Talk:Jamus Lim

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photo needed[edit]

- Hongsy (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamus Lim Educational Qualifications[edit]

There is a dispute with User:Kingoflettuce as to whether to allow reference to the fact that Jamus Lim's Harvard degree is from its Extension School. User:Kingoflettuce has been reverting edits by multiple Wikipedians that have attempted to make any reference to this.

Primary citation of the current information is from the Workers' Party website here, with all other sources parroting the same information from this website. As a partisan political party website, this source is considered WP:QUESTIONABLE. Workers' Party's presentation of this information is misleading and against Harvard's own resume guidelines, see here and here.

References to additional details of Jamus Lim's Harvard qualifications can be obtained from his LinkedIn and personal website, which are considered acceptable under WP:SOCIALMEDIA, where "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Supporting information can also be found at The Online Citizen, but the editor in question considers TOC to be not an RS and has refused to acknowledge TOC has a source, despite the website being referenced in many Wikipedia articles such as Lucien Wong, Nicole Seah, Lam Pin Min, Charles Chong and many others.

I also note that the information that Jamus Lim's Harvard degree is from its Extension School does not conflict with the information provided in the primary source or the cited secondary sources. In the circumstances, reference to the fact that Jamus Lim's Harvard degree is from its Extension School should be allowed. - R4ge (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a random example, see known Extension School attendee Ling Ling Chang and the cited Orange County Register piece ([1]) for what would pass muster. I have no doubt that Lim actually attended the Extension School rather than Harvard College, but your current treatment of the sources borders on original research based on an inexact reading of reliability and verifiability guidelines Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Online Citizen prolly as reliable as The Daily Mail, btw......Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you've a bone to pick with the misleading nature of things, take it up with the WP webmaster or the Today writer who wrote that "(he has) a master’s in history from Harvard University in the United States." It's not our role to second-guess or "supplement" what's presented in reliable sources using original research Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingoflettuce: In my view, this is not original research, as these sources (LinkedIn and Harvard's page) when collaborated improves the accuracy of the information. – robertsky (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(inre your blue-link)--irrelevant in this context. Try the help desk or someplace if you'd like a fresh pair of eyes on this Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing LinkedIn and personal websites for information about the subject matter are allowed in Wikipedia under WP:SOCIALMEDIA. A statement of fact about the "extension school" is not "original research". You have decided to favour a WP:QUESTIONABLE source over a WP:SOCIALMEDIA source purely based on your own personal preferences. Additionally, the information provided in the LinkedIn and personal websites can be considered additional details, and do not conflict with what is mentioned in the WP website or the TODAY article. Where a primary source says the person has a degree from X University, and his LinkedIn gives details on the type of degree, inclusion of the additional details found in the LinkedIn page would definitely be allowed. You appear to be applying double standards. R4ge (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, what if the LinkedIn were to not mention "extension studies"--like Ling Ling Chang's?! It's a fallacy that just because they do not "conflict" and are simply "additional details" that they "would definitely be allowed". Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the LinkedIn did not mention "extension studies", we would never know these details about his Harvard degree. But since his LinkedIn provides additional details as to the type of degree, and the nature of school within Harvard University, these are definitely allowed to be included under current Wikipedia rules. You cannot reject additional details about a subject matter simply because you do not like it. R4ge (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
lmao, it's not "simply because (I) do not like it". The case of Ling Ling Chang (for the 3rd time!) is instructive, both with regards to LinkedIn in itself and what would pass muster as a reliable source here. So, what if the LinkedIn were to not mention "extension studies"--but specify, say, "Harvard Graduate School of Arts & Sciences" instead? Less is more. Kappa Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ling Ling Chang's case is not relevant here. Wikipedia's policy explicitly allows LinkedIn to be referenced as a source for information about themselves. If you do not agree with that policy, take it upstairs. R4ge (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing hard and fast about it. It says to exercise caution when doing so, especially if said fact or "fact" is not mentioned in any third-party reliable sources Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to doubt what is contained in the LinkedIn profile or his personal page, since it is consistent with third-party "reliable" sources, according to you. Unless you are alleging his LinkedIn page and CV contains false information. You yourself are convinced that he did attend the Extension School. You are hard and fast about the rules when the sources do not favour your edits, but when the rules are against you, there is "nothing hard and fast about it". I am currently questioning your motives as to why you have repeatedly reverted edits when the Wikipedia rules are satisfied. R4ge (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to ignore your repeated attempts at assuming bad faith but since you insist on insinuating that I have insidious intentions, I am also wondering why the first thing you decide to do after a hiatus of a few years is this. In the absence of third-party sources, you could make some kind of case to rely on such self-published sources to build up the bare bones of an article. But that's not the reality here. Above all, the game here is verifiability, not truth! Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I use Wikipedia on a daily basis but I've never seen a reason to get involved until this. I generally do not login to my account as there is no need. But here we have an editor repeated reverting edits from other Wikipedians over a relevant piece of information. Third party sources say person has a degree from Harvard University. Self-published sources, consistent with WP:SOCIALMEDIA and those third party sources, gives more information about the type of degree, and the sub-school within Harvard that he obtained his degree from. This is a commonly used way to elaborate on details of subject-matter Wikipedia articles to give a more complete picture over that person's qualifications. There is no "conflict of sources". It is simply additional relevant information, that satisfies the Wikipedia rules. There is sufficient "verifiability" according what you continue to parrot. R4ge (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Folksy wisdom and beliefs remarks[edit]

@Kingoflettuce: I would like to point out that I disagree with the full revert of the recent controversy over his remarks which Union leaders criticized him for. While Wikipedia is not a newspaper, his call for a minimum wage based on the ideal that "union leaders always relied on folksy wisdom and beliefs" is a noteworthy inclusion nonetheless, as the debate revolves around the progressive wage and minimum wage model, with him using the analogy of "positions to people in the 16th Century" to criticize the former model. As such, we should minimally be including the public reaction to his speech. Seloloving (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs[edit]

The following photographs of Jamus Lim have been added to Commons:

Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jamus_Lim&oldid=1218462479"