Talk:Bai Baihe

Personal life
An editor is wanted to insert a lot of material on this person's personal life... stuff about a divorce, and people criticizing her private life, and so forth. My take on this is:
 * All of this is peripheral to her notability, which is as an actress.
 * And some of it is actually negative and unfriendly.
 * And while many sources are given, I'm skeptical that the sources are any good (they are in Chinese so hard to judge.)

Per WP:BLP, a very important policy: "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources... Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy... it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

And so forth. Based on this, I have removed the material. The editor is invited to come and her and make a case -- and it had better be a good case, with strong indications that the sources are AAA-level reliable, considering the nature of the matieral -- and we can talk. Until then, let the material stay out of the article.

It might be that some of the material, that which would be unobjectionable to the subject, could be included. Herostratus (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The editor made this reply (on his talk page, which I have copied over to here):


 * I understand the venue here does not want to record any 'minor fault'of a living person. Everyone shall make mistakes and given room to change. However in this case, it is not simply a 'minor'issue. This actress, if without the image of fidelity as a wife for years, she would not have garnered her stardom as such and other pecuniary profit followed. This is Chinese society, maybe you could not understand. If without this scandal, she would continue faking this image and deceiving the audience. The inconsistencies between her image and the way she truly is are sth tainting the entertainment industry and the soceity as a whole


 * And my reply is: OK, I get where you are coming from. If it was an English actress, maybe we wouldn't have this material, because an English actress's notability is mainly tied to what she does on stage or on screen. Personal deportment and scandals are interesting (and might be included if very notable), but they are peripheral.


 * But for a Chinese actress, it's different. People don't so to the movies to see her play a role, and so things like reviews of how well she played a part etc. aren't that important. She's more like a celebrity playing herself, and people go to see her, not the role. Therefore her personal deportment and so forth is key to her public persona and notability. Or something like that, right?


 * Well, that would depend on the type of acting/actress. Generally in the media, English, American and western actresses are better known for for their body shape, size of chest, how much bare legs and body they show, than for their acting. 109.159.127.187 (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Well I don't buy it. We don't relax WP:BLP on grounds like that, sorry. We treat actresses like actresses. That's my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I get what you mean. But this actress is part of a celebrity showing her fidelity wife side which helps her building a career as an actress. There are actresses who are single in China and audience knew them for their work not their life. For that kind of actresses,this stuff would not be a problem either. But this one is different. Another thing is her publicity team are trying to use lies to cover up the scandal. I thought wikipedia is a place of truth rather than lies.
 * We're famous for not being about WP:THETRUTH; we even have a helpful essay on it (WP:TRUTH). And I don't buy any of the above as a reason to not follow WP:BLP. Get reliable sources which verify something. Include that something and nothing more. Stop muckraking using gossip sites. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with what you said on the quality of sources. For 'gossip' sources, reliability is a problem. As to the touting of a good image for getting audience and other peculiary benefits, it truly exists. This time I am pending my effort of editing only because of the problems of source quality. T9qnl (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Some sources of this person are not good and reliable. For authenticity good, some are deletedT9qnl (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

According to this wiki discussion page with me (Link below: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:T9qnl), it tells me that wiki is based on several principles, two of which are: 1, reliable sources; 2, neutrality of views but includes no promotion. On this actress Baibaihe 's wiki page, some people are trying to use unreliable resources to cover up her infidelity affair including adding ending time of her marriage with her husband and information such as she was among the highest paid actresses list, but up til now reliable sources on the internet would prove she had not got divorced as no divorce certificate was made and the resources for highest income was some unreliable gossip website. T9qnl (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Folks, let's get real; as now revealed in the Harvey Weinstein et al saga, actresses in the West are only likely to become successful in the industry if they were given a leg up in return for sexual favors obtained by force or otherwise. This was always the case, that is why being actresses and models in the West are/were synonymous with being whores. They usually end up the butt end in jokes about the actress and the bishop. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41940680 109.159.127.187 (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * And folks, that is why when Chinese actresses end up in Hollywood, they always end up playing hookers, no matter how big they are in China, examples, Joan Chen and Gong Li. 109.159.127.187 (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)