Talk:Arthur Chu

The criticism section doesn't make any sense.
The criticism section doesn't make any sense. He jumps from category to category seeking Daily Doubles? Jumping across categories in no way increases a contestant's probability of uncovering a Daily Double. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.39.8 (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "So when Arthur Chu bobs and weaves around the board, he’s chasing those game-changing Daily Doubles. (The Jeopardy! contestant coordinators recommend playing the game in top-to-bottom order, mostly to make life easier on Alex Trebek and the techs who run the game board, but it’s not a requirement.) Hunting is possible because Daily Doubles may be hidden, but they’re not distributed randomly. For example, they’re much more likely to be in the fourth row of clues (36 percent of the time, in recent years) than the second row (just 10 percent). Roger Craig even discovered that Daily Doubles are distributed nonrandomly by column as well, and played accordingly. " According to Slate.com - 14:06, 12 March 2014‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.69.178 (talk • contribs)

Recent revert "leveraged his fame"
I'm perplexed by this recent revert. We have two sources following the text, one (salon) is a list of articles which on our own we can attempt to distill to define his career. The other (daily beast) is an about blurb which does that for us and which the previous text accurately reflected: Additionally, the previous text accurately reflected the article's "After Jeopardy!" section whereas the updated text doesn't appear to be repeated or supported anywhere in the article (see WP:LEAD.) The choice best supported by policy seems clear. Policy also dictates WP:BRD which has not been followed in this most recent revert. —EncyclopediaBob  (talk)  19:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the Daily Beast 'About' blurb is Chu's own words and an attempt at self-deprecating humor. Many writers write their own sections in their 'about' bios. It's silly to insist that must be the main descriptor. Dave Dial (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The "main descriptor" is: an American game show contestant and columnist. Rather the text we're discussing summarizes his career path after Jeopardy. Let's dismiss the Daily Beast blurb entirely — the previous text is still well sourced in the relevant After Jeopardy! section: . The updated text however has no source support and is not reflective of information presented anywhere in the article. I don't see how one can argue it's an improvement. —EncyclopediaBob   (talk)  20:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It accurately reflects his subsequent career. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And what sources support that claim? Find a better one than the existing source, which supports the previous text, and I'll drop my objection. —EncyclopediaBob   (talk)  21:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said above, the list of publications in Salon speaks for itself. The lede accurately reflects what the article says: "Chu has become a columnist and Internet commentator, writing on issues of racism and sexism in technoculture for The Daily Beast and Salon." That’s what ledes are for. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * More publications: Polygon:  Daily Beast (lots)  Ravishly . MarkBernstein (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I can only repeat what I've said above. I ask that you self-revert and observe the correct WP:BRD procedure. —EncyclopediaBob   (talk)  00:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't find a single reference to "technoculture" in any of the listed sources; your changes are WP:OR. The previous text, meant to summarize the article's final section, did just that; the new text does not. Either improve the final section with proper sourcing to match your desired lead change or leave the lead as is.  —EncyclopediaBob   (talk)  18:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Technoculture is a perfectly reasonable description of the field of discourse, but if you dislike it, we'll avoid it. A much simpler edit restores the neutral tone, MarkBernstein (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the | latest edit by DD2K. Thanks. —EncyclopediaBob   (talk)  20:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2016
72.65.103.5 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please state your suggested changes. — Strongjam (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Employment
The article lists Chu as writing for The Daily Beast and Salon. I checked and the latest article I can find on the Daily Beast is dated 04.01.16 and the latest on Salon is dated August 17, 2015 11:00pm

Chu's own website doesn't list any articles past April 1, 2016.

In short I don't think he currently writes for either of those organisations any more.

I'll leave it for someone more up on editing and appropriate terminology to decide if the article needs to be edited, and if so, how.

119.18.15.193 (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Social media prominence today
Today, Chu has a large profile in social-media political discourse, raising controversy with tweets such as "Ashley Babbitt feeding the worms is one of the few good things that happened as a result of the Capitol 'protest'".
 * https://cnsnews.com/blog/rob-shimshock/ex-jeopardy-champ-ashli-babbitts-nazi-feeding-worms-good-thing

This social media presence might not make an otherwise non-notable person notable, but given that Chu has a Wikipedia page for his Jeopardy career, should his current notoriety be mentioned here? 68.9.181.144 (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV
, without any substantive explanation, has repeatedly added fanpov to this article. I see no article content which is non-neutral. They seem to think that some of the article content is "fluff", but I don't see anything which looks in appropriate. Therefore, I am removing the tag and seeking the opinions of other editors here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that specific instances of "fluff" need to be cited, if the tag is going to be added to the article. --Jpcase (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)