the larger group "of Chinese or Taiwanese descent". There is no confusion about his heritage, just that he is also the first player from that larger group. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Also see Q2 of the FAQ in the box at the top of this talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Free Tibet

Tibet is not part of China. Jeremy Lin is Taiwanese, NOT CHINESE. Chinese are no loted in Taiwanese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.0.54 (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan is not China therefore Taiwanese are not Chinese? Ridiculous logic! HkCaGu (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Nationality = AMERICAN

Can someone please change his nationality back to AMERICAN? Someone vandalized the article and wrote "taiwanese" after nationality. Think they're confusing nationality with ethnicity... Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.90.40.47 (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Where do you mean? The lead says "the first American player ..." de Bivort 15:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

First, the infobox currently indicates only "American" as his nationality. Second, he is legally and technically a dual national (#.22Taiwanese_basketball_players.22_category), but I don't necessarily think this warrants adding "Taiwanese" as his nationality in the infobox.--Jiang (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think he referred to a version of the article that was vandalized where his nationality (in the infobox) was changed to "taiwanese". Anyway, it has been reverted. — MT (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Length

This is absurdly too long. He entered the game with 2:12 left and was cheered. Who Cares ? He is a basketball player, not the messiah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.247.236 (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

And no one here is trying to portray him as such however there is pertinent information that needs to be in there. Besides there has been discussion about shortening the Warriors section and half the page is references. No need to be over zealous. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 03:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Article isn't long at about 32 kb of prose. If it grows at this rate, though, of course it would be absurdly long, but as mentioned earlier, it's best to wait until the end of this season so we have a better perspective of this year as a whole. We may ultimately have to split "Linsanity" into its own article. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering the cultural impact he's having (Tom Brokaw referenced him during the post-debate coverage on MSNBC last night, for instance), 32 kb of prose is appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done some trimming on the Warriors section.—Bagumba (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"James Tan" used instead of Jeremy Lin

It seems this article has been defaced by putting the name of someone other than Jeremy Lin in subtitle and above the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.233.4 (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Good call :> Doc talk 06:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

New proposal for last sentence of lead

Since the last sentence is disputed over nationality, ethnicity, politics, etc., I think this sentence might better achieve the meaning of the original. The original is: Lin is one of the few Asian Americans in NBA history, and the first American player in the league to be of Chinese or Taiwanese descent.

New proposal is: Lin is one of the few Asian Americans in NBA history, and the first American player in the league whose parents are from Taiwan. Note: "Taiwan" is used as a distinguisher for the place where he is "from", not as a form of political intention. This is the same as saying he or his parents are "Taiwan people" - 台灣人 in Chinese, where 台灣 means Taiwan and 人 means person/people). This distinguishes from 中国人, which means "Chinese national/person", or a "Chinese person from mainland China", rather than the island of Taiwan, and we would not use that here since Jeremy's parents aren't from China (modernly) in this modern perspective that both Chinese mainlanders and Taiwan(ese) people have.

This new proposal is still a bit disputable, but a little more copyediting can remove the political connotations involved in this sentence. Some help is appreciated. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the dispute? Please see FAQ (also at top of page). "first American player in the league whose parents are from Taiwan" is original research. While likely, we cant be sure the origin of other players' parents. We don't have sources that make the claim you are trying to make. Perhaps they lived/worked there but never became citizens. "from" doesn't imply nationality, only that they inhabited for a period of time.—Bagumba (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that his parents grew up in Taiwan has been cited numerous times. "Parents from Taiwan" is not original research. I see what you meant by that but your interpretation is not what I'm actually implying and suggesting. It's just a matter of meaning versus actual written depiction. Like I said, this will need some copyediting. This sentence should actually be split, so that the "first American" adjective won't describe his family immigration status/nationality. So instead of "from Taiwan", which is vague, it can be "grew up in" Although, a better meaning could be "parents who grew up in Taiwan" or "whose family is from Taiwan" or even better: "whose parents are immigrants from Taiwan". These are more specific meanings than the original, but still need some copyediting to imply the real meaning without the political connotations that might be implied with insensitive wording. The goal of this is to provide a description without being biased or politically correct and vague. Of course we can just stick with the original vague, politically correct description if no one is willing to take the effort to improve the description. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Btw, this interview explains the situation quite well (from the American and Taiwanese perspective). - M0rphzone (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

re: your comment of "take the effort to improve the description": For a constructive discussion, please provide specific points that contradict assumptions already outlined in the FAQ. Waving at an IBT article does not prove a point. My interpretation of that article is that China and Taiwan want to claim Lin as "theirs", but such POV does not belong in a lead as he is not a piece of property. While Taiwanese tradition might disregard his maternal side, the article is not written specifically for a Taiwanese audience. A significant number of sources, and Lin himself, make reference to his Chinese heritage. Writing from an "American and Taiwanese perspective" is not neutral.—Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering you are a third-person POV, I think this is the best compromise then. Original sentence is VAGUE, but neutral and politically correct. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why people want to get rid of "of Chinese descent". The fact is Lin's maternal grandparent is originally from China, so he is of Chinese descent. Any non-neutral change is not an improvement.—Chris!_c/t 20:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It's mainly from ideas of illegitimate claims. People think that the mainland Chinese are trying to claim and generalize Lin into the overarching Chinese nationality/identity when in fact his family grew up in Taiwan, which made them have different education and ideologies than people from the mainland that went through the state (Chinese Communist Party) education and ideologies. People get the notion that the Chinese (mainlanders) even dare to make claims to Lin like they do to other issues and inventions, achievements, etc. of Chinese diaspora when the achievements aren't even accredited to the modern Chinese (state) and (mainland) people (since many of the notable overseas Chinese did not go through the CCP indoctrinations and (re)education). Many people have the notion that since the (modern) Chinese (mainland) are copycats, piraters, uninnovative, and "thiefs", they don't deserve to make claims to a person whose family comes from Taiwan. Of course when they make the claim that the ancestry is from China, that is obviously true, yet it's a pretty long stretch that many people try to use in order to "justify" these claims and use any sort of reasons and excuses. But since this is modern world, these types of "ancestral" excuses/justifications don't look well to recent immigrant diaspora (not from Chinese mainland) and their achievements. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

But it really doesn't matter in this modern, increasingly international/standardized world, and of course Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and politically correct (lol as if it actually is neutral since certain articles attain a slant attributed to the topic as well as the American/English influence and bias). So I guess we will keep the sentence as is since it is politically correct and allows for both claims (btw, political correctness is freaking lame and satire-worthy). - M0rphzone (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"suffered a setback" needs clarification

The second paragraph of the Knicks sections states that Lin "suffered a setback". Makes me wonder if he stepped on a cupcake, failed an exam or lost his wallet. Needs clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.246.6.24 (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It was Baron Davis, not Lin, that suffered a setback due to his herniated disk. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 18:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Quotes

User:Festermunk started to remove all the blockquotes because of non-notability. I agree with his decision on 2 quotes. But on 2 others, I disagreed. The Kobe Bryant quote is a representation of what many players and experts think. Lin's own quote on stereotype is also notable. I want to know what others think.—Chris!_c/t 06:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

He also doesn't understand how Wikiconsensus works. If a text is disputed and doesn't obviously fail any of the major Wikirules like WP:V, WP:BLP, etc., the default action isn't to remove it; it's to maintain the status quo (whether the text has been removed or not) while it's discussed on Talk.

I also disagree regarding the notability of two of the quotes he's removed. The Foreign Policy quote is from a well-known academic/government journal that is seriously discussing whether Lin could affect US-China relations (!) and whether his rise could be seen by history as more important than a concurrent state visit by China's Vice President (!!). The "Secretariat" quote is notable for discussed in the article body. They're both unusual, interesting, well sourced, and relevant to the discussion. That makes them notable, period. Ylee (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I do understand how Wikiconsensus works thanks. Strangely NPOV doesn't figure into your enumeration of major Wikirules but I guess we're going to have to leave that as it is. You're right if a disagreement breaks out, the first step is to bring it to the talk page, but that doesn't mean the default action can't be not to remove the quote in dispute nor upsetting the "status quo" (whatever that even means.)

"notability of two of the quotes he's removed" Not exactly. I think the word you're looking for here is relevance, not notability. Yes they're notable, but that doesn't mean they're relevant to the paragraph much less meet the criteria for having the quotes boxed out, which is for the quotes to be so interesting and important that is deserves to be set off from the surrounding. I have no problem with keeping the quotes in the article but to have the quotes boxed out would require much more than the fact that they're "notable."Festermunk (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No actually you don't understand how consensus works. The default action is not to remove if previous consensus has been established that they should stay.—Chris!_c/t 02:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris, you're letting on more than what little you know. "If previous consensus has been established that they should stay" Aside from the fact that the whole "u r violating da konsensus" argument is a weak reason for rejecting my argument, previous consensus hasn't been established it's been assumed. That and the fact that WP:BURDEN still falls on you, not me. Festermunk (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You are violating the consensus. Yes it could change, but it hasn't changed yet. And nobody owns the page so you can't force your way and just override consensus.—Chris!_c/t 03:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

But I'm not overriding consensus, I'm just pointing out that WP:BURDEN falls on you. Also, the fact that I've violated an assumed consensus implies nothing about punishment. (of course, it'd be a different case if consensus was established as you yourself point out)Festermunk (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You are. Consensus was established before. It is not like you starting to remove right after they were just added.—Chris!_c/t 03:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No consensus was never established, it was always assumed. Unless you can show me otherwise evidence that it was established, then pardeon me french again, but this is shit you're making up on the spot.Festermunk (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It was established. You can always use "oh it was assumed because I don't like it" as an excuse to ignore consensus, but it is there.—Chris!_c/t 20:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Kudos for bringing this to the talk page. I support the Lin and Bryant quotes. Lin's quote is relevant; there is an AP article on Asian-Americans not being viewed as athletes. Lin's quote is a both a summary of the common perception and his personal response. Bryant is a 14-time All-Star, and many sources after wrote how he was outscored by Lin. His opinion is highly relevant. Per {{quote box}}, it's use "is useful in articles that are short on images and need some graphic-like element, or where an important or interesting quote wants to be presented in a way that sets it off from the surrounding text." Both points seem applicable. the Foreign Policy quote is a prediction of sorts, and the "Secretariat" quote involves a horse some might not be familiar with, so I'm OK with those not being emphasized, but can be in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Two weeks later, a similar quote from Bryant received coverage. There is some interest in what he says apparently.—Bagumba (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I will restore the Lin and Bryant quotes since the user has made no attempt arguing why they should be deleted.—Chris!_c/t 20:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in response as there have been been other things that have occupied my attention in the past week and a half. I've removed the quotes, but I've provided a more sufficient explanation for my actions comparative to my previous posts:

Kobe Bryan't quote: There's two reasons why this should be taken out because: 1) nothing in the quote is relevant to Jeremy Lin's performance as a New York Knicks in the current 2011-2012 NBA season. The closest thing you can evince in terms of relevance from Bryan's quote to Lin's NY Knicks 2011-2012 career is his statement that his talent was, "probably there from the beginning" (cue the word "probably") but even then the connection between that statement and his performance as a Knicks isn't clear; and 2) Lin's 2011-2012 NBA career has yet to end, so even if Kobe Bryant's quote was relevant it'd be tentative to pass judgment on Bryant's quote as so defining Lin's performance as a Knicks in his current 2011-2012 NBA career as to deserve a box-quote. That said, there's a few things I'd like to point out: the first is that the fact that while Bryant is definitely a notable basketball player, it's strange to say or imply that the notability of a person should be the major (or the first among others) reason why that quote ought to be boxed out. Notability is important, but should be less so for reasons of common sense to the criteria of relevance. The other thing is that I'm not against having quotes boxed out; in fact, given Lin's tremendous performance, I have no doubt that a quote can be found after the 2011-2012 NBA season ends that so aptly summarizes Lin's 2011-2012 NBA career along the lines of what Bryant's said about Lin that it can be boxed out.

I don't see why we need to wait after the season ends before adding quotes. The thing is at this point in time his quote is notable, relevant and timely. So we add it. If at a later time, it is no longer relevant or a better quote comes along, then remove it then. Also {{quote box}}, it's use "is useful in articles ... where an important or interesting quote wants to be presented in a way that sets it off from the surrounding text." Right now this is interesting.—Chris!_c/t 02:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course we can always talk about my first point, which is Bryant's remarks and its non-relevance to Lin's 2011- Knicks season, but since you don't want to talk about it, I guess we'll just have to leave that for another time. As for waiting for the season to end before adding the block quotes, you can't have a quote that distinguishes itself from the surrounding text if the surrounding text is still in development. Festermunk (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

How is Bryant's remark not relevant to Lin's season? The season doesn't have to end for the quote to be relevant. Either it is or it is not. And it is. The surrounding text is always in development as it is not set in stone. So by your logic we can never put a quote there.—Chris!_c/t 20:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Lin's quote: I actually don't mind this quote. That said, I think there's a quote that better captures his feelings on his racial issues, namely his statement that, "Maybe I can help break the stereotype." Here is the article in which his quote can be found, which in full should read: "I understand there are not many Asians in the NBA and there are not many Ivy Leaguers in the NBA. Maybe I can help break the stereotype." It's better than the current quote that's boxed out for two reasons: 1) he makes a clear reference (though it takes an implicit form) to the racial issues he's had to deal with i.e. under-recruitment because of his skin colour, which is captured by the his statement that he wants to help "break the stereotype." Although in the "deceptively-Asian box out quote" he makes reference to the fact that he's had to deal with racial issues, the implication is not as clearas can be found in the "break the stereotype" quote because he waffles by saying, "But it could be the fact that I'm Asian-American." 2) The other reason why the "breaking the stereotype" quote is because it references his desire to use his capacity as a basketball player to combat his racial issues, which is significant given how important basketball is to Lin's identity. Festermunk (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow I am amazed that you actually think highlighting "Maybe I can help break the stereotype" is better. While this quote is relevant, it is boring and lacks the "wow" factor. The "deceptively-Asian" quote is more interesting. Lin actually gave an example of the stereotype he faced that Asians are slow. I think this is even clearer. "Maybe I can help break the stereotype" Well what stereotype?—Chris!_c/t 02:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris, really pardon my french, but what the hell are you even talking about? The quote is boring and lacks the "wow" factor? What does that even mean? Also You're missing the point it's not what the stereotype is, it's whether he thinks the stereotype exists at all; in the "deceptively Asian" quote, he says the fact that people think he's slow could (but not certainly) be ascribed to the fact of his race, but in the "Maybe-I-can-help-break" quote, he makes it very clear that the stereotype actually exists. I think where you're getting confused is the fact that the word "maybe" appears at the front of the sentence; that word isn't modifying whether he thinks the stereotype exists, but his effort in trying to break the stereotype. If by the "wow" factor you're referring to the length of his quote, then that can definitely be fixed by block-quoting his statement of Asians in the NBA and breaking the stereotype quoted in the SF Gate uneditied. Otherwise, I still don't have clue as to why you'd think his quote is "boring" or lacks the "wow" factor. Festermunk (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"The fact that people think he's slow could (but not certainly) be ascribed to the fact of his race" Why else would people think he is slow if not for his Asianness? Do you really think people would think a similar built black players slow? This is an example of a stereotype. I can't grasp why you don't see it. Do we really need to add his "Maybe-I-can-help-break" quote to establish that stereotype exists. Of course it exists. Th existence of that section shows that. Otherwise why the hell do we even have a section here on race.—Chris!_c/t 03:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well first off the section isn't about race, it's about racial issues Lin's had to face, so you couldn't even get that part right. You're right, the fact that this section exist implies that Lin has had to deal with racial stereotyping...which is all the more reason to blockquote the quote I support and exclude yours because in my quote Lin make his feelings on racial stereotyping unequivocal. That and the fact that there's the basketball element too which he wants to use to combat the racial stereotyping. Festermunk (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Racial issues he faced is about his race. Race is why these things happened and why we have a section. What planet are you on? Back to my point. Your suggested quote is relevant but it is generic and plain. The one there is relevant and it delivers a more powerful message because it was a comment about one particular stereotype and his feeling about it. Why you want replace a powerful interesting quote with a generic and plain one is beyond me.—Chris!_c/t 20:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I strong agree with the quotes, they are relevant to each section of the article. Removing them would be stupid. GWST11 (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I left a WP:3RR warning on User:Festermunk's talk page based on his, well, edit warring. One more reversion will lead me to bringing this to administrator attention. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk was blocked for one day. Editors, please be vigilant tomorrow in case he resumes edit warring upon his return. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I trust that Festermunk has good intentions. However, I do not support his proposed changes. The Bryant quote is notable. Witness all the articles that made a big deal that he claimed to not know much about Lin beforehand. Like it or not, sources find a 14x all-star's opinion notable. There is no need to wait until the end of the year. If its not notable later, it can be deleted later, not now. The current Lin quote is also better IMO. It says people find him deceptive instead of giving him credit. The "stereotype" quote could be that Asian players are simply not very good instead of there being a stereotype. While editors are encouraged to be bold, it should also be stated that consensus does not have to be unanimous.—Bagumba (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it's important for Fesermunk to understand that we have consensus here, and as you say, one objection does not override it. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

deletion of photo

Hi - User ucla90024 is persistent in removing one of the few freely licensed images we have on this page. The most recent reason for the deletion was given as "does not add anything." I find that completely uncompelling. The article is short on images (we have to resort to linking to external images), and that was the only image of him in an actual game as a Knick. Thoughts? de Bivort 21:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it should stay. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I put it back in - there is nothing wrong with it. If this user continues to delete it based on WP:IDL, that is hardly a good enough reason to keep it out. Doc talk 21:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Commend editors for being bold, but its time to discuss once there is a revert. Thanks for bringing this here. Until a better photo comes along, this is OK considering its free.—Bagumba (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 March 2012

Dear Editor,

i do think the comments [ref.to footnote 167, 168] to JLin are very disrespectful [kind of personal attack]. i ask for your removing of these awful descriptions hereby.

thank you for your time and concern.

lam kwok-wai wendy 6 Mar 2012

220.246.32.106 (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That part describes a controversial comment made by a media personality. It doesn't represent Wikipedia's position. Wikipedia is not censored so there is nothing wrong with that.—Chris!_c/t 03:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks for your prompt reply and i respect your choice of material but feel very disappointed towards such selection. thank you. -wendy lam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.32.106 (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the condemnation by AAJA is mentioned, plus the writer's apology, it seems like a fair depiction so readers can know about the press coverage Lin is receiving, for better or for worse.—Bagumba (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

LIN ethnic background

He is NOT the first of Chinese decent in the league. this is just falt out wrong. Yao ming and YI on the Mavericks to name a few came before him. I cant believe such a naive statement is still on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.54.230 (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not see any mention of Chinese descent without the qualifier "American". Did you even read the FAQ at the top of this page? HkCaGu (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The article says he is the "first American player in the league to be of Chinese or Taiwanese descent". This is correct. Notice the key word American.—Chris!_c/t 02:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite disrespectful (and shames all chinese/taiwanese people) that some people can't be JUST be happy for this guy who worked hard to get where he is. No, they gotta get their civil-war bs into it. sigh.... Can we just put Asian American? I don't think it is noteworthy in Jeremy's biography whether or not it's one china or two china. He's Asian American. American Citizen born and raised in US. If some shit-head can't stomach the word "Taiwanese descent" for political reasons (it's perfectly fine to say someone is of cantonese or beijin descent). I think it' better to just remove the "descent" part, people know the truth. Putting "Chinese OR Taiwanese" descent doesn't make any sense at all. It's ridiculous weasel speak. Pretty sure the star would be ashamed of his people that they are so petty.

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." So this is why we mention him being Chinese or Taiwanese descent depending on the point of view. We need to mention "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." And no we don't just assume people know them.—Chris!_c/t 19:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Insanity defense for U.S. soldier may be tough sell

If the U.S. soldier being held for the massacre of 16 Afghan civilians faces an Army court-martial, his lawyers will likely have a hard time persuading a military jury his shooting spree was the result of insanity brought on by trauma or stress.

The soldier, identified by a U.S. official as Army Staff Sergeant Robert Bales, was treated for a traumatic brain injury he suffered in a vehicle rollover in 2010 while deployed in Iraq, one of three tours he served there, officials have said.

A lawyer hired for Bales has already raised health as a possible defense, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). "It is commonly used in military defense," attorney John Browne told Reuters on Friday.

Defense lawyers have not been successful in military courts arguing that a traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder made soldiers legally insane at the time of a crime, a U.S. military judge advocate told reporters this week.

Hundreds of cases have been prosecuted in the military courts for crimes by U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan ranging from misdemeanors to felonies including murder, though precise statistics for all military branches were not available.

The Army is investigating the killings, the first step in a lengthy military legal process. It could take weeks to draft charges and longer to determine whether the case should be referred for a court-martial.

Bales was flown to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where he will be held pending the investigation.

While no charges have been brought yet, he would face life in prison at a minimum if convicted of murder at a court-martial although there is an option for parole. Bales could have to fight the death penalty, however that is rare in the military.

INSANITY DEFENSE

Courts-martial are similar to traditional criminal trials: they allow for a mental evaluation and an insanity defense, which in the military is known as "not guilty but only by reason of lack of mental responsibility." The threshold is high.

The military judge advocate who briefed reporters said defense lawyers had yet to successfully argue that a soldier was insane because of traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder.

Typically, before charges are brought, military lawyers or the defense team can request that a "sanity board" determine whether the soldier can assist in his own defense and understands the nature of his actions.

"Insanity from a legal standpoint requires a significant mental disease or defect so that the person could not appreciate the nature, quality or wrongfulness of their behavior," the military judge advocate said.

One legal expert said the defense team could enlist psychiatrists and other mental health experts to build the case that the person was so mentally disabled he did not know what he was doing at the time of the alleged crimes.

"I don't think anyone is going to be able to get off with an ordinary post-traumatic stress disorder" defense, said Jenny Martinez, a Stanford Law School professor. "You have to show a real incapacity to understand what's going on."

DEATH PENALTY RARE

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters this week the death penalty could be sought in the Afghanistan massacre case. Browne said it was still on the table.

Such a sentence is extremely rare. The last execution in a U.S. military case dates back to 1961 and only a handful are on death row now.

Charges brought against U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan, who is accused of killing 13 and injuring 32 others during a 2009 shooting spree at Fort Hood in Texas, included a recommendation that the death penalty be sought.

In a case in which military prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, a defendant cannot plead guilty. For a conviction in such cases, a military jury must come to a unanimous decision in deciding both guilt and whether to impose the death penalty.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for details about criteria for when the death penalty can be sought.

There are other requirements. A jury can only impose a death sentence if there was an aggravating factor to the crime, such as premeditation, and any mitigating circumstances are outweighed by the aggravating factor.

Alcohol use could be considered as either an aggravating or mitigating factor, according to military rules.

Lawyers who have defended soldiers in courts-martial said there would be intense pressure to pursue a death sentence in the face of outrage from Afghan officials.

"I think the political pressure is going to be such that they would still refer it with the full authority of the death penalty," said Neal Puckett, a military defense lawyer who helped represent Marines accused in the 2005 murder of 24 civilians in the Iraqi city of Haditha.

The military justice system requires a U.S. president to approve the execution of a service member and the last approval came in 2008 for a soldier convicted of multiple murders and rapes. The soldier remains on death row.

The last execution was of Army Private John Bennett, who was hanged in 1961 after being convicted of rape and attempted murder of a young girl. A Los Angeles Times article in 2000 said Bennett had a history of mental illness but it was not raised during his brief trial and his appeals failed.

Since the current death penalty system was adopted by the military in 1984, there have been 52 court-martial cases in which the death penalty was sought but only 16 received such a sentence. Six are awaiting execution, two had sentences commuted to life in prison and eight were set aside on appeal, said Dwight Sullivan, a U.S. Air Force defense lawyer.

Haytham Faraj, another defense lawyer in the Haditha case, said: "The defense strategy is probably going to be ‘yes he did it, but look at these factors that impacted his state of mind' and the goal here would be to avoid the death penalty."

Military juries typically are made up of officers though the defense could request the inclusion of enlisted service members.

COMPARISONS ABOUND

The massacre of civilians in Afghanistan has led to wide-ranging comparisons to other incidents in which civilians were killed either in random attacks or were targeted by American service members.

Legal experts said the case may bear a closer resemblance to the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, which involved a single soldier who started shooting indiscriminately. Defense lawyers in that case have yet to say whether he will enter an insanity plea.

There have also been comparisons to the Haditha attack in 2005, in which military prosecutors believed a group of Marines launched attacks as retribution for a roadside bomb that killed a member of their unit.

Charges were dismissed for six of the eight Marines accused of that attack, one was cleared of criminal wrongdoing and the leader of the group pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of being lax in his orders to his unit and he avoided jail time.

The shooting has also been compared to the 1968 My Lai massacre in Vietnam in which an Army unit killed hundreds of civilians. It too was found to have been revenge for attacks on U.S. soldiers and deemed poor leadership by commanders.

The officer who helped lead the My Lai attack, Lt. William Calley, was court-martialed and sentenced to life in prison for premeditated murder in 1971. He served three years under house arrest before being released by a federal judge.

Long sentences have been handed out for other civilian killings, including an attack in which a group of U.S. soldiers gang-raped and murdered a 14-year-old Iraqi girl before burning her body. They also killed her family.

Private Jesse Spielman was found guilty at a court-martial of four counts of murder and was sentenced to 110 years in prison. Two others were sentenced to 90 and 100 years in prison for what was seen as a random killing south of Baghdad in 2006.

Those cases and other similar incidents have raised another possible defense for the soldier in the present case: Was there a failure at the command level by officers to instill discipline among the soldiers and ensure non-combatants were not targeted?

Lawyers who suggested that defense also noted it could be a stretch because the Army sergeant appeared to act alone.

"You consider everything when you're defending a guy like this and you don't lightly discard any avenue," Puckett said. But he voiced doubts, adding, "This guy walked off the forward operating base which you can't just do."

The penalty for an official maiming a civilian is death.