Talk:Hollywood Stuntz gang assault

Lead Paragraph

Multiple reliable sources state they were beating the vehicle before he ran over the biker. We don't need a confession, conviction or video evidence in order to state that in the article. I asked how including that was a violation. None was given. The police said that's what happened and that fact is sourced. The only argument for alleged, would be the individuals involved and their role in the incident. You're welcome to take it up with dispute resolution.Dkspartan1 (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Multiple reliable sources" are simply parroting the same police report which is just reporting Lien's words. The only people reporting beating on the vehicle are Lien and his wife, so saying that X, Y, or Z newspaper reported it doesn't mean anything. Now, reasonably, I believe they were beating on the vehicle, based on their other behavior and the other videos of other rides that surfaced. But no biker has confessed to beating on the vehicle and no video of it has surfaced, at least not one close enough to see. It doesn't matter if we aren't including a specific person as beating on the vehicle, it's still an allegation because the source is the victim's statement. We don't need to take this to dispute resolution, other editors can chime in on this. Bali88 (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Where in the source does it say the police are just parroting what Lien said? To suggest that's what they are doing is OR.Dkspartan1 (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

What other source is there? The police were not there. The video doesn't show it. The bikers certainly didn't admit to it. Where else did the information possibly come from? Bali88 (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Where is your source to confirm police made the statement after just talking to Lien? The sources clearly state that's what police said. I didn't make WP rules, I'm just following them. If it's in the source, it can go in the article however its stated. Instead of blindly reverting, get consensus from other editors. It's as simple as that. Dkspartan1 (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You can see in the video uploaded by the bikers that they were not beating on the vehicle. Lien simply drove away, over the biker who had dismounted and was walking away from him. Without honking. He obviously was trying to kill him. Please stop trying to revise history. (UTC)

News source specifically states "The confrontation starts when this biker suddenly slows down." The news story further states "then, a critical moment not caught on camera, Police say at least one of the bikers slashed the SUV's tires", so I reverted your edit. This is from the ABC news story that is used in the article as a reference. Find a reliable source if you want to alter the article.MartinezMD (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"The dad then hit one of the motorcycles, and the others surrounded him and started hitting his Range Rover and slashing his tires, police said. The family then sped off, apparently striking some bikers, who chased them, police said" http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Motorcycle-Gang-Attack-Dad-Toddler-Range-Rover-Manhattan-225817761.html "The group of 20 to 30 bikers the motorcyclist was with started to attack Lien’s car and Lien sped off, running over some of the bikers in the process. Police said the bikers had slashed Lien’s tires, causing them to go flat, which is why Lien was forced to exit the highway and pull over in front of 610 West 178th Street." http://www.metro.us/newyork/news/2013/10/01/suspect-in-biker-gang-attack-turns-self-in-nypd/ "Other bikers then surrounded the SUV. Police said some of the bikers began damaging the Range Rover, hitting it with their helmets and slashing its tires, though it’s not clear from the video." http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/10/03/police-biker-sought-in-manhattan-motorcycle-melee/ None of these sources say the police are just parroting what Lien said. It doesn't matter what you think, if its sourced, it can go in the article as stated in the source. Dkspartan1 (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

okay, let me ask you this...where do you think the police get their information? It violates BLP to discuss criminal allegations as literal truth regardless of what journalists do with that information. Police and prosecutors ALWAYS talk about it as literal truth. They say "john smith killed his wife" well before an indictment has ever come down. We aren't allowed to do that. Seriously, where do you think the police got this information?Bali88 (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ever heard of something called a witness? This is not a BLP of an individual, it's an article about an event. The police and prosecutor are going to come out and say that's what happened without coming to that conclusion based on evidence collected during an investigation? I suggest you take it up at biographies of living persons noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkspartan1 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand, Bali has a point about the way police and prosecutors talk, and about them being the probable source of the claims made by newspapers. On the other hand, WP:V, WP:NOTTRUTH.

Further complicating the matter is the fact that the claims of beating on the car, while they are allegations of a criminal nature, don't obviously correspond to specific criminal charges against specific individuals. Rather, since no specific "car beaters" are named by any source, it is not clear whether the claim, even if true, has any bearing on any specific prosecution.

However, it would also seem we don't have any source making the observations about the limits of police knowledge (and the proper way to read police statements) that Bali is making. In absence of any policy guideline or standard practice on this issue, and based for the moment only on my recollection of BLP policy, IMO the best approach is to report what the newspapers say, but explicitly attribute it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I feel like all viewpoints expressed here are covered adequately by "Lien stated he feared for his life when bikers began beating on his vehicle." We are describing the scene AND attributing who described the car beaters. I don't see any downsides to that phrasing. I realize WP:V, WP:NOTTRUTH, but at the same time, I want to have an accurate article. We aren't losing any truth or verifiability if we phrase it this way. By phrasing it as literal fact, we have verifiability, but we may lose truth and reliability. Why not choose the option that has both?

Who is opposed to "Lien stated he feared for his life when bikers began beating on his vehicle."? For? Bali88 (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(comment inserted after Dennis's) I don't object to that wording at all and it might even be the best compromise, at least insofar as it means we don't have to explore new ground in a borderline policy case. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

We could even attribute that statement to the police since I think they're the ones that are doing all the interviews. Bali88 (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I continue to believe that this article will remain hopelessly mired in controversy because it contains excessive detail. The general facts are known; the details and the meaning of the facts are unresolved. Cutting out all but the most basic facts is more encyclopedic and avoids being a news report, per WP:NOTNEWS. The article should be redirected to a section of Motorcycle hooliganism. In a few years, when the whole mess is sorted out and all the criminal and civil court cases are resolved, encyclopedic coverage might be possible. I realize this is a minority view that didn't get much support in the deletion discussion, but we're going to see more intractable talk page fights here, and I think redirecting to a much shorter summary is the solution. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It was a very significant, high-profile criminal act which provoked much public discussion and scrutiny, including discussion of ways to specifically improve law enforcement ability to prevent violence by biker groups. And there is plenty of coverage and analysis, so we can be picky about sources. I don't see how there is excessive detail in the article, nor do I think we need to wait a few years to get the "long view" in absence of any indication whatsoever that there's something wrong with the short view that currently prevails among the public and reliable sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Update late 2014

Seems like there should be an update to this article. And certainly some information would seem to be out of date. this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569571/DA-Charges-stand-vs-officer-NYC-biker-melee.html british news paper from feb 2014 says the part indicating that Lien's injuries had healed sufficient to lessen the charges is no longer correct. Flagpolewiki (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Misleading title

The title itself "Alexian Lien beating" is loaded with bias. The most famous part of the incident is not that Alexian Lien was beat by anybody, but that road rage escalated to an extreme level, with some of it caught and publicized in video. A more neutral title would be "Alexian Lien and bikers altercation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.42.245 (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That might have been the case before they all got convicted of assault and gang assault on a single person...MartinezMD (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Could be reality is biased against these stunter hooligans? I think the current title reflects the general consensus of most reputable points of view. I don't know of significant non-fringe experts who think Lien's "road rage" as you call it instigated these events. The road rage behavior was the bike hooligans taking over the road and harassing drivers. Doesn't the fact that the bikers all received sentences for crimes underscore that? While Lien was charged with nothing. I'd change my mind if I were shown significant evidence that this is a debate with two sides to it. Not counting boys on forums, of course. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Had there been no beating, this would probably not have made the news. One can always create reasonable shortcuts, but we don't give sentence-long names to articles for the heck of it. μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to agree with you. I am not a fan of the title--not because it makes out Lien to be the victim and the bikers to be the bad guys, but because the more significant aspect was the road rage chase that led up to it and very few people know who Alexian Lien is where as a lot of people recognize Hollywood Stuntz. To me it makes more sense to call it something along the lines of Hollywood Stuntz road rage incident (although that isnt' great either). Although, we discussed this issue before and never were able to come up with anything different that met consensus. Bali88 (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree there -- what I dislike is ever having a crime victim's name, especially a living person, in the title of any article. Crimes stories should have the crime in the title, and perhaps the perpetrator, but never the victim. "Hollywood Stuntz" is sort of the nickname of the event, though it actually might be the handle of the (sort of) organizer? Difficult to sort out. But any effort to get the name of a living, low-profile crime victim's name out of an article title has my support. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Lien is a victim, but his picture has appeared in the English press, and he testified openly in court with no injunction to protect his identity. Of course his wife and daughter who should not be named. But comparing "Alexian Lien" and "Hollywood Stuntz" either in ghits or gnewshits shows this is far more commonly referred to under his name. The comparison is academic however, unless we have a suggestion for a better title. At this point the title we have is brief, accurate, common, and does not name an unknown person who has shunned publicity. Simply saying that we "should" change the name gets us nowhere. μηδείς (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• WP:BLP1E points to Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual to explain what we mean by low-profile. Testifying in court is not listed, because obviously crime victims and witnesses have little choice but comply with a summons to appear in court to answer questions, and they have no control over whether courts are open or closed. They have no control over whether photographers take their photos on the street. This guy did not seek to publicize himself here.

  I don't see anything in the BLP policy that says you can publicize the name of a low-profile person who didn't seek fame just because we can't think of a better title. Is our article title problem Lien's fault? It was the mob of bikers who didn't do us the favor of organizing themselves into a club with a charter and discrete membership list. We should change this to a crappy title and then let that be our problem rather than continue to shine a spotlight on this person who didn't ask to have a Wikipedia article about him. Name the article after the crime, a gang assault, the location, the Henry Hudson Parkway. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

What specifically are you suggesting Bratland? I feel like Hollywood Stuntz gang assault isn't terrible. Bali88 (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. Or Henry Hudson Parkway gang assault is just fine too. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be my second choice because I think Hollywood Stuntz is more well known in relation to the event, but I don't have have any major objections to it. I think it's better than "Alexian Lien beating" Bali88 (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

So do we want to put this to a vote? How many are for changing the title? Bali88 (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's make clear what we're voting on. Can we decide what the title candidate is first?MartinezMD (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I like "Hollywood Stuntz Gang Assault" Bali88 (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I moved this page to lowercase, because "Gang Assault" is not proper noun. epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I just realized that I've been trying to remove a crime victim's name from a Wikipedia article title for two years now. The wheels grind slowly... --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If the victim was a prominent political leader, an activist for a select number of political causes, or active in debunking alternative medicine and/or psuedoscience, believe me, this article would have been fixed a long time ago. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Disinformation by Press - Lien no victim but perpetrator

In fact, it was Lien, performing a series of violent hit and run accidents which left a man crippled for life http://www.salem-news.com/articles/april272014/alexander-lien-tk.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:1A12:956A:C8C9:4B33:8C58:8EA8 (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The article seems surprisingly biased with harsh responses in the comments section by the author. I don't see a neutral article, and it goes contrary to what all the other sources reported. It should be considered but not given undue weight. MartinezMD (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't even be "considered." The source is far from reliable --- it's a blog masquerading as a news site --- and its bias is evident in multiple articles besides this. Lien was never charged, let alone convicted, for a single criminal act. The members of the mob who assaulted him and his family, on the other hand? Many of them have been charged, convicted and sentenced to prison terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.154.151 (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Most of them admitted responsibility and apologized as well. Perhaps the mainstream media is all wrong here. But it might be helpful to realize that Wikipedia is there mainstream media too. This website's policy is to basically present the same viewpoint as the respected media in the wider world. If they're all wrong, then Wikipedia is going to be wrong right along with them. But there are many other websites you can turn to to set the record straight, if one believed the real truth isn't being reported. If that succeeds and the mainstream shifts to a different version of this story, Wikipedia will follow along. Nobody has to think Wikipedia is the final word on "truth". Wikipedia is what it is. -- Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)