Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:53, 7 December 2022

Archives (Index)

2020/September 2020/October 2020/November 2020/December 2021/January 2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July 2023/September 2023/October 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July 2024/August 2024/September 2024/October 2024/November

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Jin Boyang

I have given citations. If you don't agree with them, why don't you at least discuss on the talk page? You've removed multiple sourced comments yet again. Stop doing it, or take it to dispute resolution.

You're removing material without discussing even though the policy for BLP is to do that only for contentious material. Can you explain which of the things you've removed is contentious?

"and won his first senior international gold medal at an ISU Championship." and "At the 2018 World Championships, he placed fourth in the short program but dropped to nineteenth overall after ranking twenty-third in the free skate." are literal facts as shown in the page. I see you've not edited skating wikipedia pages before either. If you don't understand what's happening, why don't you at least read some of the skating profiles? I even put the concerns in the skater's talk page.

Here are comments on how content disputes are to be resolved. Please follow them. "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page." https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes

You're also incorrect that I "need an inline citation" to put things like his program selection and coaching changes, ignoring that I already did link an archive of his biography for all the factual claims (which you deleted, even though every other claim about his skating and every other skater's skating comes from their biographies). You even deleted section for his future competition results which are yet again included in the biography that you deleted for no reason in the first place. Here are the instructions for inline citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Inline_citation

The interviews and Xinhua net citations need to be justified as poor, and that's before we get to why you didn't improve those citations and outright deleted them without following BLP policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor120918756 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone's mom's posts on facebook aren't a WP:RS... Per WP:BLP: "Misplaced Pages must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

"Someone's mom's posts on facebook" isn't what happened - those are archives of his interviews, coming from his official fanpage on weibo who posted the translation on twitter. It's the only way I could cite a translation of the interview. If you want me to cite an untranslated version, go ahead and ask for it, but then you need to make sure you don't delete the translation I do put on wikipedia. You also need to justify why you removed Xinhua net for one of his achievements, or the current archive of his biography which contains his coaching change and programs as well as his upcoming competitions, and put them all under how I "need an inline citation" to put that back in, or how his actual results themselves are unsourced when they are part of his ISU biography, and why you deleted one of the pictures under "need an inline citation to put it back in". https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jin_Boyang&diff=1117537501&oldid=1117537305 This comment is also not "unsourced" https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jin_Boyang&diff=1117537089&oldid=1117533289. Yet again this is part of the results table that's been written on the page, a comparison between his 2016 and 2017 worlds scores. Editor120918756 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Xinhua is not a high-quality source, as such it can't be used for BLP (I thought this was adequately explained above). If they are part of his ISU biography then they should be sourced to it. If something is "coming from his official fanpage on weibo who posted the translation on twitter." its probably not WP:DUE, generally we only cover things which get secondary coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Xinhua net is a news article about his achievement. You need to read what's written in the article as well as what the sentence that you keep deleting is actually saying before deciding it's not "high quality", when all it's doing is affirming the achievement. The ISU biography HAS been cited multiple times within the article as well as within the results sections, sometimes even within the paragraph that you delete the sentence from. It was also cited with the coaching change, the upcoming competitions, as well as with the program selection of the season, all of which you deleted, as well as the actual citation itself. You deleted a giant chunk including even a picture. For the third part, if you want, we can seek a third opinion, but it's an interview. Again, do you want the untranslated version? Then I can find that and put that in. But when you yourself aren't sure about whether or not it's "probably" WP:DUE, why not at least visit the talk page before deleting? Editor120918756 (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Xinhua itself is low quality, we have a consensus on this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I have found this article to source some of the comments that you find "unreliable". Is it okay with you? https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202205/10/WS62799c27a310fd2b29e5b8bf.html "As China's top male singles figure skater, Jin made his Olympic debut at the Pyeongchang Winter Games in 2018 when he finished fourth－to this day, China's best result in men's singles at the Olympics." China Daily has been used before in the article. Contains information for a section of 2022-23 as well. For the skating technique commentary that you'd previously removed, I found this article as well https://www.scmp.com/sport/china/article/3165817/winter-olympics-meet-chinas-beijing-2022-figure-skating-big-guns If you disagree, then maybe we can seek a third opinion, but I'd rather you discussed this on the article's Talk page. Editor120918756 (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

China Daily can not be used for BLP. SCMP can be. I agree you should be discussing this on the article's talk page, my talk page is not the appropriate venue yet you insist on placing rants here... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do come to the talk page next time then, instead of deleting giant chunks of sourced material as "unsourced". Editor120918756 (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Again... Per WP:BLP "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." We are literally required to delete it on sight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Right, so we have discussed the reliable sources enough, and I will keep it in mind. However, please do look at the diff I'd given you https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jin_Boyang&diff=1117537501&oldid=1117537305. It wasn't just "unsourced" material you'd removed. As I kept saying, you removed the coaching change, the programs, the upcoming competitions, none of which were unsourced - and I'd very much placed the ISU biography next to these, which you also removed as a source. If you'd not removed this huge chunk, I'd not have been as confused. But thanks for the discussion, I've been finding more third party sources, so there shouldn't be a problem with this page anymore. Editor120918756 (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

For BLP purposes we treat "unsourced" and "poorly sourced" the same. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

And yet, somehow, the biographies being used as sources for program selections, coaching changes, and future competitions haven't been deleted for the rest of his skating nor on any other skater's pages...? You going to start deleting those as "unsourced"? Because I'd love to see you try. Either way, we've discussed it enough here. If you do it again, we will discuss again. I have a lot of time. Editor120918756 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

If you know of other poorly sourced BLP content point it out to me and I will remove it immediate and without waiting for discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, the ISU biography are the way you come to know what the skater's program selection, upcoming competitions, and coaching changes are, officially, every season. https://en.wikipedia.org/Nathan_Chen#Programs, https://en.wikipedia.org/Gabriella_Papadakis#Programs. If you didn't know this, you could have checked other skater pages, and further, just asked in the Talk page. You are free to go to these pages and remove those, but don't be shocked if they get reverted. Editor120918756 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand. Reviewing the edits ISU was removed as collateral damage from intervening edits, feel free to add it back in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

OK. Just as a polite suggestion, I would like you to consider removing just the unsourced material next time. It would be less confusing. But, as I said, there shouldn't be a problem anymore, since I've found third party sources for this athlete. Editor120918756 (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, its a problem with how the "undue" function bundles edits and gets especially problematic when people are undoing bundled undoes with intervening edits... Wish it were less confusing but we work with the tools we have until we get better ones. Thank you for tracking down good sources! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Churchofjesuschristtemples.org as unreliable source

I noticed that you removed references to https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/ from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in England. You wrote that it is not a reliable source. It does appear to be a passion project from one person, so I'm fine with removing it. But you only removed the citations and not the information that comes from them. This damages text-source integrity. I think it would make more sense to replace the removed citations with a citation needed tag, or to completely remove the information that comes from those sources. I have removed the information. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Generally removing the information is considered to be a more extreme step than simply removing an unreliable source. Text-source integrity is only relevant when there is a reliable source which was not the case here, do you understand? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's not a RS, which is why I removed the information that came from it. The text-source integrity is impacted when you remove a source but leave the information. Let me show you an example that explains what I'm talking about:

England has 36 of the 45 stakes, five missions, and both temples in the United Kingdom.

When you removed the churchofjesuschristtemples.org in-sentence references (numbers 1 and 2 here), it made it look like all of the information could be sourced to the "newsroom" source. That is not the case, which is why I removed the information (otherwise if I came back two years later or something, I would think the information is sourced). If you had replaced the citations with a citation needed tag, we could have kept track of the fact that the information is uncited. Is this making sense to you? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

If you review my edits that is what I generally do, it appears to have been an oversight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

References

1. "London England Temple District", churchofjesuschristtemples.org, retrieved 2021-04-26
2. "Preston England Temple District", churchofjesuschristtemples.org, retrieved 2021-04-26
3. "Facts and Statistics: Statistics by Country: United Kingdom", Newsroom, LDS Church, retrieved 26 April 2021

RS noticeboard

May you please comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Association_of_Religion_Data_Archives_and_World_Religion_Database Foorgood (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

A request

Hey, I don't know you, but we kind of crossed paths recently at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources. Anyway I noticed that you're getting pretty aggressive over at User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU). I think I understand what your concern is because the first time I saw her editing articles I had some red flags go up from the "(BYU)" in her username. Then I looked at the substance of her edits, read the declarations on her user page, and educated myself on what a Wikipedian in residence is. Over the years I've come to respect her as one of the most helpful editors in the LDS topic area. She's very careful about NPOV and rarely if ever makes contentious edits or takes a strong position on anything. She always defers to whatever consensus there is and gravitates toward more "gnomish" work like maintaining citations. If you're worried about Mormon editors going around editing LDS articles to reflect their POV, I've seen plenty of those come and go over the decade or so I've been editing. Rachel Helps is not one of them, and she doesn't deserve to be hounded about COI editing. ~Awilley (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

What specifically have you learned about Wikipedians in residence? From my understanding they are not a discrete class of editors and have the exact same COI restrictions as the rest of us. My issue isn't with her religion, it just so happens that her religion is also her employer. I understand that the LDS space has lower standards than much of Misplaced Pages because of the low quality of editor, but that doesn't excuse COI editing (no matter how helpful or gnomish). Also note that an editor who was very careful about NPOV wouldn't have used this source for a BLP, an editor who was competent in navigating COI issues would never have edited Gary P. Gillum at all (Gillum spent most of their career working at the BYU library where Rachel Helps BYU also works and she has continued much of his research work particularly into Hugh Nibley). There are legitimate issues here and they don't go away just because you like them or they're a net positive for the project. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedians in residence are not a "discrete class of editors", but they do tend to have access to a lot of special collections held by the institute at which they are "in residence". Additionally, the "LDS space" (as you call it) does not have "lower standards than much of Misplaced Pages because of the low quality of editor". It has the exact same standards as the rest of Misplaced Pages, meaning that all edits must abide by the policies and guidelines here. As Awilley pointed out, Rachel is very careful about how she edits (I've followed her editing for many years now), and she is very open to correcting any missteps she may take (which are very few and far between).

Your behavior toward Rachel has been extremely antagonistic over the last few months. Unless you can point to specific instances where she made bad edits, you need to back off and stop your harassment. Consider this a formal warning about your behavior. Please work on assuming good faith on the part of Rachel's edits in the future. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

you deleted my edit without context

My edit was perfectly reasonable. Why can't the Matt Walsh page be unbiased? Colejohanson12 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Colejohanson12: On the contrary, Cole, your edit was incorrect. You are misunderstanding the term "neutral" in NPOV. Please read our policy at WP:NPOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

How am I misunderstanding the term "neutral"? All I did was remove the baseless accusation of Matt being "far right" and edit out the bias of the controversy section. Colejohanson12 (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)