Talk:Yip Pin Xiu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
swimmer Yip Pin Xiu, who has muscular dystrophy, won a gold and a silver medal at the 2008 Summer Paralympics, setting two world records in the process?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 10, 2018, January 10, 2022, and January 10, 2024.
Current status: Good article

Three questions about Jacklee's edits

I appreciate Jacklee's contributions to this article, but have three concerns:

  • Her Chinese name needs a reliable source. If one cannot be found, it should probably be removed. We must be cautious because the
    BLP
    policy applies here - and Yip is only 16.
    • I noted this in the Lianhe Zaobao a while back; should have made a note of the specific article. Will see if there is any way of tracking it down. I'm not sure any BLP issue is raised here – which aspect of the policy do you think is contravened by indicating her name in Chinese characters? — JackLee, 10:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external links seem excessive - only one of the five is directly about Yip.
    • I have no strong feelings about this. I felt the links were useful for people wanting to know more about disability sports in Singapore, which the article relates to. — JackLee, 10:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Persondata that necessary or even useful? When writing GAs, I prefer to keep them short, sweet and no-frills.

By the way, I botched up the edit summary of my previous edit (hit Enter by accident), but I think my reason for making that edit was pretty obvious.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, which one? Didn't see it.
I'd also like to raise a few more points about the article for discussion:
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When writing GAs, my decisions consider the

GA criteria
and the readers. The GA criteria do not require infoboxes. Are they useful to readers? It depends. For long articles, infoboxes serve as useful summaries for readers who may have neither the time nor the inclination to read the entire article. But this article is so short. An infobox would merely duplicate the lead, which contains most of the information an average reader would want to know. Furthermore, there is little information about her (and some should be excluded per the BLP policy), so the infobox would provide very little information.

These arguments also apply to medal tables and Persondata. I avoid using Persondata and citation templates because they are not useful for readers. In fact, they cause problems for readers who occasionally edit and are unfamiliar with wiki markup. Such frills, in my opinion, reflect a

exopedian
, strive to counter. Note that I write for the readers, not the editors, hence the "short and sweet, no-frills" philosophy (there are other reasons, which we have discussed in private).

The

introduced BLP special enforcement. What constitutes a BLP violation is no longer clear. Neither are the limits of BLP enforcement. There was a BLP complaint about a GA you wrote, Laurentia Tan
, so please be very cautious about potential BLP violations. Do not get me into trouble!

My main concern regarding the inclusion of her Chinese name and birth date is her privacy - especially considering that she is only sixteen. One reliable reference is insufficient to warrant inclusion of her birth date. In contrast, many references mention that she studies in Bendemeer, so mentioning that is fine, according to the admins who BLP-checked my draft. Hope this explanation helps.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of editing, I've created subsections for discussion of different issues. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date and place of birth

I should point out that it wasn't me who inserted the date of birth into the article. I just added the place of birth and provided a reference for both. That being the case, "

WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information" says: "Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, but exercise caution with less notable people. ... When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth." I accept that Yip is a minor. On the other hand, her date and place of birth are already in the public domain on the official Beijing 2008 Paralympic Games website. She is also clearly a notable person, being the winner of Singapore's first Paralympic gold medal. I'll post a query on the WP:BLP talk page about this matter to ask for advice. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree that Yip, as a Paralympic medalist, is clearly notable. But not all notable people are public figures. Examples of public figures would be Lee Kuan Yew, Jack Neo or Li Jiawei, who have many notable achievements and been in the public spotlight for years. Yip is a non-public figure (and a minor), so we should err on the side of caution. Note that "widely published" does not mean "published in a single reliable reference". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to disagree with you there. I would say that by virtue of her achievements (winning the Paralympic medals and being conferred a state award) and public exposure (appearing repeatedly in the media), the fact is that Yip is now a public figure. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a Wikipedian who is more familiar with BLP could help us agree on whether Yip is a public figure or not. (By the way, would you consider Megan Zheng a public figure? I certainly would not.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One possible compromise is to indicate only the year of birth (which is permitted by BLP), but let's wait for some responses to the notice posted at the BLP talk page regarding the use of the full birth date and place of birth. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reference that only mentions her year of birth? Are we allowed to list the birth year without a reference, on the grounds that a reference would reveal the entire birth date (which we do not wish to mention for BLP reasons)? If the answer to either question is yes, I agree with your proposed compromise of only mentioning the birth year. The post at the BLP talk page apparently failed to get others to provide input (Road Wizard came from a WikiProject), so perhaps I should follow up with another post or contact several admins whom I consult regarding BLP issues. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do. Perhaps the year of birth can be referenced to a news article that states her age, since the year of birth can readily be ascertained from that. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The birth year will be fine by itself. No citation should be needed, but place one if you must. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name in Chinese characters

I really do not see how indicating Yip's name in Chinese characters in the article violates WP:BLP in any way. The Chinese characters are now fully sourced. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If her Chinese name has been widely published in reliable sources (which seens to be the case), I have no strong feelings against including it here. But could you please not use a gigantic citation template that renders the lead almost uneditable? (Unfortunately, there seems to be some bias against foreign-language sources; a reference that is mostly in English but also mentions her Chinese name would convince others that this is the swimmer they are talking about.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I think one would be hard pressed to find an English source that mentions Yip's name in Chinese characters. I don't think there will be any problem referring to Chinese sources. English translations of the article titles have been provided. There are many Chinese-speaking Wikipedians out there who can verify the sources; editors who cannot read Chinese should assume good faith (as most of them do). Secondly, I really don't think the citations make the lead "uneditable" – that's an exaggeration, surely. Feel free to remove the citation templates from the sources if you think that will improve the article. I use them because it's easier than remembering what order the elements of a citation need to be in for Wikipedia purposes. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If and only if it is clear that including her Chinese name would not violate BLP, then I have no objection to doing so. I suggest the following compromise - the lead section will include her Chinese name, but with only one (or two) references which are not in citation templates. The citation template you added had four references and took up more than half of the wikitext in the lead. "Uneditable" may be an exaggeration, but it was indeed difficult to edit. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would help if you explained why you think Yip's name in Chinese characters even implicates BLP. I cannot see how it does. There is nothing inherently private about a person's name in a different script. If such information is private, then there cannot even be an article in Chinese Wikipedia with that name, which cannot possibly be right. Regarding the sources, there were only three and I had already made one (consisting mainly of photographs) into an external link. I have said that the citation templates can be removed by you if you think fit. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good argument. If an editor who is more familiar with BLP agrees that including her Chinese name is fine, what do you think of my compromise? Of course, we would have to pick one source and format it without citation templates. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to wait for further comments from other editors on this point. I think it is quite clear that the issue does not fall within WP:BLP (which is completely silent on the matter). I would say go with both of the citations that I used. I cited the Lianhe Zaobao and People's Daily. I thought it was good to cite the Lianhe Zaobao as it is a local Singapore newspaper, but to back that up with the People's Daily citation because articles in the Lianhe Zaobao tend to expire after a while and become inaccessible online. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the Chinese references (they may contain other useful information), choosing one and implementing the consensus would take me at least an hour. My other GA-to-be, I Not Stupid Too, also needs my attention (I need to upload a second screenshot that will not be deleted by the anti-fair use brigade). I have canvassed several administrators through e-mail, and posted on the BLP noticeboard, to seek input from editors who are familiar with BLP. Perhaps we should let this rest for a few days while waiting for more comments. In the meantime, please do not add her Chinese name back. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is simply no BLP issue in relation to her name. The name is supported by references and I don't see how any claim of breach of privacy can be made over publication of her name. Unless you can provide an explanation of why the name breaches BLP then there is nothing to prevent restoration of the name to the article.
I will allow a few days grace for the other editors you have invited to comment on this issue, but if there is no further movement on this issue then I will restore the name by the end of the week. Road Wizard (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
J.L.W.S., while I would encourage you to read the Chinese citations in case they contain other information that is useful for the article, I don't think there should be any issue regarding their use for the purpose of referencing Yip's name in Chinese characters, or any reason to delay the restoration of these citations for that specific purpose. Her name appears in the titles of the citations (which I have translated into English). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having the name in a foreign language is not an BLP issue. We always have names of foreign personalities in their native language. My suggestion is to use, a Chinese language cite, for her Chinese name and that will be perfectly fine. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Laurentia Tan" BLP issue

The BLP complaint in "Laurentia Tan" is not relevant to this case. There, the complaint apparently related to the fact that the names of Tan's parents and brother appeared in the article. (I say "apparently" as the anonymous IP who kept removing the information and who presumably made a BLP complaint refused to discuss the matter on the talk page. I would point out that the names had all appeared in the local press.) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully I decided not to include the names of Yip's parents in the article, despite several references mentioning this information. But hor, if got BLP complain, beta kiasi a bit, right? I dowan kena trouble leh... --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not be bold and see if anyone complains? The fear of a BLP complaint may be a groundless one. And even if there is, the article can be adjusted at that stage. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo's and Wikipedia's stance on BLP is very clear: don't play play. When it comes to BLP, being bold is asking for trouble. Don't wait for a BLP complaint because once there is a complaint, we are in big trouble (the complaint may be followed by legal action). As the primary contributor, I may be blamed for your actions. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, point taken. It should be noted, though, that there is no cause of action for breach of privacy in Singapore, and even if there was the names of Tan and Yip's parents is not private information as they have already appeared in the media. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persondata

Well, I have no strong feelings about whether Persondata should be used in articles or not, but do not see what harm it does. The code sits quietly at the end of the article and should not be a bother to editors unfamiliar with wikitext. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before I comment I should point out that I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Persondata so there may be a small element of bias in my answer.
Even if someone could argue that Persondata is a bad thing, I am not sure how they could prevent it from being re-added by another editor later on if they remove it now. The fundamental position is that persondata should be added to all biography articles on Wikipedia. To prevent Persondata from appearing here they will need to develop a community wide consensus to put some sort of limit on that fundamental principle. Road Wizard (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I know where this consensus was formed and the rationale for said consensus? According to the WikiProject, the template is currently used on only 5.7% of biographies. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me any form of consensus against it? Wikipedia:Persondata has existed for nearly 3 years. If it does not have a general consensus in support of it then limitations would have been put on it some time ago. The emphasis is on you here to justify exclusion as even if I walk away from this article another editor of Persondata may just add it back again in a few weeks or months (especially if it gains a higher profile by attaining GA status). Yes it is only used on about 5.7% of biographical articles right now, but that is in excess of 30,000 biographies and the numbers are growing daily.
It may be worth explaining what your issue with Persondata is. You have stated above that you think it will confuse new editors, but I really can't see that argument. All wiki code could confuse new editors. Should we remove the category code just because someone may be confused by it? Road Wizard (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are useful for readers and using them to navigate (clicking for the category link) is not confusing for them either. In contrast, Persondata is not useful for readers and confuses editors. It is a perfect example of what programmers call code bloat. Considering how little referenced information is available about Yip and that some should not be mentioned for BLP reasons, how much "data" can go into the template? (The same argument applies to infoboxes and medal tables; we don't need a summary because the article's already so short.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect by referring to Persondata as not useful for readers and it is certainly not code bloat. The various forms of metadata in use on Wikipedia provide a large and growing benefit to readers. Persondata has the potential to allow the creation of more powerful search tools for general readers and statistical analysis tools for researchers.
If you wish to dispute the role and purpose of persondata on a community level then please start a broader discussion in a more appropriate forum.
It would be best if you avoid mixing BLP concerns into this part of the discussion. I would suggest you attempt to resolve the BLP issues first then discuss how the resulting consensus will affect persondata afterwards.
Finally, even if the name field is the only part of the Persondata that can be completed then that will be of value. Persondata is not a display template like an infobox, its role is to record searchable data in a standard format and sit behind the article out of sight of the majority of readers. If you are arguing against the use of Persondata by attempting to apply an argument about not using an infobox then I suspect that you may have misunderstood the differences between the two. Persondata is not a summary. Road Wizard (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your removal of persondata as we don't appear to have a consensus to remove it. Editing to your personal preferences while a dispute is being discussed on the talk page can be somewhat damaging to the trust between editors and trigger an edit war. While it is understandable that you would want an article you created to include and exclude what you feel is appropriate, there is also a need to listen to the opinions of other editors. Currently there are two editors in favour of retaining persondata and one against so you are acting against the current (albeit limited) consensus.
Please don't attempt to twist policies like
WP:BLP to suit your needs. Using BLP like a blunt instrument to exclude all information you dislike simply weakens the discussions where BLP concerns are genuine. Road Wizard (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for finally explaining what Persondata really is for (search tools and statistical analysis). May I see an example of such a search tool? My concern is that articles are being overwhelmed with metadata that is not useful to readers and unfriendly to exopedians. As an exopedian, I strive to counter metapedian bias, such as that huge
MOnSter
.
To be honest, I do not really understand the BLP policy. Neither does Jacklee; there was once a BLP complaint about one of his GAs,
ArbCom special enforcement to deal with BLP violations. Yet the policy and its boundaries remain unclear. Therefore I am very cautious about avoiding potential BLP violations, just as how most Singaporeans avoid OB markers
. I can see how this may be misinterpreted as "using BLP like a blunt instrument" as some Wikipedians actually do so, exploiting the ambiguous nature of the policy.
Jacklee does not appear to be one of "two editors in favour of retaining persondata". In fact, he seems rather neutral on the issue. I removed the Persondata template because it contained her birth date, when there is an ongoing BLP dispute over whether to include said information. In Chinese culture, the empty death-related fields could be considered an attempt to curse Yip or wish her death. Remember, this little girl has muscular dystrophy. If we decide to keep the Persondata template, could we reduce code bloat by leaving out the empty fields?
--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My reference to you using BLP as a blunt instrument related to your complete removal of the Persondata template just to get rid of the date of birth field. The correct action would have been to blank the date of birth field only. I had assumed that the date of birth had already been removed as part of the earlier dispute or otherwise I would have removed it myself.
I have also removed the empty "death" fields as they will hopefully not be necessary for many years to come.
I apologise to JackLee if I have misinterpreted their adding Persondata to the article and comment that they don't see why it should be removed as a motion of support for retention, but I don't see how it could be interpreted as strict neutrality either.
With less than 6% of biography articles currently tagged with persondata there are no current tools on the English Wiki. However, if you take a look at the Wikipedia:Persondata page (which explains what persondata is and has been linked to previously in this discussion) you will see a section with some Uses of Persondata based on the German Wikipedia's data (the German wiki is further ahead in this process than the the English wiki). Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added Persondata to the article because editors who conducted GA reviews on other articles I worked on previously advised me to do so. As I said, I am agnostic as to whether Persondata should be used in articles, but if asked to choose would support its use in articles since there seems to be consensus on the matter. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medal table

I disagree that a medal table in the article would not be useful to readers and is a mere "frill". A medal table summarizes a sportsperson's achievements, and can include medals that are not otherwise mentioned in the article (which would usually only mention more significant achievements). Yes, tables can be a bit tricky for unfamiliar editors to edit, but any errors can always be tidied up by other editors. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medal tables can indeed be very useful, but are they necessary for such a short article? A summary of this short article would more likely be a duplication of all the information in paragraphs 2-4 of the Swimming career section, albeit expressed in a different form. I am not aware of any "medals not otherwise mentioned in the article" that could be mentioned in the medal table. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just come across a website that contains information that could be the basis of a medal table. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, medal tables may be useful in long articles, but would such a short article benefit from a medal table? Nevertheless, that PDF contains quite a lot of useful information, especially about her early career (I was surprised that there were hardly any newspaper articles dating to before 2007). Once the BLP dispute is resolved, I may expand the article slightly, with information from that PDF. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, have a look at the McDonald's article and assess if there are other medals that Yip has won that are not already mentioned in the article. If there are, and mentioning each and every one of those medals in prose is unjustified, this would justify a medal table being used in the article to present her achievements more comprehensively. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Occupations of Yip's parents

I removed information about Yip's parents' occupations. Including such information may potentially violate BLP; the admins who BLP-checked my draft gaved mixed answers. More importantly, the information is irrelevant, as what her parents work as does not help us understand her career (her schools are relevant, though). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP dispute

I noticed that a URL for a source was removed for breaching BLP, but the non-URL segment of the reference remains.[1] Is there a reason why the URL breaches BLP while the rest of the reference doesn't? Road Wizard (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it may be worth listing which aspects of the article are under dispute. Is it just the Chinese characters that make up her name (as mentioned above), or does the dispute extend any further? Road Wizard (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the recent reversion by J.L.W.S. is unnecessary for the following reasons: (1) I gathered from the discussion above that there was consensus that no BLP issue arose in relation to Yip's name in Chinese characters; and (2) I, too, do not see how the URL added by Road Wizard breaches BLP. J.L.W.S., do clarify why you think BLP is implicated with regards to these specific issues. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I think I screwed up that revert. Road Wizard, the BLP dispute revolves around the inclusion of not just her Chinese name, but her date of birth. My main concern is her privacy, especially considering that she is a minor and (I believe) a non-public figure. Several reliable sources mention her Chinese name, but they are, as expected, all in Chinese; only one reliable source mentions her birth date. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not mix up the BLP policy with verifiability. The issue concerning the date and place of birth is not whether they are properly referenced (they are – no more than one reliable source is required), but whether indicating them in the article would violate BLP. Similarly, there is no question that Yip's name in Chinese characters is also adequately referenced. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JackLee is correct in asking to keep Verifiability and BLP issues separate. A non-English source is not a problem for Wikipedia (see
WP:BLP? I cannot see how provision or exclusion of her name violates her privacy. Road Wizard (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

There is, in

WP:BLP the notion that one should err on the side of privacy when dealing with private individuals, especially minors. In this, it is useful to decide whether something has been widely reported, and to what degree it is "private" or personal information. I think in this respect that her Chinese name is sufficiently public and widely reported upon to be considered acceptable for inclusion upon this basis. However, I am not convinced that her birthdate is — birthdates, especially for women, are considered private, and I am not sure that there is sufficient reportage to consider the presumption of privacy to be oblivated here. Summary: leave in the Chinese name, ditch the b-day. --Haemo (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I appreciate the general sentiment, but would point out the following:
  • We should not rely on reasons such as "women do not like their birth dates to be revealed" to support the exclusion of birth dates. This is not a valid criterion under WP:BLP.
  • Even if consensus is reached that the full birth date should not be included in the article for privacy reasons, BLP does not prevent the birth year from being used in the article.
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The subject may object" is indeed a reasonable BLP concern (though not always a valid BLP concern). For example, if a non-public figure requests their biography be deleted, that is a BLP concern. But I do not think Haemo said "women do not like their birth dates to be revealed". He is an admin who is far more familiar with BLP than us.
By the way, I may not have the time to edit tomorrow. I need to make a visit to the hospital. On Wednesday or Thursday, I will probably propose a compromise which, if accepted, would resolve both disputes.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished business

The two ongoing disputes - one over

GAN
:

  • At the peer review, Road Wizard suggest that expand the lead slightly, by adding a sentence about the impact of her successes on disabled people in Singapore.
  • According to the
    guideline on external links
    , "links...should be kept to a minimum". The current External links section is excessive and should be trimmed. Links that are only tangentially related to Yip must go.
  • That free photo does not do Yip justice. She is so kawaii, but looks awful in the free photo. When the free photo is resized to fit in the article, her face is barely visible and it is not even clear which is her. If you want to include a free photo in the article, could you please include a proper photo (and not a disgrace to Wikipedia)? By the way, I think that caption is too long.
  • Jacklee found a PDF with some useful information, especially about her early career, with which I could slightly expand the article.

This section is for discussion about the "unfinished business" and how to deal with it.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I don't think reverting my edit to the "External links" section was the right thing to do. I had added a link to a Beijing 2008 Paralympic Games web page containing photographs of Yip taking part in one of the events at the Games. I put it in "External links" because the web page had minimal text in it – only photograph captions. (For that reason, I don't think it belongs in the "References" section.) If you felt it was more appropriate to place the link in a footnote in the main text, you could have done so immediately. That would have been fine with me. If you didn't have time to do that, you should have left the link in place until you were free to do that. I'm not upset, but I just don't think it is appropriate editing practice to revert other editors' changes which are otherwise unobjectionable and not damaging to the article simply because you dislike their placement but don't have time to properly incorporate them elsewhere in the article. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this looks like a misunderstanding! Your use of "a huge citation template" misled me into thinking that was only a citation. By the way, if the online references and external links have photographs, the article would not need a free-but-no-standard photograph. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a biographical article that has a suitable photograph in the top right-hand corner looks much better than one that doesn't. I don't think that's really replaceable by a link to an external website containing photographs. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a suitable photo there would considerably enhance the article. Don't blame me; blame the anti-fair use brigade. But that discussion belongs in the other subsection. Could this section focus on removing unnecessary external links? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zscout370 has trimmed the External links section to three links. I am satisfied with this compromise (although having no external links is also fine). Are you, Jacklee? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wanted to keep the external links related to her, so any links to the IPC and other orgs seemed pointless to me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the remaining links can stay. They are related to Yip, though they do not provide that much useful information about her. Unless Jacklee disagrees, I would consider this issue closed. Only two issues remain - whether to include a medal table and whether to include the free image (with a shorter caption). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph

A photograph showing Yip's features more clearly should be used at the top of the article, but the existing free photograph is fine. I hardly think it is a "disgrace to Wikipedia" and "does not do [her] justice". The caption states quite clearly which person in the photograph she is, and the photograph shows Yip together with her Paralympic team mates on a significant occasion. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "the photograph shows Yip together with her teammates on a significant occasion", but does the (in my opinion, excessively long) caption really "[state] quite clearly which person in the photograph she is"? That the photo does not show her features clearly is a real concern, because that is what photographs are for. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the caption is especially long, and it clearly identifies the people in the photograph in the usual way (left to right – I think that's obvious enough not to be stated). Yip is not shown full face but in profile, but that is all right for a subsidiary photograph in the article. For example, the photograph at "Tao Li" doesn't show her face at all (she is swimming with goggles on), but nonetheless adds value to the article by picturing her engaging in the activity that she is notable for. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The details about the other Paralympians and celebration ceremony (which is not even mentioned in the article) do seem excessive. Perhaps lawyers revel in details, while writers prefer
economy of expression. I write for the readers, not for the anti-fair use brigade, and thus would not include a free photo for the sake of including a free photo. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Should I close the peer review?

This article is

GAN. Another GA-to-be, I Not Stupid Too, also has an ongoing peer review
and needs my attention more.

Perhaps I should close Yip Pin Xiu's peer review? Then I can focus on resolving the disputes and "unfinished business", as well as preparing I Not Stupid Too for a GAN. Within two weeks, the disputes and "unfinished business" should be dealt with, while I Not Stupid Too should already be on GAN. Then I can open a new peer review and focus on polishing Yip Pin Xiu in preparation for a GAN on 15 January.

Does anyone object? If there are no objections within 48 hours, I will close the current peer review for Yip Pin Xiu.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead if you see fit. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed the peer review. Going to post my proposed compromise shortly. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed compromise

On Monday, I contacted five administrators by e-mail, and posted at the

BLP noticeboard, to seek input on the BLP dispute
. Two admins have posted here and one responded by e-mail; all three said that Yip's Chinese name should be included but her birth date should be excluded. Thus I propose the following compromise:

  • Include her Chinese name in the article (sourced to a single Chinese-language reference without using a citation template).
  • Exclude her date of birth.
  • Include Persondata, but with code bloat kept to a minimum (for example, by removing empty fields).
  • Exclude infoboxes, medal tables and other frills.

If Jacklee accepts this compromise and nobody else objects, both disputes will be settled and we can focus on the "unfinished business". Otherwise we will have to continue to work towards a final compromise.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My views:
  • Name in Chinese characters. Would suggest using both of the references previously used. As mentioned above, one is a Singaporean newspaper (Lianhe Zaobao) while the other is a foreign one (China Daily). I think it would be good to use a Singapore newspaper as a reference. Unfortunately, online material on the Lianhe Zaobao website expires after a while, which is why the China Daily reference is needed as a backup. I don't think there ought to be much of an issue if two references are given. Go ahead and omit the citation template if you wish.
  • Date of birth. Exclude the full date of birth, but add the year of birth in accordance with WP:BLP.
  • Infoboxes and medal tables. I don't think consensus has been reached yet on the inclusion of a medal table, and have we had a discussion about the use of an infobox yet?
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. These disputes are killing the article's GA hopes. I actually thought we could quickly resolve the disputes with this compromise. Now for my views:
  • How about just using only the China Daily reference?
  • Including her birth year, even without a reference, does not violate BLP and is fine with me.
  • Could we not escalate the "frills" dispute? What does this short article gain from frills like a medal table?
--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya. Here are my responses:
  • Name in Chinese characters. Why are you so resistant to two citations instead of one? Giving readers more sources of information rather than less is better. But if you must insist, using the China Daily citation alone is fine, though it is a pity not be able to use a Singapore source as well.
  • Date of birth. Glad to see we have consensus on this.
  • Medal table. The problem seems to be that you insist on calling the use of a medal table in the article as a "frill" and I do not see it as such. Let's drop the labels and concentrate on the utility of a medal table. As I suggested in the "Medal table" subsection above, go through the McDonald's article and make a list of all of Yip's medals listed there. If there are quite a number of medals, and not all of them are worth individually mentioning in the text, then this justifies the use of a medal table to capture the information. That seems like an objective way of achieving consensus on the matter.
  • Infobox. When this article was
    Infobox Swimmer
    }} should not be used in the article as "[t]his article is so short that an infobox would contain little information, most of which would be already in the lead section." I would be inclined to apply the infobox anyway for consistency with other biographical articles, but accept your reasons. However, if the article becomes longer, this would justify the insertion of an infobox at a later stage.
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 03:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see agreement on the first three points. Looks like we are heading towards a final compromise. Alright, instead of using labels like "frill", I shall argue why a medal table would not be useful for readers. I went through the McDonald's PDF and found that most (at least 80%-90%) of the medals merit mentions in the second or third paragraph of the Swimming career section (some are currently not mentioned, but expanding the article is part of my "unfinished business" after the disputes are resolved). A medal table would thus not be useful as 80%-90% of its information would be duplicated in the Swimming career section. What about the remainder? They are probably not notable and do not deserve to be mentioned anywhere in the article. If we add a medal table in the article just to mention them, how would we keep the table comprehensive (there are likely to be many minor competitions not mentioned in the PDF) and up-to-date? More importantly, would most readers want to read a list of every minor competition she won medals in? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed response. Busy, busy, so have just been dipping in and out. What is the 10%–20% of information in the McDonald's article that you think is not notable? I'll have a look at it and give you my view. Generally speaking, though, most medal tables will probably not be exhaustive (which Wikipedia articles are, anyway?), since all editing is done on a best efforts basis. Nonetheless, this doesn't mean that they don't provide useful information to readers. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. I should know, as I am a fan of another Jack - Jack Neo. Haha. How about I proceed with the slight expansion (part of the "unfinished business"), so you can see which information I chose to exclude as non-notable? If medal tables are not exhaustive, why should articles be exhaustive? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! :-) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slight expansion complete! I only included international (and regional) competitions, not national competitions. Since most of the international competitions are redlinks, national competitions are probably not notable (lack of coverage). If I read an article about a young Singaporean chess grandmaster, I would be interested in his successes at
is a famous brilliancy). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposed final compromise

I will file a second peer review tomorrow night or Friday morning (Singapore time), so I want everything settled before then. Therefore I propose this final compromise which covers both our disputes and the "unfinished business":

With the school term starting soon, I will have less time to work on this article. Thus I urge Jacklee to quickly accept this final compromise, so I can send this article to PR and GAN while I still have the time. Dragging on this dispute will be detriminal to both of us and the article. By the way, if Jacklee does not respond by Friday morning, I will claim a walkover, which means that the article will go to PR with no further changes (except that I will remove the image).

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look at the Wikipedia and McDonald's articles. I think the article is fine as it is right now, though I feel that the use of a medal table should not (and probably cannot) be ruled out for all time since at a later stage the article may benefit from a table setting out in the detail the events she has participated in, the medals won for them, and the times achieved. Similarly, when the article gets longer it may be useful to apply {{
Today newspaper's list of athletes of the year for 2008? (See Leonard Thomas (31 December 2008), "The brightest star of all: Table tennis star Li Jiawei is TODAY's Singapore Athlete of the Year 2008", Today, p. 24 (archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5dUzauUYw).) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
If she continues to swim and win medals for several years, this article may expand to the point where it would benefit from an infobox and medal table.
Consensus can change, but it should not change too often. My proposed compromise aims to resolve this dispute, not to permanently prevent an infobox and medal table from being added, even when, several years later, doing so may be appropriate. Can I safely assume that you accept the proposed final compromise? If so, I will implement it and close the peer review. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, yes, sorry if I didn't make that clear. Best of luck with the GA review! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hooray! Dispute over! I am going to implement the compromise and then file a peer review. By the way, I think the Athlete of the Year 2008 achievement is not really notable and does not warrant a mention in the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of title of Chinese news report

"Undid some of Jacklee's edits. The addition of "in 1992" breaks the flow of the sentence. Policy advises editors to be careful when translating, as they may inadvertently introduce original research." Which policy? What original research? It's a translation of the title of a news report, which makes it more understandable for users of the English Wikipedia. Aren't you overreacting a little here? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any views on the matter? If not, I shall restore the English translation of the article title in Chinese characters so that readers who do not read Chinese understand what it says. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the archives of
WT:V, you will realise that the policy on non-English sources is controversial. Some (like myself) believe that restrictions on non-English sources worsen systemic bias, while others believe such restrictions are necessary to prevent original research in translations (see, for example, this discussion). Since that source is only used to cite her Chinese name, I fail to see how readers would benefit from understanding the heading. This article will go on GAN once I polish the lead section. Escalating another dispute, when we have just managed to resolve our series of disputes, may cause the nomination to be quickfailed due to instability. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Since the title of the news article is being used as the source for Yip's name in Chinese characters, doesn't it make sense to provide an English translation of the title so that editors who do not read Chinese characters (which, presumably, make up a large proportion of English Wikipedia users) have some assurance that the news article does indeed indicate Yip's name? I really do not see why there is a big problem with this. :-) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides introducing original research and taking things out of context, the editors who favour greater restrictions on non-English sources are often concerned about inaccurate translations. I hope you will not pursue this further. We have engaged in too many disputes regarding this article, which I want to remain stable. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be difficult on purpose, but this is bordering on the ludicrous. For a start, it is not the case that some crucial facts in the article rely on an unofficial translation of a non-English source by a volunteer editor. The non-English source in this case is merely referencing Yip's name in Chinese characters. The translation is only of the source's title, and is intended to assist readers who do not understand Chinese characters. The translation helps such readers to assure themselves that the article title does indeed contain Yip's name. Why is this original research? What is being taken out of context? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for acting rather out of character over the past few weeks. Real life has not been kind to me. I have been retained and a family member is in hospital. Hopefully things get better by March.
Excluding the translation would be consistent with my philosophy on short GAs, which I have shared with you in a Google Talk discussion (please keep it confidential). In my previous comment, I noted several common arguments by those in favour of greater restrictions on the use of non-English sources. However, these arguments do not seem to apply here. But how useful would the translation be? You answered that with "the translation helps such readers to assure themselves that the article title does indeed contain Yip's name", which seems like a reasonable argument. Perhaps I should give in regarding this issue. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think adding an English translation of the article title would add significantly to the length of the article. Anyway, I do hope things in your life improve soon. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 03:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments exactly. Feel free to add the translation back into the article. Regarding the name of the medal, if there are clearly no concerns over original research, go ahead and add that translation too. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for GA reviewer

Thanks for taking the time to review this article. When reviewing, please note:

  • Referenced information about Yip (and most Singaporean topics) is scarce and some (such as her birthday) was excluded due to
    BLP
    concerns (she is a minor and not a public figure).
  • That photo is awful and, in my opinion, the article would be better off without it. But it is the only free photo we can find and Jacklee wants it to stay in the article.
  • Including an infobox or a medal table seems pointless, since the article is so short (there is little information to summarise). The
    GA criteria
    do not require infoboxes or medal tables.
  • Since Yip is Singaporean and
    British colony, uses primarily British English
    , the article should be written in British English.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pingat Jasa Gemilang (Meritorious Service Medal)

Hi, J.L.W.S. You reverted my insertion of the official name of the medal awarded to Yip, the Pingat Jasa Gemilang (Meritorious Service Medal), with the edit summary "Per advice given off-wiki. Shall we just stick to what the source says?" You also removed the wikilink to "Pingat Jasa Gemilang". Again, it is not my intention to be deliberately difficult, but what is wrong with providing readers with full information and a link to an existing Wikipedia article that readers can click on for details? I hope you are not suggesting that since the source says that Yip received the "Meritorious Service Medal", we do not know for sure if this means the Pingat Jasa Gemilang. There is only one "Meritorious Service Medal" awarded by the Government of Singapore, and that is the Pingat Jasa Gemilang. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


copyediting comments

  • "Hence she was conferred a state medal" odd phrasing
  • "Yip was born with muscular dystrophy, a genetic disorder that slowly breaks down the muscles, and a nerve condition that affects eyesight." are we talking two different issues here? unclear
    • Yes, she was born with muscular dystrophy and a nerve condition. Muscular dystrophy is a genetic disorder that slowly breaks down the muscles, while the nerve condition affects eyesight. What do you think of changing the two commas to brackets? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where she obtained two gold medals and a bronze" "won" would be more normal

©Geni 03:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yip Pin Xiu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yip_Pin_Xiu&oldid=1215931881"