User talk:Aurora07

Ling
Hi, perhaps you can talk about your desired addition on the Ling talkpage here Talk:Chai_Ling as it was cut and copy right violation from here and it also had inline links three to the website http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/chai-lings-testimony#ixzz130On1G3P and is all self published with no clear notability claim, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Chai Ling
(discussion moved from Off2riorob's talk)

Hello

I wish to restore the content that was removed on the Chai Ling article by user Scott McDonald- notably her Christian testimony and information about the All Girls Allowed (AGA) initative. The reason given for their removal was that they were not encyclopeic- yet both were referenced, and supported by the AGA website. Chai Ling's testimony also appears on the China Aid site here: http://www.chinaaid.org/downloads/sb_chinaaid/ChaiLingstestimony6_13_2010.pdf

I do not understand why you claim I have violated copyright laws? The information is factual and from another open public forum, and I would have thought it would be useful to anyone visiting Chai Ling's page. Please could you explain in simple language what I would need to do in order to satisfy your requirements (I am new to wikipedia and I don't understand all the jargon!)Aurora07 (talk)


 * Hi, thanks for discussing. one issue is that it is a cut and copy exact of the website that has a copyright notice at the bottom. Another is that it is far to much content about that and is all cited to her own website, there is no independent report of it in a national publication. To be honest, it is not worthy of note in a wikipedia BLP, it is in the article when she was become a Christian, possibly if you want to summarize the issue in a couple of lines then it could be ok cited to that website but imo more than that is undue coverage of a not notable issue. If you are unhappy with this position I will ask another user or an Administrator to look at it for you, regards. I am watching this talkpage and if you reply here I will reply, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi- surely whether the information is notable or not is a matter of opinion? It is a biographic page, and when someones beliefs changes the course of their life (and in this case it is the reason that Ling has established AGA) then I would count that as notable! I would be happy to cut it to a few lines though and link to the website- the reason it was more lengthy is that someone more experienced in wikipedia suggested that putting more positive content on their would detract from the slander that some people have been placing on the page. I was the one who flagged up that slander is being placed on there, so it is a bit annoying that it is now the positive content that is being so challenged! I understand that we need to be compliant with copyright laws though and will try to make approriate adjustments. What about the information about AGA that user Scott McDonald had also removed? If I shorten it could that be placed back on there? Thanks Aurora07 (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wiipedia notability is established by independent quality publications writing about a person and then we report about those reports. Yes, write a small summary of her religious experience...please keep it to the bones as they say and we can look at adding it. The article has a few watchers now and the slanderous comment should not get back in now, thank you for that. I have left Scitt McDonald a note to ask his opinion to your comments also. We can also look at a reduced and rewritten small section about the AGA, but please remember we need to be careful not to create a self promotional article with excessive promotional content supported by the subjects own websites. What we really want is independent reports talking about her, not her talking about herself, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Robb here. That her religion changed is notable, and perhaps a sentence to describe where and when. But we follow sources, and unless you can show independent media interest etc in the details, then it isn't notable enough for a biography. Perhaps this discussion is best moved the the article's talk page so others can see it.--Scott Mac 19:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * - moved to the article talkpage. Please continue any further discussion here, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)