Talk:Felicia Tang/Archive 1

Gross defects in sourcing
Many of the citations provided for this article are not sufficiently reliable, because they are based on an earlier version of this article, sometimes taken from Wikipedia mirror sites. As WP:RS states, "To avoid this indirect self-referencing, editors should ensure that material from news organizations is not the only existing source outside of Wikipedia. Generally, sources that predate the material's inclusion in Wikipedia are preferable." For example, the claims about Tang's appearances in mainstream films had stood (unsourced) in Wikipedia since 2006, and as recently as the first AFD, earlier this month, no verifiable independent sourcing could be found. For similar reasons, the article is likely to include material raising BLP issues regarding 3rd parties. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are claiming KTLA, CBS News, and the Pasadena Star-News are unreliable sources. I'm just pointing that out so that you know I am not responding purposely. Take it up at a discussion, but do not deface this article with abusive tags. Dekkappai (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am saying that news articles which draw information from Wikipedia articles cannot be used to reference those articles, which is not "abusive," but simply a requirement of WP:RS. You don't contest this (you can't, since WP:RS is explicit on this point), so you resort to invective and personal attacks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With no evidence, you besmirch the reliability of KTLA, CBS News, Pasadena Star-News and now the Los Angeles Times with quotes from family which backs up some of the article. Your self-importance now leads you to claim to be more of an authority than national and international news sources. Consider this a reminder that I am not responding to you. Dekkappai (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that when "not responding" you say that the sources back up "some of the article." This is an acknowledgment that the article needs additional sourcing. I also note that I did cite evidence that the articles drew on Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors, and that WP:RS itself cautions that such articles are not reliable references for the articles they took information from. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you must provide evidence that the reliable sources are basing their content on Wikepdia (Not just "it appears that way"). Otherwise you are making completely blind accusations and speculation which is a much worse method to decide content.--Oakshade (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note also, Oakshade, "Some of the article" is backed up by the LA Times & quotes from the family. The rest of the article is backed up by other reliable sources. Also, I wonder... if the deleted article said one thing, and reliable sources agree with it, is it remotely possible the deleted article was correct, but unsourced? Wasn't this article off the web anyway when the tragedy ocurred and the papers started covering it? Dekkappai (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The article was still available through Google caching, and the standard set of Wikipedia mirrors were available. Per WP:RS, "Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as the sole source for their work.[3] To avoid this indirect self-referencing, editors should ensure that material from news organizations is not the only existing source outside of Wikipedia. Generally, sources that predate the material's inclusion in Wikipedia are preferable." Note that WP:RS, consistent with policy generally, places the burden of sourcing/verification on the editors supporting inclusion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anonymous Wikipedia editors have authority over reliable news sources from around the world. You libel these reliable news sources without presenting evidence. Wikipedia also has rules against edit-warring. This is to prevent self-important jackasses from dominating or defacing an article. Dekkappai (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Hullaballoo believes Wikipedia editors are required to investigate and verify statements made by reliable sources. As with many self-important jackasses, his bloated sense of authority leads him to promote Original Research, not only in the creation of guidelines and rules, but, in this case, in actually placing ourselves as authorities above Reliable Sourcing. Dekkappai (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hullaballoo Wolfowitz believes that editors should comply with WP:RS, which requires editors to be careful about circular referencing, as quoted from the applicable policy above. Dekkappai aparently doesn't support complying with this policy, or WP:CIVIL, or WP:NPA. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A look at the subject's biography from her official page, archived from:
 * 2002: http://web.archive.org/web/20020802015949/feliciatang.com/html/index.htm
 * and
 * 2007: http://web.archive.org/web/20070110055151/feliciatang.com/about.html
 * confirms the facts stated at these secondary reliable sources, and (I assume) predates the Wikipedia article. Your personal libel of various, international reliable news sources is irrelevant, unless a representative from one of these organizations is interested. But as far as Wikipedia is concerned, I will remove the tag. Happy editing! Dekkappai (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject's own webpage is not an independent, third party source, and the claim it makes about "featured" roles is demonstrably false. There is no reliable source for the subject's claim to have had significant roles in mainstream films, and all the information available indicates that news sources picked it up from a Wikipedia, hence it is not reliably sourced. And you're remarkably close, if not over, the WP:NLT line. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You smear 3rd-party sources, claiming, with no evidence, that they are based on Wikipedia. When shown they're based on the subjects' official biography, you smear her as a liar, and claim it is inadmissable as not a 3rd-party source. "Legal threat?" You've got to be fucking kidding... I should have known not to respond to you, civilly or otherwise. Dekkappai (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, no need for personal attacks. Which assertions are being disputed as being a possible mirror of a prior wikipedia article? Point by point. If it's an appearance in a certain mainstream film, couldn't a reliable source go and independently verify this even if it got the information originally from wikipedia? Couldn't editors go and verify this themselves by viewing the film? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Felicia Tang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111005044628/http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-felicia-tang-murder,0,1508792.story to http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-felicia-tang-murder,0,1508792.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)